Amnesty Hearings

VINCENT KHANYILE: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Khanyile, can you tell the Committee what was the event which promoted the attack? What was the event which occurred, which sparked the residents of kwaMadala to launch the attack on Boipatong?

MR KHANYILE: What I can say is that lots of IFP members were killed in Boipatong. And also houses were demolished or burnt down, school children who were members of the IFP, have to stop schooling.

MR BERGER: My question to you is and perhaps there was no specific event, and if so, then you must say so. Was there a specific event which sparked the attack on Boipatong?

MR KHANYILE: As I have explained, Mr Berger, the reason why the residents of Boipatong were attacked, it was because of their acts of killing us and also burning us.

Those are the reasons why we attacked them.

MR BERGER: Do I understand you correctly then, that there was no one specific event which sparked the attack, that it was a build up over time, would that be correct?

MR KHANYILE: Maybe I can try to explain it in this way. During those days of the attack at Boipatong, there were a lot of IFP members who were killed during those days.

Therefore I would say the killings of the IFP members at Boipatong, was over and above.

MR BERGER: Which people are you referring to specifically?

MR KHANYILE: Even if I can't remember all of them, one that I still remember Bongani Mbatha, the other one is Mbele, Mr Khumalo and also two young girls who were burnt. If I remember well their names were Nomvula and Martha.

Those are the people whom I can still remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khanyile, are you able to tell us how long before the attack on Boipatong, were these people killed?

MR KHANYILE: Even if I can't give a specific number, I will say it took about a week or two weeks.

MR BERGER: Now the person that you say Mr Mbatha that was killed, he was killed in January of 1992, is that correct?

MR KHANYILE: I have already explained that I don't know the exact dates on which they were killed, but it was during those times.

Therefore I won't deny if you say that is the case.

MR BERGER: You gave evidence yesterday that you were present when Mr Mbatha was killed, but you also gave evidence to say that you never went into Boipatong, you never left the hostel.

How is it possible if you never left, if you never went into Boipatong that you could have witnessed the killing of Mr Mbatha?

MR KHANYILE: What I can say Mr Berger, as I said I might have a problem with the Interpreter, because we might not be having the same interpretation with some other words. When you say I left kwaMadala and went to the other place to me, it means leaving kwaMadala to go and stay somewhere, that is how I understood your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that Mr Khanyile never left the hostel at all, to go outside of the hostel, is that what you are putting to him?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, when he was giving his evidence in chief and I wasn't asking the questions, my learned friend asked him - Chairperson, can I answer the question that you put to me, first?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, go ahead.

MR BERGER: The witness said in his evidence in chief in response to the question whether he had any personal knowledge or personal experiences of attacks by comrades, his answer was no, I never left kwaMadala hostel for Boipatong.

That is what I am putting to the witness. If he never left kwaMadala hostel for Boipatong, then in my submission he couldn't have witnessed any attack on Mr Mbatha in Boipatong. That is what I am trying to put to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KHANYILE: What I tried to clarify is that I never said I never left, what I said is I never moved out of kwaMadala to stay at Boipatong. There is a difference there.

The question came to me, suggesting that I have moved out of kwaMadala hostel to stay at Boipatong. No question came to ask as to whether I left at one particular day from kwaMadala hostel to Boipatong.

MR BERGER: Mr Khanyile, I am not going to argue with you, but that was not the question. In fact the question was asked by your counsel who asked you whether you, Mr Khanyile, had any personal experiences of attacks by people from Boipatong on you and your answer was no, I never left kwaMadala for Boipatong.

MR KHANYILE: It will mean that you didn't understand me.

MR BERGER: And your problems with the Interpreter only began under cross-examination, you never had any problems when you gave evidence in chief.

MR KHANYILE: I don't know whether you expect me to answer.

MR BERGER: What I am suggesting to you Mr Khanyile is whenever you have difficulty with an answer, you seem to be blaming the interpretation.

MR KHANYILE: To explain, I never had a problem with answering your questions. All I can say about the Interpreter is that I had a problem since from the morning, but it continued up to a stage where I have to say it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, would we please proceed?

MR BERGER: Yes, I am proceeding. The woman Nomvula, do you know that she was suspected of taking information from Boipatong to kwaMadala?

MR KHANYILE: No, I only know her as someone who has a friend at kwaMadala.

MR BERGER: David Mbele, do you know that he was an IFP member?

MR KHANYILE: Even if it wasn't said unto me, but I heard that he was.

MR BERGER: So you will agree with me that the statement that David Mbele had tenuous if any structural connection with Inkatha, is wrong?

INTERPRETER: Would you please repeat your question Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: Will you agree with me that the statement that David mbele had tenuous if any structural connection with Inkatha, that that statement is wrong?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khanyile, do you know David Mbele?

MR KHANYILE: I used to know him as a teacher at Boipatong.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether he was a member of the IFP?

MR KHANYILE: From what I heard, I was told that he was a member of the IFP.

MR BERGER: Did you know that David Mbele, the David Mbele who died, worked for Nampak and that he held IFP meetings at his house in Boipatong?

MR KHANYILE: No.

MR BERGER: Did you know that B.L. Khumalo was an IFP member and in fact a very vocal IFP member?

MR KHANYILE: I knew Khumalo as an IFP member, not a vocative member.

MR BERGER: Are you talking about B.L. Khumalo or are you talking about George Khumalo?

MR KHANYILE: I am referring to Bhendileni Khumalo who was burnt to death at Boipatong. There is another Khumalo of whom I had heard who was staying at Boipatong, that he was an IFP member, but I don't know anything about this Khumalo which I can explain before the Committee.

MR BERGER: In your affidavit on page 104, you refer to Khumalo's family.

INTERPRETER: Khumalo who?

MR BERGER: Khumalo's family. Which Khumalo are you referring to?

MR KHANYILE: I am referring to the Khumalo who was a resident at Boipatong. The Khumalo whom I didn't know much about. I was not referring to the one who was killed.

MR BERGER: You were referring to the Khumalo whose house was burnt in Bopelong Street, Boipatong, is that correct?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, that is correct.

MR BERGER: Now, that is George Khumalo. He was a member of the military wing of the IFP, was he not?

MR KHANYILE: As I have explained before, I didn't know much about him. I only knew him as an IFP member and also a resident of that place.

MR BERGER: He was an associate and he kept company with Victor Geswa and Damara Qonqo?

MR KHANYILE: I never noticed them together.

MR BERGER: In 1990 George Khumalo killed Amos Miga and ran away from Boipatong to stay in kwaMadala?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, are we going to have evidence to that effect?

MR BERGER: Indeed, we are. Yes, Mr Chairperson.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: I am saying are you putting this as a fact to this witness?

MR BERGER: In fact Chairperson, George Khumalo was arrested for the murder of Amos Miga and was subsequently released. My understanding is that he was given a suspended sentence.

After his release, he joined forces with Mplupeki Nana Tshabangu and together they terrorised the area of Boipatong. Do you know anything about that Mr Khanyile?

MR KHANYILE: No.

MR BERGER: Is it not correct that gangs from kwaMadala such as Victor Geswa, Nana Tshabangu, George Khumalo were responsible for terrorising the residents of Boipatong, isn't that what was happening?

MR KHANYILE: It never came to our attention in kwaMadala.

MR BERGER: Isn't it correct that the people, the IFP members and I must correct you Mr Khanyile, it wasn't Zulu speaking people, it was specific IFP members who were targeted because they were terrorising the residents of Boipatong. Isn't that what was happening at that time?

MR KHANYILE: Mr Berger, as I have explained yesterday, at the beginning of this issue, it was directed against the Zulu speaking. If you were born a Zulu speaking person, you were on the way to be killed, but after some time, this problem was rectified and people were told that it is, there is no instruction that Zulu's should be killed, because not all the Zulu's are IFP members.

Therefore the talk have changed, that IFP people were to be killed.

MR BERGER: How is it possible then that at the time of the attack on Boipatong, there was still so many Zulu speaking people resident in Boipatong? Not only that there were so many Zulu speaking residents still in Boipatong, but that people that were related to key IFP figures, such as for example the parents-in-law of Mr Mfana Zulu, they were living in Boipatong without any threats being directed at them. How do you explain that Mr Khanyile?

MR KHANYILE: First I would like to explain to Mr Berger that people who were being killed, they were Zulu's who were coming from KwaZulu Natal. Those who were Zulu's by birth in this place, were not involved in this killing.

With regard to the fathers-in-law of Mr Mtwana Zulu, I don't know what arrangement they have made with the comrades that they shouldn't be killed.

MR BERGER: Mr Khanyile, what do you know about the hitsquads from Msinga?

MR KHANYILE: That never existed.

MR BERGER: What do you know about the 40 or 50 men who came from Msinga, who were supported by the residents of kwaMadala hostel?

MR KHANYILE: To explain I would say people were from Msinga, maybe they were not even over 10. That there was a hitsquad from Msinga, that never occurred.

MR BERGER: What do you say of the 40 to 50 people that Mr Victor Mthembu spoke about who were under the command of Mr Damara Qonqo, who were present and remained at the hostel from 1990 all the way through 1992 and who held sway over the residents of kwaMadala?

INTERPRETER: Can you please repeat your last sentence?

MR BERGER: And according to Mr Victor Mthembu, these men from Msinga held sway, held a command over the people of kwaMadala?

MR KHANYILE: Mr Berger, yesterday I have explained to you about the leadership in kwaMadala hostel. If there were people coming from Msinga who were part of the leadership, I would have explained that to you.

What I am trying to say to you is, whatever you are asking me about, never happened.

MR BERGER: So, do you dispute the evidence of the Vice-Chairperson of the Youth Committee, Mr Victor Mthembu on that point?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, without doubt, I deny that.

MR BERGER: What do you know about the Amabutu at kwaMadala?

MR KHANYILE: What I can explain is that I shall start to explain to you what kind of people are referred to as Amabutu.

No residents of kwaMadala were called Amabutu, however, when we go out whether to a rally or somewhere else, armed with out traditional weapons, that is where we are referred to as Amabutu.

MR BERGER: When you left kwaMadala on the night of the 17th, to attack Boipatong, were you the Amabutu?

MR KHANYILE: Yes. Yes, we were like Amabutu.

MR BERGER: You were the warriors, is that correct? That is what Amabutu means?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, that is correct.

MR BERGER: Is it also correct that when the call was made for the Amabutu to go to the stadium on that Wednesday night, that the Amabutu knew to take their weapons to the stadium?

MR KHANYILE: That is what I heard, I heard that from the stadium.

MR BERGER: What I am putting to you is that, when the call came to go to the stadium, you knew that this was the call for the attack and that is when you took your weapons?

MR KHANYILE: No, that is not true.

MR BERGER: When you got to the stadium on Wednesday night, were you given any instructions on how the attack on Boipatong was going to be carried out?

MR KHANYILE: We were only told that we should arm ourselves to go and attack Boipatong. However people who were mostly required, were the people who were guarding inside the place, who were called as the comrades. Therefore I understood it to mean that the people whom we were supposed to attack first, were the comrades.

We were not going to start attacking the community, we first have to meet the comrades and attack them.

MR BERGER: Mr Khanyile, please listen carefully to this question.

Were you specifically instructed to attack the comrades or the Self Defence Units or were you instructed to attack the residents of Boipatong?

MR KHANYILE: We were instructed to go and attack Boipatong. How we were going to enter it and how we were going to attack, was not discussed.

MR BERGER: Who gave the instruction?

MR KHANYILE: Mr Qonqo, together with Mr Mkhize.

MR BERGER: Well, I am sure they didn't speak in unison, so I want to ask you who actually gave the instruction that you should attack Boipatong, the residents of Boipatong?

MR KHANYILE: If I remember well, those words were said by Mr Qonqo.

MR BERGER: Can you remember his words, what he said?

MR KHANYILE: If I remember well, he said today is the day to avenge against our enemies.

MR BERGER: What else did he say?

MR KHANYILE: He didn't continue further, he said each and everyone must go and fetch or her arms. Those who wished to use firearms or guns, must contact him.

MR BERGER: What did Mr Mkhize said?

MR KHANYILE: I can't remember what he exactly said on that day because he didn't say much.

MR BERGER: Besides what you have just told the Committee, there was no other discussion about plans or who to target, is that correct?

MR KHANYILE: We were told to go and attack Boipatong.

MR BERGER: You knew at the time that the Army patrolled in that area around kwaMadala, am I right?

MR KHANYILE: They used to patrol, but not every day.

MR BERGER: You also knew that Iscor Security personnel patrolled in that area around the hostel, didn't you?

MR KHANYILE: I don't understand when you refer to Iscor workers or the guards who were patrolling the area. Can you repeat the area?

MR BERGER: I said Iscor Security personnel.

MR KHANYILE: They were there patrolling, but not every day. I didn't see them every day patrolling the area.

MR BERGER: Well, there were people, guards, employed by Iscor who were stationed at the main gate, you knew that, did you not?

MR KHANYILE: That is true.

MR BERGER: How did you think you were going to get out of the main gate with hundreds of men armed with dangerous weapons and this would not be seen by the Iscor personnel at the main gate?

MR KHANYILE: To explain about the gates at kwaMadala, there is a gate in front which is normally used by Iscor workers, entering the hostel. There is a gate where if you use the passage down the bridge to Iscor, it is the gate which enters kwaMadala hostel. Those people who were guarding the gate which enters kwaMadala hostel, were residents of kwaMadala hostel. They were Inkatha members together with us.

The very same pain that we feel, I would say they experienced it. Therefore we were sure that they will never report us to the Police or pass out information.

MR BERGER: What made you so sure that the Police or the Army that is the Vaal Commando, or the Iscor Security personnel who used to patrol in the area to your knowledge, what made you so sure that they would not be there on that night to witness hundreds of armed men, moving in the direction of Boipatong?

MR KHANYILE: Mr Berger, since most of the majority of people staying in kwaMadala was Zulu speaking people, if we have concluded this mission which we wanted to accomplish, what will happen in future, is something that we don't discuss or we will see what will happen.

MR BERGER: Mr Khanyile, it occurred to you that the guards at the main gate would not report you because they were also IFP members.

I put it to you it must have occurred to you that as you were moving on that main road from kwaMadala to Boipatong, you could have been discovered by the Police, the Army or Iscor personnel, am I right?

MR KHANYILE: That we said, come what may.

MR BERGER: Isn't it that you knew that even if the Police or the Army or Iscor Security personnel saw you, they would not take any action against you?

MR KHANYILE: I said Mr Berger, what we were going to do was something which was unlawful. Whether the Police were to see us or the soldiers, they had the right to arrest us.

MR BERGER: When you came out of Boipatong, and perhaps I can refer you to some statements, Chairperson, in preparation for this hearing and in accordance with your wishes at the last hearing, we furnished the Evidence Leader and Mr Prior had copies of certain statements from SADF personnel, Iscor personnel and those statements were copied and given to our learned friends as well. I don't know if the Committee received copies.

Might I formally introduce this statements at this time Chairperson? The last exhibit number was K. Could we go through them and just identify the statements and then give them numbers.

The next one should be the affidavit of Geldenhuys.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on a second. Okay, yes, go ahead.

MR BERGER: Thank you.

MR STRYDOM: Mr Chairman, I just want an indication at this stage if Mr Berger intends calling these witnesses, because he wants to refer to certain statements, affidavits, but I cannot see the relevance if these witnesses aren't called at a later stage, and secondly I would submit that the issues raised in these affidavits, and I have looked at them, are actually irrelevant to the issues before this Committee at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, your response?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, one of the issues before this Committee is the issue of full disclosure. It would have become abundantly clear from the questions that I have been putting, that we contend that there was direct Police involvement in the massacre and as far as the SADF is concerned, at the very least and I don't know if I will be able to prove any more, complicity to the extent that the SADF saw this group of attackers on their own statements, leaving Boipatong and doing nothing about it.

The statement that I want to refer to in particular ...

CHAIRPERSON: If the members of the South African Defence Force saw the attackers leaving Boipatong, how was that relevant to the issue of full disclosure in so far as these applicants are concerned?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, not only did the SADF see them leaving Boipatong, but according to one stage, actually stopped traffic to allow the attackers to cross Frikkie Meyer Boulevard and return to Boipatong.

According to another statement, a statement of Mr Geldenhuys ...

CHAIRPERSON: I am just trying to say if the involvement of the South African Defence Force is at the level of assisting the attackers when they were leaving Boipatong, is it being suggested that these applicants who are before us, were working in collusion with the South African Defence Force simply because the South African Defence Force did nothing as they were passing?

Is that the basis of the connection?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, it goes beyond merely just letting people pass. There is also statements that the South African Defence Force was present at Nobel Boulevard when shooting was taking place in Boipatong, and never went into Boipatong to assist.

There is evidence from residents who went to soldiers of the Defence Force, asked them to go into Boipatong to assist and the soldiers said we can't go into Boipatong to assist. What I am trying to suggest to this witness is that at the time when they were in the stadium, he must have been given the assurance that the Police who he knew were in the area, that the Army who he knew were in the area, would not intervene, would not resist the attackers going to Boipatong. He must have been given that assurance.

That is why these statements are important. Chairperson, just on another level, as I understand ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay Mr Prior, what is your submission?

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, it is difficult to suppress this sort of information, given the submission by Mr Berger. I think one should allow it and see how far one gets with it.

My reading of the statements in the cold light of day, certainly don't assist as far as that is concerned, but obviously Mr Berger is building up to something and we must possibly bear with him in that respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Da Silva?

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairperson, my attitude is that if one wants to prove a document, one has to follow the normal procedure in proving a document through a witness.

I submit with respect, that there is no procedure in terms of which documents can merely be handed in as my learned friend wishes to do. I would submit that if he wants to hand in a document, he should prove it in the normal course of events. I submit with respect, that the document that my learned friend has made available to me, do not take the matter any further and are irrelevant.

I submit further that there is no document saying, or no statement saying that members of the Defence Force actually stopped traffic to allow the attackers to enter Boipatong. All ...

CHAIRPERSON: But the point that is being made here is that the purpose of using these statements is merely to lay the foundation for the evidence that may be led on behalf of the victims.

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairman, my submission is ...

CHAIRPERSON: These statements are not the end in themselves.

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairman, I accept that, but I submit that in order to put the statements to the witness, I would submit that it should appear clearly from the statements that there is some form of complicity and my submission is that these statements merely show that after the event, some members of the South African Defence Force, saw people returning to the kwaMadala hostel.

That, with respect, shows no complicity whatsoever.

CHAIRPERSON: But if his submission is sound, it may well be that if they were there when the people left Boipatong, they may well have been there when the people went to Boipatong because of the time span.

MR DA SILVA: Chairperson, I can't take the matter further than what I am submitting now, but I would submit that if my learned friend wants to lead evidence in that regard, there should be factual evidence in that regard. It is mere speculation whether they were there before the attack or not.

CHAIRPERSON: You know that it is the applicant's case, he is merely using this statement for the purpose of the cross-examination. I would assume that as and when his turn comes, he will lay the proper foundation for this statement if the need arises.

If for example the witness admits the content of this statement, it won't be necessary to call this witness. Do you see the point?

MR DA SILVA: I won't take the submission any further Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: This statements will be allowed.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I am mindful of your ruling, but just for the purposes of completeness, might I add that in terms of Section 19(4)(b), that it says that at any hearing the Committee shall inform persons referred to in paragraph (a) and that includes victims of their right to be present at the hearing and to testify, adduce evidence and submit any article to be taken into consideration.

That is what we are doing, we are submitting articles to be taken into consideration.

CHAIRPERSON: ... statement, we have ruled Mr Berger, that the statement will be allowed.

MR BERGER: Could the statement of Hendrik Johannes Geldenhuys, which has a typed A1220 in the right hand corner, Exhibit L, Jakobus Daniel Venter, A1027 - I am sorry Chairperson, we can't hear you.

CHAIRPERSON: I am saying that because this statement appear to be in the form of a bundle, shall we not just mark them L1 through to the end. Let's just get the order right.

The first statement is that of Jakobus Daniel Venter.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, would it be impossible to change the order? Never mind, they have already been stapled, so then if you could just tell me what the order is.

CHAIRPERSON: The first one is Daniel Jakobus Venter, which is marked 12. That is A1027 on the right hand side column. Right, so that would be - did you say Exhibit L1, yes, very well.

MR BERGER: Which one is L2?

CHAIRPERSON: Van Straaten, A4 yes. That would be L3. L4, right. And then the next one is Kobus Barend du Plessis, A2. That would be L5, L6.

Then there is another Gerhardus Jakobus van Straaten, which is A1025. That will be L7, L8, L9, L10. And then there is yet - well another Jakobus Barend du Plessis, which is A1024. That would be L11, L12.

Then the next statement is that of Theunis Lodewikus Steyn, which is A5(a).

MR BERGER: Chairperson, it should be A9(a).

CHAIRPERSON: All right, that would be L13, L14 and then there is another statement by Jakobus Daniel Venter.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, that seems to be a duplicate. If that is A1027, yes, that is already L1.

CHAIRPERSON: The first statement by Venter, well, no the last statement by Venter appears to have some kind of a signature just above A1027, the very last statement. The last statement by Daniel Venter, top right hand corner.

MR BERGER: I don't have that Chairperson, and that is perhaps because I have discarded the other one as being a copy.

CHAIRPERSON: There isn't any, so are you satisfied that this is one and the same statement?

MR BERGER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So we can discard this last one? Okay, very well. I am told there is a further statement, Hendrik Johannes Geldenhuys, A1220, that would be L15, L16. Would that be the last statement?

MR BERGER: Yes, that is correct, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Does everyone have all those Exhibit numbers?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Mr Chairperson, but if there is going to be reference and the witness is going to refer to some of these statements, he hasn't got a copy of the statements. The witness hasn't got a copy of the statements, but we will see if we can cope by sort of assisting the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Khanyile, there is a statement, this is L15 and L16 of a Mr Hendrik Johannes Geldenhuys. He was a Security Guard at Metal Box. This is Metalbox on Nobel Boulevard, well it is on Nobel Boulevard and Frikkie Meyer Boulevard and Nobel Boulevard is that road of firms that you spoke about yesterday.

This Mr Geldenhuys saw an SADF Buffel drive along Nobel Boulevard from east to west, in other words from Slovo Park towards kwaMadala hostel, before he heard any shots being fired from Boipatong. He says that after the first shot, the Buffel rode back towards Cape Gate and thereafter, says Mr Geldenhuys, screaming and shooting was heard from Boipatong.

I can also just tell you that Mr Geldenhuys was doing foot patrols from gate 1 to gate 2 of Metal Box, that is from Frikkie Meyer to Nobel and back. He started his shift, well he started the foot patrols from a quarter to eight that evening.

Now my point is this, he doesn't hear any screaming and shooting until after the first shot, and he sees the Buffel coming from the direction of Slovo Park, before he hears the first shot. That is why I am suggesting to you Mr Khanyile, that the Army was indeed present in the vicinity of Boipatong before the first shots were fired. Do you wish to comment on that?

MR KHANYILE: As I have explained yesterday, that I only saw soldiers when we were moving out of Boipatong. At no time did I see Police or soldiers, I again saw them at the gate when we arrived at kwaMadala hostel, they were talking to Mr Mthembu. That was the only two instances where I saw the soldiers.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, when we last said there was some indication that we were going to get a map, depicting this whole area, do you know what has become of that?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I have been given rather startling information and that is that the Exhibits and this map was apparently one of those Exhibits that my learned friend was talking about, Exhibits have vanished and that they are neither in Bloemfontein nor in Pretoria.

I don't know whether my learned friend has any further information. That is what we were informed by Mr Wessel Janse van Rensburg.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I have no further information Mr Chairperson. We could not find any Exhibits. I just had the Exhibits that I used during the trial myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, continue Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, what I will do, I will speak to my learned friend during the adjournment, because his Attorneys I would have thought as being the Attorneys of appeal, would have access to the Exhibits, but perhaps my learned friend could assist with his Exhibits.

MR STRYDOM: Mr Chairperson, I acted in the trial as a pro deo counsel. I at that stage didn't have an Attorney. The appeal started as a pro deo appeal. What happened after the trial, I don't know what happened to Exhibits, they were processed in the normal course. I've got no knowledge.

MR BERGER: We will do our best to put together a map. Mr Khanyile, you can't - you say that you have no knowledge of an SADF vehicle being in the vicinity of Nobel Boulevard, down Cape Gate way before the attack started?

MR KHANYILE: I repeat and I say I deny that.

MR BERGER: Then there is an affidavit from Jakobus Daniel Venter, L1, he was doing a camp in Vaal Commando at the time. He says that at some point he noticed 200 people in the veld opposite the Trek garage. He says that the Buffel then went down to Cape Gate, made a U-turn and came back and when they came back, that this group had grown to about 500.

He says one person in the group stood up, made a hand signal after which the rest of the group followed. Does that sound familiar to you?

MR KHANYILE: That never occurred, or it is not true.

MR BERGER: Are you saying that at no stage were you part of a group of 200 or 500 in the veld, opposite the Trek garage just outside of Boipatong, on the eastern side of Frikkie Meyer Boulevard?

MR KHANYILE: The first time we met, it is before we reached the Trek garage, we didn't pass the Trek garage or via the Trek garage. We were one group.

MR BERGER: Perhaps you are misunderstanding me Mr Khanyile.

At a time when you were leaving Boipatong, did you gather in the veld just outside of Boipatong, before crossing Frikkie Meyer Boulevard?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khanyile, yesterday you testified did you not, that at some point after you had left the hostel, you stopped under a tree.

MR KHANYILE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know how far this tree is from the Trek garage?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, sorry to interrupt. I have found an aerial photograph in the record, which may be of some assistance to everybody to point out certain places. If I can hand this up and the tree is also for instance indicated on this photograph, that can show the whole scene, it depicts the whole area, the hostel kwaMadala, the factories, the streets, etc.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there a key to this map?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairperson, I am sure everything is in this Volume, I will just get it.

CHAIRPERSON: You just look up for the key so that we can make copies of these documents at an appropriate time, perhaps during the tea adjournment.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: There are in fact keys available for the photographs, we will make copies during the adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, very well. To the extent that this aerial photograph may be useful in this particular line of cross-examination that you are pursuing, do you want to defer that aspect until these copies have been made?

MR BERGER: I can do that and I can go onto something else. CHAIRPERSON: We will take the tea adjournment at eleven o'clock.

MR BERGER: I do have stuff to proceed, yes. I do have stuff to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Therefore would you just defer that line of questioning then so that we can have these photocopies of this map made?

MR BERGER: Mr Khanyile, you testified yesterday - Chairperson, your desk is about to fall off the stage - Mr Khanyile, you testified yesterday that you entered Boipatong along Msheshwe Street.

Mr Victor Mthembu testified that you entered Boipatong along Umzimvubu Street. Which one of you are correct?

MR KHANYILE: The street which we used to enter Boipatong, is the one which I mentioned, Msheshwe.

MR BERGER: From Msheshwe, you say you went all along Msheshwe in an easterly direction, until you got to Leqwa Street. You went north along Leqwa towards the shops and you continued north along Leqwa, passed the shops, is that correct?

MR KHANYILE: That happened after we divided into two.

MR BERGER: Yes, I am sorry. The entire group according to you, all 300, 400, 500 attackers entered Boipatong along Msheshwe at the southern end of Boipatong.

All of you moved along Msheshwe, until you got to Leqwa, is that correct?

MR KHANYILE: If that street which crosses Msheshwe is Leqwa, that is correct.

MR BERGER: But the point is that when you got to Leqwa, you were still one group of 400 people, correct?

MR KHANYILE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: There was no agreement or arrangement to split into two groups, according to you that happened spontaneously when the first shots were fired in Leqwa Street, correct?

MR KHANYILE: That is my evidence.

MR BERGER: And the group that you were in, was also the group that Damara Qonqo was in, correct?

MR KHANYILE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: And that group continued to move in a northerly direction towards the shops, which are situated on the corner of Leqwa and Bapedi Streets?

MR KHANYILE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: That group also continued to move north, passed the shops along Leqwa Street, correct?

MR KHANYILE: What I can say is that when they reached the shop, they also dispersed. Some get into houses, some broke the windows, some followed those who were running away.

MR BERGER: In which direction did these people go?

MR KHANYILE: I said they scattered. When I say they scattered, it means they went to different directions.

MR BERGER: I see you are indicating with your arms that they went in all directions, to the left to the right, to the north, to the south, am I right?

MR KHANYILE: They scattered as I indicate.

MR BERGER: You indicate that they went to the left and to the right, is that right?

MR KHANYILE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: In the vicinity of the shops, no houses were touched to the left. Can you explain that?

MR KHANYILE: Sir I won't be able to know that. I don't believe I ever gave evidence relating to that point.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what counsel is putting to you is that if the attackers ran in the direction that you indicate, one would expect that there would be damaged houses in the direction in which the attackers ran into.

What he is putting to you is that in the direction in which you say some of the attackers ran into, no houses were damaged. How do you explain that? Do you have an explanation for that?

Is that what you are putting to this witness?

MR BERGER: Indeed, that is precisely what I am putting.

MR KHANYILE: Presently I will say the question that was asked by Mr Berger and the question asked by the Judge, are two different questions.

The first question was referring, said to my left, the side to which I proceeded ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger has just confirmed that what I have just put to you, is what he wanted to ask you. Is that right Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: That is my question, yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR STRYDOM: Mr Chairperson, can I just also add something here. I have indicated on the map I have in front of me, all damaged houses and three houses on the left hand side, was in fact damaged. So the statement is not correct.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I will compare maps with my learned friend and see which three houses he is referring to.

Mr Khanyile, I see that some of your co-applicants have a map. You can see that one of the applicants is looking at the map at the moment, which is now being put away.

You have had a chance to look at that map, have you not and you have had a chance to see where houses were damaged and where they weren't damaged as indicated on the map that your colleague has, am I right?

MR KHANYILE: I can see the map sir. But as to how it works, and how it is explained, I can only point on the map. I don't know how it works.

MR BERGER: And I put it to you, you have had an opportunity to discuss the map, where houses were damaged, where they weren't damaged with your applicants in preparation for your evidence yesterday and today, am I right?

MR KHANYILE: My lawyers, I have explained to my lawyers that I don't know how the map works therefore I never agreed or stated that I will be able to use the map.

MR BERGER: And you had not discussed that map with your co-applicants at any stage?

MR KHANYILE: No. We didn't and I don't know whether they have a map.

MR BERGER: As far as you are concerned, did you - when the group dispersed and went to the left and went to the right, where did you go?

MR KHANYILE: I will say at that time it wasn't easy for me to remember, it is not easy now for me to remember everything that happened.

At the time of the attack, whether I proceeded forward or I turned to the left or the right, I am not sure now.

MR BERGER: All you can remember from an hour and a half in Boipatong, is stabbing one person and throwing stones at houses, is that right?

MR KHANYILE: That is what I did.

MR BERGER: In all the time you were in Boipatong, you only saw two people who could have been killed?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, there were two whom I saw. But I heard on the news that another lot of people were injured.

MR BERGER: How many injured people did you see in Boipatong that night?

MR KHANYILE: I wouldn't have explained if I did see them, which means I didn't see them.

MR BERGER: You left Boipatong along the street where the firms are, that is Nobel Boulevard, correct?

MR KHANYILE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: And how big was the group that was moving with you when you moved out of Boipatong?

MR KHANYILE: I will say it was 150 and above.

MR BERGER: Did you enter the street, Nobel Boulevard from Leqwa Street?

MR KHANYILE: No.

MR BERGER: How did you enter Nobel Boulevard?

MR KHANYILE: The road that is adjacent to the firm, we never travel on that road. We are just travelling aside or near the road.

MR BERGER: Are you saying you were walking on the pavement of that road?

MR KHANYILE: Yesterday I said we used the last street outside of Boipatong.

MR BERGER: The last street, the most northern street in Boipatong just before Nobel Boulevard is Amatolo Street and if I understand you correctly, you would have entered Amatolo Street from Leqwa Street, correct?

MR KHANYILE: If they are the ways you say it, I will say it is correct.

MR BERGER: Once again, and subject to what my learned friend's map looks like, from Leqwa Street along Amatolo and out of Boipatong, only two houses were touched. Why is that?

MR KHANYILE: Why were they not supposed to be attacked, because we went there with the aim of attacking them?

Our aim was to attack.

MR BERGER: That is my point Mr Khanyile, they were not attacked. Most of those houses, bar two, most of those houses were not attacked.

You see what I am suggesting to you is that you left Boipatong along Bafokeng Street, which is one street before Amatolo Street. On that street, almost every house was attacked. People were injured and people were killed.

MR KHANYILE: Sir, I don't understand your question. Are you directing as to why only two others were attacked or why many houses were attacked. I don't understand the direction of your question.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Berger, really, this man has said repeatedly he can't read a map. The map is a bit misleading in places, certainly the copy I've got is not very clear.

If he says the last road, it may be the last road with houses on either side, it may be the last road without houses on either side. Does it take us any further, really?

MR BERGER: Mr Lax ...

MR LAX: We just seem to be getting bogged down in this sort of detail which doesn't add a hell of a lot of value to our process.

MR BERGER: If I can just put to you Mr Khanyile why I am asking you these questions. I suggest to you that you are deliberately playing down your role in the massacre, that you are aware of many more people who were killed or injured and in particular you are aware and well aware at the time, that most of the people who were attacked, were the elderly, the children and the women of Boipatong. That is what I am putting to you.

MR KHANYILE: Do you want me to answer? My answer would be like this. As I have stated yesterday that we were about 350 to 400, therefore it is clear that I couldn't, I individually, as an individual know all the things that were, or the acts of the 400 people.

Secondly I as I am here together with my fellow applicants, you might find that our acts are just few of the acts and most of the acts were committed by those who are not here.

Therefore, Mr Berger, I would like you to understand me in this, that it was at night, I couldn't see the acts of 400 people and we were fighting. I wasn't going about recording things.

MR BERGER: Let me ask you this Mr Khanyile, why were women, old people and children killed?

MR KHANYILE: Sir, even if I personally, myself, didn't kill a child or an elderly woman, however, my view is I think you know or you are aware that when there is a war or fighting, it is not only the targets who get injured. Any one who happen to be in the vicinity, might be injured.

I think you did see wars occurring in other countries where there is a conflict within governments. However, you have seen young children who are victimised and killed first.

What I am trying to say with reference to the injured community of Boipatong, even if our main aim was to go and fight the comrades, the community was caught in the cross fire. One reason to explain this is that they were also supporting the acts of the youth against us.

If it did happen, it was to send a message to them to say that if their children do something that is wrong, they should try to talk them down, not support them.

MR BERGER: If I understand you correctly Mr Khanyile, what you are saying is that the children, the old people, the women, they were all legitimate targets, it was not a mistake that they were killed, they were deliberately killed to teach them and their sons, a lesson? Is that right?

MR KHANYILE: Those which I would like to exclude in this category is children who don't know anything. With regards to all the adults, they knew exactly what was happening. Even if they are here, as they are here in this Commission, they know exactly what I am describing.

With regards to the children, I will say they got injured as I have explained that when there is a fight, even the one who is innocent, even the innocents, they do get injured.

I will say even those who were involved in injuring children, it may be because they were so angry in such a way that they couldn't distinguish as to what they were doing.

MR BERGER: You talk about innocent people who get caught in the cross fire. But isn't it correct Mr Khanyile, that these were innocent people who were caught in the cross fire, these were innocent people who were deliberately hacked and stabbed and shot to death. Not a question of being caught in the cross fire, isn't that right?

MR KHANYILE: I don't understand as to which people you are referring to when it was plain that they should deliberately be killed.

MR BERGER: Well, I am not going to go through the whole list, but the last time we were here, I mentioned elderly people, elderly women, pregnant women and young kids, nine months, three years, four years, seven years, who were hacked and stabbed t death.

What I am suggesting to you is they were not caught in any cross fire, they were deliberately targeted. My question to you is why?

MR KHANYILE: Mr Berger, I have explained that the elderly people were involved in the killings orchestrated against us because they were supporting the killings of the IFP members and therefore we regard them as people who were involved in the killings orchestrated against us and the people whom I said were caught in a cross-fire, are young children.

However, I want you to know this Mr Berger, this is my opinion. I am not saying this because I did it, because I never killed a child. I never killed an elderly person who was female on the day.

MR BERGER: Mr Khanyile, it is your own evidence that the killings were designed to teach the people of Boipatong a lesson. Do you still stand by that evidence?

MR KHANYILE: At that time, when we went to attack, that was my stand point, but after the attack I realised that even if it was like that, it was not necessary.

MR BERGER: Just one more question on this point. Yes, that was your attitude at the time and if it was your attitude at the time, that the residents of Boipatong needed to be taught a lesson, then I put it to you it follows that each and every resident of Boipatong, whether old or young, healthy or not, male or female, was a target for your attack. Do you agree?

MR KHANYILE: Mr Berger, I am still relying on the last answer that I gave you.

MR BERGER: Can I take that as a yes to my question?

MR KHANYILE: Mr Berger, I said to you our aim was to attack the comrades who were killing us. Together with the community of Boipatong, which community supported this comrades, which means that the things that were done by the comrades, were accepted by the community. They regarded the comrades who were killing us and burning us, as heroes.

Therefore those people were the people we were aiming to avenge against. With reference to children, I said to you they were caught in the cross fire.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, would this be an appropriate time to take the short adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the tea adjournment and come back at half past eleven.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

VINCENT KHANYILE: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: (cont)

Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, as far as the map of Boipatong is concerned, and the houses that I put to Mr Khanyile...

CHAIRPERSON: Are you referring to that which we have here?

MR BERGER: I am referring to Exhibit J, yes. My learned friend's map and mine, are in fact the same and we are agreed that in the vicinity of the shops, there were no houses damaged to the left of Leqwa Street.

We are agreed on that now. My learned friend thought I was referring to a different area.

CHAIRPERSON: At one stage you put to Mr Khanyile that only two houses were damaged along Amatolo Street, whereas according to the map, Exhibit J, there appears to be four.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I was referring to that part of Amatolo Street to the left of Leqwa Street, being the route that Mr Khanyile would have followed out of Boipatong.

There is one house on the corner of Leqwa and Amatolo and there is one right at the end of Amatolo, towards Thembu Street.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR BERGER: Mr Khanyile, given what we know about the attack, can you put forward any political objective of the IFP which would have been satisfied by this attack?

MR KHANYILE: My understanding, it was an avenge for the killing of the IFP members and I think this is the point which it is politically motivated, the other political gain is after that attack, the killings of IFP members have extremely decreased.

As I am speaking today here, IFP members Vaal, they are free to walk wherever they want to go.

MR BERGER: Revenge as you have said many times, was your reason for the attack and you say that was the reason given by Mr Damara Qonqo, when he said today is the day to take revenge.

That was not a political objective of the IFP and so I ask you again, what political objective of the IFP were you pursuing when you attacked Boipatong?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, can we really take it further than what the witness has told us as to what the political objective he thought they were going to achieve by the attack?

MR BERGER: Perhaps I could put this then Chairperson. The leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party, Mr Mangosuthu Buthelezi said the following after the attack: He said, such brutality shocks the sensibility of even the most brutal people. It leaves civilised mankind stunned at the viciousness of man. My deepest sympathy goes out to all relatives and loved ones of those who died so hideously at the hands of brutal men.

He also offered his and the IFP's and I quote "fullest support for any enquiry into the mindless killings of innocent people that took place".

At the time of the attack, the leader of the IFP and the IFP condemned this attack absolutely and said that it was the mindless killing of innocent people.

At no stage since that condemnation, has the IFP retracted it or taken responsibility for this attack. What I want to suggest to you Mr Khanyile, is that the political aims of the IFP were not furthered by this attack, nor was the attacked sanctioned by the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khanyile, do you understand what the question is?

MR KHANYILE: I did understand part of the question, but I didn't get the full understanding because it is a long statement.

What I understood was the statement given by Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, my answer to that question I would say to Mr Berger, you know politics. Chief Buthelezi's answer was also a political answer. To explain further, even the top rank leadership of the ANC did read the statement about the Boipatong issue, they were not present, they didn't know what happened, so I would say that is how the politic game is.

MR BERGER: Mr Khanyile, my question is really this. Other political parties for example the PAC took responsibility for the actions of their members.

MR STRYDOM: Mr Chairman, with respect, I don't want to intervene, but having dealt with a lot of these matters, it wasn't always the case where the leadership, the political leadership were aware of these matters.

Certainly at some later stage, responsibility was or was not accepted, depended on the situation. Unless my learned friend has some basis upon which he can make the statement, I don't think it is fair that it is put on that to him that other political parties accepted responsibility for such acts, therefore ...

MR BERGER: I don't know if I articulated it or if it was just in my head, but the point that I was making was that other political parties at other times, either at the time of the commission of the offence, or subsequently, took responsibility for the actions of their members.

CHAIRPERSON: But what does that have to do with Khanyile? What you should put to Mr Khanyile is the question, if you are suggesting to Mr Khanyile that at no stage did the IFP, on whose behalf he states that he was acting at the time, did it take responsibility for their actions. That is the question you should put to him, which is a more direct question.

MR BERGER: I will do that Chairperson. Mr Khanyile, you have heard the question, I will repeat it to you.

At no stage since Chief Gatsha Buthelezi made the statement condemning the mindless killing of innocent people, at no stage from then until now, has the IFP taken responsibility for your actions and what I want to suggest to you is the reason for that, is that your actions were in no way designed to further the political objectives of the IFP.

MR KHANYILE: I think Mr Berger, taking into account that many people have died for nothing, I have never heard that any particular organisation have accepted that it is their own people who killed people.

All that I normally hear is this political comments which I have just explained to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you should just respond directly to the question Mr Khanyile. You see, you have told us that in engaging in the conduct in which you yourself and your co-applicants engaged in on the day in question, you were furthering the political objectives of the IFP.

You have described what those objectives were. Do you understand so far?

MR KHANYILE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What is not being put to you is this, the leader of the IFP condemned the attack on Boipatong. Do you understand so far? And what is being put to you therefore is that that condemnation, suggests that you were not furthering the aims of the IFP. What is your answer?

MR KHANYILE: As I have explained yesterday, that politics to us, the black people, came in a different fashion. I personally, even if I don't know the constitution of the organisation or its provisions, all that I knew is that all that we were doing, we were doing it as an avenge and also bearing in mind that an organisation might benefit from it.

MR BERGER: Isn't the truth Mr Khanyile, that the attack was ordered by Mr Themba Khosa as part of his reign of terror in the Vaal and as part of his - the only word that I can use is - Chiefdom if you know what I mean.

INTERPRETER: We don't know what you mean.

CHAIRPERSON: You should explain it to him, so that he can understand the question.

MR BERGER: I am sorry Chairperson, I didn't hear what you said. Just for the sake of the Interpreters, Chiefdom means an area under control of a Chief or some leader of some description.

Mr Khanyile, in other words, what I am putting to you is that Mr Themba Khosa who ordered the attack, that he was not acting on behalf of the IFP at that time, he was acting for his own motives and not in the furtherance of IFP policy.

CHAIRPERSON: Wait, let me break down this statement, there are two questions to it. The first one is that, Themba Khosa ordered the attack on Boipatong, do you agree with that statement?

MR KHANYILE: I don't agree with that. I was still going to ask him as to where did he get that information.

CHAIRPERSON: The second part of the question is that in ordering the attack on Boipatong, Themba Khosa was not furthering the aims of the IFP, he was doing it for his own personal gains? What is your answer to that question?

MR KHANYILE: It put me in a difficult position to put this question.

MR BERGER: Why?

MR KHANYILE: Mr Berger as I am giving evidence here, I never mentioned the name of Themba Khosa as one who is involved in the attack.

It surprises me that you are asking me a question in that fashion.

MR LAX: Mr Khanyile, just comment on what he put to you, as Judge Ngcobo explained, you either agree with it or you don't agree with it. Let's not get bogged down in an argument please.

MR KHANYILE: I can't comment, I don't know.

MR BERGER: Mr Khanyile, were you aware at the time of the attack, that there were people in Boipatong who were not supporters of the ANC?

MR KHANYILE: To my knowledge, I used to know that all the people, the residents of Boipatong, were ANC members.

MR BERGER: In fact, according to Mr Themba Khosa, there were leaders of the IFP in Boipatong at the time of the attack, did you know that?

MR KHANYILE: No.

MR BERGER: Further according to Mr Themba Khosa, some of the deceased who died in your attack, were members or supporters of the IFP, did you know that?

MR KHANYILE: If that was the case, we would have been informed and we would have gone to their funeral, therefore I say I do not know about that.

MR BERGER: What were you chanting as you rampaged through Boipatong?

MR KHANYILE: We were just - we last chanted at the stadium, shouted Usuthu.

MR BERGER: Is it correct that Usuthu is a typical battle cry?

MR KHANYILE: Even if there is no battle, when we are armed with traditional weapons, we normally shout this chant.

MR BERGER: What does it mean?

ADV SIGODI: Mr Berger, may I ask where is this line of questioning taking us, of what significance is it going to be?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, sorry through the Chair, we are busy putting together a memorandum as we promised the last time, to set out the facts which we intend to place before the Committee and if there are any facts which are in dispute, we will then lead evidence on that.

One of the paragraphs in that memorandum mentions that as the attackers were moving through Boipatong, they were chanting Usuthu.

ADV SIGODI: That is why he does agree but he is also saying that they were at war, and if it was at war and you are saying that this was a war cry, I mean where does it take us in getting at the truth?

MR BERGER: I was just taking up on the point he said, it wasn't chanted in Boipatong, he said it was chanted at the stadium. I want ...

ADV SIGODI: What difference will it make to the hearing as a whole?

MR BERGER: I was just trying to remove this as a dispute in our memorandum, but I can leave it there.

Mr Khanyile, what was the point of stealing property and destroying property in Boipatong?

MR KHANYILE: According to our own tradition or custom, if there is a battle, you normally if you conquer, you will eat whatever you find, whether it is cattle or goats. Whatever you find.

MR BERGER: Would I be correct then to say that if there is a battle and one of the objectives of destroying the enemy is to leave the enemy in poverty and to at the same time, to enrich the estate of the victors?

MR KHANYILE: With reference to goods, when I went out of the hostel in 22 July 1990, I got out wearing a tracksuit. All my property was left in the hostel.

I am trying to explain that it is normally the case that when we attack people or we get attacked, you normally take something to show that you won the battle.

MR BERGER: I think from your answer, that you are agreeing with me, but I don't want there to be ambiguity Mr Khanyile.

You left KwaMasiza with the clothes on your back, is that what you are saying?

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't understand this witness to say when he left Boipatong, he had ...

MR KHANYILE: What I said yesterday is that I did see people carrying goods. I wasn't staying at KwaMasiza, I was staying in the hostel in Sebokeng.

CHAIRPERSON: He is referring to Masiza hostel.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I was going back, but it has been confusing, so I will state the point.

Correct me if I am wrong Mr Khanyile, but when you left whichever hostel you were chased out of, I am now going back - you mentioned the 22nd of July 1990, you left with no possessions, am I right?

MR KHANYILE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: And traditionally when there is a war, what you are saying is that one of the objects of the war is to destroy the enemy and in destroying the enemy, you leave the enemy without possessions, and that is why you take possessions from the enemy and in so doing you enrich the estate of the people who win the war. Do I understand you correctly on that?

MR KHANYILE: I will say even if that is not one of the aims that you should take goods from the enemy, but it is normally the case that when we fight, it is not the goal but it is the kind of thing that normally happen in a situation like that.

With reference to impoverishing others and we gaining, I will say I also suffered the same consequences.

MR BERGER: I asked you why property was destroyed and stolen in Boipatong and your answer was that is what always happens in a war. Do I understand you when you say that you were referring to what happened historically?

MR KHANYILE: Mr Berger, I have tried just now to explain. I don't know if you understand me. I said this is not a written rule that every time when you fight, you should take goods or cattle or anything, but it is a usual thing that happens in our tradition, that when you fight you take goods.

Even if at some times the goods are not normally taken, but usually it happens that goods are taken.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Khanyile, talking about tradition, is it not so that usually when there is battle, women and small children will be saved, they wouldn't be attacked and killed, in fact they will be taken back by the victorious party?

MR KHANYILE: The olden days' wars were different to our today's wars, today even women are involved in the war.

Therefore we can't compare wars of those days and the wars of today because when people are attacked and killed or thrown at with stones, you find that women are involved, therefore it is different to those olden days.

MR SIBANYONI: But in so far as taking the property or destroying it, you are prepared to compare the type of your attack with the olden wars?

MR KHANYILE: I wasn't trying to say that was the goal, I was just giving an example.

MR BERGER: Would I be correct to say that on what you have said, that the purpose of a war historically and the war or the attack on Boipatong, was to destroy the enemy both physically and economically?

MR KHANYILE: Mr Berger, I think it will be difficult to compare what happened in history and now. I was just taking an example from history, because the things that are happening today, never happened before in history.

As I have stated, women were not involved, they wouldn't go into the Army, into war, so these are things which happens today, therefore we cannot compare them with the things that happened in history.

To explain things that happened in history, is just that it was the usual, the normal thing, the custom that things were taken after the battle. I wasn't saying I am comparing things of today and things of the past.

MR BERGER: Mr Khanyile, you evoked history and all I am trying to do is to make sure that there is no ambiguity in your answer. I am trying to establish whether you are saying that it is usual in war for the victorious party to steal the property of the vanquished party?

MR KHANYILE: Firstly, in our Zulu tradition, we don't consider that as theft, it is things that are won in the battle therefore I will say it is usual, I don't say I did it myself, but I will say it is usual, it happens.

I have seen it happening in the fights at home when the people are fighting. I am not saying exactly that is what happened.

MR BERGER: I think we have got to the point now where I can say to you that the property which was taken from the residents of Boipatong by the attackers, was taken as property which had been won in battle, would you agree with that?

MR KHANYILE: You are correct.

MR BERGER: Can we go back now to the questioning about the SADF. There are certain maps which my learned friend kindly provided to us. Do you have the maps in front of you Mr Khanyile?

MR STRYDOM: Do you mean the aerial photographs Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: I am sorry, yes, I do. Chairperson, could we mark these as Exhibit M, there is M1 and M2. Each photograph appears to have a key attacked to it.

M1 will be the black and white photograph and M2 will be the colour. Mr Khanyile, do you have the photographs in front of you?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, I do.

MR BERGER: If you look at M1, you will see that is an aerial photograph showing kwaMadala at the bottom of the photograph, Boipatong at the top of the photograph and ...

MR KHANYILE: Yes, I can see.

MR BERGER: And if you look and see there is a letter marked C and it points to a building at a certain intersection, at the corner of an intersection. That building is the Trek garage at the corner of Frikkie Meyer and Nobel Boulevard.

Can you comprehend what is being shown on this photograph? Mr Khanyile, do you understand what is being shown and can you identify that that is the garage at the corner?

MR KHANYILE: I already mentioned that I have got difficulty with reading the map, but I will agree with you as you are telling me.

MR BERGER: You can see from that corner all the way to the left of the photograph, you will see there is an area of veld between Boipatong and that road which is running there which is Frikkie Meyer Boulevard, do you see that area of veld?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, I can see it.

MR BERGER: The statement which I was reading to you earlier, I was dealing with the statement of Jakobus Daniel Venter, and he says in paragraph 5, Exhibit L1, that he made a U-turn at Cape Gate and came back towards the open area of ground. This would be the open area of ground between Boipatong and Frikkie Meyer Boulevard.

He says that when they arrived there, he saw that there was a group of approximately 500 people. One in that group, stood up, made a hand signal and the others followed him.

Does that ring any bells, do you know what this man is talking about?

MR KHANYILE: Nothing like that happened. We just crossed the road to the other side.

MR BERGER: He goes on in paragraph 6 to say, well I left your pardon, I have left out a sentence in paragraph 5. He said the man made the hand signal, the crowd followed and they moved in a westerly direction towards kwaMadala hostel. He says that his vehicle followed this group to the robot and at the robot, Corporal Van Straaten stopped oncoming traffic.

He says shortly thereafter everybody was already over the road, he is talking about the crowd, and he then says that him, he and his vehicle, moved towards the main gate of the hostel.

Does any of that sound familiar to you?

MR KHANYILE: I will try to explain briefly. When we came together and formed one group, I think it was at Cape Gate, we proceeded with the street which is adjacent to the (indistinct), we never use a tarred road which is adjacent to the fence.

We proceeded towards the passengers' bridge, that is where we crossed, we proceeded towards the passengers' bridge, that is where we crossed. We never used the Boulevard road. The soldiers whom you said stopped their cars, I didn't see them.

I only see soldiers on the big road called Frikkie Meyer when we were approaching this road, when we were about to cross the pedestrian bridge. They retreated back and stopped at a garage, therefore we crossed the road and proceeded forward.

That is what happened.

MR BERGER: Are you saying that the soldiers saw you, and then retreated away from you?

MR KHANYILE: They saw us, whether they were retreating or not, I don't know, but they did move back until the stop at the garage.

MR BERGER: And then after you had crossed Frikkie Meyer Boulevard, you say that you then proceeded across the area of veld. Do I understand you correctly that you then got back onto the main road, you went under the bridge again and you went back into kwaMadala through the main gate?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, it is as I explained, that when we crossed the pedestrian bridge, there is a small path next to a building which joins the tarred road after you pass under the bridge.

MR BERGER: But it is correct is it not, that you then got onto the main road and you walked along the main road and you entered kwaMadala hostel back through the main gate?

MR KHANYILE: Sir, Frikkie Meyer is this way, when we were coming from Boipatong, we crossed over the pedestrian bridge, we didn't cross the main road, we use a small foot path which goes along the building. We only joined the tarred road after passing the small bridge and then we turned to our left and get to kwaMadala hostel.

We never walked along Frikkie Meyer, we just crossed it.

MR BERGER: I understand your evidence on that point Mr Khanyile, what I am trying to ascertain is, and perhaps I can ask you this, for how long did you and the other attackers walk along the tarred road which leads into the main entrance of kwaMadala? Can you perhaps indicate in court for how long were you on the tarred road?

MR KHANYILE: What I am trying to explain to you sir, is that we never walked on the tarred road. We crossed the Frikkie Meyer road and we used the pedestrian path when we were going to kwaMadala hostel.

It means when we enter the tarred road after passing the small bridge, the distance from there to kwaMadala hostel is about 150 metres.

MR BERGER: Mr Khanyile, am I correct on this, that all the attackers returned to kwaMadala through the main gate, through the same gate that they had left out of? Am I correct on that?

MR KHANYILE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: Now the main gate leads directly onto a tarred road, am I correct?

MR KHANYILE: When you get out of kwaMadala through the main gate, you enter the tarred road which goes passed through the bridge, it is a short distance. However, we used the pedestrian path to walk to the hostel.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Berger, I am getting, I am really feeling that I am hesitant to interrupt you, but where is all of this taking us? You know, the picture is self evident, the photograph makes it perfectly clear what he is saying and you can even see the pedestrian path that goes from the foot bridge to just near where the road goes under the bridge, as he describes it.

Why are we wasting so much energy on such a tiny little, what doesn't seem very material, issue?

MR BERGER: For this reason and I will just put the point, and move on. The ...

CHAIRPERSON: Let me please ask you. Let's just focus on issues that are material to the question that we have to decide here. If there is anything or whether these people walked on the tar road or on the foot path, put that to the witness.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, in my submission there is a material issue here and the material issue relate to again full disclosure.

The witness says that the attackers re-entered kwaMadala hostel through the main gate. The Army say that they saw this group of attackers, they proceeded directly to the main gate and the attackers were not there, they had disappeared into the veld.

So, I either ...

CHAIRPERSON: But put that to the witness. Just put it to the witness because what he is saying is manifestly obvious from the map. Is there anything to controvert what he is saying, then just put it to him so that he can have the opportunity to deal with that.

MR BERGER: Mr Khanyile, this is what it boils down to. You say that you and all the other attackers re-entered kwaMadala through the main gate. The Army personnel whose affidavits I have, say that after seeing you crossing Frikkie Meyer Boulevard, they proceeded to the main gate, and none of you were there.

What they are saying is that all of you somehow disappeared into the veld and were never seen again. Either you are not telling the truth or they are not telling the truth. What I want to know from you is who is not telling the truth?

MR KHANYILE: I am trying to explain to you Mr Berger, that the Police I would say - correct that, the soldiers came about five minutes, in five minutes' time after we had arrived at kwaMadala.

As I was walking on this pedestrian path, we left the soldiers standing at the Trek garage. We were rushing as we could see we are afraid that we have to rush into the kwaMadala hostel after seeing them. What I can say, that whoever says something to the contrary is not telling the truth, but the fact that they did come to kwaMadala after some few minutes, is true.

MR BERGER: After you entered kwaMadala, you went straight to the stadium. Did you have a conversation with Moses Mthembu at the main gate before you went to the stadium or after?

MR KHANYILE: I believe when we entered the gate coming from Boipatong, Mr Mthembu was at the gate in the small office. When coming back from the stadium, I went to him in that small office. Before we could discuss anything, the soldiers arrived.

MR BERGER: So you went to the stadium before you had the conversation with Mr Moses Mthembu?

CHAIRPERSON: He says he didn't have a conversation with Mr Mthembu. The Police arrived before they could have a conversation.

MR BERGER: Before you were present with Moses Mthembu at the gate when the Police arrived, before that you had gone to the stadium?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: Can I just clarify something Mr Berger, were these Police that arrived or were these Army people that arrived?

MR KHANYILE: It is only soldiers that I saw on that day.

MR LAX: ... avoid the confusion where we all start talking about the Police when in fact it is soldiers according to the evidence I have found. Please carry on Mr Berger, sorry.

MR BERGER: Thank you. Is it correct that all the attackers went back to the stadium after the attack?

MR KHANYILE: I won't be certain but I would say most of them did go to the stadium.

There are trees in the vicinity of kwaMadala, I don't know whether others proceeded to the houses or not.

MR BERGER: A few days, a day or two after the attack on Boipatong, is it correct that Mr Themba Khosa and Mr Humphrey Ndlovu came to kwaMadala?

MR KHANYILE: It is correct.

MR BERGER: Who else was with them?

MR KHANYILE: It was an Attorney, Anina van der Westhuizen. I am not too sure if I am pronouncing this name correctly.

MR BERGER: That is Ms Anina van der Westhuizen who is present today.

MR KHANYILE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: And is it also correct that she had an Interpreter with her?

MR KHANYILE: I don't have any recollection of as to who she was with, but at the time, the Attorney said nothing to us.

The people who were busy talking to us were the Police who had been assisted by Themba Khosa in the sense that he was interpreting for them. They kept coming often for more days.

But I am not too sure if they came the same time or the Attorney followed.

MR BERGER: Well, I am more concerned with Mr Themba Khosa and Mr Humphrey Ndlovu and that meeting. Is it correct that at that meeting Mr Themba Khosa informed the residents of kwaMadala that they should burn and destroy all evidence which linked them to the attack on Boipatong?

MR KHANYILE: Mr Berger, I am not in a position to respond there, because I have not heard that or I did not hear that.

What I understood then was that the Police were about 500 to 600 in number. I do trust and hope that there were some black Policemen who could have understood Themba Khosa as he was speaking because they were using the same language.

MR BERGER: Why would Mr Victor Mthembu say that Mr Themba Khosa in fact did give such an instruction if no such instruction was given?

MR KHANYILE: If I remember well, when I came back from work, I hope Themba Khosa was already there. Maybe if he did say that, he could have said that before my arrival.

MR BERGER: On what day was that?

MR KHANYILE: It was on a Thursday.

MR BERGER: Was that the day after the attack?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, that is correct. To my knowledge I think Themba came on Thursday.

MR BERGER: Where were you working at the time?

MR KHANYILE: I was working in Vanderbijlpark at a place called Supreme.

MR BERGER: Didn't you tell the Committee yesterday that from Thursday the 18th of June, none of the residents were allowed out of the hostel until the following Monday because the Police were preventing you from leaving the hostel?

MR KHANYILE: That happened on that specific day, but late in the afternoon.

MR BERGER: Are you saying that there was a time on Thursday the 18th of June, when the Police were allowing people to leave the hostel, but only after that, the Police sealed the hostel?

MR KHANYILE: What time the Police arrived in that area, I am not sure, but when I come back from work, they were present. When I left for work early in the morning, at about five o'clock, they were not there.

MR BERGER: When you left for work at five o'clock in the morning, neither the Police or the Army were there, you were allowed free access out of the hostel?

MR KHANYILE: During those times the hostel was not closed.

MR BERGER: Please answer my question - when you left the hostel to go to work at five o'clock on Thursday morning, are you saying that there were no Police and no Army personnel present outside the hostel?

MR KHANYILE: That is what I am saying.

MR BERGER: And are you saying that you and other residents of the hostel were allowed free access out of the hostel at that time?

MR KHANYILE: What I know is all the people were supposed to go to work early in the morning, they freely went to work without any prevention of getting out by the Police because there were no Police outside the gate.

MR BERGER: When you returned, you found Themba Khosa addressing a meeting, is that what you are saying?

INTERPRETER: Please, may you repeat your question?

MR BERGER: I am sorry, when you returned from work on the 18th, you found Themba Khosa addressing a meeting in the stadium?

MR KHANYILE: If I remember well, it seems to be true.

MR BERGER: At what time did you knock off work and at what time did you return to the hostel?

MR KHANYILE: I knocked off at about five in the evening. I arrived at the hostel at about six o'clock or something to six.

MR BERGER: Isn't it correct Mr Khanyile, that you are once again protecting Mr Themba Khosa?

MR KHANYILE: Sir, what I would like to explain briefly is I am here to ask for amnesty for things which I know, I am not here to ask for amnesty t implicate people saying they did this and that, meanwhile they didn't, with the aim of getting myself or my application approved.

I am saying again I never found or heard or found Themba Khosa at a meeting or heard him speaking what you said he said. If he said something, it might be before I arrived at the meeting.

MR BERGER: What did he say when you were at the meeting?

MR KHANYILE: I would say sir, this was not - it wasn't a real meeting. There were questions from the Police who were investigating about the incident.

MR BERGER: Was there a time in the meeting where Themba Khosa asked the workers apart from the Police, in other words not in the presence of the Police, is it true that you are responsible for this attack, did that happen?

MR KHANYILE: No, I never heard.

MR BERGER: Can you remember actual issues which were discussed at that meeting?

MR KHANYILE: Sir, the things which were asked which I can still remember is where were we during the 17th, whether we know anything and that Police wanted us to assist them in that investigation. Those are the things that I still remember.

MR BERGER: What time did that meeting end?

MR KHANYILE: I don't remember.

MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair. Mr Khanyile, you will recall yesterday that you told the Committee that your co-applicant Mr Buthelezi was not involved in the attack on Boipatong.

MR KHANYILE: Yes, it is true. The other one whom I have just forgotten, it was Moses Mthembu.

MS CAMBANIS: Mr Khanyile, ... (tape ends) ...

MR KHANYILE: The people I am mentioning, I am mentioning because I know their whereabouts on that day. About the others, I didn't see them at Boipatong, I just heard from themselves saying they were there.

MS CAMBANIS: Sorry, do I understand that you are saying that both Mr Mthembu and Mr Buthelezi were not present as a fact?

MR KHANYILE: That is correct, I know that very well.

MS CAMBANIS: Mr Khanyile, sir I was listening to your explanation on the injured people of Boipatong being caught in the cross-fire of the battle. There is one kind of injury and assault that you haven't dealt with, and that is with the sexual assaults and the rape of the women during the course of the attack.

Do you have any knowledge about the raping and the sexual assaults on women that night, by the attackers?

MR KHANYILE: Since I haven't mentioned that, it explains that I didn't see that happening.

MS CAMBANIS: Did you not hear any of the men boasting subsequent to the attack that that was part of the activities that took place that evening in the township during the attack?

MR KHANYILE: You mean boasting with reference to the women they have raped, or with reference to exactly the whole incident of Boipatong?

MS CAMBANIS: With reference to the women they had raped and sexually assaulted?

MR KHANYILE: No, I didn't hear something like that.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, it is our instructions and we are in possession at this stage, of at least 11 women who were either raped or sexually assaulted by the attackers during the course of the attack.

MR KHANYILE: I am hearing it for the first time from you.

MS CAMBANIS: And the nature of some of those attacks, that they were kicked in the genital area, that metal objects were inserted?

MR KHANYILE: I didn't even hear about this, even in court. I am hearing for the first time today.

MS CAMBANIS: So what is, you didn't hear it in court. What is the significance of that?

CHAIRPERSON: What he is saying is that he is hearing it for the first time.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Mr Chair. Now finally Mr Khanyile, can you just tell me, this is the evidence that will be placed before the Committee by the victims. Can we agree that this is not part of any policy of any political party?

MR KHANYILE: I briefly explained this before that politics to the African people came as a new subject which was not known.

We were told that if anyone belongs to a particular organisation which is not the same organisation you are in, it is an enemy. In those days I am trying to explain that we didn't know anything about politics, and we don't even know the meaning of the word politics.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you very much Mr Chair, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malindi?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, if I can just interrupt at this stage. Towards the end of the hearing at the previous occasion, I asked for the various legal representatives for the family to provide us with a list of who they appear for.

Certain statements are being made by Ms Cambanis and she mentions 11 people that will make certain allegations. We would like the names of the people that she appear for so that we can then do our own investigations, otherwise we may end up at a later stage that we will have to do investigations at that time, delaying the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sure she is going to give you those names because she now has 11 persons who will make those allegations. I am sure she will give those names to you.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objections to that?

MS CAMBANIS: Mr Chair, I do not mind disclosing the names to the Committee and to the legal representatives. I am not happy, the clients are not happy that their names be made public. So subject to that, yes, I will make the names ...

CHAIRPERSON: There you have it. Mr Malindi?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MALINDI: Mr Khanyile, may I just ask you one question. Look at page 106 which is your affidavit. Do you have it before you?

The last sentence of your affidavit on page 106, if I am translating the Afrikaans correctly, you said what happened in Boipatong should not have happened. Do I understand you well that there are other means by which this friction could have been resolved?

MR KHANYILE: I would like to briefly explain sir.

CHAIRPERSON: He has given you what he is understanding of what you are saying in Afrikaans at page 106. Do you agree with his translation, that is the first question?

MR STRYDOM: The witness does not understand Afrikaans, but what I can say is that I do not agree with his translation.

MR MALINDI: Mr Khanyile, may I just read the sentence as it is in Afrikaans. "Die situasie het hande uitgeruk en moes nooit eers so ver gevorder het nie."

My translation would be that the situation should not have gone as far as it did. Do you agree with me?

MR KHANYILE: What I was trying to tell my lawyer was that the reason why we have to take a decision to attack is that the situation was out of hand, because the government in charge at that time, was not able to protect the civilians. That is what I was trying to bring over. If he wrote it the other way around, then it is not my fault.

MR MALINDI: If that is what you intended to convey, do you agree today that there were other means available to resolve this conflict, other than launching that vicious attack on the community of Boipatong?

MR KHANYILE: There wasn't even a single inch or small way of doing it. I am saying this because of the following reasons: There wasn't going to be any peaceful settlement or discussion because of the prevailing situation. Secondly with reference to the law and order, I have explained that the government in charge at the time was not able to protect the people - each and every individual had to take the law into his or her own hand.

I have also given an example that a lot of IFP followers were burnt during daylight and many women who were burnt during daylight because it was alleged that they were in love with IFP members.

Many IFP houses were burnt during daylight and many African IFP members when going to town, who were abducted and put into booths and burnt in the township. In all this incidents, not even a single person was charged or convicted on such criminal acts which shows that the government of that day was failing in ruling and governing.

Up to today not even a single person came out to say we know this happened, like we did today before the Committee.

MR MALINDI: The Senior Committee at kwaMadala hostel and the Youth Committee could not have approached their ANC leadership in Boipatong or any other organisations existing in the community to resolve this conflict?

MR KHANYILE: That leader of the ANC, if he or she was seen standing next to an Inkatha leader, was going to be burnt with a tyre on that particular day.

What I am trying to explain sir, is any person who had (indistinct) on position, if your neighbour hated you, he will just point or say you are an Inkatha member, therefore you would be killed instantly.

MR MALINDI: Were any attempts made by the kwaMadala leadership to engage the help of higher organs of the IFP in resolving the conflict with the community of Boipatong?

MR KHANYILE: I don't remember that, if it did happen or not.

MR MALINDI: It would have been an alternative to launching an attack, isn't it so?

MR KHANYILE: I don't understand your question, may you please repeat.

MR MALINDI: Instead of launching an attack on the community of Boipatong, another way to resolve this conflict would have been to approach higher organs of the IFP to resolve the conflict with the community of Boipatong?

MR KHANYILE: I believe sir when you refer to higher leaders, I think you know that for Mr Mandela, the President to meet Chief Buthelezi, took a long time. I don't know which people could have met during those times as leaders of the organisations.

MR MALINDI: A moment ago you explained why the situation had come to the point where you had to launch an attack. Could you tell the Committee more or less how many IFP people were burnt by residents of Boipatong?

MR KHANYILE: If I remember those who were burnt Boipatong very well, it was Bongani Mbatha, Nomvula, Mr Khumalo - I forgot his name, Mr Gus who was a newsreader or the spokesperson of the IFP, Mr MBele who was abducted when coming from work in the evening, and killed somewhere. I would say there are many, but I can only mention those whom I can still remember.

And further I can say that it was not only at Boipatong where we were being killed. The whole Vaal, it was the same, it was happening everywhere in the Vaal.

MR MALINDI: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MALINDI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior?

ADV PRIOR: I have no questions Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY ADV PRIOR

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination? I can't see you Mr Da Silva. Do you have any questions to put to this witness?

MS BOTHA: I have no questions Mr Chairman, thank you.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BOTHA

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DA SILVA: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. Mr Khanyile, will you please look at Annexure J, the plan of Boipatong.

I see you have got Exhibit J before you, I understand from your evidence that the group moved down Msheshwe Street and turned into a northerly direction into Leqwa Street. Is that correct?

MR KHANYILE: Those who turned on Leqwa Street was the group which I was in.

MR DA SILVA: I understand from your evidence that in that vicinity before turning, that you saw a group of comrades next to a fire, is that correct?

MR KHANYILE: May you please repeat, I didn't get it well.

MR DA SILVA: Is it correct that before your group turned into Leqwa Street, you saw a group of comrades next to a fire?

MR KHANYILE: That is correct.

MR DA SILVA: Is it also correct that the entrance into Boipatong where the comrades were standing, that that was barricaded with tree stumps?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the last part of your question?

MR DA SILVA: Is it correct?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, it was like that.

MR DA SILVA: So do you agree that vehicles could not move in the street, or it was very difficult to move in the streets of Boipatong?

CHAIRPERSON: What is the question? Is the question that the vehicles could not move or is the question that it was difficult for them to move?

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairperson, the question is that it was very difficult for vehicles to move in the streets of Boipatong.

MR KHANYILE: What I can say, I would say it was possible for vehicles to move, but it would be difficult.

MR DA SILVA: There was a question put to you by Mr Berger in regard to a Buffel, armed vehicle, moving in the vicinity of Slovo Park. Your answer to that question was that you only saw soldiers on leaving Boipatong. At no time did you see any Police or soldiers. That was your answer.

What I want to know from you, your evidence is that at no time you saw any soldiers inside Boipatong, is that what you meant?

MR KHANYILE: Sir, that is what I am saying and I would like to stress that since it is said that we are to speak the truth here, I don't know how many have applied for amnesty in connection with this incident, but I believe that not even a single Police or soldier or white person who will come and make an application to say he or she did take part in the attack of the people at Boipatong. I am trying to stress that it never happened that Police or soldiers were involved, or white people.

I only saw soldiers when we were getting out of Boipatong. As to where they were when we entered Boipatong, I might not know.

MR DA SILVA: Mr Khanyile, will you please look at Exhibit M1, being the aerial photograph. According to that Exhibit, if you will see there is a point marked K, that apparently is the tree where the group gathered.

Does that appear to be correct?

MR KHANYILE: It looks like it, it is the way you say.

MR DA SILVA: If you still look at Exhibit M1, you will see there is a point marked H. That appears to be the foot bridge, or the pedestrian bridge. Is that where the group crossed Frikkie Meyer Boulevard?

MR KHANYILE: I think it is correct.

MR DA SILVA: If you look further at Exhibit M1, you will see there is a further point, marked C. Is that the Trek garage where the armed vehicles retreated to?

MR KHANYILE: Yes, I can see.

MR DA SILVA: Could you estimate the distance between point H and point C?

MR KHANYILE: I think it is about 400 metres.

MR DA SILVA: On crossing the foot bridge, how many people in uniform did you see, can you remember?

MR KHANYILE: I saw the soldiers' vehicle and also soldiers were at the back of the vehicle. I could see their hats, the camouflage hats or the plastic hats, or whatever.

I could only see by the way they were dressed and what was clearly visible, was their heads.

MR DA SILVA: The question was how many people do you recall seeing in uniform?

MR KHANYILE: I will say there were two who came to the office to speak to Mr Mthembu. I saw these two men, they were wearing uniform.

MR DA SILVA: The question is how many people did you see when you were crossing the pedestrian bridge at the Trek garage, how many people did you see in uniform?

MR KHANYILE: I didn't see.

MR DA SILVA: I understand your evidence to be that the people that you saw, had camouflaged uniforms, is that correct?

MR KHANYILE: They were wearing brown clothes.

MR DA SILVA: I have no further questions Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DA SILVA

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination, Mr Strydom?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: Thank you Mr Chairperson. It was suggested to you that you are protecting various other groups. I want to ask you a few questions in that regard.

Do you have any reason to protect white people that might have been involved in the attack?

MR KHANYILE: Sir, I believe that I am the one that is in a difficult situation, therefore I will not try to protect someone who is living happily with his family and children.

This is the truth which cannot be contradicted, that Police or soldiers or white people were not involved in the attack. If someone can come and say other people were involved, it could only be the soldiers who saw us coming from Boipatong, and never arrested us.

MR STRYDOM: You testified that Mfana Zulu and Themba Khosa was not involved. Do you want to protect them for any reason?

MR KHANYILE: The evidence which cannot be denied or contradicted, that Mfana Zulu was not at the Vaal during the time. I was questioned about Mr Themba Khosa. I said I didn't know and it was true, I didn't know.

And further to explain further Mr Strydom, my aim for coming here was to come and tell the truth as it happened, and also the reason why it happened. And also for the sake of reconciliation.

If the main aim was just to get myself amnesty, I would say that is not true or the main aim. I am trying to explain that since because I want amnesty, I have to lie about other people, implicating them with things which they never did or say.

From there ...

ADV SIGODI: Mr Khanyile, please would you try and limit your answers to yes or no. I think Mr Strydom is your Counsel, he is leading you, thank you.

MR STRYDOM: One last question. You have heard the names of all the people that were killed during the trial, and you have also heard the names of all the people that were injured.

Did you bear a personal grudge against any one of those people, in an individual sense?

INTERPRETER: Can you please repeat the last part, the very last part of your question.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I want to know if he had a problem with any individual, did he know these people that were killed or did he have problems with any individual person of the people that got killed or injured?

MR KHANYILE: No.

MR STRYDOM: I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STRYDOM

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson. Just one little issue, Mr

Berger asked you about the Msinga contingent. What Mr Mthembu called the Msinga contingent and you said you knew of no such contingent. Is that right?

MR KHANYILE: Not that I didn't know, but they were not present.

MR LAX: Did you know of such a contingent?

MR KHANYILE: No, I didn't know, but I knew people from Msinga because I was staying with most of them in the same room. Others were staying next door or as I have already explained, there were about ten or less than ten.

MR LAX: You see these were people who we are told, had the job of defending the hostel and you don't know anything about those people?

MR KHANYILE: Within ourselves, there is no one who is defended by someone else, so I would say there wasn't such a thing.

MR LAX: So there was no Self Protection group within the hostel itself?

MR KHANYILE: All of us as the inmates, were protecting the hostel. There was no group who was given the duty to protect the hostel.

MR LAX: And just one last thing. We were told that monies were raised from those that were working, people had to contribute money towards buying food for these people. Do you know anything about that?

MR KHANYILE: Monies which I have knowledge of, which were collected in kwaMadala hostel, is monies which were collected when one of our members who passed away, if one of them passed away, we used to contribute money for the funeral and we also collected some monies as men to buy things so that when we got attacked, we would be able to defend ourselves.

Those are the monies that I know of.

MR LAX: These things you are talking about, are you talking about firearms?

MR KHANYILE: That is correct.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Mr Khanyile, what is your level of education?

MR KHANYILE: I went up to standard 8, but I didn't pass standard 8.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Khanyile, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED: .

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairperson, might - it does not have anything to do with Mr Khanyile, but as a result of one of his answers, might I formally direct a request through you to Adv Prior if we could see the amnesty applications for the Policemen and soldiers who have made applications for amnesty in respect of events in the Vaal? We need the permission of the TRC to have sight of those documents, only the TRC can wave the privilege.

CHAIRPERSON: You have to make an substantive application for that. As you know that applications for amnesty are confidential matters, until there is a hearing.

MR DA SILVA: Yes, that is why I am asking. Are you saying that we must make a substantive application to you or in the court?

CHAIRPERSON: Discuss the matter with Mr Prior.

Mr Strydom, are you ready with your next witness? I am sorry, I see that it is about half past one. We will take the lunch adjournment now, we will come back at quarter past two.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS