CHAIRPERSON: This is a sitting of the Amnesty Committee which comprises of myself as Chairman, on my right Advocate Chris de Jager, Senior Counsel and on my left Advocate Sandi. We’re here this morning to consider the application of Mr Hlope. Mr Brink, are ready?
MR BRINK: Yes, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I understand the application for amnesty relates to the conviction for the murder of Zazi Kuzwayo and Nicolas Mkhize. The application also relates to the attempted murder of C D Sekekane and J Letule and you will see from pages 128 to 132 of the bundle, affidavits from those two gentlemen appear which indicate what happened to them. The applicant in this matter ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry could you kindly repeat the pages?
MR BRINK: Yes. Pages 128 to 132 - the affidavits Mr Sekekane and Mr Letule. The applicant has not however been charged ...(inaudible) The next of kin are represented by, well let me say the applicant is represented by Advocate Shangweni and the next of kin and interested parties, are represented by Mr ...(inaudible)
INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the name of the other person...(inaudible)
MR BRINK: Mr Letule - I’ll give you his full names now Mr Chairman sorry, I missed that. Bhiki Leda, that’s Bhi - well it appears in paragraph two of page 128. ...(no sound) that’s the one.
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairman, that’s correct.
MR SHANGWENI: That’s correct Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you prepared to take the oath?
MSIZI JETHRO HLOPE: (sworn states)
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, the applicant Msizi Jethro Hlope will now give evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) Mr Diaz is appearing for the victims and relatives ...(inaudible)
MR BRINK: Well I agree with you Mr Chairman, I was told the situation as such was that he would listen and then he would change places when ...(inaudible) agree, possibly he could get a table.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) during the adjournment ...(inaudible)
MR BRINK: Could we adjourn for two minutes or so just to see if that could be done?
CHAIRPERSON: If this can be done then we’ll take a short adjournment.
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. With your permission Mr Chairperson, I would like to call Msizi Jethro Hlope who will now give evidence.
EXAMINATION BY MR SHANGWENI: Msizi, do you accept the contents of the affidavit you have written as true and correct?
MR SHANGWENI: With your permission Mr Chairperson, I beg leave to submit the original of his affidavit for the purpose of record. I think you have copies thereof.
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. For the purpose of record please state your name and surname.
MR HLOPE: I am Msizi Jethro Hlope.
MR SHANGWENI: How old are you?
MR HLOPE: I was born in 1972 on the 4th of December, in Klenaville, Nduduma.
MR SHANGWENI: How long did you live there?
MR HLOPE: I was born there and I grew up there until I was arrested.
MR SHANGWENI: Which schools did you attend and up to which standard?
MR HLOPE: I attended school at Zakele HP School until standard four.
MR SHANGWENI: You are presently incarcerated at Pietermaritzburg prison for the murder of Zazi Kuzwayo and Nicolas Mkhize, is that correct?
MR SHANGWENI: Could you in your own words tell the Commission how it came that you were involved with Samuel Begezizwe Djamile?
MR SHANGWENI: Could you explain please.
MR HLOPE: Mr Djamile is my neighbour at 21 Street. Mr Djamile was a prominent member at Claremont. In 1987 Mr Djamile at Claremont, he was of the prominent political leaders for the IFP. I started working with Mr Djamile.
At that time I was 16 years old and I was not affiliated with any political organisation, neither was I a UDF nor IFP member. I became an IFP member after I pointed some members of the UDF to Mr Djamile, then Mr Djamile gave me a membership card. It was in 1987.
MR SHANGWENI: Mr Hlope, now let me direct your attention to the events leading to the killing of Mr Zazi Kuzwayo, what happened?
MR HLOPE: I was coming there. I just wanted to take you step by step.
MR SHANGWENI: That’s correct, you can continue.
CHAIRPERSON: I think you should just answer questions as they are put to you.
MR SHANGWENI: I will repeat the question Mr Hlope. I’m directing you to the - your attention to the events leading to the killing of Zazi Kuzwayo, what happened?
MR HLOPE: In 1987 Mr Djamile told me to not disappear at his yard and he also told me that there were boys who were coming to his house. I found Dalikolo Letule who was one of the trainees from Caprivi and Vusi Kumalo, Velamkunu and another three people whom I didn’t know their names.
Mr Djamile told me to take all these boys to Mr Zazi Kuzwayo’s house for me to point out Mr Kuzwayo’s house. We went there - we drove by a Cressida which was tinted. Just before we arrived at Mr Kuzwayo’s house they slowed down and I showed them Mr Kuzwayo’s business or shopping centre.
After that we went back to Mr Djamile’s house and I explained to Mr Djamile that I’ve pointed Mr Kuzwayo’s house. Then as we were there Vela Mkunu came to me and told me that they were going to go back to Kuzwayo’s house to kill him.
CHAIRPERSON: The same day, was that the same day?
MR HLOPE: Not at the same day but he said they were going to go back - not at the same day.
MR HLOPE: Vela Mkunu told me not disappear because we were still going to go to Mr Kuzwayo’s house. When Mr Kuzwayo was killed, I was called by Mr Djamile at his house. He told me to accompany Begezizwe, Socha Kumalo and Velamkunu and another two people whom I didn’t know.
At that day we were also with Shlagani Pani Djamile - that’s Mr Djamile’s son. I can’t remember the car which we drove that day but we went to Mr Zazi’s house and we parked the car near the Claremont Post Office. Vela told me to go to Mr Zazi Kuzwayo’s shop and look if he was there. If he was there I mustn’t come, I must just raise my hand or waive my hand as a signal to them that he was there. I did like I was told.
I went inside the shop, I found Mr Kuzwayo inside his shop and I signalled to them as I was told. I just waived my hand and I went to my stepmother’s house and to Mr Djamile’s house.
Later the same day Vela came and told me that they were successful in their operation of killing Mr Kuzwayo and Vela told me that he was the one himself who shot at him and then he said, as they were running away from that shop they met someone whom they also killed.
After that soldiers were sent and also security forces came at Mr Djamile’s house as securities and there were braai’s and they were firing guns. They were celebrating the killing of Mr Zazi Kuzwayo. I left Mr Djamile’s house that time.
CHAIRPERSON: What day of the week or when was that, do you know?
MR HLOPE: I can’t remember the month and the day but I do remember that it was in 1987.
ADV DE JAGER: What was your sentence after you’ve been arrested and the hearing, what was your sentence in respect of the death of - or weren’t you charged with this at all?
MR HLOPE: You’re referring to this case that I’m talking about now, Mr Zazi’s? I was sentenced for 12 years.
ADV SANDI: Before the incident we’re talking about, that is the day when Mr Kuzwayo is killed, did you know Mr Kuzwayo before?
MR HLOPE: Yes, I did. He was a business man at Claremont.
ADV SANDI: Did you in any way regard him as a political opponent or enemy to you or a political organisation to which you belonged?
MR HLOPE: Yes, he was a UDF member.
ADV SANDI: Did you at any stage feel that - I mean you personally - for the background and information you have given about Mr Kuzwayo, did you at any stage feel that it was necessary that Mr Kuzwayo be killed or eliminated?
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Now Mr Hlope, I’d like to take you back to the incident where you attempted to murder Delani Sekakane and Begelita Letule, do you remember that incident?
CHAIRPERSON: Where does that appear? Where does that appear in the affidavit ...(inaudible) please.
MR HLOPE: This was the first incident.
MR SHANGWENI: It’s paragraph 8 of the affidavit I’ve just given you Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Could I just enquire about the previous killing. You said on a question of my brother here, that you regarded him as a political opponent - he was a member of the UDF, is that correct?
MR HLOPE: Yes, that’s correct. He was a member of the UDF, Mr Zazi.
ADV DE JAGER: And at that stage the UDF and the IFP were political opponents fighting each other in that area, is that correct?
ADV DE JAGER: Were there also members of the IFP killed during that period?
ADV DE JAGER: Was Mr Djamile himself attacked?
MR HLOPE: Yes, he was attacked several times even his houses were being attacked.
ADV DE JAGER: And you’ve told us now that he was a prominent member of the IFP at that stage.
ADV DE JAGER: What you were doing, the directions you’ve given to the other members - what was his name - Vuzi, did you do that on instructions of anybody? Who instructed you to go and point out this person’s house and his shop?
MR HLOPE: Mr Djamile instructed me to direct and point out these houses, so I was carrying these orders.
ADV DE JAGER: Were you carrying out his orders when you went to point out the place of the deceased?
MR HLOPE: Yes, that’s correct.
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Hlope, let me once more direct you to the attempted murder of Delane Sekakane and Begelita Letule as stated in your affidavit, paragraph 8 thereof. What happened?
MR HLOPE: What I know is that in 1987 at Claremont, after Mr Djamile was attacked by a hand grenade, there were people who belonged to UDF and they were swearing at Mr Djamile and they were swearing heavy at Mr Djamile.
I saw this happening and during that week Mr Djamile called me - he actually sent my father to call me and when I arrived at his house he took me behind his house and he asked me if I knew the boys who were swearing at him. I told him yes, I knew those boys and he also asked me if I can go with the police to point out to the houses where the boys were staying and I said yes, I can do that.
And then I stayed at his house because he told me to stay there. I stayed with Vuzi Mbete and Mr Djamile came to us, he had three balaclavas and three overalls and he an ammunition inside a Standard Bank plastic bag. He gave me torch and he gave Vuzi and this other boy bullets and then he told me that we should go and I must point out the houses belonging to these boys who swore at him the other day.
As we were going there we used shortcuts and as we approached the river - it was dark - we started wearing our balaclavas and our overalls. We went straight to the boys’ house who were UDF as well and at that place, they call it Magogokweni and it is built by a corrugated sink. We started knocking - they told me to kick the door, I did so and then we went inside the house, the three of us.
They started shooting. They boys were sleeping and they started shooting at them. As they were shooting, I heard one of them crying, screaming asking why, what’s going on, what have we done and I could recognise the voice that belonged to Begelita.
After that it was silent, the screaming went off and then we started running back to Mr Djamile’s house. At Mr Djamile’s house we were asked by him as to how we went. We told him the operation went very well. And then he gave us muti to wash ourselves with and to drink as well and then he told me to go back home. I went home and the next day he sent my father to call me again.
I went to Mr Djamile and he told me to go back to were we shot as to try and find out what was going on after the previous night’s shooting. As I arrived there, there was blood all over the place and I learnt that those boys whom we shot at were not dead, we actually shot at their feet so they survived.
I went back to Mr Djamile, I told him, he looked unhappy and told me to go and call Vela and Vuzi and he asked them as to what happened, he sent them to kill those UDF members but now they’ve survived. I couldn’t stay longer, I left.
ADV SANDI: You say after the attack on the two boys who had sworn at Mr Djamile, you went back to Mr Djamile to give a report, is that correct?
MR HLOPE: Yes, that’s correct.
ADV SANDI: And according to your report everything had gone well, who was giving this report to Mr Djamile, was it you?
MR HLOPE: Mr Djamile asked us as to how the operation went and we told him that we went well - the operation went very well - after that he gave us muti to wash and to drink.
ADV SANDI: My question is, which one of you as a group was giving a report to Mr Djamile, was it you yourself or another member of the group?
MR HLOPE: As he was asking, he was asking all of us, the three of us so we all reported this matter back - we said very well and I also answered.
MR SHANGWENI: Msizi, after this attempted murder of Delane Kakane and Begelita Letule, did Mr Djamile give you any money as a reward for what you have done?
MR HLOPE: No, he was not paying me.
MR SHANGWENI: In terms of paragraph 19 of your affidavit which deals with the killing of Nicolas Mkhize, could you explain to the Committee what happened before and after Mr Nicolas Mkhize was killed?
MR HLOPE: I will put it this way, it was in 1988 and I was at Mr Djamile’s yard, he called me and he asked me if I know Mr Mkhize who was a caretaker in one of his stands in Claremont. And then he asked me if I can go to Mr Mkhize to kill him and then I said to him yes, I can do that and then he said okay.
I told him that I will wait for him to tell me as to when exactly to go and kill Mr Mkhize. After a few days I was at a certain place where - a laundry - and one person came and greeted me, he called me by my name and when I turned back to look at this person, I realised that I didn’t know the person and I saw the person going straight to Mr Djamile’s house afterwards.
I went there to Mr Djamile’s house because my father and my stepmother were staying at Mr Djamile’s house. I went there and I met this person again and I started asking him who it was and he took off his sunglasses and his cap and I then I realised that it was someone that I knew. And then he told me we were supposed to go somewhere.
He told me he was going to a bus stop and then he asked me, Dalikolo, if I knew Mr Mkhize and I told him that of course I do know him and then he told me that he came here on an operation to kill Mr Mkhize but now that Mr Djamile is not there, he won’t be able to kill him. He also asked me if I knew if Mr Mkhize carried a gun or not and I said I think he’s got a gun because he’s a taxi man.
After that incident Mr Dalikolo came to Mr Djamile’s house again. When Dalikolo came for the second time, that’s when I was called by Mr Djamile to go and look if Mr Mkhize was at his house and also to look which car was he driving. I did as I was told and I discovered that he was at home and he was using a Chevrolet, a red one. I went back to Mr Djamile to report and I told him everything about the car.
I didn’t Mr Djamile telling Dalikolo about this but later I heard that Mr Mkhize was shot at his car.
MR SHANGWENI: At that stage Msizi Hlope, what other duties were you doing
MR HLOPE: No English translation.
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct.
MR HLOPE: My other duties were to assist my father doing the repairs at Mr Djamile’s house and also to accompany his wife to Durban station to fetch more muti and also to assist in carrying some of the medicine to Ulundi where he’s got a chemist. And also to collect names of people who were not supporting stay-away’s, people who wanted to go to work and he would arrange security for those people to be escorted to work.
Again I would accompany soldiers from Pietermaritzburg to collect or to fetch buses from the depot and we were escorting the buses so that people don’t throw stones on the buses. And then again also to make sure that Mr Djamile was safe and I was paid for being a security, I was paid about R600-00.
MR SHANGWENI: Are you saying you were a special constable for Mr Djamile, is that correct?
MR SHANGWENI: According to my knowledge, for one to become a special constable an appointment certificate had to be issued, where you at any stage issued with an appointment certificate?
MR HLOPE: Yes, I was given an identity card.
MR SHANGWENI: When was that year?
MR SHANGWENI: Who arranged it for you?
ADV DE JAGER: But was that the ordinary identity card, your identity book or was it a special document?
MR HLOPE: The usual one which is used by the ZP Police, Special Constable.
ADV DE JAGER: So it was a document for a Special Constable, it wasn’t an ordinary document issued to all the people carrying identity books?
MR HLOPE: It was especially for the ZP’s.
CHAIRPERSON: Who, where did you get this or who issued it to you?
CHAIRPERSON: He may have handed it to you ...(inaudible)
INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.
CHAIRPERSON: Which person appointed you as a Special Constable?
MR HLOPE: I was not trained, I never went to any training, I just went to a ...(inaudible) patrol and I learnt to shoot and Mr Djamile was there and then he took photographs of me and the gun was issued and given to me which was a 9mm, that was the gun I was using.
CHAIRPERSON: I want to know who did it, who issued the gun and who issued this document? ...(inaudible) Government authority?
MR HLOPE: No English translation.
CHAIRPERSON: Who was it signed by?
MR HLOPE: I don’t know who signed it but all I know is that Mr Djamile gave me this ID, ZP ID.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it an official document that you were aware of?
MR HLOPE: Yes, it was an official document and I would go to court carrying my ID and my gun but what I’ve noticed - the name which was on that appointment ZP letter was different.
MR SHANGWENI: Mr Chairperson, there’s no official document that was submitted to us and the applicant will lead evidence to the effect that his appointment certificate was confiscated prior to his arrest.
CHAIRPERSON: You can ...(inaudible)
MR SHANGWENI: Msizi Hlope, whose name appeared on the appointment certificate?
MR HLOPE: The name said Tembiso Mkhize but the photograph was my photograph.
MR SHANGWENI: Didn’t you question Mr Djamile why he used a different name?
MR HLOPE: I didn’t question him because I knew that he did this for me to use other names, not my real names because he was scared.
MR SHANGWENI: What happened to that appointment certificate?
MR HLOPE: Mr Djamile’s wife took it and the gun and the uniform.
ADV SANDI: In your knowledge Mr Hlope, did Mr Djamile make the same sort of arrangement for people who were doing the same operations as you, arranging these appointment certificates?
MR HLOPE: I can’t be very much sure on that one but I know for a fact that there were others who had these ID’s and who didn’t go to training and who left school in standard two. They were protecting IFP leaders.
ADV DE JAGER: Was it in fact necessary to protect them?
MR HLOPE: Are you asking me if it was necessary?
ADV DE JAGER: In your mind, did you think it was necessary to protect them?
MR HLOPE: Yes, because they were being attacked.
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. With your permission Mr Chairperson, I would like to ask the applicant to state other incidents he was involved in but if it suffices to the Commission that evidence in the affidavit is sufficient, then I will not lead him in that regard. That is, other incidents as mentioned in his affidavit.
CHAIRPERSON: You must consider what is relevant in the interest of your client and the decision must be made by you.
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Hlope, are there other incidents that you were involved in whilst working with Mr Djamile that you can remember?
MR SHANGWENI: Could you disclose them to the Commission please.
MR HLOPE: Another incident is the one concerning Mrs Pearl Shabalala from Claremont. In 1988 my father called me and he told that Mr Djamile needed to see me. When I arrived at Mr Djamile I found a car parked outside - a Cressida - and Mr Djamile was there. There were people inside the car and the doors were opened and as I arrived there Mr Djamile told me to go with the boys to show them Mrs Shabalala’s house.
These boys who were inside the car were busy polishing their guns. It was Dalikolo, Socha and I didn’t know these other three people. We went, we took a ...(inaudible) drive. When we arrived next to a garage the other four people went out, in fact they got out of the car and they started walking. Me and Maslanduna were the only two left inside the house. I saw them walking very slow. We drove next to a school, we parked there and Maslanduna told me not to lock the doors and I saw Mrs Shabalala’s car leaving the bottle store and these other boys whom we dropped they started shooting. They shot at her car and she accelerated and then they came running and one of them didn’t come back to get inside the car.
We drove back to Claremont. We drove passed the graveyard and we passed a bottle store belonging to Mr Nklega and then Maslanduna drove back to try and find this other guy whom we didn’t take because he didn’t know Claremont very well.
When we arrived at Mr Djamile’s house he took us behind the house and he asked us as to how we went and this other guy told him that - we missed her. He got angry, he shouted who we missed her, how can we do that and then he told me to go home and sleep.
The next day Mr Djamile called me again and he sent me to Mrs Shabalala’s bottle store and check the damage we caused at her car but I was scared to go alone, I asked a friend of mine whom I didn’t tell him as to why. I went there and I looked at Mrs Shabalala’s car, I checked on it and I went to Mr Djamile to report.
MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I hesitate to interrupt but the applicant as you appreciate, is not applying for amnesty in respect of those incidents because he was acquitted at his trial. He was charged with this but acquitted and I think with respect, all this evidence is set out merely to ...(no sound) respect of the matter he wasn’t charged but admits having committed the offences so I don’t know whether all this is relevant. It’s set out in the affidavit and I certainly don’t challenge it.
ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) been confirmed at the beginning, so it’s evidence before us in any event.
MR BRINK: Yes, that is the point Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: His counsel has to decide what he considers relevant and not relevant in respect of his client’s case. His counsel knows that the application for amnesty just relates to certain specific matters. I dare say that he’s leading this evidence merely for the purposes of presenting a complete picture of the activities of the applicant but you are right in the sense Mr Brink, that all this does appear on oath in his affidavit and maybe if you wish him to confirm the contents of that affidavit or highlight anything that is in that affidavit, you should do so.
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. On that note I think I don’t have any further questions that I’ll put to the applicant.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SHANGWENI
MR BRINK: I think it might be a convenient time to take a short adjournment and to give Mr Diaz of discussing the matter with his clients.
ADV DE JAGER: Just for the record, the affidavit handed in, do you confirm everything in this affidavit as being true and correct?
MR HLOPE: Yes, I do confirm that.
CHAIRPERSON: I’d like to ask you a few questions. What was your employment at that time?
CHAIRPERSON: Did you work for an employer?
MR HLOPE: I wasn’t working properly accept for that I was a security for Mr Djamile and I was paid R600-00 a month.
CHAIRPERSON: Who paid you this money?
MR HLOPE: Mr Djamile used to give me an envelope with the money inside.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) cheque?
CHAIRPERSON: So you looked upon Mr Djamile as your employer?
MR HLOPE: Yes, I can say that as well because I was his bodyguard.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) issued with this special constable appointment before you were given a document, what work were you doing?
CHAIRPERSON: Who was supporting you, how were you living?
MR HLOPE: My father, he was supporting me. I was still very young at that time, my father was clothing me and buying me food as well.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) between your father and Mr Djamile?
MR HLOPE: My father was staying at Mr Djamile’s house and we were close neighbours and they were close friends.
CHAIRPERSON: When you say he was staying at Mr Djamile’s house, was he a tenant of Mr Djamile?
MR HLOPE: Yes, he was a tenant.
CHAIRPERSON: I’d like to talk to you about the killing of Mr Mkhize. You haven’t given us any reason as to why Mr Mkhize was killed.
MR HLOPE: No English translation.
CHAIRPERSON: Why was he killed?
MR HLOPE: I will put it this way. All I knew about Mr Mkhize is that at his place he had a tenant and this tenant was a woman, this woman used to take information from Mr Mkhize’s house to Mr Djamile’s house because at Mr Mkhize’s house they used to hold meetings, UDF meetings and this woman would take this information to Mr Djamile’s house. Besides that he was a supporter of the Kaizer Chiefs and he used to take youth.
CHAIRPERSON: You said that ...(inaudible) Mkhize’s house, how do you know about that?
MR HLOPE: As I’ve already explained that there was a tenant, a woman at Mr Mkhize’s house.
CHAIRPERSON: You merely heard this, that meetings were held. You don’t know about it, you merely heard it, is that correct?
MR HLOPE: Yes, I heard about it.
CHAIRPERSON: And you don’t know what the meetings were all about?
MR HLOPE: No, I don’t have any information.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well now, were you told why Mr Mkhize had to be killed?
CHAIRPERSON: So you went around taking part in the murder of Mkhize without knowing why you were doing it?
MR HLOPE: I would like to explain there. I went to check if he was in his house and to check at what car he was driving.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) I’m now talking about the fact that you took part in the killing of Mkhize without knowing why he was killed, that’s the question.
MR HLOPE: Of course I took part in the killing of Mr Mkhize because I went to his house to check if he was there and I took the information back to Mr Djamile, I agree there but I didn’t kill him with my hands. Even now I can say I didn’t.
CHAIRPERSON: And you don’t know why he was killed?
MR HLOPE: I would like to put before the Commission that it is because ANC/UDF meetings were held at his house, I think that was the reason he was killed.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) thing which you think was the reason. You were never told why he was killed, is that so?
MR HLOPE: That’s so, I was not told.
CHAIRPERSON: Let’s get this absolutely clear, you took part in all this, in assisting whoever asked you to assist to find out whether Mkhize was armed and so on, you knew that he was going to be killed but you had no reason to believe or had any reason to know why he was to be killed? And you took part in those activities, is that right?
CHAIRPERSON: We’ll take a short adjournment at this stage and resume in 15 minutes.
CHAIRPERSON: I wish to remind you that you’re still under oath, do you realise that?
MR HLOPE: Yes, that’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?
MR BRINK: I think I come at the end Mr Chairman.
MR BRINK: Because normally, anyone, the counsel for the next of kin normally or victims - perpetrators - normally come before me. That’s been the practice in the past.
CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions you wish to put to this witness, to the
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DIAZ: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may I begin by saying I apologize for what may now appear to be a lack of preparedness on the part of - on my part and my client’s part. Unfortunately that’s due to no fault of mine, I do however apologize for it. I came to meet with my clients at about 9.30 a.m. this morning and I received a host of prolix documents at about 10 ‘clock. I know have a bundle of the papers before me but I represent three clients who are next of kin’s. Firstly, Mr Kuzwayo insofar as Mr ...(intervention)
MR DIAZ: No that is - sorry, insofar as Zazi Kuzwayo, I represent Mrs Kuzwayo the wife, the surviving spouse. Her instructions to me is that the applicant has it would appear to her, been reasonably or satisfactorily honest and truthful about his testimony insofar as that murder is concerned. She does not support his application for amnesty, she does not oppose it either, she would leave the matter in the hands of the Honourable Committee Members.
Insofar as Mrs Mkhize is concerned, the surviving spouse of the deceased Mkhize, Mrs Mkhize however wishes to testify - would like to confer with me further - has not had proper regard to all the documents before us - would like to confer with me - give me a detailed statement and for that purpose it would appear that I would require much time.
I would imagine the first difficulty insofar as her statement is concerned is the fact that she speaks in Zulu, is slow at giving instructions - wants to come to terms with all the things that have been said, is somewhat emotional as well. If I could beg this Committee’s indulgence in seeking an adjournment perhaps to consult with her further to be properly instructed and then to deal with her testimony.
Insofar as the last family member that I represent is concerned, that is Mr Kuzwayo whose the next of kin of Kushana Kuzwayo, Kushana Kuzwayo being his deceased father, he also is in a position where he would required to consult with me further - would like to deal with the contents of these papers - feels that as the matter stands presently that he would like oppose the application and would like to testify to that effect.
Mr Chairman and Honourable Committee members, my present position is that insofar as the three clients are concerned, to summarise, the one person does not oppose, does not stand by the application, would follow this Committee’s stand.
Insofar as the other two clients are concerned, they seek this Honourable Committee’s indulgence to instruct me properly and further.
Sorry Mr Chairman, may I just mention this as well, lest it be said that it hadn’t been said, the family members of Advocate - Judge Tshabalala are here, they have indicated to me that he is indisposed and they feel that he ought to have been present. They have spoken to me briefly about the need for them to intervene, they feel that the applicant has not been absolutely honest with all that he has said. They have not instructed me but it would appear that, that discussion would be necessary as well before they proceed.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, what is your attitude in this matter?
MR BRINK: I have no objection to the matter standing down. I would suggest possibly till 2 o’clock, bearing in mind tomorrow’s matter will not be going on and even if we’re able to start at 2 o’clock, we may well finish today, I don’t know. I won’t be long in this matter but I can’t speak for my colleagues.
MR BRINK: The application for the matter to stand down?
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. If my learned friend here could give us an indication as to how long will it take him to get his instructions because I’m of the view that if it’s possible that he could take instructions, I would follow the route pursued by my colleague Mr Brink.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you have the assistance of an interpreter?
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, unfortunately not, but what I was hoping to achieve is to take the family members to my offices and using interpret I have there and perhaps in the course of the balance of today, take proper instructions and revert on some later date. As I indicated earlier, the difficulty I have with Mrs Mkhize that she’s one very distraught and emotional and would like to talk to me as soon as she has got her emotions together.
CHAIRPERSON: It’s unfortunate that you have that kind of problem but I think that the Committee would like to proceed with these applications as expeditiously as possible and if it means working till late, we’ll have to do that. I can’t refuse your application for some time to enable us to proceed. Some of the consultation you may have to do a little later but I would like us to adjourn to afford you an opportunity until 2 o’clock to take sufficient instructions so that we may proceed this afternoon and get as much done as we may. ...(inaudible)
INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.
CHAIRPERSON: And see if we can’t deal with those this afternoon. So, we are going to grant you an indulgence, we’ll resume at 2 o’clock.
MR DIAZ: ...(inaudible) that will suffice.
ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps Mr Brink, could somebody of R and R, the Reparation Committee assist him in dealing with the victim that needs help.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, if somebody - is a representative of the R and R Committee present?
MR BRINK: No to my knowledge but I’m told they’re aware of the application.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) adjourn now.
MR BRINK: I’ll make ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Will you make ...(inaudible)
MR BRINK: I will do that, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Shangweni, could you kindly assist me, are you applying or your client applying as a member of a political party or as a member - or as an employee of the State? If you could think about it and have a look at Section 20, Sub-Section 2 and when we resume try to assist us.
CHAIRPERSON: As things stand presently, he can’t be an employee of the State. It seems that he’d been carrying out instructions as an employee of the man whose name is mentioned, Mr Djamile.
MR SHANGWENI: And a member of IFP.
MR SHANGWENI: That’s correct. And he was a member of Inkatha.
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct.
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct but the ...(intervention)
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct but the question of membership, I don’t think it is in dispute.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) All we have is his word that at some stage he ...(inaudible)
MR SHANGWENI: With your permission Mr Chairperson, I need direction in respect of the matter of Mrs Pearl Shabalala. According to my instructions the applicant is applying in respect of Zazi Kuzwayo, Nicolas Mkhize, the attempted murder of Begelita Letule and Cornelius Nsomi. We mentioned Mrs Pearl Shabalala for the purpose of full disclosure because we felt that it was necessary, ...(intervention)
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct, I wanted my learned friend to take that into account.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) mind the application is not in respect of the killing of killing of Mrs Shabalala, you’ll bear that in mind.
MR SHANGWENI: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: We’ll now adjourn and begin at 2 o’clock.
CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to proceed?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DIAZ: Thank you Chairman. I propose to cross-examine the applicant ...(intervention)
INTERPRETER:: The speaker’s mike is not on.
CROSS-EXAMINATION MR DIAZ: (cont)
Certainly, Mr Chairman. Firstly I would cross-examine the applicant in regard to the death of Mr Mkhize, Mandla Mkhize acting on the instructions of his surviving spouse Mrs Tandi Mkhize and on an aspect of that testimony supported in corroboration by Mrs Prisile Kuzwayo, surviving spouse of Zazi Kuzwayo, thank you.
MR_DIAZ: Mr Hlope, you have been charged at some stage with the murder of Mr Mandla Mkhize and other persons, do you recall?
INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) in fact convicted of that.
MR HLOPE: Yes, I do remember that.
MR DIAZ: Apart from the judgement that I have here for the purpose of the Committee Mr Chairman and Committee members is on page 84 leading up to page 88, Justice Mitchell deals with admissions made by you to Mrs Mkhize, the surviving spouse about the active involvement in the killing of the late Mandla Mkhize. This submission having been made from your cell rooms to Mrs Mkhize as she passed by you to the toilet and in whose company was Mrs Filicile Kuzwayo, the surviving spouse of Zazi Kuzwayo, do you recall much talk in the trial about that admission?
MR HLOPE: Yes, I do remember that but there are some people that you’ve left out, Orbit Mthembe as well as Inklanklangwane at Pietermaritzburg. I do recall all those things that you’ve mentioned.
MR DIAZ: Do you admit to having made the admission that you did indeed kill Mr Mandla Mkhize?
MR HLOPE: No, I deny that, that was not the truth and I do have testimony that I can bring forth to the Commission negating that so that even the relatives should know and be on the clear that I did not kill Mr Mkhize. I deny that, I will deny it up till my death. I do feel for the relatives but I had nothing to do with his death.
MR DIAZ: Well do you recall that from your cell rooms when you talked to Mrs Mkhize in particular, you indicated to her having called her sister Tandi, sister Tandi repeatedly, that you’re sorry about what happened but you were forced to do these things, you would go back to court and make an open disclosure.
CHAIRPERSON: I think in fairness to him you must tell him that, that was the evidence that was given by her.
MR DIAZ: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Hlope, evidence given by Mrs Mkhize at the trial against you was to the effect that you had made this admission about your killing, about your having killed Mr Mkhize and that you were forced to do so and that when you returned to court you would make that admission, do you recall that?
MR HLOPE: No, I never admitted that. I even explained to the Judge because that was not the truth. I couldn’t have admitted to him or denied to him and deny it at a later stage. I denied it from the onset but Mrs Mkhize was planning against me. I had asked her to help me with Lindiwe’s jersey but I never admitted killing anyone. Whatever she said in court together with the other witnesses wasn’t true, I still deny it even today. I have no reason why I should deny having killed Mr Mkhize because I’ve already been convicted, I’ve come to ask for amnesty here.
MR DIAZ: Do you recall that at that trial your counsel, in trying to explain away this alleged admission of your when cross-examining Mrs Mkhize said the following and this appears from page 87 of the Judgement Mr Chairman, of the record that’s been handed to us. Your lawyer said the following, I quote
"The accused will say that he did tell you that he was not going to hide anything but explain everything that happened".
MR HLOPE: What I said was that I do not remember whatever they were saying in court and I said that I had told Mrs Mkhize - I was even pointing at Mrs Mkhize and said Mrs Mkhize, if there’s anything I know with regard to the death of your husband I’ll explain it before this Honourable Court. I will not speak to you but I will address the Judges when they address me as to what had happened during that time because they kept on asking me at different stages.
MR DIAZ: I would have to deal with this in some detail. My client Mrs Mkhize says that you are not making an open disclosure truthfully, about your active involvement in the death particularly of Mr Mkhize. Do you recall on that particular day during the coarse of the trial, having called Mrs Mkhize by saying sister Tandi, sister Tandi?
MR HLOPE: I do not deny that, I do remember that. I called her because I wanted her to go to my sister so that they could bring me a jersey because she stays next to my sister’s place. I do admit that.
MR DIAZ: Do you recall also that Mrs Mkhize was in the presence of Mrs Kuzwayo, the surviving spouse of Zazi Kuzwayo at the time?
MR HLOPE: Yes, I do remember because I was in my cell and they were going past. The policeman had just taken me out of my cell.
MR DIAZ: Do you also recall that it was a day or two prior to that in fact, on Thursday the 7th of June as is evidence from page 85 of the record, that you were spoken to by Mrs Mkhize who asked you why did you kill my husband and that worried you?
MR HLOPE: I do not remember that.
MR DIAZ: But it was following thereupon that you called Mrs Mkhize sister Tandi, sister Tandi and you said to her you were hearing her voice calling upon you to explain why you killed her husband.
MR HLOPE: I have no knowledge thereof, I deny it. It’s the very first time that I hear it. As I’ve already said that I deny having killed Mr Mkhize, I still do even now, I’ve never killed Mr Mkhize. If Mrs Mkhize has got any testimony to that effect she can bring it forth before this Commission and I do request the Honourable Commission to further advance some testimony to that effect.
There’s absolutely no reason for me why I should deny it because I believe that I’m disclosing fully whatever I know because I’ve come here for amnesty, not to waste people’s time.
MR DIAZ: ...(inaudible) Mrs Mkhize would be testifying later but I’m cross-examining you on instruction given to me from her for the present. Now she proceeded during the course of that trial and said the following, an excerpt of which is in the Judgement of the Honourable Judge on page 86 of the record where she said the following
You said to her - that’s to Mrs Mkhize - the following words
"I heard the words that you uttered towards me yesterday that I shot your husband"
Do you remember saying this to her?
MR HLOPE: I’ve never said that. I’ve never said that to Mrs Mkhize, I deny it.
MR DIAZ: Then you said to her - words following - as follows and I quote
"I did not do it of my own free will to go and kill brother Mandla here referring to Mandla Mkhize, I had been pressurized or forced by Djamile".
MR HLOPE: I have absolutely no knowledge thereof. Mrs Mkhize wants me to say that but I’m not going to admit that. It doesn’t mean that when I’ve come to ask for amnesty, I’ll even admit things that I have no knowledge of. As I’m explaining to you that I have no knowledge thereof.
ADV DE JAGER: As I understand it, he said to Mrs Mkhize: "I’ve heard you telling or saying yesterday that I’ve killed your husband". It was she that used the words "killed her husband", am I understanding it correctly?
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) are her words, she’s giving evidence. She says she heard him utter these words. That ...(inaudible)
ADV DE JAGER: That’s the problem I’m having. If you look at the previous sentence, I may say that there is no suggestion that he did not speak freely and voluntary. He said to her, Mrs Mkhize says so he told Mrs Mkhize: "I yesterday heard you saying I shot your husband".
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, that is correct, you read the transcript correctly with respect. My difficulty however is this and this is where it becomes distinguishable, my instructions are whilst those are indeed the words that he uttered, it is also true that the applicant made admissions to Mrs Mkhize to the effect that he, the applicant had caused the death directly of Mandla Mkhize. And as you would notice from a later reading of the Judgement, those admissions become clearer.
CHAIRPERSON: The court accepted her evidence and on the basis of her evidence, he was convicted.
MR DIAZ: That is true, Mr Chairman and members of the Committee. What I’m endeavouring to achieve here is to show that the applicant’s earlier admission including his affidavit does not come anywhere near an admission of the death of Mandla Mkhize. His application is based upon a peripheral role of having pointed out Mr Mandla Mkhize, when in fact he made admissions to directly having killed him.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) he’s been consistent with his denial. He didn’t say in court these words. She says she heard him say these words and the court believed her evidence and on the basis of her evidence he was convicted. You’re now questioning him about this and he’s saying, she may say so but I didn’t utter these words. Where do you take it from there?
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, I take you point, I accept what you say - that is true. I would simply have to leave it to evidence that would have ...(inaudible), thank you.
Mr Hlope, do you recall the existence of two cassettes in which was recorded your voice wherein you admitted to having directly killed Mr Mandla Mkhize and Mrs Shabalala but wherein you indicated that your role as regards the killing of Zazi Kuzwayo and Kushana Kuzwayo was purely to the extent of having pointed the latter two out?
MR HLOPE: Yes, I do remember the two cassettes that were played by Warrant Officer Magaza. He did play those cassettes, I do remember them.
MR DIAZ: Do you stand by what was contained in that cassette as being correct?
MR HLOPE: Even though they played those cassettes, I did not hear properly what was being said because they were not audible because the voice there was clear that the person was drunk. Whoever was talking there was drunk.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) Warrant Officer please? ...(inaudible) by Warrant Officer who?
MR HLOPE: It’s Wilson Magaza, former Detective Wilson Magaza.
MR DIAZ: Do you deny that you were recorded on that cassette?
MR DIAZ: Did you ever make an admission on that cassette or any other cassette that Mr Frank Dutton had, admitting that you had killed Mr Mandla Mkhize and Mrs Shabalala?
MR HLOPE: I do not remember admitting to Frank Dutton but I’m explaining with regard to the cassette. I say I do admit that I know something about the cassette but I cannot expatiate in that because I was drunk.
MR DIAZ: Sorry, were you drunk at the time you were listening to the cassette?
MR HLOPE: At the time that I was listening to the cassette I realised that, that was my voice but at the time that I was recorded, I was drunk. That was my voice in the cassette.
MR DIAZ: But however drunk you may have been at the time the recording took place, you do not deny that on that cassette is contained an admission by you that you directly killed Mr Mandla Mkhize and Mrs Shabalala?
MR HLOPE: I can’t hear your question well, could you repeat that please?
MR DIAZ: I said, however drunk you may been ...(intervention) Sorry, Mr Chairman?
MR DIAZ: Inability to hear on his headphones.
MR HLOPE: No English translation.
INTERPRETER: He still can’t hear.
MR DIAZ: He’s complaining that he still cannot hear.
ADV DE JAGER: Nothing has been said in the meantime that he could have heard since it’s been put back on the table.
MR HLOPE: No English translation.
MR DIAZ: The question is this Mr Hlope, ...(intervention)
INTERPRETER: He can’t hear, he’s hearing the speaker on the floor but he can’t hear the translation from the booth. Now that is correct, he can hear.
MR DIAZ: Mr Hlope, can you hear me now?
INTERPRETER: He can’t hear the translation from the booth.
MR DIAZ: Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now?
MR DIAZ: Can you hear me now? Good. My question is this, however drunk you may have been at the time the recording took place, do you deny that what was contained in the cassette was an admission by you that you had directly caused the death of Mr Mandla Mkhize and Mrs Shabalala?
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Diaz, before proceeding, were these cassettes admitted as evidence in court?
MR DIAZ: Sorry Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, I’m not fully familiar with what happened at the trial and to the extent that this set of documents may well contain aspects of the trial, I have not really gone through them and familiarised myself with it but my instructions from Mrs Mkhize is that these cassettes were given to her, she listened to these cassettes and she would testify about the contents of those cassettes.
ADV DE JAGER: But they’ve been ruled inadmissible, could it be admissible before us?
MR DIAZ: Acting on the premise that were ruled inadmissible, I see the difficulties in that regard except that inevitably that’s going to be the evidence of Mrs Mkhize nonetheless. And to that extent even if dealing purely with the credibility issues, I thought I should deal with the applicant or have the applicant answer to aspects in that regard.
MR DIAZ: Thank you Mr Chairman, members of the Committee.
Mr Hlope, I didn’t hear your answer to that question, I presume you didn’t answer it yet.
MR HLOPE: I did hear the question. What I’m going to say to you is that as I’ve already explained, I cannot explain with regard to the cassette. Maybe Ndjali Djali can tell you as to what happened because I cannot speak with regard to the cassette, the voice in there was mine but I cannot explain as to how my voice was taped - when was the conversation - when did the conversation take place and what was happening.
MR DIAZ: ...(inaudible) put it to you that you’re pretending ignorance, you’re pretending not to recall what the contents of the cassettes were. I want to put it to you clearly that you remember very clear that you had made a complete open admission on the direct killing of Mr Mandla Mkhize and Mrs Shabalala.
MR HLOPE: That is up to you, I have taken an oath before this Commission and I’m not going to lie before the Commission. It is up to you to force me to say anything that I do not want to say.
MR DIAZ: Mrs Mkhize in any case will say that when she heard the cassettes, she heard you speak crisply and clearly, not in a voice that sounded as though you were under any drunken stupor and in addition that you had made these admissions as I’d earlier set out.
MR DIAZ: Mr Hlope, you talked about Mr Mkhize the late, having had a tenant in the person of an old lady who had called constantly to Djamile and given information about ANC and UDF meetings at Djamile’s place sorry, at Mr Mkhize’s place, do you recall that?
MR HLOPE: Yes, I do remember that.
MR DIAZ: Mrs Mkhize instructed me that there was no old lady that she ever had as a tenant and particularly not during the lifetime of the late Mr Mkhize.
MR HLOPE: I say there was an old lady because at times we used to ferry her from that place to Djamile’s place. I say she was there, maybe she had no knowledge thereof but I do.
MR DIAZ: ...(inaudible) when the -sorry, do you recall that when the Chairman questioned you about the death of Mr Mkhize, you agreed that however much you may have participated in the death of Mr Mkhize, yours was not politically motivated?
MR HLOPE: Could you repeat that question once more?
MR DIAZ: Yes, I agree Mr Chairman. Mr Hlope, what I want to show is this, you did not know of any political involvement as regards Mr Mkhize.
MR HLOPE: Yes, I was a member of the IFP, I was in the IFP Youth Brigade.
CHAIRPERSON: The question is not that, the question is you did not know anything about Mr Mkhize’s political involvement, you yourself did not know anything, that’s the question.
MR HLOPE: I knew he was a member of the UDF or he was affiliated to the UDF because we had heard that there was some goings-on at his place and he was an opponent, that is our opponent as well as Djamile’s opponent.
MR DIAZ: But as you had admitted earlier in response to Mr Chairman’s questions, these things that you simply heard you did not know of them of your own accord, you did not know of them first hand?
MR HLOPE: That is correct that was hearsay, I do admit that.
MR DIAZ: I want to put it to you that your earlier testimony about the existence of an old lady who constantly reported to Djamile about UDF and ANC meetings at the late Mkhize’s house, was an untruth added only to give a political tinge to the murder of Mr Mkhize so as to motivate your application for amnesty on political grounds.
MR HLOPE: I deny that. What I’m saying is, as I was helping Mr Djamile I used to point out his enemies, that is his political opponents as I was trained by Mr Djamile to believe that the UDF was our political opponent as well as an enemy. They were killing innocent people.
MR DIAZ: Mr Hlope, you admitted earlier that you were paid R600-00 a month - you were given a membership card - you were given a 9mm firearm, do you remember?
MR DIAZ: But all of that took place after the death of Mr Mkhize, do you recall that?
MR DIAZ: Mr Mkhize died on the 15th of July 1988 and you were given your so-called membership identity card, firearm and overalls etc., in 1989, correct?
MR DIAZ: Your role insofar as the killing of Mr Mkhize was concerned was simply, went simply to the extent of following Djamile’s orders.
MR HLOPE: Could you please clarify that?
MR DIAZ: Well as regards the killing of Mr Mkhize, all you did was simply listen to Mr Djamile and point out Mkhize, is that your evidence?
MR HLOPE: I have admitted at first that I had a part in the killing of Mr Mkhize because I went to check on him personally being directed by Djamile who was a senior member of the IFP which was my organisation and I did that as a member of the IFP.
MR DIAZ: Yes, but you’ve just agreed now that you had no membership card by then. To what extent do you regard yourself as having been at that stage, an IFP member?
MR HLOPE: In my affidavit it is explained as to how I joined the IFP in 1987 after I had pointed out some members of the UDF for Mr Djamile. The appointment was effected in 1989, I’ve already explained that.
ADV DE JAGER: Isn’t there a confusion about the appointment as a special constable and the joining of the IFP, the two separate membership cards, could you ...(intervention)
MR DIAZ: Sorry, Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, I have not heard any evidence about two separate membership cards but until now all I’ve heard about is his single membership card and his joining in the year 1989.
CHAIRPERSON: I think that the document that we heard about was an appointment certificate, appointing him as a special constable. I don’t know anything yet about his IFP card and when that was issued, perhaps you can clear that up?
MR DIAZ: Thank you Mr Chairman.
Mr Hlope, you say that it’s all contained in your affidavit, can you tell us when did you become a member of the IFP?
MR DIAZ: And did IFP members carry cards to show proof of their membership of the IFP?
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) I think you want to know what ...(intervention)
MR HLOPE: What do you mean, memberships cards or what are you referring to?
CHAIRPERSON: Just listen to this - you say you joined the IFP in 1987, were you issued a membership card to show that you were a member?
MR HLOPE: Yes, that is correct.
MR DIAZ: Thank you Mr Chairman.
And you say that in listening to Djamile you did so in the execution of your orders as a member of the IFP?
MR DIAZ: But at the time Mr Mkhize was killed, however much you may have been a member of the IFP, your knowledge of the late Mr Mkhize’s political role was only from what you heard and not from what you knew, correct?
MR HLOPE: I would like to explain that Mr Mkhize was involved in politics although I do not know to what extent. I had heard from people, that is the person who was giving information to Mr Djamile had given information to the effect that Mr Mkhize was involved in politics.
MR DIAZ: Yes but Mr Hlope you did not know this of first hand which is the reason why when the Chairman questioned you, you admitted that you only heard of such activities of Mr Mkhize, correct?
MR HLOPE: That is correct, I had heard.
MR DIAZ: You talked about how you identified a red Chevrolet that the late Mr Mkhize drove in.
MR HLOPE: That is true, he was using that car.
MR DIAZ: Do you know whether Mr Mkhize was killed in the red Chevrolet?
MR HLOPE: I have no truth thereof but I heard later on that he was shot in the car.
MR DIAZ: By saying, in the car you mean the red Chevrolet?
MR HLOPE: I’m not referring to the red Chevrolet as I’m saying to you, I heard thereafter that he was shot in a car but not in the car.
MR DIAZ: How long before Mr Mkhize came to be shot, did you identify this red Chevrolet, was it a day before, a week before or a month before?
MR HLOPE: I saw that before he was shot.
MR DIAZ: Yes sorry, but how long before, was it the day before?
MR HLOPE: I saw it on the very same day, that is today then the following day he was shot.
MR DIAZ: You see Mr Hlope, that’s the difficulty I have with your evidence in this regard because my instructions are that the late Mr Mkhize had sold this red Chevrolet in February 1988 which is well before his death. He died on the 15th of July 1988 and at the time of his death all he had was a blue Ford Cortina and a maroon Peugeot.
MR HLOPE: What I’m saying is, I went there being sent by Mr Djamile, I saw his car and I went back to report to Mr Djamile as I had been sent.
MR DIAZ: Could you be mistaken about this vehicle?
MR HLOPE: No, I’m not mistaken.
MR DIAZ: Well if what Mrs Mkhize says is true about the sale of the red Chevrolet in February 1988, you do accept that it can’t be possible that you saw a red Chevrolet that Mr Mkhize was in?
MR HLOPE: Yes, if that is what you say maybe that could be so.
MR DIAZ: My instructions are also that Mr Mkhize did not have any or did not hold any ANC or UDF meetings at his home as you had spoken of.
MR HLOPE: I deny that. I do have people who can come before this Truth Commission to testify with regard to that. And I would like to explain further that as you are asking me about Mrs Mkhize, I wonder if Mrs Mkhize knows that the person who killed Mr Mkhize is prepared to admit that he’s the one that killed Mr Mkhize. I wonder if all of you are aware of that, that is why I have come before the Truth Commission, I have come to explain with regard to the role that I played in the killing but I did not personally kill him.
MR DIAZ: Mr Hlope, who is this person that will admit the killing of Mr Mkhize?
MR HLOPE: I would like to confer with my attorney before I go any further with regard to that matter.
CHAIRPERSON: He may well be giving hearsay evidence.
MR DIAZ: I accept that Mr Chairman.
You see Mr Mkhize had housed a number of youths who were pursued by the police at the time and that is as much as he did as opposed to holding ANC and UDF meetings.
CHAIRPERSON: You know I don’t think you can take it very much further. Obviously he wasn’t present in Mkhize’s house. Somebody - he says somebody reports to Djamile that meetings are held in Mkhize’s house and he is reporting what he has heard somebody else say so I don’t know whether he’s in a position to admit or deny whether people were in Mkhize’s house or not. If he were to say that I was there and I saw meetings were being held then it’s another matter but I think I understand his evidence to mean that Djamile was receiving information from somebody, whether it’s an elderly woman working at the house or not, he was receiving information from somebody that meetings were held there and that’s how he is relating that to us.
MR DIAZ: I accept that Mr Chairman, thank you. I don’t think that point could be taken any further. If I may be allowed the indulgence to revert to the cassettes as I had omitted to deal with one aspect in that regard?
Mr Hlope, if I understand my instructions correctly, at some stage you had admitted and it would appear as though this is contained in the two cassettes we talked about earlier that you admitted to having shot Mr Mkhize by using your firearm, having shot him in the cheek when a tooth of his came off and fell on the seat of his car, do you remember making that admission?
MR HLOPE: I had explained before that I cannot expatriate on the cassettes. I do admit my voice was in there but as to what had happened before then Ndjali Djali can explain to the Commission as to what happened. You’ve asked me this question many times now and I’ve explained it already.
CHAIRPERSON: When you say that your voice was on that cassette, the question that is put to you was that you voice was recorded as saying that you were directly involved in shooting Mr Mkhize. Now you admit that your voice was on that cassette and we’re trying to get an explanation as to how it is that that cassette says what is being put to you. Or is your answer, that my voice was on the cassette but I don’t know what I said, is that the answer?
MR HLOPE: Yes, that is what I want to say. That my voice is there but I don’t know how it came about that it was taped.
CHAIRPERSON: No, it’s not a question of you don’t know how it came about only, your voice was on that cassette and you do not recall saying or admitting on that cassette that you killed Mr Mkhize. That is what it is being sought to put to you, you see?
MR HLOPE: Yes, that is correct. I do not remember saying all those things, I do not know as to when they took place or the taping took place so I cannot explain with regard to the cassettes but I do admit that was my voice there. I could not even hear what I was saying in that cassette when I listened to it thereafter. They played the cassette at the Supreme Court.
MR DIAZ: Mr Hlope, Mrs Mkhize will testify and say that she was surprised that you had knowledge of the bullet wound to the face of Mr Mkhize and the fact that a tooth of his had flung out and fallen in the car, recorded by your cassettes well before your trial began. If you did not kill Mr Mkhize, how could you possible have known of this to have caused it to have been recorded.
MR HLOPE: As I’ve already explained that everything that is contained in the cassettes, I have no knowledge thereof even that portion with regard to the shooting and the teeth falling off or the tooth falling off, I had absolutely no knowledge thereof and I still stand firm that I did not kill Mr Mkhize.
MR DIAZ: Mr Hlope, I just want to put it to you finally in that regard that your entire version about that cassette is a very convenient one. Obviously you’re distancing yourself from it for obvious reasons.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) not a question that is a technical ...(inaudible)
MR DIAZ: Sorry that is true. I’m sorry Mr Chairman, I’m just putting it to him.
Mr Hlope, I want to take you to paragraph 22 of your affidavit. I see you do not have a copy there before you. In it you say - do you have a copy before you?
MR DIAZ: You would see from paragraph 22 that you say
"my sister Lindiwe Hlope reported to us that Mkhize was murdered and she passed the message to Djamile’s wife".
MR HLOPE: Yes, I do know that.
MR DIAZ: Than you follow by saying
"Mrs Mkhize came to report the death of her husband at Djamile’s house".
MR DIAZ: Is the reference to Mrs Mkhize there a reference to the late Mr Mkhize’s wife, Mrs Mkhize who is seated here now?
MR HLOPE: Yes, that is the same person.
MR DIAZ: Are you saying that she called at Djamile’s house to report this?
MR DIAZ: Why would she have done that?
MR HLOPE: What I can say is, it’s possible that maybe she was reporting it because Mr Mkhize and Djamile were sort of related to Mr Djamile’s wife. They even said it at the Court of Law that they were taken in Djamile’s Kombi’s during the funeral because they’re distantly related.
MR DIAZ: Well my instructions are that Mrs Mkhize denies having ever called to Mr Djamile’s house, says that nowhere was she related to Mr Djamile, owed no allegiance to Djamile and shortly after her husband’s death was mourning so much that she could not possibly have made that trip.
MR HLOPE: That is not true. Mrs Mkhize appeared - according to the testimony that was rendered in court, they had some relations and Mr Djamile had sold a stand, a vacant stand to Mrs Mkhize and it is very apparent that Mrs Mkhize is not telling the truth here. She’s behaving as if there was absolutely no relationship between her and Mr Djamile but they had sold each other a vacant stand. I feel very bad that Mrs Mkhize is not prepared to come forth with the truth.
MR DIAZ: Okay Mr - sorry, Mr Hlope, I want to deal now with the death of Kushana Kuzwayo. I know that you talked about this, as you said purely to show your truthfulness and to be open about everything you did and that you’re not applying for amnesty in that regard. Very briefly, I have a client here who’s instructed me that you’re not being truthful about your role that you played in the death of Kushana Kuzwayo.
MR HLOPE: I deny that. What is contained in my affidavit is true and whatever I’ve said in there is what happened. All that I did, I did because I was taking orders from Mr Djamile and I have no intention of misleading the Commission.
If there is anybody with anything to the contrary, he or she can come forth and say it. I have taken an oath - this is a sworn statement and I’m fully aware thereof, therefore there is no reason for me to come and sit here and lie whilst I’m applying for amnesty.
MR DIAZ: Well Mr Hlope, the late Mr Kuzwayo’s son is here and he will say that paragraph 32 of your affidavit that we’ve dealt with earlier is an untruth to the extent that you did participate in the actual killing of Kuzwayo, you had travelled in the car to Kuzwayo’s house and you were present in the vicinity of his house at the time he came to be shot fatally.
MR HLOPE: It’s not clear to me what you are saying. Are you referring to Kushana Kuzwayo or Mr Kuzwayo, could you please explain as to which Kuzwayo you are referring to now
MR DIAZ: I have said to you earlier that we are dealing with Kushana Kuzwayo and if you look at paragraph 32 of your affidavit which deals with other incidents, you deal there with Kushana Kuzwayo in particular.
MR HLOPE: Yes, I do understand that.
MR DIAZ: Now will you answer that question relating to your involvement? Do you want me to repeat that?
MR HLOPE: What are you saying, are you saying was I not at Mr Kushana’s place or what are you saying?
MR DIAZ: Will you look at paragraph 32 of your affidavit?
MR DIAZ: Do you see there you say the following
"After pointing out his house Vusi took me back to Djamile’s house by car"
MR DIAZ: And thereafter you say"
"Vusi and other males I could not identify, drove to Kushana’s house where they killed him"
MR HLOPE: Yes, that’s what I was saying.
MR DIAZ: Do I understand you to mean that you remained behind and they went by car?
MR DIAZ: So you had not travelled to Kushana’s house in the car, nor were present at the late Kuzwayo’s house when he came to be shot dead?
MR HLOPE: Yes. At the time that he was shot, I was not present but during the time of the pointing out I went there personally because I’m the one who knew Kushana’s house.
MR DIAZ: Now if I may just repeat what my instructions are. My instructions are that this paragraph of the affidavit is to that extent not true an untruth in that you were present at Kushana’s house, Kushana Kuzwayo’s house at the time the said Kuzwayo was killed.
MR HLOPE: What you were saying is not true, I deny it. I was not present at Mr Kushana’s place when he was killed but I was there during the time of the pointing out but during the time of his killing, I was not present.
MR DIAZ: You see Mr Hlope, it may be true that you were present at the time of the pointing out, we do not know about that but what we are saying is that you travelled in the car with a group of persons to the late Kuzwayo’s house and actively participated in the killing of the late Kuzwayo.
CHAIRPERSON: You will remember that he was found not guilty on this count.
ADV DE JAGER: What did he in fact do when he participated, did he ...(inaudible)
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, my instructions are that the applicant was on the outside of the late Kuzwayo’s house at the time persons entered the house and shot the late Kuzwayo and that when on of the brothers sorry, one of the sons of the late Kuzwayo walked out or the house he saw the applicant present there.
And of course additionally that the applicant had travelled in the vehicle of the group of persons who arrived there, so that his affidavit, paragraph 32 to the extent that he was not in the vehicle that travelled is untrue, thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: What’s your answer to that, that you’ve been seen outside the house at the time of the shooting while the others went into the house?
MR HLOPE: My answer is that I deny that, that’s not true because that Kushana’s son who saw me or who is alleged to have seen me, why was he not present at the trial to give evidence to the effect that I was present?
He said they were drinking beer and the person who killed Mr Kushana was the person who had come to look for space for his child and then if that is the case, if he was there why didn’t he give evidence against me to the effect that he saw me there.
I believe in reconciliation and I believe in speaking the truth, that is why I’ve come before this Commission to do a full disclosure, I don’t want to lie about this. There’s no reason why I should be lying because I’m convicted already and the truth is coming out slowly but surely and whatever I’m saying is true. I was taking instructions from Mr Djamile and I did point out but I did not kill.
MR DIAZ: Yes Mr Hlope, it does appear that the truth is coming out slowly but may I just tell you that I have instructions that the son would testify to that effect in as much that he may have not testified at any trial prior to this, I’m not familiar with that but he’s now prepared to testify, are you now prepared to change your mind knowing that?
MR HLOPE: I think his answer has already been given.
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, that is all that I have to deal with. I have no further instructions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DIAZ
EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: I’ll be very brief Mr Chairman. It is correct that you and Djamile stood trial together?
MR HLOPE: Could you please repeat that?
MR BRINK: Is it correct that you and Mr Djamile were on trial together in the Supreme Court?
MR BRINK: And you were both convicted and sentenced?
MR BRINK: Do you remember what sentence Mr Djamile received?
MR HLOPE: Yes, I do. Life sentence.
MR BRINK: Was he subsequently released?
MR HLOPE: That is correct. He was given indemnity and my application was turned down.
MR BRINK: He was given indemnity and your application was turned down?
MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?
MR SHANGWENI: No, Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SHANGWENI
ADV DE JAGER: Could I kindly - could you inform me, you were sentenced to 23 years imprisonment on the murder of Mr Kuzwayo, is that correct?
ADV DE JAGER: And what sentence what sentence did you received on the murder of Mr Mkhize?
INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.
ADV DE JAGER: What sentence did you receive on the murder of Mr Mkhize?
MR HLOPE: 22 years and they were supposed to run concurrently.
CHAIRPERSON: Did your client appeal against his conviction and sentence?
MR SHANGWENI: No, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other witnesses you propose calling?
MR SHANGWENI: That’s correct Mr Chairperson. With your permission, I would like to call Mr Jabulani Hlope, the father to the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hlope, will you please stand and raise your right hand?
JABULANI BOBBY HLOPE: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
State your full names and surname please.
MR HLOPE: Jabulani Bobby Hlope.
MR SHANGWENI: How are you related to the applicant, Msizi Jethro Hlope?
MR SHANGWENI: How old are you Mr Hlope?
MR SHANGWENI: Where do you live?
MR HLOPE: I stay in Claremont.
MR SHANGWENI: How long did you live there?
MR HLOPE: I’ve been staying there since 1956.
MR SHANGWENI: Do you know someone, Begezizwe Djamile?
MR HLOPE: Yes, he’s my neighbour.
MR SHANGWENI: How did Msizi come to know MR Djamile?
MR HLOPE: I was renting a room at Mr Djamile’s place and he had come to me.
MR SHANGWENI: According to paragraph 7 of Msizi’s affidavit, he states that, if I may quote
"after the grenade attack on Djamile and his colleagues, Djamile was sworn at by a group of UDF supporters who were standing on top of a hill near Kwamajosi. I was called by my father (meaning you) to Djamile’s place. My father took me to Djamile and he talked to me behind the house. It was during the night".
MR SHANGWENI: How many times did you call Msizi at the request of Djamile?
MR HLOPE: Quite several times, I don’t remember how many times.
MR SHANGWENI: At that time, after the first meeting between Msizi and Djamile, did you suspect that Msizi was involved in any unlawful activities?
MR HLOPE: I did suspect at some stage but I didn’t pay much attention to that.
MR SHANGWENI: If you were aware of those unlawful activities, why didn’t you report Djamile and Msizi to the police?
MR HLOPE: I was scared of him.
MR SHANGWENI: How did you know that he was going to be against you?
MR HLOPE: I do know because there are some other people that I can cite as examples that he fought with and attacked after he had realised that they were not on his side.
MR SHANGWENI: Could you explain to the Committee?
CHAIRPERSON: What was that question?
MR HLOPE: He killed Tulani Sebisi in my house.
MR SHANGWENI: Do you know why he killed Tulani Sebisi in your house?
MR HLOPE: He had killed him because they had an argument and he hit him with a knopkierrie and he fell down. Djamile was later called to shoot him.
CHAIRPERSON: Either the interpretation is not clear or I don’t hear properly. Who killed Tulani Sebisi, are you saying that the applicant killed him or are you talking about Djamile having killed Tulani Sebisi?
MR SHANGWENI: Mr Chairperson, I was asking the witness of incidents he knows of that made Djamile kill his opponents or people he disagreed with.
CHAIRPERSON: And he says ...(intervention)
MR SHANGWENI: And he said before the Committee he was fearful of Djamile.
CHAIRPERSON: I understand but ...(inaudible) he killed Tulani ...(intervention)
MR SHANGWENI: As a result he did not report him to the police.
CHAIRPERSON: I understand but he says he killed Tulani Sebisi in my house and then he called Djamile to shoot him, did I hear that correctly?
MR SHANGWENI: That’s correct Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: What does that mean - he says he hit him in the house with a knopkierrie ...(intervention)
MR SHANGWENI: Not a knopkierrie Mr Chairperson, the witness said he hit him with a stick first, someone hit him with a stick first and then Djamile came later and shot Tulani Sebisi at his house.
CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon. So it was somebody who hit Tulani Sebisi with a stick and then Djamile shot him.
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct. At his house.
MR SHANGWENI: Mr Hlope, what do you think of Djamile now, after all that happened?
MR HLOPE: He is a real bad person and he’s the reason my son is in jail now. He influenced my son badly.
MR SHANGWENI: No further questions Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SHANGWENI
MR BRINK: Just wait there, wait there.
CHAIRPERSON: Just tell him to wait there. Excuse me? Are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?
MR DIAZ: None at all Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: But what does this have to do with politics, the fact that your son is in jail, is it related to politics of what?
MR HLOPE: Yes, I think it’s got a lot of politics in it because they were members of some political organisations and they were forced to join these organisations.
ADV DE JAGER: What was Mr Djamile’s position in the IFP, in Inkatha?
MR HLOPE: He was a high profile member, he was holding a very high position although I do not know as to what the position was.
DV DE JAGER: Was he in Parliament at that stage?
MR HLOPE: He wasn’t, he wasn’t yet in Parliament.
ADV DE JAGER: Was he - he was not in the Kwa Zulu Natal Government at that stage?
ADV DE JAGER: What position did he have in the Government.
MR SHANGWENI: With your permission Mr Chairperson, I don’t think the witness will be in a position of ...(inaudible) but if the Honourable Commission wishes that we lead evidence to the effect that Mr Djamile was a member of IFP and a member of Kwa Zulu legislature then, then we can do that.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) won’t know about the details.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, well if he doesn’t know about the details he could tell me so, it’s not necessary for you to tell me, I’m asking him whether he knows. I’m asking him whether he knows what position he had and if he doesn’t know, he could tell me, I don’t know.
MR SHANGWENI: I will withdraw my comment then.
MR HLOPE: I’ve already said I do not know.
ADV SANDI: Besides the fact that you were a tenant at the premises of Mr Djamile, did you have any other relationship with Mr Djamile?
MR HLOPE: No, we were not related in any other way.
ADV SANDI: Were you a member of the same political organisation with Mr Djamile?
ADV SANDI: Did Mr Djamile mention anything to you about his son being a member of the same political organisation with him?
MR HLOPE: No, he never mentioned anything to that effect.
ADV SANDI: Mr Djamile has never said to you your son was a member of the IFP together with him - Mr Djamile?
MR HLOPE: No, he has never told me that.
ADV SANDI: Did you know your son to be a member of the IFP?
MR HLOPE: I knew that they were in the same group as Mr Djamile but I did not know that he was a fully fledged member.
ADV SANDI: Can you explain what you mean by a fully fledged member of the IFP?
MR HLOPE: I’m explaining because he also wanted me to be a member of the IFP but at a later stage he said I was far too old.
ADV SANDI: What would the difference be between what you have called a fully fledged member of the IFP and your son or a person in the position of your son?
MR HLOPE: I think that the difference is that if you are old, you cannot involve yourself in politics.
CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think he understands ...(inaudible)
ADV SANDI: You may not have understood the question clearly. What do people ...(intervention)
INTERPRETER: You may continue.
ADV SANDI: Maybe there’s no point to pursue the question, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, thank you very much.
MR SHANGWENI: With your permission Mr Chairperson, members of the Committee, I will now call Maqnoba Abraham Hlope.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you spell that name please for the purpose of the record?
MR SHANGWENI: Maqnoba Abraham Hlope, (spelt) the brother to the applicant.
MR SHANGWENI: State your full names and surname please.
MR HLOPE: Maqnoba Abraham Hlope.
CHAIRPERSON: Will you please stand Mr Hlope. Are you prepared to take the oath?
MAQNOBA ABRAHAM HLOPE: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. For the purpose of record, please state your full name and surname please.
MR HLOPE: Maqnoba Abraham Hlope.
MR SHANGWENI: How are you related to the applicant.
MR HLOPE: He’s my brother, he comes after me.
MR SHANGWENI: When you grew up, how did you relate to your brother?
CHAIRPERSON: What does that mean?
MR SHANGWENI: Mr Chairperson, I’m going to show that there was a difference in terms of their relation before Msizi was involved in his clandestine activities and after.
MR SHANGWENI: I’m indebted to you, your Lordship.
How did you relate to your brother Msizi Jethro Hlope?
MR HLOPE: We grew up like any other normal - like normal people. We had our tiffs as brothers and he got involved with Djamile at some stage but at a later stage we got on quite well.
MR SHANGWENI: During his involvement with Djamile, did you at any stage suspect him in any involvement of unlawful activities?
MR HLOPE: Yes, I did suspect because the people that he got used to were referred to as Djamile’s policemen and they were far older than him and I used to ask myself as to how he got along with them.
MR SHANGWENI: Are there any incidents that made you think that ...(intervention)
MR HLOPE: No English translation.
MR SHANGWENI: What are those incidents?
INTERPRETER: The speaker did not finish the question.
MR SHANGWENI: Are there any incidents that made you think Msizi was involved in unlawful activities and what were those incidents?
MR HLOPE: One particular day they - Djamile nearly killed me and Msizi was present together with other two males and my life was saved because I ran away at that stage. Djamile sent Delisile to my place and Delisile is Djamile’s maid and they asked Delisile to call me. I went to Djamile’s place and when I got to Djamile’s place he called me into his house which was just below the office which was within the premises.
When I got into that office, I saw some policemen, two White policemen who had some walkie talkies as well as guns and two other males who were unknown to me. Msizi was present during that day and he told me that he had worked with Msizi for a long time and he wanted me to also join so that we could be one thing and be united.
He further said that he could see that I was scared. He wanted me to take my ID and we could meet at Pinetown police station and I would get the two policemen, that is the White policemen, as well as the two other males. I did not do that. When I got out of the house - I was going up the stairs - I told Msizi that I wasn’t going to do that, why doesn’t he use his own children, why does he want to use us.
I was not going to do that, I was not going to collaborate with him in whatever he wanted us to do. These policemen were driving a blue XR6, they waited for until 2 o’clock and I think Msizi went back to report that I did not want to collaborate with them.
At about 1 a.m. during the night I was having a fight with Msizi and I saw some guys at night who were wearing coats and whilst we were having an argument they took out their guns and they said that I should take them to Djamile’s place and I should not look back.
We went to Djamile’s place and when I got into his yard, Djamile saw me and asked as to whether they got me. It was very apparent to me that I was the one they wanted and they said, yes they got me. There was a woman who was Djamile’s wife, Mama Zibugo. Mama Zibugo said it’s good that you did get hold of this dog, bring him in.
When we got into the house he said, Msizi we are going now, you are going to get into the front of the car and the rest are going to sit at the back and you’re going to take Maqnoba and put him inside the boot.
That’s when it became apparent that I was going to be killed and I asked myself as to how I was going to fit inside the boot because I’m fairly tall. I tried to remain calm and we went. Mr Djamile’s house is surrounded by a forest, I just ran into the forest and they shot after me but I managed to get right deep into the forest and I went to my other relatives.
MR SHANGWENI: Did you report this to the police?
MR HLOPE: No, I did not because I realised that he was collaborating with the police. He killed a man at my place but he was never arrested. He also shot another one but he was not arrested during all those incidents. The other one who survived was scared to report the matter. And he also gave him R100-00 not to report the matter.
MR SHANGWENI: No further questions Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SHANGWENI
CHAIRPERSON: What’s the purpose of this evidence.
MR SHANGWENI: The purpose of this evidence Mr Chairperson, was that I wanted to show that Djamile was a type of a person who could manipulate anyone for the purposes of achieving his political goals.
MR SHANGWENI: Yes, he tried to manipulate him Mr Chairperson and he succeeded in manipulating his brother Msizi Jethro Hlope.
CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think there’s any doubt in our minds about that.
MR SHANGWENI: I was putting it for the purpose of record Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions ...(inaudible)
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DIAZ: None from me Mr Chairman.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: No thank you Mr Chairman.
ADV SANDI: What was the purpose of the evidence that was led by the witness before this one?
MR SHANGWENI: Members of the Committee, I would say it’s the same purpose as this one and secondly I wanted to show that Msizi Jethro Hlope was called at the instance of Djamile by sending Msizi’s father to him. No doubt Msizi would not defy the authority of his father and Samuel Begezizwe
Djamile, taking into consideration his age at that time.
ADV DE JAGER: You see Mr Shangweni, I’ve got this difficulty, he’s applying for amnesty. The evidence you’re leading is sort of mitigating factors but you’re not leading evidence about the applicant’s personal motive in doing these things. I’ve got difficulty to see what his motive was, what his political motive was, not what Djamile’s motive was, to build and empire or to do whatever it was because we’re not dealing with Djamile’s application, we’re dealing with the applicant’s application. And as far as that is concerned I think you should consider whether in fact there was any political motive because in the evidence before us I’ve got difficulty in coming to that conclusion as far as the applicant himself is concerned.
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct member of the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: At an appropriate time you will address us on that aspect of the matter.
MR SHANGWENI: I will do that Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Anyway we have no question of this witness.
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other witnesses you are calling?
MR SHANGWENI: No, Mr Chairperson, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: It’s up to you, are you calling witnesses?
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, yes indeed I was hopeful to start with Mrs
Mkhize this afternoon, I see it is now just past 3.30 ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: There’s still a lot of time.
MR DIAZ: Do I have time, thank you. May I start with Mrs Mkhize. Mrs Mkhize?
CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Mkhize will you just stand and raise your right hand? Are you prepared to take the oath.
ZAMASWAZI TANDI MKHIZE: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: May I have your full names please.
MR HLOPE: Zamaswazi Tandi Mkhize.
EXAMINATION BY MR DIAZ: Thank you Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, before I begin perhaps I should say that on the record that has been handed in is contained a statement if not an affidavit by this witness numbered pages 109 to 111, otherwise numbered on the index seven.
CHAIRPERSON: It’s a two page document is it?
MR DIAZ: Thank you Mr Chairman.
Mrs Mkhize, do you recall that I read out to you the two page document contained in the record dealing with what you regard as your proposed testimony before this Committee today?
MRS MKHIZE: Yes, I do remember.
MR DIAZ: And do you confirm the contents thereof as being correct?
MR DIAZ: In addition, may I just ask you the following, you recall an incident during the trial of Mr Hlope and Djamile when you and Mrs Kuzwayo were walking towards the toilet during a tea recess when Mr Hlope approached you and talked to you.
MR DIAZ: Was there an incident prior to this when you enquired from the said Mr Hlope about who killed your husband?
MR DIAZ: Can you tell this Committee firstly about that prior incident?
MRS MKHIZE: I don’t remember the day but it was during the tea break at the court, when we went out to the toilet. Msizi was following his attorney Colin Stein and I asked Msizi as to why he had killed my husband, why did he do it. He did not answer me because they were getting into Stein’s office at the time.
The following day when we were proceeding to the toilet, I heard somebody calling me sister Tandi, sister Tandi. I asked Mrs Kuzwayo as to who was calling me but he was somewhere at the window and Mrs Kuzwayo said I should go to that window and I proceeded towards the window.
I stood there, the window was just above me and I heard somebody saying, I heard that yesterday you were asking as to why I had killed your husband, I was sent by Mr Djamile. He even told me that he pointed out Mr Zazi and I screamed later on and called people to come and listen to Msizi.
They came, that is including Mr Mthembu and a certain policeman who was in there. They opened and he spoke in front of all the other people as he had spoken to me before and now I’m surprised that he’s denying it today.
MR DIAZ: Mrs Mkhize is it true that after Mr Hlope said, sister Tandi, sister Tandi addressing himself to you, Mrs Kuzwayo in whose company you were tried to stop you from going to this voice but you of course indicated the person was addressing you and you were desirous of listening to him?
MR DIAZ: And then when you got to the voice, did you recognise this voice as being that of the applicant, Mr Hlope?
MRS MKHIZE: Yes, he told me that he was Msizi Hlope because I could not see him as the window as a little bit above me and I just could not see who was behind the window.
MR DIAZ: Did he then say to you, I heard the words that you uttered towards me yesterday that I shot your husband, I did not do it of my own free will to go and kill brother Mandla, I had been pressurized or forced by Djamile?
MR DIAZ: Did he then proceed to say, I am now prepared to confess about everything because I did not do any of these things out of my own volition, I had been pressurized to do it?
MRS MKHIZE: He did not say that he was prepared to confess or admit, I said to him, you must tell the court whatever you are telling me.
MR DIAZ: Did Mr Hlope the applicant, admit to you that he had killed your husband or did he not?
MR DIAZ: In admitting that he killed your husband, what did he say to you, what were his words?
MRS MKHIZE: He said, I am the one but I was instructed by Mr Djamile, I did not do it out of my own volition.
MR DIAZ: According to page 86 of the record, for the purpose of the record, you then became hysterical, you fell to the ground, you were taking away back to the parking area by Mrs Kuzwayo but before this you said to the applicant - it does not help to come and tell me all this since you killed my own husband, correct?
MR DIAZ: Thereafter the applicant said to you that he was prepared to go and confess in court and tell the court everything about what happened.
MR DIAZ: Is it not correct that you then enquired form the applicant when precisely he was going to make such a confession whereupon he replied that when it came to his turn to talk in court, he would make such a confession?
MR DIAZ: Is it not true that you then left with Mrs Kuzwayo, you went to the front of the court and you said to persons that Msizi had made this admission to you whereupon persons including Constable Zuma approached the applicant?
MRS MKHIZE: I don’t remember quite well because it’s quite some time but I saw a lot of people milling around us at the time.
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry Mrs Mkhize, did you tell him to go to the court and tell the court the truth or did he offer to tell the truth?
MRS MKHIZE: I said to him he mustn’t tell me, he must tell it to the court and then he said he will tell it to the court when his turn to speak comes.
MR DIAZ: And Mrs Mkhize, is it not true that you made a report of this to Constable Zuma and to other persons?
MRS MKHIZE: I don’t remember who told them but I saw people milling around where I had fallen, I don’t remember whether I told them or somebody else did.
MR DIAZ: Thereafter you made statements to Advocate Mike Himber about this and so did Mrs Kuzwayo who was then in your company.
MR DIAZ: Do you recall the applicant having responded under cross-examination that when he talked to you under those circumstances, his principle objective was to ask you to bring clothing for him from his sister?
MRS MKHIZE: How could he send me because I was his enemy as far as I’m concerned, that’s why he killed my husband.
MR DIAZ: During the trial you mentioned that as you were crying and you turned away, it is then that he talked about some clothing but that was not the chief motive, correct?
MRS MKHIZE: I don’t remember anything about the clothes.
MR DIAZ: Mrs Mkhize, at some stage you had the opportunity ...(intervention)
MRS MKHIZE: No English translation.
MR DIAZ: ... you had the opportunity of listening to two cassettes, were these cassettes given to you ...(intervention)
MRS MKHIZE: Yes, that is true.
MR DIAZ: Did you hear - sorry, who’s voice did you hear on those cassettes?
MRS MKHIZE: I did not stay with Msizi so I did not know his voice, I wasn’t sure of the voice that I heard but the person who was speaking was talking about Mr Mkhize’s death and that’s what happened thereafter. I believed that this should have been his voice.
MR DIAZ: To the extent that you were familiar about the manner in which your husband came to be killed, was the description on the cassette in accordance with that, that really took place with the facts.
MRS MKHIZE: I was not present during the time that he was killed, I was in the upstairs room and he was killed where the cars were. I heard some sound of gunfire, about three shots and I heard my child screaming but when I listened to the cassette I heard because he was shot on the cheek and his tooth fell out onto the car seat and we go the tooth and a later stage.
When I listened to that cassette later on from Lawrence Ndjali Djali, I heard about the tooth and to me the story fell into place. The missing part of the jigsaw puzzle was sorted out as far as I’m concerned.
MR DIAZ: Was there any admission on the cassette that the person who spoke on it admitted to having killed Mr Mandla Mkhize and Mrs Shabalala?
MR DIAZ: And is it not true that the voice on the cassette also identified himself as a person who pointed out Zazi Kuzwayo and Kushana Kuzwayo for the purposes of later killing them too?
MR DIAZ: You heard the evidence of the applicant about an old lady who was a tenant of your late husband and who also gave information, apparently to Djamile about certain ANC and UDF meetings that took place at your house, do you wish to say anything about that?
MRS MKHIZE: I do not remember that woman, I do not know that woman. If that woman was there, probably she was not old because people who were staying there at the time were not elderly people, they were just fairly young. I don’t know whether he’s referring to a woman or specifically an elderly woman.
MR DIAZ: But you say you that you know your husband well and insofar as you’re concerned your husband - sorry, perhaps I should ask it as a question than leading you, did your husband hold any ANC and UDF meetings.
MRS MKHIZE: It has never happened that there was a UDF meeting but what used to happen was, there were certainly youths, run-away youths or some youths who were arrested during the State of Emergency, they were harassed by the police and they used to run to my husband’s place. We used to hide these children because we could not chase them away because that was the situation. If you could give refuge to any children who were being chased or wanted by the police - because at that time the ANC was unbanned and Mkhize used to sympathize with the UDF as well as the ANC but he was not politically active.
MR DIAZ: To recall, the applicant as having spoken of a red Chevrolet that your husband had, did your late husband had at the time he was killed, would you confirm that?
MRS MKHIZE: Yes, he did own a Chevrolet but at the time of his death, the Chevrolet had long been sold.
MR DIAZ: Was the Chevrolet sold in February 1988?
MRS MKHIZE: The last time I got into it was when I had gone to hospital to undergo an operation and the car was sold whilst I was in hospital because I remained at the hospital for quite some time. By the time I came back from hospital the Chevrolet was sold already. He fetched me in a tax or in a E20 and he told me that he had sold the red Chevrolet and he had bought a Ford Cortina with a sun roof.
MR DIAZ: Your husband died on the 15th of July 1988, is that correct?
MR DIAZ: And at the time of his death he had a blue Ford Cortina and a maroon Peugeot?
MR DIAZ: But he used the blue Ford Cortina more often, did he not?
MR DIAZ: Do you recall the applicant as having said that you called Djamile’s house after your husband was shot and made a report to them about the death of your husband as is contained in paragraph 22 of his affidavit?
MRS MKHIZE: I don’t know what time he’s referring to because on Friday - whether - because he was shot on Friday the 15th or maybe he’s referring to another day, I do not know.
MRS MKHIZE: But did you ever go to Mr Djamile’s house after your husband died to make a report relevant to your husband’s death?
MRS MKHIZE: Yes, after he had been killed I used to go to Djamile’s place because at that time we were not aware as to who had killed my husband and Djamile used to phone and ask me as to whether I knew as to who killed my husband.
At that time I was not aware so I used to go to Djamile’s place. And when I got to Djamile’s place, we were buying a vacant stand from him and the installment used to be paid directly to him and I would go every month end to Djamile’s place to pay the installment.
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, that’s the evidence of this witness, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DIAZ
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) questions?
MR SHANGWENI: No questions Mr Chairperson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Very briefly, Mr Chairman.
Mrs Mkhize, your husband was an activist, he was an active UDF supporter wasn’t he?
MRS MKHIZE: He used to say that he like the UDF.
MR BRINK: But was he active in the UDF?
MRS MKHIZE: As a business man he did not have time to go to meetings but whenever the children came looking for cars, he used to give them cars especially after Mrs Mkleni had been killed. They came and asked for the car keys so that they could go to the memorial service as well as the funeral and they would bring the keys back. I think what I would say is, he was a sympathizer.
MR BRINK: Do you think his activities and his sympathies were well known in the community?
MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK
ADV DE JAGER: As far as you know, was there only one person involved in the shooting or were there more than one when your husband was shot? Could perhaps your - I see your child begged to save hi life, did he tell you whether he saw more than person or only one person?
MRS MKHIZE: I do not know because when I got to the scene, I saw no-one and by the time I got there people were now milling around and I came across my brother Bheki, coming towards my direction and he told me that they had already shot my husband and Phiso was screaming asking as to why his father was being killed. And when I asked as to who had killed his father, he said he did not see but he was begging for his own life.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much, you are excused.
Do you have what we normally call in legal parlance, a short witness we might sandwich in?
MR DIAZ: Indeed, I was just about to concede to that Mr Chairperson. Mrs Pilesile Kuzwayo.
CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Kuzwayo, will you please just stand and raise your right hand.
PILESILE KUZWAYO: (sworn states)
MR DIAZ: Thank you Mr Chairman.
Mrs Kuzwayo, you are the surviving spouse of the late Zazi Kuzwayo, is it not?
MR DIAZ: Your testimony however is relative to Mrs Tandi Mkhize, the surviving spouse of Mandla Mkhize, the late Mandla Mkhize?
MRS KUZWAYO: Yes, that’s correct.
MR DIAZ: You were in the company of Mrs Tandi Mkhize, the last witness during the trial relative to the applicant and one Djamile, when you heard the applicant make certain admissions, correct?
MRS KUZWAYO: Yes, that’s correct.
MR DIAZ: Will you please tell this Committee about that incident, starting from how it came about that the applicant spoke to you sorry, to Mrs Mkhize?
INTERPRETER: There’s a buzzing noise.
CHAIRPERSON: Can she hear if you speak, nobody has talked to her yet?
ADV DE JAGER: Can you hear me?
INTERPRETER: She can’t hear anything.
MR DIAZ: Can you hear us now? Can you hear us?
INTERPRETER: She doesn’t seem to be hearing anything.
MR DIAZ: I think it’s number one.
INTERPRETER: It’s on channel three. Channel three. Maybe it might do if we change the channels.
ADV DE JAGER: We have an English on three.
INTERPRETER: Yes, she can hear.
MR DIAZ: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mrs Kuzwayo, perhaps I should just take you briefly through it. During the course of the trial relative to the applicant and Djamile, you and Mrs Tandi Mkhize were on your way to the toilets when you heard a voice calling sister Tandi, sister Tandi, do you remember that?
MRS KUZWAYO: Yes, I do remember that.
MR DIAZ: You continued to the toilet and you beckoned to Mrs Mkhize, calling her away from the voice but she insisted on listening to the person who called her, correct?
MRS KUZWAYO: Yes, that’s correct.
MR DIAZ: You do not know what the person who called her said to her until much later when you returned from the toilet and you saw Mrs Mkhize on her back, distressed, distraught, hysterical, correct?
MRS KUZWAYO: Yes, that’s correct.
MR DIAZ: At that stage Mrs Mkhize made a report to you about the person that spoke to her and what he had said?
MR DIAZ: What did Mrs Mkhize tell you?
MRS KUZWAYO: I went to the toilet and Mrs Mkhize proceeded to the place where she heard the voice coming and when I came back from the toilet, I found her crying and I asked her as to why she was crying. She explained to me that the person who called her was telling her that he actually heard her asking him as to why he killed Mr Mkhize, so the person was answering back that he didn’t.
Mrs Mkhize was crying and I comforted her, I told her not to cry and I told her to report this matter to the police. We went and we told others and I told others that Mrs Mkhize was crying. I didn’t go there, I went inside a certain Kombi which was parked outside and I explained the whole thing to a neighbour of mine.
The next day we were asked to put statements as to what happened outside the Supreme Court. We gave our statements and another day during the same week, I was a witness in court.
MR DIAZ: And of course following upon this discussion, you and Mrs Mkhize made statements to Advocate Mike Himber about this incident, correct?
MRS KUZWAYO: Yes, that’s correct.
MR DIAZ: And you testified at that trial in this regard?
MRS KUZWAYO: Yes, that’s correct.
MR DIAZ: Mrs Kuzwayo, that is all I wanted to ask you about this matter but insofar as your late husband is concerned, is it not correct that you do not oppose the applicant’s application, nor do you support it, you will simply abide by this Committee’s decision?
MRS KUZWAYO: I would like to put before the Commission that I was hurt terrible, I lost a lot. Now that Msizi is requesting amnesty and if he’s telling the truth, I think the community and the society and the TRC as well will decide as to whether he’s telling the truth and whether he deserves amnesty or not. As long as he’s telling the truth, the people will decide on that.
MR DIAZ: Thank you Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, that is the testimony of this witness, thank you.
MR SHANGWENI: No questions your Lordship.
CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Kuzwayo, thank you very much.
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, I do have a further witness, he’s present here but I must say I don’t think he’d be as short as the last witness and I’m not too sure whether he’s going to be available to-morrow, I haven’t taken instructions.
MR DIAZ: Certainly, thank you.
MR DIAZ: The person being called is Mr Sebusiso Kuzwayo, the son of the late Mr Kushana Kuzwayo.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kuzwayo, will you please stand.
SEBUSISO KUZWAYO: (sworn states)
MR DIAZ: Thank you Mr Chairman.
Mr Kuzwayo, you are the son of the late Mr Kushana Kuzwayo, is that true?
MR DIAZ: You do know the applicant don’t you?
MR KUZWAYO: Yes, I heard of him.
MR DIAZ: Are you aware that the applicant has been acquitted on the charge of the death of your late father?
MR DIAZ: You do recall that the applicant’s stance at the trial relating to the death of your late father in regard to which he was charged, was that he knew nothing about your late father, are those your instructions?
MR KUZWAYO: Yes, that’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Was he at the trial, was your client at the trial?
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, I haven’t canvassed that but earlier he instructed me that at the trial this was the stance of the applicant.
MR DIAZ: Thank you Mr Chairman
Mr Kuzwayo, as regard to your knowledge of what happened at the trial, is this what you were told, about the applicant’s stance or is this something that you observed when you were at the trial?
MR KUZWAYO: My brother who was there when this thing happened and he was also present in court.
MR DIAZ: And you intend to have your brother testify here as well, do you not?
MR KUZWAYO: Yes, that’s correct.
MR DIAZ: He is the brother who has made these statements which is contained in the record which we earlier dealt with, correct?
MR DIAZ: Mr Kuzwayo, you do recall that the applicant mentioned in this application that he did have some role to play as regards the death of your late father?
MR KUZWAYO: Yes, I read about that on his affidavit.
MR DIAZ: Do you recall him having said that he pointed out your late father for the purposes of your late father being executed but that he did not accompany the killers to your late father’s house, nor did he participate in the actual killing as contained in paragraph 32 of his affidavit?
MR KUZWAYO: You referring here or in court?
MR DIAZ: No sorry, I’m referring to the affidavit which drew to my attention and particularly paragraph 32 thereof in which the applicant mentions that contrary to what he had mentioned - sorry, he didn’t mention this in the affidavit but from your knowledge, contrary to what he said at the trial, he now says that he did participate in the killing of your father but only to the extent of pointing your late father out, correct?
MR KUZWAYO: Yes, in court he denied having participated but in his affidavit he does agree that he was there.
MR DIAZ: Mr Kuzwayo, you do recall that when I cross-examined the applicant about the level of his involvement insofar as your father’s death is concerned, he mentioned that a group of persons had gone in a car to your late father’s house to execute your late father but that the applicant was not in that car, nor did the applicant - nor was the applicant at your late father’s house at the time of the killing, do you remember that?
MR KUZWAYO: Yes, I remember that but I don’t think that’s the truth.
MR DIAZ: According to your knowledge, more particularly from what your brother has told you, the applicant was present at the house when your father was actually gunned to death?
CHAIRPERSON: Why can’t he tell us what he knows instead of what his brother’s told him?
MR KUZWAYO: Yes, he was there, he pointed out and he was also present.
CHAIRPERSON: Let’s just get this clear man, you have a witness who is going to say that he was in fact there, this witness says he was told by that witness, so what relevance is his evidence?
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, unfortunately I’m constrained by the lack of the other witness and to the extent that I wanted to complete this witness for the convenience of this Committee ...(intervention)
MR DIAZ: As presently advised, I can’t unfortunately.
CHAIRPERSON: Lets be absolutely clear. You were not there when these people came to your house on the occasion when your father was killed?
MR KUZWAYO: No, I wasn’t there.
CHAIRPERSON: And what you know about it is what you’ve been told by members of your family?
MR KUZWAYO: Yes, that’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions to put to this one?
MR SHANGWENI: No questions Mr Chairperson.
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, as mentioned earlier, unfortunately I have no further witnesses for today except for his brother who unfortunately is not available today. I do not know when he would be made available. Perhaps if this Committee can tell me when next we are sitting I could then ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: We are sitting tomorrow morning at half past nine.
MR DIAZ: Could I then take instructions, Mr Chairman?
Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, my client indicates that his brother would be able to make himself available first thing tomorrow morning and would be able to testify but I understand from my learned colleague now who tells me aside that he has problems about tomorrow. Perhaps he can address the Committee.
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I was informed that the matter will disposed of today.
CHAIRPERSON: Informed by whom?
MR SHANGWENI: By my learned colleague, Mr Robin Brink. And I made arrangements to the effect that ...(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON: So when did you ...(intervention)
MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I don’t think I said the matter would be finished because one cannot possibly prognosticate, I did indicate that I thought it might be and I hoped it would be.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) all kinds of delays that are unexpected that occur in the course of a matter, you know that as well as I do. It does seem that if there has been any delay, that wasn’t any intention of delay on anybody’s part. If this is a matter of some importance to your client then I think you’d better make yourself available tomorrow morning. I would like to hear your argument as well and I don’t know whether that can be done until after you’ve heard his evidence.
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I would like to consult you in this regard in chambers and we’ll make proper arrangements.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Diaz, your witness would be testifying in connection with an incident or a murder as a matter of fact which is not on our role for amnesty, is that correct?
ADV DE JAGER: So we won’t bring out any decision that would affect your client.
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, I had considered that and as has been heard from the testimony of the last witness, the applicant has not been convicted in regard to Kushana Kuzwayo but my instructions were to lead that evidence for the purpose of credibility to show that in fact the applicant has not been absolutely truthful, honest and open with his application.
And purely from the point of credibility the next witness who is intended to be called tomorrow morning, will show that this applicant falls short at that level.
ADV DE JAGER: He should make a full disclosure about the offences for which he applies for amnesty. Suppose he killed somebody or he’d stolen property that’s not connected with his amnesty application, what would the relevance be?
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, I agree with that reasoning totally, I cannot disagree with that but only to the extent that the applicant has chosen of his own free voluntary decision and perhaps on the advice of his counsel to lead that evidence relative to the death of Kushana Kuzwayo, did my client come to instruct me to counter that on that level.
Had the applicant not dealt with the death of Kushana Kuzwayo, then obviously we would not have dealt with that either. It would seem to me that the applicant has an objective in dealing with that and as has been submitted by my learned colleague his counsel, it was purely to give a fuller honest, truthful impression. It is at that level that my client seeks to counteract it.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) I think we’ll take a short adjournment now and I want counsel to come and see me in chambers. We’ll stand down for a short while.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) now does that make things, does it simplify matters as far as calling further evidence is concerned?
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, I’m indebted to you. Indeed I have instructions not to call any further witnesses, the only other witness that I intended to call, the son of the late Kushana Kuzwayo in circumstances will not be called and I have no further witnesses, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you ...(inaudible)
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
May it please the Chairperson, members of the Committee, you have just heard evidence from Msizi Hlope. The nature of his evidence is that he was involved in assisting those who murdered Zazi Kuzwayo and Nicolas Mkhize by pointing out where they stayed and he’s taking full responsibility thereof.
The applicant also admitted that he took part in an attempt to assassinate Mrs Pearl Shabalala and pointing out Richard Piri’s house.
The applicant in his application, has shown the following:
He was a member of Inkatha and subsequently he was a special constable. There’s no legal documentation in support thereof but if the Committee allows me, I would like to refer it to paragraph 56 of the statement of B Alex Kumalo at page 191 of the bundle, where Mr B Alex Kumalo, he was a Caprivi trainee, confirms that an appointment certificate was issued without training.
MR SHANGWENI: Page 191 member of the Committee, of the bundle, paragraph 56 thereof.
ADV DE JAGER: But there’s nothing to ...(inaudible)
MR SHANGWENI: We have shown that in many instances those certificates would be issued and the people those certificates were issued to would believe that they were acting lawfully under the Kwa Zulu police. What I’m trying to establish is to associate his acts with the lawfulness of the Kwa Zulu police at that time irrespective of the appointment issued in a wrong name.
CHAIRPERSON: It’s not just a question of being issued in the wrong name, he wasn’t even trained, he was given a false, bogus certificate. That doesn’t make him a servant of the State.
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct Mr Chairperson but what is important is that, where did that money come from, it came from the tax payers money, that is from the State.
CHAIRPERSON: How do we know? How do we know that? ...(inaudible)
MR SHANGWENI: I will withdraw that ...(inaudible) Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: I suppose even if it was taxpayer’s money, who gave - who in the ...(inaudible) gave him the order to kill acting as a bona fide policeman? Who was his superior in rank who gave him the orders, there’s no evidence at all that any person ordered him to kill except Mr Djamile and Mr Djamile - there’s no evidence of him being in control of this special force.
CHAIRPERSON: What we know is that Djamile was an influential man ...(inaudible) but there’s nothing to show that he is an authorised officer of Inkatha ...(inaudible)
MR SHANGWENI: I’m withdrawing that submission Mr Chairperson, thank you.
At that time Mr Chairperson, the applicant believed that UDF or ANC supporters were terrorists who were just murderers who had no respect for the law. His acts were associated with a political objective because he was instructed by Mr Djamile who was a member of Inkatha then and he was also a member of Kwa Zulu Government.
His tasks, that is the applicant, were to point out Djamile’s political enemies and that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: That is very interesting, isn’t it, pointing out Djamile’s political enemies, not the Government’s political enemies, not Inkatha’s political enemies but Djamile’s political enemies.
MR SHANGWENI: Be that as it may Mr Chairperson. I don’t want to deal with evidence that emanated in other forums which pointed to the fact that some people would abuse power, political power. (no sound)
INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you. Sorry for that Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, it was well known at that time in Claremont that a political conflict existed between UDF and Inkatha supporters. This was as a result of an attempt to incorporate the Claremont township to the then Kwa Zulu self-governing State.
There was resistance to that effect and a committee was formed to oversee that process whereby Claremont residence were against the incorporation of Claremont township to the Kwa Zulu self-governing State.
Therefore Mr Chairperson, in light of that conflict, the applicant found himself on the other side of the conflict, that is on the side of Inkatha. His acts were committed in an execution of an order by Djamile who was also part of that conflict and he was made to believe and he believed ultimately that UDF supporters are his enemies.
In respect of the killing of Zazi Kuzwayo, the statement of Begezizwe Alex Kumalo, at page 187 of the bundle, paragraphs 43 and 46 thereof, if I may read - paragraph 43 reads:
"During the planning, Maslanduna meaning Dalikolo Woodsworth Letule said there was a boy, meaning Msizi Jethro Hlope who was going to accompany us and he was to go to see if Zazi Kuzwayo was present and if so, he was to come back and tell us the position as to where Zazi was.
It was agreed that if Zazi was there and the circumstances allowed us, we were to carry out the operation but if he was there and the situation was not right, we were not going to act but instead we had to check how the place looked like."
If I may further take you to paragraph 46 Mr Chairperson, which reads:
"From Djamile’s house, the hearse drove to Claremont post office where it was parked at a certain spot near the post office. Msizi alighted as arranged and he went to check inside Zazi Kuzwayo’s shop. After a short period of time Msizi Hlope returned and he came to us in the car and he told us that Zazi was there in the office inside the shop.
Thereafter Msizi Hlope left us and walked away".
MR SHANGWENI: Mr Chairperson ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: That wasn’t the evidence of the applicant.
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct, I’m referring you to ...(inaudible)
INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct, I’m referring you to the testimony - the statement of Begezizwe Alex Kumalo, a Caprivi trainee who has applied for amnesty and who has submitted this statement to the Committee.
ADV DE JAGER: But the statement contradicts your applicant’s version.
MR SHANGWENI: It doesn’t contradict in a sense that it confirms that the applicant did not take part in the killing of ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: But the applicant said he didn’t return to the car, he only had to give a signal.
MR SHANGWENI: Mr Commissioner, whether the applicant gave a signal or not, the fact of the matter is that he did not kill Zazi Kuzwayo, this is confirmed by this paragraph. That "thereafter Msizi Hlope left us and walked away". I’m reading it in that context Mr Commissioner. Thank you Mr Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: I’m sorry, Mr Shangweni, bearing in mind the requirements with which an applicant for amnesty has to comply before amnesty is granted - I’m not sure what you have said so far - how does that assist your client, would one be correct to say that the applicant in all the incidents referred to, he was just a tool in the hands of Mr Djamile?
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Commissioner. The appropriate words I think which I could use is, he was a political tool in a sense that he was made to believe that whatever he was doing was correct. If ...(intervention)
MR SHANGWENI: I think it’s proper that the applicant’s argument is ...(inaudible) in a sense that you don’t have to say whether he was a member of IFP at a specific period or not, then if it was not then he falls outside the ambit of the amnesty process but we have to understand the conflict. Had there been no conflict in Claremont at that period, he would then be finding himself sitting here as an applicant if there was no conflict. ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, there’s no doubt about differences, political differences between the two major political persuasions about whether Claremont should or should not form part of Kwa Zulu. I don’t think there’s any dispute about that. What you have to tell us or prove to us, is whether your client was the willing participant in whatever Djamile told him or asked him to do and for which he was paid. Is that not what actually happened?
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct Mr Chairperson, the applicant was willing in a sense that he had differences with his brother. He would have foreseen that as a result of those differences whatever he was doing was wrong but he believed in what he was doing and he continued. He defied his brother and he even stopped consulting his father concerning clothing, food and so forth.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that not because he was being paid for what he was doing?
MR SHANGWENI: Mr Chairperson, the applicant was paid after he carried out other transactions, not that immediately in 1987 he was paid, he was paid because he was issued a certificate an illegal certificate as a special constable, that was when he was paid, not before in 1987 when he assisted Djamile in issuing IFP membership cards and writing down the names of those people who did not head the UDF stay-away’s.
In conclusion Mr Chairperson, at that period the applicant’s involvement with Djamile, it would be appreciated that he was barely 16 years of age and it was easy for him at that period to have been influenced by either side of the conflicting parties. If he was approached by UDF comrades, I believe he would have followed the UDF comrades but in ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: That is conjecture, that is pure conjecture isn’t it? He followed this particular course because they were tenants of Djamile. Djamile must have exercised some measure of respect and control over his father, the applicant’s father and whenever he required the applicant, his father saw to it that, go to Mr Djamile he wants you to do something for him. And that is how it came about, it didn’t come about as a result of any political persuasion.
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct Mr Chairperson, but I’m trying to put the whole problem into a particular context that he’d been approached - I still maintain Mr Chairperson - by UDF comrades or if he was from a UDF family, he wouldn’t have done what he did.
I am saying that statement in that context Mr Chairperson. In his case he was influenced and he believed that whatever he did for Mr Djamile was correct because he was a figure, high political profile and someone respected in the community.
CHAIRPERSON: He would do whatever Djamile would ask him to do?
MR SHANGWENI: Yes Mr Chairperson, considering his youth at that time. As he grew he accepted that whatever he’s doing is correct.
ADV SANDI: Had Djamile not come to the applicant and ask him to do all these things he was asking him to do, would he have been in jail today for example, would he have landed where he is today?
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Commissioner. I don’t repeat the conjecture that has been mentioned by the Chairperson but I want to believe that, that would be the situation taking into consideration what’s taking place in the townships. You are either on the side of the UDF or Inkatha, that is a fact.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you mean there weren’t people there in Claremont at the time ...(inaudible)
MR SHANGWENI: In fact Claremont was a stronghold of UDF.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) either UDF or Inkatha ...(inaudible)
MR SHANGWENI: There are people who did not belong to either UDF or Inkatha but at that time he was youth, I would understand a person like Msizi’s father who was old.
ADV DE JAGER: Could you kindly assist me, section 20 sub-section 3 quote
"If we wanted to decide whether it was an act associated with a political motive, we should do so at the following ...(inaudible) criteria
a) The motive of the person who committed the act, that’s the motive of the applicant.
Is there any evidence before us what his motive was and what he wanted to achieve?
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Commissioner. His motive was that he wanted to see to it that those who opposed Mr Djamile must be dealt with because he believed that UDF supporters did not abide to the ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: That’s why I asked here about - and I asked the witness - and I wanted - and I addressed my problem to you while evidence was being led. What would this have to do with politics if I’ve got a grudge against Mr X because maybe he killed my nephew and I order a youngster, go and see whether he’s at home because I want to kill him, should I get amnesty?
MR SHANGWENI: I would say yes, Mr Commissioner, for the following reason, we look at this man who took this sixteen year old for the purposes of achieving his political gains because no doubt, according to the papers and the report of the Committee which was - if the Committee allows me - I’m not sure whether it was called Claremont Action Committee but it’s a Committee which was opposed to the incorporation ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: But he didn’t mention in his evidence, nowhere in his evidence did he mention that he was in favour or opposed - he himself, not what other people thought, what was his motive, was he opposed ...(inaudible)
MR SHANGWENI: Mr Commissioner, if you bear with me, I’m trying to put it into a context. I am saying there was this Committee which was opposed to incorporation, now I was looking at this man, Mr Samuel Begezizwe Djamile who took this youth to achieve his political gains because he wanted to create a stronghold in Claremont so that his views must be imposed on Claremont residents. One of them would be incorporating Claremont into Kwa Zulu self-governing State. In fact according to papers here, he denied that in court but according to the report by the Committee, he was opposed to their views that it should not be incorporated to Kwa Zulu Natal.
ADV DE JAGER: I understand, I understand Mr Djamile’s motive but Mr Djamile is not the applicant and the Act said, the motive of the person who committed the act omission or offence ...(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON: His motive was to satisfy Mr Djamile with whom he got on reasonably well and who paid him from time to time.
MR SHANGWENI: I would disagree Mr Chairperson, with due respect. I don’t want to disassociate the motives of Djamile and Msizi Hlope. A politician who wants to create a base where he stays, surely would use people like Msizi, like the Caprivi trainees clandestinely, that is why we today we have that difficulty in terms of linking his motive with a political objective. It’s because these things were done clandestinely, that’s the problem we have. I would bear with the Committee ...(intervention)
MR SHANGWENI: But I said earlier on Mr Chairperson, that at a later stage he associated himself with Djamile’s objective because he thought they were correct and he was seen as a member of Inkatha at that time.
You can’t issue membership cards to people whereas you are non-aligned or you belong to the other party. You associate yourself with that political party. The motive is implied in that regard.
ADV SANDI: Can I ask Mr Shangweni, just on the question of full disclosure, is it a coincidence that your client in all the incidents referred to, he seems to have been consistent in playing a very sort of minimum role, is that a mere coincidence?
MR SHANGWENI: It is not a mere coincidence but I would argue that common sense dictates to me that if we engage someone uncomplicated like Msizi, you’d limit his role so that he could not reveal your activities.
In fact Mr Commissioner, attached to Msizi’s affidavit, is a confirmatory affidavit from Dalikolo Letule who is also prepared to give evidence to the Amnesty Committee and according to his information to me, he told me that he’s applied for amnesty and he’s going to disclose everything. I don’t want to deal with his evidence.
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Your client was a young man from what you tell us, he was unsophisticated, is that correct?
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.
CHAIRPERSON: He merely carried out instructions from time to time and at some stage, according to what you say, he began to appreciate the importance of what Djamile was doing. In other words, Djamile was carrying out certain political objectives in going around doing what he was doing - killing people.
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: (no sound) ... that the applicant is now entitled to amnesty because he’d come to the conclusion that you solved political problems by killing people.
MR SHANGWENI: I didn’t hear that Mr Chairperson, did you say he is entitled or not entitled?
CHAIRPERSON: The applicant is entitled to amnesty because he’d come to the conclusion that political objectives can be achieved by killing.
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct Mr Chairperson, taking into consideration what he believed then, that’s correct. Mr Chairperson I will earn my argument there. There’s a special request from the applicant that he would like to meet with the victims and the next of kin in order to explain further other questions that did not arise in this forum. We should appreciate that forums of this nature cannot be appreciated by other members of the public in terms of the questions they would like to put to the applicant. So in that regard he requested me to ask the Committee to make that arrangement possible, thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Brink ...(inaudible)
ADV DE JAGER: Could I just ask you please, you should help me here. The Act says ...(inaudible)
INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.
ADV DE JAGER: Section 23(e) says
"Whether the act, omission or offence was committed in the execution of an order of the organisation"
Would you say there was an order from the organisation that he should point out or kill somebody?
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Commissioner, I wouldn’t say there was an order from an organisation but for the fact that an order came from someone who belonged to an organisation, the high profiled individual, one would imply that there was an order from that person.
If we take an approach that there should be an order from an organisation writing a letter that these things must be done, any organisation would end up not giving people amnesty if we are approaching it in that strict sense of the way.
ADV DE JAGER: But that’s why I asked you when he was giving evidence, what was Mr Djamile’s status in the party, was he a leader, was he a minister, was he connected in Government? And no evidence was put before us.
CHAIRPERSON: All we know he was a prominent political figure.
ADV DE JAGER: Was he authorised ...(no sound)
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I think that question whether the acts of Msizi were authorised by Inkatha, is for Mr Djamile to answer for the following reason
ADV DE JAGER: Unfortunately, Mr Djamile is not sitting here, we’ve got to answer it on the evidence before us.
MR SHANGWENI: That is why I’m ...(inaudible) in terms of answering it and I’m going to answer it Mr Commissioner. At that time, Djamile was a member of Inkatha, he was a Minister, a Deputy Minister of Interior of the ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, there’s no evidence in this hearing that he was a Deputy Minister of Interior and I’ve asked you about it and you didn’t present the evidence.
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Commissioner, I will withdraw that question but I will answer it in this way. Djamile was a member of Inkatha. Djamile was opposed to people who were supporting UDF. Djamile asked Msizi Jethro Hlope to point out his opponents to the would-be assassins. Djamile told Msizi Jethro Hlope that UDF supporters are acting unlawfully, they were terrorists and they were murderers.
Msizi believed that because he respected Mr Djamile. Msizi believed that because he thought Inkatha was a correct organisation. That is the nexus between the orders that were given to him, irrespective of whether he understood them or not, orders given to Msizi Jethro Hlope by Djamile.
CHAIRPERSON: You know I’ll tell you what the difficulty in your way is, he’s already gave evidence, he didn’t even know why he wanted the deceased killed, not Kuzwayo, the other deceased, the other ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes. He didn’t know, the applicant didn’t know why Djamile wanted this person killed.
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Chairperson. From the affidavit of the applicant, he states that he was told by Mr Djamile that UDF supporters are terrorists and murderers. In his evidence he said he believed that to be true.
In his evidence Mr Chairperson, he said he was told that Mr Mkhize held meetings, UDF meetings at his home. One would imply that if someone holds UDF meetings, he’s a terrorist, he’s a murderer as defined by Djamile in the affidavit of the applicant.
ADV SANDI: Mr Shangweni, I thought you said Claremont was a stronghold of the UDF and I understand from the affidavit of the applicant, that he was also resident in that area, is that correct?
MR SHANGWENI: That is correct.
ADV SANDI: In his evidence he does not say anything about having experienced or witnessed anything that shows that these UDF people were what Mr Djamile was saying they are, did he have any basis for believing what Mr Djamile was saying to him about these UDF people?
MR SHANGWENI: Thank you Mr Commissioner. I don’t think it’s fair to the applicant to have witnessed something before he becomes a member of Inkatha or UDF, it’s something that one makes voluntarily.
MR SHANGWENI: I think I’ve answered most of the questions Mr Chairperson and once more the request by the applicant, I thought it would be addressed by the Committee.
MR SHANGWENI: I will end my address, thanks Mr Chairperson.
MR BRINK: Save ...(inaudible) the difficulties which you have a share ...(inaudible) to some extent, it does appear that Mr Mkhize anyway was a well known UDF supporter. That appears in the evidence of Mrs Mkhize and also at page 109 of the papers, paragraph 3, she in her statement says he was a well known - well he was an activist, he was a UDF activist.
In fairness to the applicant however, motive is the problem but if he believed that Djamile who was a senior man in the Inkatha Freedom Party was ordering to do criminal things in the interest of the party, he may just scrape home, that’s all I can say but the difficulties I have ...(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON: You’re afforded an opportunity to make any comments if you wish to.
MR DIAZ ADDRESSES: Thank you Mr Chairman. Perhaps if I may, I’m indebted to you Mr Chairman, insofar as the witnesses that are represented are concerned, it would appear abundantly clear is my submission that the applicant has not been holistically truthful with this Committee.
That becomes increasingly apparent if one has regard to - if I may on this occasion as well refer to the Judgement, of copy of which is in the bundle particularly at paragraph 90 thereof in which the Honourable Judge had ...(inaudible) recorded his findings on credibility and fact insofar as these two witnesses are concerned.
MR DIAZ: Page 90 Mr Chairperson. The Chairman and Honourable Committee members will note that immediately preceding page 90 of the Judgement, the learned Judge had dealt at some length with the testimony that I caused to be adduced through these two witnesses namely, Mrs Mkhize and Mrs Kuzwayo and having dealt with that, arrives at the conclusion that their testimony must be accepted and says the following on page 90 from line three onwards
"The Mrs Kuzwayo referred to, Mrs Pelisiwa Kuzwayo confirms the evidence of Mrs Mkhize about the latter’s reaction at the cells and her emotional disturbance. She did not hear anything that number one accused said - number one accused being the applicant here said - but she confirms that others went around when she took Mrs Mkhize to the front of the court. She stayed and comforted Mrs Mkhize. I have already indicated that our view of Mrs Mkhize that she was an outstanding reliable witness and we 113 accept as truthful the other witnesses who gave evidence in this regard".
In that regard I submit respectfully that, that last paragraph of the Honourable Judge’s judgment ...(inaudible) records the finding I would like this Honourable Committee to record. Just lastly, insofar as the evidence of the applicant is concerned, I would criticize his application to the extent that I endeavour to defeat his credibility by using the same learned Judge’s comments on page 91 up to page 92 of the judgment, from the middle of page 91 where the learned Judge says the following:
"Accused number one gave evidence, he was a thoroughly mendacious witness, his demeanour was shocking. He contradicted himself, he changed his instructions to his counsel with no satisfactory reason given and it is patently clear from the record and patently clear to us that the conspiracy that he spoke of was a fabrication. From his counsel one would expect the best testimonial of his evidence before us that he could get and this is what Mr Steyn on his behalf said rightly, in our view
It is submitted that one should have approached accused number one’s evidence with the utmost circumspection. This means I submit, that each fact of his version must be examined with suspicion against the background of all the facts of his case".
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Diaz, let’s accept that he lied at the trial ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: That is why he was found guilty ...(inaudible)
ADV DE JAGER: He lied because he tried not to be convicted but now he comes and he confesses, he confesses that he in fact pointed out that he was a participant in the murders to some extent, why should be reject his evidence today, at least where he now admits that he took part although in a minor way but he’s guilty as an accomplice, why should we reject his evidence because he lied at the court at that time?
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, Honourable members, I agree that if that were the level at which the argument is premised, it would be acceptable except that I’m distinguishing his present testimony as being far from truthful to the extent that I’ve dealt with.
I’m saying that he were honest today and if he were totally truthful and open with this Committee, indeed his application may well be accepted. And in this regard I endorse the sentiments of Mr Brink but my submission is that it would appear that his application is not based principally on truth nor is he openly truthful with the Commission with regard to all his activity and ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: How does it help him not to be truthful when he’s in jail already, he’s been convicted, how does it help him to be untruthful?
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman, it would appear to me that this aspect of my submission would be conjecture but I think it is increasingly known in today’s circles, political circles particularly and given the volatile political life that we live in South Africa, that the applicant is talking amidst a whole series of persons from open public and if he were granted amnesty, he would have to now join the ...(inaudible) of the open public and if you are totally honest perhaps in saying things as Mrs Kuzwayo wants the Committee to believe, that he clearly directly shot Zazi Kuzwayo and Mrs Mkhize wants this Commission to believe that he directly killed Mr Mkhize, then I think he would suffer a degree of negativism from the public, put at best as negativism.
He may be rejected in society and I think he’s drawn the conclusion between being absolutely truthful and being acceptably truthful in order that if the application were successful, he can be released in open society and not suffer the scorpion bite of society.
Under those circumstances, what I was endeavouring to achieve was to endorse the sentiments expressed by the learned Judge, included in the Judgement, not failing to understand that he has been convicted but simply saying that, having regard to his application today, I would endorse those sentiments as being applicable even today. And the learned Judge as mentioned on 92 says:
"We reject his evidence as being false"
I submit that, that finding can well be made, even today, thank you Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, are there members of the Reparation’s Committee here, present?
MR BRINK: I understand Mr Chairman, the briefers who were with them are no longer here. There’s liaison people.
CHAIRPERSON: If the applicant wishes to speak to your clients and show his contrition to them, are they willing to do so, are they willing to meet and talk to him because if they are, then I will adjourn here, the Committee will adjourn to enable the applicant and whoever wishes to be with him, to meet and speak to the victims and the dependants of the victims, rather to the
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairperson, unfortunately I have no instructions thereon, I personally have no difficulty with that. Could I perhaps take instructions? Thank you.
Mr Chairperson thank you for the indulgence, my instructions are that Mrs Mkhize and Mrs Kuzwayo are not agreeable to talk to the applicant. Mrs Mkhize is still crying, has not answered me except for a nod of the head indicating her disagreement with the idea.
CHAIRPERSON: I would like to address a few words to the applicant.
The fact that in this gathering which is electrically charged at present, where strong views have been expressed by both sides, there seems to be some reluctance on the part of people who have been affected by the offences with which you are associated but I think that the initiative to attempt a reconciliation, that initiative will have to come from you.
The fact that at present it is not possible to do so does not mean that you cannot, through your attorneys and legal representatives, attempt to arrange a meeting, a personal meeting in the absence of members of the public, to arrange a meeting with the people with whom you would like to talk and from whom you would like to ask forgiveness, do you understand?
MR HLOPE: Yes, I do understand.
CHAIRPERSON: I take it that if your client makes such a request, you’re instructing attorneys or others who are interested in his welfare will take the necessary steps to bring about a meeting and those who have been affected by his actions.
MR SHANGWENI: That’s correct Mr Chairperson, that’s what we’ll do.
CHAIRPERSON: All right, that brings us to the end of this application and the Commission will now stand adjourned until the next hearing. When will that be Mr Brink?
MR BRINK: That will be on Thursday.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) efforts to see whether it is impossible to arrange for it to be heard earlier.
MR BRINK: I appreciate your concern but I’ve already discussed the matter with the attorney appearing, he’s just not available tomorrow or Wednesday.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, this Committee now adjourns and we’ll resume on Thursday.
MR DIAZ: Mr Chairman sorry, am I to be regarded as being excused?