DATE: 24TH JUNE 1998

CHAIRPERSON: We are today starting with the hearing of the applications of Ndzimeni Danster, Monwabisi Eric Kundulu and Lollie Kwakwarie, who are numbers AM0040/96, AM0050/96 and AM4296/96 respectively.

Would counsel please put themselves on record.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. My name is Wessels, J W Wessels. I'm an advocate from the Port Elizabeth Bar. I'm instructed in this matter by Namkosi Mshlantla and Associates and I'll be appearing for the first two applicants, that is Danster and Kundulu. As far as the third applicant is concerned, Mr Mapoma will advise the Committee what his position is.

MR NYOKA: Mr Chairman, I am Mpumelelo Nyoka. I'm acting for Mr Ngala who is apparently mentioned. I've been instructed by Cradock to be on a watching brief to safeguard his interests, that's all. I play no big role in this matter, thank you.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, with regards to Lollie Kwakwarie, the third applicant, you will notice in the bundle of documents that we've got, we do not have his application form here. What happened is that some in 1997 his application form was sent to him to complete.

Unfortunately he never returned it and there's never been communication with him. He has only showed up today and he has advised me that he is no longer proceeding with the application. In any event he is out of jail now. He was released on parole. So his application is not part of the bundle and I can venture to say that he is withdrawing his application for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he present?

MR MAPOMA: He is present Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is he?

Did you hear what Mr Mapoma has just said? Are you Lollie Kwakwarie?

MR KWAKWARIE: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: And do you confirm what Mr Mapoma has just told us, that you want to withdraw your application for amnesty?

MR KWAKWARIE: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: I think we ought to get this recorded. Can you come up here? You can speak on that microphone there.

You have confirmed that you are Lollie Kwakwarie and that you have spoken to Mr Mapoma and you confirm what he said?

MR KWAKWARIE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you now confirm that you wish to withdraw your application for amnesty. Do you understand that that means you cannot proceed with it again?

MR KWAKWARIE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: It is a final irrevocable decision on your part?

MR KWAKWARIE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mapoma, did you manage to get hold of any of the family of the victims or what is the position there?

MR KUNDULU: Unfortunately Sir, I have not managed to get hold of the families of the victims. The farmer - the telephone numbers that we had for Mr Boy Jordaan, the owner of the farm which was then occupied by the deceased, the Palvie family, I have not managed to get any response to the telephone calls that I've been making throughout the period.

The other telephone number that I had which was a Sydney telephone number for Mr Boy Jordaan, a response I received there was from a helper who said that that farm is not occupied by Mr Jordaan, it's a farm which belongs to a certain person. She referred to that person as Jannie or Mr Jannie. She had no knowledge of Mr Jordaan at all, nor of the incident that took place on the Palvies. That was the helper unfortunately. The said Mr Jannie, I could not manage to speak to him personally, I did not get him.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it you have telephoned Mr Jordaan's house in Cradock?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Not at this farm, his house in town.

MR MAPOMA: I telephoned his house in town and there was no response. I then phoned the number that is at the Leeukop farm and also at that number there was no response Sir, there was no reply.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] that he left for Pretoria and may be returning some time, the exact date is not known.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, the exact date is not known, but I can take it upon myself even after the proceedings start, to try and get hold of Mr Jordaan and if possible trace the next of kin of the Palvies, so that if possible we can get their submissions even at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears to me that in the interests of the parties present we should proceed with the hearing but I think that your suggestion is a good one. We will not make a finding, we'll give you time to make contact with Mr Jordaan.

I think that if the police were requested to assist they should be able to, he is obviously a man who owns several farms in the area, they should be able to get information as to his whereabouts and then find out if there are any victims, that is children of the deceased and I think they should be told, not only that they make submissions but that if they are interested they can be given a transcript of the evidence that has been led because that may well effect any submissions they wish to make but if they abide by the decision then it will not be necessary to do that.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Sir, I take not of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, shall we proceed?

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. There is little that I can add to what is set out in the memo as reflecting the actual incident which gave rise to the present applications before the Committee. I have provided the Committee members with copies of the applicants' affidavits and there will also be other documents. May I propose that the application or the affidavit of Danster be marked Exhibit A and the affidavit of Kundulu be marked Exhibit B for easy reference.

CHAIRPERSON: I would also like to place on record that we have been given a copy of the Judgment in the case of S V KUNDULU AND ANOTHER. I think we are obliged to you Mr Wessels for this and we would thank you for having made this available to us.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. There are two more documents that I beg leave to make available to the Committee at this stage. The first document is a document from the Cradock Advice Office. It is in respect of Mr Danster. This document is with the secretary. If this document can be marked Exhibit C, and there is a similar document which has a bearing on the second applicant, Mr Kundulu from the same office. If that document can be marked Exhibit D.

CHAIRPERSON: In the application we heard yesterday we

were also referred to a letter from the Cradock Advice Office. Perhaps you could tell us precisely who they are.

MR WESSELS: Apart from the information as is reflected on the letter, I am not in the position to tell the Committee anything more of them. Perhaps the applicant, when I lead his evidence, could elaborate. I will deal with this document. If he cannot do so I will endeavour to present further evidence dealing with ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it necessarily requires evidence. I think if you could merely inform us, it may be that that explanation would be accepted, I don't know. Mr Mapoma may have some information that he wants to enquire about but I think we could start on the basis that merely informing us would be sufficient. Carry on.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Before I tender the evidence of the applicants, there are also some amendments for the sake of clarity that ought to be made. If the Committee will bear with me, page 2 of the bundle of documents, paragraph 9(a) 1. Certain offences have been set out there, 9(a) 1 on page 2, what is mentioned there is:

but it will be noticed that later on there is reference made to the two persons that died, that is on page 3, 9(b). So the conviction was not only for one count of murder, it was for two counts of murder. In paragraph 9(a) I, it should be:

The:

is right. The:

it relates to the unlawful possession of firearms. There were two counts. The:

is right, there was only one count of unlawful possession of ammunition. The:

that's also referred to as malicious injury to property, that is right and then there's the reference to ..[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: "malicious injury to property"?

MR WESSELS: That is the m.i.2.p. as it's commonly referred to.

CHAIRPERSON: But surely it's "malicious damage to property" and malicious injury to persons.

MR WESSELS: Well it is commonly and all over the years it's been referred to as m.i.2.p., malicious injury to property, but be that as it may Mr Chairman it is in fact the damage to the property. Then there's reference to:

That is an incorrect reference, it is:

That was the charge which he faced and of which he had been convicted.

Then on page 6 of the bundle of documents, paragraph 12(c), that is right at the top, we have the same references and again it should be:

two counts of murder. That's page 6 of the bundle of documents. The:

is correct.

The:

is in order.

it refers to:

and again the:

should read:

On the same page at 12(g), the sentence is imposed - it's just for clarity's sake that I mention this, it is recorded there the:

were imposed. That is correct but the two death sentences were subsequently commuted to:

On page 9 of the bundle of documents, this particular application form does not have all the details. Paragraph 9(a) 1 merely refers to:

Again it should be:

And I beg leave to have the other charges included there:

and again the:

And then on page 13 of the bundle of documents, the same information that was reflected in respect of the first applicant applies similarly. It's the paragraph 12(c) and 12(g).

Then Mr Chairman, on page 15 of the documents, the counts are set out there, the:

is not complete, it is:

And the:

that there were:

for the firearms. For the rest it is in order.

On page 18 of the volume of documents reference is made to the ...[intervention]

MR MAPOMA: Excuse me, sorry Chairperson. I would like to get clarity regarding the acts for which amnesty is sought here, is it these amendments in particular? Do I understand it to mean that: "theft" is no longer included there?

MR WESSELS: He was never convicted of theft.

MR MAPOMA: What I want to ...[intervention]

MR WESSELS: Yes, I take the point, thank you Mr Mapoma, Mr Chairman. That's possibly a valid point raised by Mr Mapoma because certain articles were stolen but I think that would be covered by the charge of robbery because robbery is in effect theft by violence. So theft in itself would already be covered by the robbery charge, so we will not be proceeding with an application for theft on its own.

Mr Chairman, I dealt with page 15. On page 18 at the top reference is made to the reported case. The particular reference could possibly just be added there although a copy of the Judgment has been provided, that's 1991 Volume 1 SACR at page 270(A).

On page 19 of the bundle of documents Mr Chairman, this is just for the sake of completeness, again there's only reference to:

where the charges are set out. It should read:

And the:

relates to the:

On page 21 right at the bottom, again there's reference to the reported case, the reference I've given to the Committee: 1991 Volume 1 SACR 470 (A).

Thank you Mr Chairman, with that then I wish to call the second applicant, Mr Kundulu. He will be testifying first.

ADV DE JAGER: What is the date of the statement on page 19 for instance? There is a date stamp when it was received by the TRC but I can't make it out.

MR WESSELS: The original in Mr Mapoma's file might be clearer. My copy is also not clear Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: It appears to be the 5th of June 1997.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: That was in any event before the latest cut-off date for applications I believe.

MR WESSELS: That is so Mr Chairman. Mr Mapoma can just confirm that.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, is the answer.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I then wish to present the evidence of the second applicant, Mr Kundulu first.

MONWABISI ERIC KUNDULU: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Kundulu, how old are you?

MR KUNDULU: 39.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry Mr Wessels, we've got a document, I don't know whether you've got a copy but we've been supplied with this document by our Evidence Leaders. It's a copy of the charge sheet and there's an Annexure to it, the property that has been robbed or stolen. I don't know whether you've got a copy of that, I think it's a relevant document and you should have a copy of it or be given a copy of it.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I don't have a copy of that. Perhaps in the course of use tendering the evidence I will be provided with a copy thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it should also be made clear that also annexed to it is a summary of substantial fact. I will arrange to have a copy made available now.

MR MAPOMA: No, Sir, I don't have a copy. I'm sorry for not giving it to Mr Wessels.

CHAIRPERSON: So there are two copies we want.

MR WESSELS: I'm sorry Mr Chairman, it seems as if I'm off the air, there appears to be something wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you hear me talking?

MR WESSELS: Not through the mike.

MR WESSELS: It's in order now, thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Kundulu, how old did you say you are?

MR KUNDULU: I'm 39 years old.

MR WESSELS: And did you grow up in the Cradock area?

MR KUNDULU: That is so.

MR WESSELS: Do you have relatives there at Cradock?

MR KUNDULU: My parents are there.

MR WESSELS: Are you married?

MR KUNDULU: No.

MR WESSELS: Were you a member of any organisation whilst you lived in Cradock?

MR KUNDULU: I was a member of Cradoya.

MR WESSELS: Could you just explain what Cradoya is, what sort of organisation is that?

MR KUNDULU: Cradock Youth Association.

MR WESSELS: And was Cradoya affiliated to any other organisation?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, it was affiliated to UDF.

MR WESSELS: Which in turn was again affiliated to the ANC?

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: Did you hold any rank in the organisation, the Cradoya organisation?

MR KUNDULU: No.

MR WESSELS: Were you ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: When did you join Cradoya?

MR KUNDULU: In 1984.

MR WESSELS: Was there also a self-defence unit operating at the time at Cradock?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, there were around 1985.

MR WESSELS: Were you in any way connected to the self-defence unit at Cradock?

MR KUNDULU: Yes.

MR WESSELS: How were you connected to that unit?

MR KUNDULU: We would protect the community against the police and the harassment that was going on.

MR WESSELS: Did you have any leader?

MR KUNDULU: Yes.

MR WESSELS: Who was the leader?

MR KUNDULU: Comrade Xolile Ben Situngu was our commander.

MR WESSELS: Could you just tell the Committee something more about Mr Situngu?

ADV DE JAGER: Could you kindly repeat the name please. Who was the commander?

MR KUNDULU: Comrade Xolile Ben Situngu.

MR WESSELS: Could you just tell us something more about Mr Xolile Ben Situngu? What position did he hold?

MR KUNDULU: He would give instructions when we had to go and disarm the farmers. He would get information that a certain farm has weapons and then he would give us the information in turn.

MR WESSELS: You say in paragraph 3 of Exhibit B, that is your founding affidavit, that you received certain information from somebody who used to reside on a certain farm, could you just elaborate on the aspect please?

MR KUNDULU: Yes. There was information that Xolile received. I think it was in February 1987. They said there was a farm Leeukloof with weapons. He said that he'd heard from someone who used to stay on the farm.

MR WESSELS: How far is Leeukop from the area where you were staying at Cradock?

MR KUNDULU: The instructions we got were such that we should go to the farm, there were weapons and that we should go and take the weapons and bring them back.

MR WESSELS: And was anything said about what should happen about the farmer?

MR KUNDULU: We were just supposed to disarm the farmer. If he refused to hand them over we were told to do anything but we had to disarm the farmer even if we had to kill him.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you told this as part of your instructions, as an SDU, that you were to kill farmers?

MR KUNDULU: That is correct. At the time we were very angry people. In our area our leaders had been killed. There were children, innocent children who had been killed, therefore when we had to go and disarm the farmers we were not going to do as they liked. We were not going there to please them. We had to do anything, go to any measures to get the arms. If they showed any resistance they would get injured or killed.

MR WESSELS: Who was it that gave you these instructions?

MR KUNDULU: As I have already said, it is comrade Xolile Ben Situngu.

MR WESSELS: And who was present when he gave these instructions?

MR KUNDULU: What do you mean, like a witness? I'm not really understanding the question.

MR WESSELS: We presume that you were present when he gave the instruction, is that correct?

MR KUNDULU: Correct. It was myself, Ndzimeni Danster, Lollie Kwakwarie and Xolile.

MR WESSELS: The Mr Danster that you referred to, is that the first applicant in this matter?

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: Did you know the farm Leeukloof that was mentioned to you?

MR KUNDULU: No, I did not know the farm.

MR WESSELS: What steps were taken to execute this order that was given to you?

MR KUNDULU: Please repeat your question.

MR WESSELS: Once this order had been given to you that you told the Committee about, what did you do? How did you go about in obeying this order then, what did you do?

MR KUNDULU: We tried to make the necessary arrangements. First we had to get a car to transport us to the farm.

MR WESSELS: Will you proceed from there? What did you do and how did you continue? In your own words explain to the Committee what happened.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike's not on.

ADV DE JAGER: Who was the leader of your group, the four of you who went to the farm?

MR KUNDULU: We had no leader when we went to the farm. The person who gave us the instruction was comrade Xolile Ben Situngu. He was left behind. He just instructed us. It was myself Lollie and Ndzimeni Danster. There was no leader amongst the three of us when we went there.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Xolile, where is he presently?

MR KUNDULU: I heard that he died.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Will you then proceed from there, the three of us then proceeded, you got a lift, what happened?

MR KUNDULU: This is what happened: We made the necessary arrangements, we tried to get a car to take us to the farm. We went to Mr Pumujana Galawe. Fortunately when we went and asked him to take us to the farm he said that he was going to drive that way anyway. He told us the time that he was going to go. He had to go and collect his money from various farmers. He said he'd fetch us at about 7 o'clock.

After we had made these arrangements with him we told him where was going to get us, the specific house. It was Lollie, Ndzimeni and myself. We went to the house where we had told Mr Pumujana Galawe he was going to find us.

On the way Lollie went into another house and he said we should wait for him. When he got out of the house he went out with a man that was more or less his age. He introduced this man to us. He said that this man's name Lolosi Mgolose who stayed on the farm. ...[intervention]

MR WESSELS: You're referring to the farm Leeukloof now?

MR KUNDULU: Yes.

MR WESSELS: Yes, proceed please.

MR KUNDULU: He told us that Lolosi stayed on the farm but went to school in the township, it is Lolosi who was going to show us the way.

We then left, the four of us because Lolosi had now joined us. We went to the house where the man with the car was going to find us. We waited for this car. This car truly arrived at about 7 o'clock as stipulated. It was a bakkie.

Lolosi and myself were in the front of the car because Lolosi was going to direct Mr Pumujana to the farm. Lollie and Ndzimeni were riding at the back of the bakkie.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was riding at the back of the bakkie?

MR KUNDULU: It was Ndzimeni Danster and Lollie Kwakwarie. There were other people riding at the back of the bakkie. I don't know the people. Can I carry on?

MR WESSELS: Please carry on.

MR KUNDULU: I asked Mr Pumujana not to drop us right at the farm, he must just take us close to the farm so that we walk the rest of the way because we did not want the farmer to see any, the lights of the car. Truly he dropped us close to the farm and we walked the rest of the way.

When we got to the farmer's house we stood on the veranda trying to go inside but the dog started barking. I think Lolosi got scared of the dog. We had told Lolosi what we were going to do at the farm so when the dog started barking he said we should not try to get into the house because that Boer didn't want anybody around his house at that time of the evening. He then said we should go and spend the night at his house. I then asked him what we were going to tell his father if we were to sleep at his house.

There was going to be - his brother was being circumcised so they were going to celebrate that so we were going to say that we were going to attend the celebrations.

MR WESSELS: Just before you proceed from there. Were you armed, you or any of your companions armed at that stage?

MR KUNDULU: We had knives.

MR WESSELS: Is that all, only knives?

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] Did they leave at 7 o'clock in the morning or 7 o'clock at night?

MR KUNDULU: In the evening, it was seven in the evening.

MR WESSELS: Will you then proceed with your evidence. You then proceeded to the house of Lolosi?

MR KUNDULU: Before we went to Lolosi's house we listened to Lolosi and we decided that it would not raise any suspicions with Lolosi's father if we told him that we'd come to the celebrations of his brother's circumcision.

We got there, the brother was there, a girl and a small boy. They were listening to the radio. We greeted them, we introduced ourselves, we told them what we had gone to do there. After that Lolosi's father arrived. He greeted us and he asked us what we had gone to do there. We told him that we had come to the celebrations of the brother's circumcision. He did not have a problem with that, he said we must be given some food and that a place to sleep must be prepared for us.

Before we slept he told us, Lolosi's father told us that or was asking us that we should not leave the house in the morning or too early in the morning because the farmer was going to come and count his sheep and he did not want to see anybody who was not staying at the farm or who was not living at the farm. We agreed and we then slept.

In the morning we got up and truly the white man came and counted his sheep. We were in the house. After a while Lolosi's father came to eat his breakfast. He told us that the white man had left. He said maybe we wanted to go and use the loo or walk around, we were then allowed to do that he said.

We had seen yet another white man in the farm. We asked Lolosi's father what about the other white man, won't he have a problem with us. Lolosi's father's response was that that one was going to leave for town and he was no problem.

We then got out, stood in the sun, went to the loo. After a while we saw a car driving towards town, it was the white man that we'd asked Lolosi's father about. After this white man had left we asked if we could take our baths. Lolosi's elder brother said we should all go because they washed in the dam and the dam is right next to the Boer's house.

It was myself, Ndzimeni, Lollie, Dumezweni, Lolosi's brother and also two boys. Lolosi was left behind. When we got to the dam Dumezweni started taking off his clothes and also the two young boys and they started swimming in the dam. Lollie and I asked Ndzimeni to stay behind with Dumezweni. Lollie and I then went to the farmhouse.

When we got there I threw a stone at a window and broke it. Because Lollie is taller I asked him to open the window so that we could go inside the house. We got inside. We first got into their bedrooms and we searched for the firearms. We found a rifle in one bedroom but it was not loaded with bullets.

We continued to search but we did not find anything but I saw boxes that were locked with padlocks. I thought that there would be firearms in there. I went into the kitchen to see if I could not find anything to break the padlocks. I found an axe and I broke the padlocks. There were plates in the boxes that were wrapped in newspapers. In one box, there was a small safe in the box and when I opened it there were buttons or there were police badges.

I have a cold, I'm not very well. I'll take a glass of water please.

I took this box with these badges and I thought to myself that I was going to show Ndzimeni because it was clear that the farmer was also a policeman because those badges were South African Police badges. We continued the search. We took two to three hours searching the house but we did not get any weapons or firearms.

Lollie and I then left but as we were leaving, going to the dam, I noticed that Dumezweni had seen that we walked out of the farmhouse. I then told Dumezweni that we had come to disarm the farmer. We then told him that he should not be too shocked that we had not come to the celebration of his circumcision but we had come to get weapons and we'd heard that there were firearms in the house.

We then told him that we'd be very pleased if he would tell us where the firearms were because we searched the house and we found a rifle with no bullets. What Dumezweni said was that there were weapons previously, a whole lot of them. The same man who counted his sheep in the morning left with the firearms and he took them to town where he actually lived.

However, the white man who left later to go to town stayed in the farm and the only firearm he had was the rifle that we had found and two small guns. Dumezweni said that he was sure that if the small guns were not there and we had not found them there it was clear that they'd left with the small guns to go to town.

We then took a decision that we should go back to Lolosi. We asked Dumezweni not tell anybody in the farm what we had gone to do or what our intentions were. We then went back because we were going to wait for that white man when he comes back from town because we wanted the two small guns that they had apparently left with.

As we were waiting there Lolosi's other brother arrived. Ndzimeni, Lollie and I went back to the house, the farmhouse. When we got there Ndzimeni and Lollie went inside the house and I was left outside the house. The car parked outside and a white lady opened the kitchen door and got inside. After a moment the husband followed.

It was not too long a while when Ndzimeni called me. When I got inside it was quiet. When I tried to listen carefully - there was a bedroom right next to the kitchen, I heard a noise, some funny noise. I tried to go to the bedroom to see what was happening. When I got there Lollie was busy beating this lady with a hammer. I went back without having said anything.

I went to the kitchen. When I got to the kitchen, on the table there was a bag. I opened the bag and I found a small pistol, car keys. I then told Ndzimeni that I'm going to turn the car around. I said Ndzimeni must not forget to tell Lollie to come with the rifle. I parked the car right next to the kitchen.

Ndzimeni had two suitcases when he walked out. I asked him where these suitcases were going and he said he'd been given those by Lollie. I asked where Lollie was and before he answered Lollie came with a rifle and a wall clock. I did not ask any further. He got inside the car and I drove off.

We got to Lingelihle and Lollie said or requested that we go and, we drive to his uncle's place and he directed me. We got there, parked the car and he took out the two suitcases and the rifle. After that I drove and parked at the graveyard. We burnt the car.

After we burnt the car we dispersed, everybody went to their own house to take a shower or bath and have a change of clothing. We decided that after we'd finished doing that we had to go and meet at the house where we had waited for the car that transported us to the farm in the beginning, Mr Pumujana's car.

Truly we met and after we met we left and went to look for Xolile. We wanted to give Xolile the weapons that we had found. We also wanted to give him a report back. Unfortunately we did not find Xolile's house.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt you for a moment. What were the weapons you were going to give him?

MR KUNDULU: It was the rifle and the pistols that we'd found.

CHAIRPERSON: The one you found in the bag, did you take it?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, I took it. We were also going to give that one to Xolile. When we did not find Xolile we decided that we should not part without having given Xolile feedback as to what happened at the farm. We then decided to spend the night at that house where we'd waited for the car. We spent the night as decided.

In the morning we went and looked for Xolile at his house again. We did not find Xolile but we found his sister and his brother-in-law. Lollie then told Xolile's brother-in-law that he had a suit and a wall clock that he was selling.

Xolile's brother-in-law took us in his car to Lollie's uncle's house. He then came back with the suit and the wall clock. We also went back to Xolile's house. They said that they would pay Lollie after lunch. When we did not find Xolile we thought that we should phone other comrades.

We did not have public phones in the township at the time because we always used to destroy them because that's how people informed the police, through the public phones. We'd have to phone in town, use the public phones in town.

If the public phones in town were busy we would go to the coloured area to phone. We then went to town that morning, after we had not found Xolile. When we got to the phones in town it was full, there were queues of people trying to phone. We then decided to go to the coloured township to phone.

On our way to the public phones at the coloured township we saw a car coming towards us. When we looked carefully after the car had stopped, it was the police. I had forgotten the police but now I remember, it was Captain Gouws and a Lieutenant Goosen. They said that we should put our hands in the air and they started searching us. They started searching Ndzimeni, they did not find anything, and then Lollie.

Whilst they were searching Lollie I had the small pistol with me. There was one man searching, the other was watching us with a gun. I tried to throw the pistol away because I did not want them to find it with me. Unfortunately they saw me as I tried to throw it away and they arrested us.

MR WESSELS: You subsequently appeared in the Supreme Court, the High Court and you were convicted of various charges.

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: You were convicted of housebreaking with the intent to rob and murder, for which you were sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: You were convicted on two counts of murder and in respect of both counts you were sentenced to death.

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: You were also convicted of robbery, in respect of which you were sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: You were convicted on two counts of unlawful possession of firearms, in respect of which you were sentenced to 3 years imprisonment on each count.

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: You were also convicted of the possession of ammunition, in respect of which you did not have a licensed firearm for and on this count you were sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: And you were convicted for the damage to the motor vehicle and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment in respect of that count.

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: The end result was that the terms of imprisonment was ordered to run concurrently, which resulted in you receiving two death sentences and an effective 20 years imprisonment.

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: Your co-applicant, Mr Danster, received the same sentences in respect of the same counts for which he was convicted.

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: You were transferred to death row in Pretoria where the two death sentences were eventually commuted to life imprisonment.

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: And you are presently serving this term of imprisonment at St Eldon's Prison.

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: Now in paragraph 10 of your founding affidavit you elaborate on your aim and objective in doing what you did at the time, will you just explain to this Committee the purpose of going to that farm and the purpose of obtaining the firearms? How did this assist or further the objects and aims which you were hoping to achieve?

MR KUNDULU: First of all as I've said, I was a member of Cradoya. In 1985 our leaders were killed, Matthews Goniwe, Calata, Sparrow Mkhonto and Nostelum(?) Mhlauli. They were killed very badly.

As the youth we were sure, we were certain that the police had killed them. Besides that there are a whole of innocent children, for example a six month old baby or five month old baby would be killed by the police in our presence. They would throw teargas canisters for no apparent reason.

They would have certain raids and the farmers would help them. Some of these farmers were soldiers, some of them were reserve police. These farmers helped the police. We would see them helping the police raid our houses. They would beat people up as well. We did not like these farmers, especially the police, because of all they perpetrated against our people.

What fed our attitudes negatively even more were these incidents. We were fighting for our black people and that's why we went to the farm, we did not care whether they died or not because our people were dying all the time as well. What would happen is that our people would be killed and they would say that they are investigating the case, but to this day they would not find the people or the perpetrators who had killed our people.

We wanted the government of the day to lose its white people as well, we wanted them to die too and we were hoping that they would not find us just like our leaders were killed and the perpetrators would never be found. At the time as the youth we did not regret that the farmers lost their lives.

CHAIRPERSON: Could I ask the interpreter what word is using for farmer?

INTERPRETER: Farmer.

CHAIRPERSON: He's using a Xhosa word for farmer?

INTERPRETER: Yes, he says: "Ama Farmer".

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR WESSELS: When you searched the house on your first entry of the house and found the police badges in that box, how did this make you feel?

MR KUNDULU: When I found the police badges - is that the question about the police badges? I did not hear the question.

MR WESSELS: I'll repeat the question. When you found the police badges in that box on your first entry of the house, how did this make you feel?

MR KUNDULU: I was angry, that's why I decided to take these badges, so I can show Ndzimeni that this Boer that lived on the farm was also a policeman and that he had knowledge of the dubious activities of the police. It made me angry and I was filled with hatred.

MR WESSELS: Before you found the police badges in that box did you know that that particular farmer was in any way connected to the police?

MR KUNDULU: When we went there we heard from Lolosi that sometimes policemen come and visit the white man. Through that information we knew that he was a policeman.

MR WESSELS: Was there any other way that you could get hold of firearms for use by the self-defence units?

MR KUNDULU: There was no other way to find weapons except by disarming the farmers because the oppressed people, especially the black people, they would hardly be allowed or be given the opportunity to get licenses for firearms. The government deliberately did not give black people opportunities to get licenses for firearms.

MR WESSELS: What would Xolile have done with the firearms that you intended handing to him?

MR KUNDULU: As I have already said, we got the weapons from the farmers. If we were sent to go and get firearms from a certain farmer, when we find the firearms they would be kept and be given to SDU members eventually. Xolile knew where to take the firearms or who to give the firearms to.

MR WESSELS: What would the SDU members then eventually do with these firearms if they get handed to them?

MR KUNDULU: The firearms were going to be used to protect the community and to shoot the police because we did not want the police in the townships at the time.

MR WESSELS: Whose decision was it not to have the police in the townships?

MR KUNDULU: It was the communities decision, the residents because the police were harassing the residents. Therefore it is the residents, the community that did not want the police in the townships.

MR WESSELS: There is a document before the Committee in this particular instance, it's Exhibit D. This is a document letter from the Cradock Advice Office, could you just tell us more about the Cradock Advice Office? Did you have any dealings with this advice office?

MR KUNDULU: This office, there were two organisations in Cradock, Cradora for the residents and Cradoya for the youth. Everything that happened was reported at the office, they knew what was going on through these two organisations. For example, when we got arrested it is the office that would try to get representatives for us, legal representatives. I hope that is clear for you.

MR WESSELS: Now this document, Exhibit D has been signed by a Mr Ntombela as the Chairperson of Cradoya, did you know this gentleman?

MR KUNDULU: Yes.

MR WESSELS: And it's also signed by a Mr Ngala who was the treasurer of Cradoya, which was in turn affiliated to the UDF. Did you know this gentleman?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, I know Sepiwe Ngala.

MR WESSELS: Did you have any personal dealings with either these two gentlemen that signed Exhibit D?

MR KUNDULU: No. The people that worked with them were the comrades that commanded us.

MR WESSELS: It is recorded in Exhibit D, and I quote from Exhibit D, that:

Do you agree with what is stated there?

MR KUNDULU: It is so, I agree.

MR WESSELS: Did you share that objective in order to make the township a no-go area for the police?

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: And in order to achieve that objective did you need firearms?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, we had to be armed so that we shoot the Boers and they're not able to come into the township, at least that they're not able to come into the township easily.

MR WESSELS: Did you personally gain anything in the form of a financial benefit from this attack on the farm?

MR KUNDULU: No.

MR WESSELS: Was the attack on the farm in any way associated with a personal vendetta on your part?

MR KUNDULU: No.

MR WESSELS: In a statement by your former co-applicant, Mr Kwakwarie, on page 23 of the bundle of documents refer is made in the second sentence from the bottom, to a comrade Mongezi Nlani. Now this Committee heard, there was reference to a certain Mongezi Nlani in another matter here yesterday, did you know Mr Mongezi Nlani?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, I knew Mongezi very well.

MR WESSELS: What position did he have or what sort of work did Mongezi do?

MR KUNDULU: He did not have any particular position, he was just a member of the SDU.

MR WESSELS: What happened to the two suitcases full of articles that were taken from the farm?

MR KUNDULU: What happened is that when we got arrested Lollie handed them over to the police. The reason why the suitcases were there is that we were waiting for Xolile and expecting him or expecting to talk to him and talk to him also about the suitcases because we went to the farm for arms.

We were told not to take anything else but the firearms but if it does happen that you take anything more than the firearms or other than the firearms, we should not fight over whatever that is, we should take everything that we'd got from the farm, firearm or not, to the commander. This is why we wanted to give Xolile a full report as to what happened and also tell him about the suitcases and then he would see what to do with the suitcases.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you to say you had been told not to take anything but firearms? That's what you've just said, is that correct?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, that was the instruction but he continued to say that if it does happen that one of the comrades takes something else, the people in the mission should not fight over or argue about any other objects. We should take everything to the commander and the commander would see what he does with everything taken from the farm. And the comrade who has taken something else other than the firearm, would have to explain to the commander what they were going to do with the objects.

CHAIRPERSON: Well can you explain why you took all these very many things from this house, contrary to instructions?

MR KUNDULU: I cannot explain because we were told not to argue if one of the comrades takes objects other than the firearms. The commander said that what was important was that we should take everything to the commander, report back to the commander. It is the commander that would deal individually with the concerned comrade who had taken the objects.

CHAIRPERSON: But that was merely to prevent trouble between you wasn't it? You were told not to take anything else but if somebody did take anything else you shouldn't argue about it, you should take it to your commander who would deal with it, isn't that what you've just been telling us?

MR KUNDULU: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Just on that aspect ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Okay on that, why did you then allow Lollie to sell some of the property and went with him to sell it in fact, if you had to hand it over to the commander?

MR WESSELS: As I've said, we were given an instruction not to fight over these things. The things that Lollie was selling he was selling at the house where Xolile lived. The very same Xolile who'd given us the instruction to go to the farm. Lollie was not paid but Xolile's brother-in-law said that he would pay him in the afternoon. We had not found Xolile then. Xolile would get back to his house and would take his own decisions, either take the money but he's the one who was, it's Xolile who was going to deal with the comrade, not me.

CHAIRPERSON: So Lollie misbehaved, because you have told us, I thought very clearly, that you had to hand goods over to the commander but you have also in your evidence told us that Lollie saw these people said that he had things to sell.

MR KUNDULU: That is correct, that's the truth. You are correct, he did sell the things.

CHAIRPERSON: But that is wrong, he should not do it you've told us.

MR KUNDULU: The commander was going to deal with Lollie accordingly. I was not a commander, there's nothing I could say to Lollie. I was instructed not to fight over these things.

ADV DE JAGER: And Lollie was a 14 year old child and you at the time were 28 years of age, double his age and you allow him to sell things contrary to what the instructions were.

MR KUNDULU: I could not argue with Lollie about these things, I was following instructions. That Lollie was 14 years of age is not an issue, it is the commander or I knew that the commander was going to deal with Lollie. It was not my place to deal with him. Those were the instructions that I was given. I knew where he'd sold them and that he had sold them as well. It is the commander that was going to deal with him after that.

CHAIRPERSON: You also knew that they had taken two suitcases from the house.

MR KUNDULU: The first time I saw Ndzimeni with these suitcases I asked him where he was taking them and he said he'd been given them by Lollie. There was nothing I could say, I could not argue and I could not ask them to take them back.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not? You could have said: "You're not supposed to take anything, leave them here", there's not difficulty.

MR KUNDULU: I have explained to you, when we've been sent to a mission and one of the comrades does something that he is not supposed to do we're not supposed to fight over that. We were given specific instructions, I could not argue with Lollie.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not fighting for you to tell a 14 year old child: "Look, you know we're not supposed to take anything, just leave those goods here", is it? One would expect a man to do that to a child, to advise him he was doing wrong.

MR KUNDULU: First of all, yes, Lollie was 14 and he was a comrade. He was following instructions and he knew what instructions he had been given. I could not argue with him or give him my instructions. I'm supposed to go to the commander and report everything to the commander. It would be the commander then that would deal with Lollie. I was following instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Wessels.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, should it possibly be advisable to mark the indictment and the summary as Exhibit E for easy reference. I have now also been provided with a copy of those documents. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you be much longer?

MR WESSELS: I'm almost finished Mr Chairman.

Mr Kundulu, just on this aspect that you were not entitles or not supposed to take anything else but firearms, you have explained to the Committee that you took the motor car.

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: And that you eventually set the motor vehicle alight.

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR WESSELS: Would you just explain your actions in the light of your instructions not to take anything but firearms from the farm?

MR KUNDULU: We were supposed to take the car. We were given instructions about the car. We were taken from the township by a car and this car did not drop us at the farm, it dropped us close to the farm so that the farmer does not see the car or the lights.

Now, as I've already said, this farm I estimate is about 20 to 25 kilometres from the township. We were told to come back in the car or the bakkie. We could not walk from the farm and walk for 25 kilometres carrying firearms. On your way to the township from the farm you have to go through town. We were told to take the car, the farmers car. That's why we took the car and drove in it and after that we burnt the car, that was the instruction.

MR WESSELS: Mr Kundulu, in the course of your evidence you have dealt with virtually everything mentioned in your founding affidavit, but insofar as there may well be aspects in your founding affidavit that you did not deal with, do you incorporate your founding affidavit as part of your evidence before this Committee and do you adhere to what is contained in your founding affidavit?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, that is so.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the short adjournment at this stage.

MONWABISI ERIC KUNDULU: (s.u.o.)

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I've completed the questioning in chief.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYOKA: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I just have two questions.

Mr Kundulu, I'm acting for Mr Ngala. We are not opposing your application for amnesty, but I just want to clarify one thing. You said that he wrote a letter, your letter representative submitted that he wrote, he signed not wrote, he signed a letter from the Cradock Legal Advice Office suggesting that you get legal representation. What I want to know, did he make any suggestion or advice about the particular farm mission to you before you went to the farm, Mr Ngala?

MR KUNDULU: No.

MR NYOKA: Finally, you said that this farm was about 25 kilometres from Cradock, what I want to know out of interest, if I can be allowed to ask that question, was this farm next to the Post Chalmers Police Station which was a place used in the killing of the PEBCO 3, do you know?

MR KUNDULU: This farm is not towards the same direction, towards the Post Chalmers direction.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you Sir.

Mr Kundulu, is it correct that you were trained as SDU's in Cradock?

MR KUNDULU: I was not trained but I was a member of SDU.

MR MAPOMA: Was there no training at all for the members of the SDU's in Cradock?

MR KUNDULU: At the time there was not training.

MR MAPOMA: But there were commanders?

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR MAPOMA: Now, when you went to the Leeukloof farm you went there for an operation as members of the SDU, do I understand that to be correct?

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR MAPOMA: And normally when people go for an operation there is a commander for that particular operation amongst those who go there, is that not correct?

MR KUNDULU: That is not correct because the commander, our commander did not come with us, he just instructed us and we went.

MR MAPOMA: Are you saying that when you went there for a mission there was no person who was in control of the operation itself?

MR KUNDULU: Nobody had authority to lead us.

ADV DE JAGER: Who decided on the time you should go into the house, who should stay outside, who should search? Wasn't there anybody saying: "You go in, you stand watch", was there nobody taking control?

MR KUNDULU: As I've already said, there was not leader.

CHAIRPERSON: And as you've already said, you were the person who asked Ndzimeni Danster to stay behind with the brother, that is so isn't it?

MR KUNDULU: Correct, I asked him.

MR MAPOMA: And Ndzimeni took those instructions to stay outside, is it so?

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR MAPOMA: Now let us come to the farm itself. Was it the general position that was taken by the SDU's that the farmers generally are collaborating with the police?

MR KUNDULU: We would see some of the farmers, some of them were new, that they're working with the police, we would see them.

MR MAPOMA: So, do I understand it that your attack was not directed to any farmer but to particular farmers?

MR KUNDULU: I wouldn't say that there were specific farmers that were targeted. We perceived all the farmers as not being good and these are the reasons: the farmers would treat their employees very badly and other than them supporting the police we knew that they were ill-treating our people.

ADV DE JAGER: But this farmer gave a goat to be slaughtered that morning for the circumcision festival?

MR KUNDULU: I wouldn't know whether they had bought the goat from the farmer or they were given the goat for free.

CHAIRPERSON: But you in your evidence this morning told us that he had been given a goat to be slaughtered by the white man, don't you remember telling us that? Are you now trying to change your story?

MR KUNDULU: I'm not trying to change my story, I'm trying to explain that that goat was given to them by the farmer but I don't know whether they were given the goat free of charge or the farmer was giving the goat to them because they had bought it.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that your explanation for having said they were given the goat?

MR KUNDULU: It's Lolosi's brother who brought the goat who said that they had been given the goat to slaughter, I did not ask.

INTERPRETER: The word: "give" in Xhosa can be either to be given the goat, the two words in Xhosa, to be given the goat or to be given the goat because they'd bought it.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Sir.

Mr Kundulu, let me perhaps be direct with the question. What I want to find out from you is that, what is it that led you into attacking those farmers in that particular farm actually? From what I gather from you is that all the farmers generally in Cradock were perceived as enemies of the people or as people who were exploiting the people. Now what I want to find out is why specifically this particular was attacked at that time.

MR KUNDULU: The reason why that particular farm was chosen, there was information that there arms in that farm. We were then instructed to go to the farm to get the firearms.

MR MAPOMA: This information which you had, did it tell you who the owner of that farm was?

MR KUNDULU: The information did not, it was not divulged who the owner, the name of the owner of the farm was. We heard from Lolosi's father as he was saying that particular evening that we were going to spend the night, he said we should not get out of the house in the morning because the owner of the house was going to get there and count the sheep. That is when we found out what the name was.

MR MAPOMA: From your evidence it has transpired that there were two farmers who were in that farm, the first one left and then the second one left later. What I want to find out from you is, the information that you had, did you have any information that a particular had these firearms?

MR KUNDULU: Our commander said that he got information that at that farm there were weapons. He did not stipulate and say whether it was the owner who had the weapons or it was the other man that's dead there. We heard when we were already in the farm that it is the owner who had the weapons but had left with them to the house he lived in town. It is the white man that left later that we expected to have the two firearms that we were told of.

MR MAPOMA: So what you're saying is that these firearms that you were looking for turned out actually to be those which were taken to town and were not in the farm at the time?

MR KUNDULU: Which ones are you talking about now?

MR MAPOMA: You are saying that it turned out that the arms were taken to town by the farmer who stays in town, haven't you just said that?

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR MAPOMA: So when you attacked there, there were no firearms or the firearms you were looking for were not there?

MR KUNDULU: You're saying that when we were attacking? We knew that there were two firearms that were with the people that had gone to town, the man that had gone to town. We were waiting there for those two firearms that we'd heard that they must have left with them as we did not find them in the house.

MR MAPOMA: Now when you went to the house for the first time you knew that the farmers were not there, is it so?

MR KUNDULU: If there was nobody in the house, yes.

MR MAPOMA: And your instructions were to go and disarm the farmers, is it so?

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR MAPOMA: Now how did you expect to disarm the farmers when they were not there?

MR KUNDULU: Whilst they were away we went and broke into the house because we thought that there were weapons inside the house. We were not expecting them to have left with the arms to town, that we were told that they were in the house and that there was a whole lot of them.

We broke into the house in their absence to find the firearms that we were told were there but unfortunately we only found the rifle. Ndzimeni then told us that there were no weapons inside the house, they were with the white man who had come in the morning to count the sheep.

They however said that there are two firearms that were with the white people that had left later, after the owner of the farm had left. We then decided to wait for these people because we wanted those forearms.

MR MAPOMA: I'm still coming to that point, just answer the question that's being asked and confine your answer to the question that is being asked. Now, when you went there, when you broke into that house, what was your intention? Let me ask this question, when you broke into the house for the first time, from what I gather from you, your intention was to steal those weapons, is it not so?

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR MAPOMA: So you broke into that house with an intention not to rob but to steal?

MR KUNDULU: To find the arms, the weapons.

MR MAPOMA: Then you found the rifle, what did you do with it?

MR KUNDULU: We found the rifle, we put it aside as we were searching for the rest of the weapons that we thought were there.

MR MAPOMA: Then you left, did you leave with it?

MR KUNDULU: We left it behind.

MR MAPOMA: Why? You were there to take the arms and arm was there, why do you leave it now?

MR KUNDULU: The reason why we left the rifle is that we were still going to look for a car that we were going to put the firearm in and that we were going to leave in as well, that's why we left the rifle there at the time.

MR MAPOMA: And the axe, what did you do with the axe?

MR KUNDULU: I just broke the padlocks.

MR MAPOMA: Did you leave it there also?

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

MR MAPOMA: Now when you came back the second time, when the farmers were there already, did you break into the house?

MR KUNDULU: We only broke into the house once, not twice.

MR MAPOMA: Now when you came there the second time, what I gathered from your evidence, you have not told the Committee who killed Mr Palvie. Who killed Mr Palvie?

MR KUNDULU: The reason why I did not say anything is because I was not inside when he was killed, but I did say as Ndzimeni was calling me to go inside - after Mr Palvie and Mrs Palvie had gone in, after a moment I was called to go in by Ndzimeni. It was quiet but there was a room right next to the kitchen, I heard that there was a noise coming from there. When I got there Lollie was beating Mrs Palvie with a hammer. I did not say anything, I turned. He was busy beating this woman up. I did not see how Mr Palvie was killed but I saw Mrs Palvie being beaten by Lollie. I did not wait, I turned around.

MR MAPOMA: So is it your evidence that you did not kill anybody?

MR KUNDULU: I did not kill anybody there.

ADV DE JAGER: This Mr Palvie, was he a strongly built man? Was he a strong man, the white man, strongly built, a big man?

MR KUNDULU: When I saw him alighting from the car he looked like a pretty strong man.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you think Lollie could kill him, a 14 year old child?

MR KUNDULU: Yes. Can I explain something please? When somebody takes a decision that one is a comrade there is no child in the struggle. When you go to a mission everybody knows that they could lose their lives or that they could kill. Lollie did not go there as a child, he took a decision to fight against the government of oppression.

MR MAPOMA: Where was Danster, was he outside at the time when the Palvie's were being attacked?

INTERPRETER: Could the Evidence Leader please wait for the interpretation?

MR KUNDULU: He was inside.

MR MAPOMA: Did you not instruct him to wait outside?

MR KUNDULU: No.

MR MAPOMA: Was he where Lollie was at the time the Palvie's were being attacked?

MR KUNDULU: I wouldn't know whether he was with Lollie because I was outside, they were inside. I don't know exactly where they were inside but I when I walked in, as I was being call in, I could not see Lollie but when I heard the noise emanating from the room next to the kitchen, that's when I saw him beating Mrs Palvie.

MR MAPOMA: Mr Kundulu, from your evidence now it appears that you did not participate in that mission of killing the Palvies, you did not also participate in that mission of taking away the good which were there. All that you did is that you took the pistol and the car only, am I understanding you correctly?

MR KUNDULU: To explain to you, I did not kill because I was outside. When I got in I took the pistol that I found in the bag and the car keys.

MR MAPOMA: Do you know of any reason why the Palvie's were killed?

MR KUNDULU: I have been told the reasons.

MR MAPOMA: What is the reason why they were killed, to your knowledge?

MR KUNDULU: I was told that Mr Palvie started fighting or resisting Lollie, that's when they were attacked.

MR MAPOMA: Attacked by whom?

MR KUNDULU: Ndzimeni and Lollie, that's what they told me.

MR MAPOMA: So you now know how Mr Palvie was killed?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, I was told how they were killed but I did not see.

MR MAPOMA: Do you associate yourself in any way with the killing of the Palvie's?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, I do associate myself with the killing. First of all, if I was inside the house I was also going to kill them and that is why I associate myself with their killing. Their dying at the time gave me peace, I felt better that they died.

MR MAPOMA: What made you feel better, when a person is killed?

MR KUNDULU: The reason why I got some form of peace is because we hated them, we hated the fact that our leaders were killed. We despised the fact that innocent children were being killed, killed by Boers, killed by farmers working with the police.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you ever see Mr Palvie coming in with the police and beating people or helping the police?

MR KUNDULU: Before I went to the farm I heard that he was a policeman. I accepted that information even though I was not sure. When I found the police badges in his house, that is when I was certain that he truly was a policeman. Therefore I did not see him going into the township with the police but he worked with the police. There was proof, the badges were there.

ADV DE JAGER: What did you do with the badges?

MR KUNDULU: I threw them away.

ADV DE JAGER: When did you throw them away?

MR KUNDULU: After I had shown Danster.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't you take it back to show it to your leader?

MR KUNDULU: No, I didn't. I just despised and loathed these badges, that's why I just threw them away.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't you tell us you wanted to show it to your leader? I may be wrong but that was my impression.

MR KUNDULU: No, Sir, that is a mistake. I took the badges to show Ndzimeni the proof that truly this man was a policeman.

MR MAPOMA: Xolile was not the only commander of the SDU's in Cradock, is that not so?

MR KUNDULU: Please repeat your question.

MR MAPOMA: Xolile was not the only commander of the SDU's in Cradock, is that not correct?

MR MAPOMA: There were other commanders you knew apart from him, isn't it so?

MR KUNDULU: It was difficult to know the number of the commanders because certain information would be hidden from us because sometimes an SDU member would be arrested and then the way in which the police investigate the matter, the SDU member would inform the police of who the commanders were and therefore the commanders would be harassed.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, yes, what I want to find out Mr Kundulu is that Xolile Situngu was not the only commander you knew. I just want ...[intervention]

MR KUNDULU: Yes, that is so.

MR MAPOMA: Yes. Now when you came back from the mission and looked for Xolile you could not find him, did you go to Mongezi?

MR KUNDULU: No, we did not go to Mongezi.

MR MAPOMA: Did you go to any other commander of the SDU to report?

MR KUNDULU: We did not go, that's why we went to phone, we tried to phone. We decided to go and phone other comrades when we did not find him.

MR MAPOMA: When Lollie sold the goods that you found there, did you contact any commander to call Lollie into order?

MR KUNDULU: No, there is none.

MR MAPOMA: I take it that you did not call Lollie into order because you wanted your commander to deal with him but he was misbehaving and there commander was not there, why did you not get another commander to call him into order?

MR KUNDULU: I would not be able to do that, we had to wait for Xolile. He is the one who gave all the instructions. I also knew that the goods that Lollie had sold were at Xolile's house. He sold them to Xolile's brother-in-law. Even if he had not sold these goods to somebody who did not stay at Xolile's house, if Xolile wanted the goods when he arrived we would go and fetch the goods from wherever. This is why we were waiting for Xolile. It is Xolile who was going to deal with Lollie.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, but Xolile was going to deal with Lollie as a commander of the SDU's and there were other commanders to do that if he was absent. What I want to find out, why was this thing personalised to Xolile if it was done in the name of the SDU's?

MR KUNDULU: We had not been commanded by other people, we were commanded by Xolile. He started the matter, he had to finish the matter.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no re-examination.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Kundulu, you sent a document to the TRC during last year, is that correct?

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: On page 21 of the bundle you state in the second paragraph:

Is that correct?

MR KUNDULU: What did the farmers do?

ADV DE JAGER: Returned unexpectedly, you didn't expect them when they returned.

MR KUNDULU: That is so.

ADV DE JAGER: But weren't you waiting for them? You were informed that they would be returning in the afternoon and you went down to the house to wait for them?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, we were waiting for them. We did not know the exact time when they were going to come back.

ADV DE JAGER: Then you proceed and say:

What violence did you use?

MR KUNDULU: What situation are you talking about now specifically?

ADV DE JAGER: I don't know, you're talking about the situation here.

MR KUNDULU: Miss Nonkosi wrote this application. I told her that it mixed things up because I was not inside the house. Now which violence would I have used to take myself out of this situation? I was never in any difficulty as such because I was not inside the house. There would have been no difficulty whereby I'd have to use violence. This is written incorrectly.

ADV DE JAGER: And then it goes on and says,

MR KUNDULU: I never began to do this because when I was -

INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please repeat the answer.

MR KUNDULU: When the Boers came back from town I did not go inside the house. I told Nonkosi already that she mixed the stories up because she has written that I went inside the house and I was violent and I beat somebody up with a hammer. I did not do that, I told her, this is why the TRC - this is why we were not successful in our application with the TRC at first, it's because of the mistakes that Nonkosi made. I told her about these mistakes.

ADV DE JAGER: But this was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just, is it a him or a her?

MR WESSELS: It's a her.

CHAIRPERSON: You spoke to them, the person?

MR KUNDULU: ...(no English translation)

CHAIRPERSON: Nonkosi?

MR KUNDULU: Nonkosi is a lady, she's an attorney.

ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) nothing about this case, isn't it correct?

MR KUNDULU: ...(no English translation)

ADV DE JAGER: Nonkosi.

MR KUNDULU: It is Nonkosi who represented up in Court. She was working together with the late Mr Xholile Majodine.

ADV DE JAGER: But now she's writing and saying, "Lollie and I had to use violence", was she's speaking to you? There can't be a mistake about who she's referring to.

MR KUNDULU: I'm trying to explain to you that our application at first was not successful because of Nonkosi's mistakes, because of the confusion that it caused in the application. She made it seem like I attacked the farmers physically, even though I was never inside. For that reason the case was not successful, the appeal - I beg your pardon, the application. It's difficult now to answer you because it's Nonkosi who has caused all this confusion and I told her about it.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, could I possibly just intervene at this stage. You would notice that at page 17 of the volume of documents, which is the supportive statement, although it's not signed by the various applicants, it was just put the other way around, there we have it there, according to Danster

it would have Monwabisi and Lollie that did that, it appears to be a confusion of these two aspects. These two documents ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's the same version - page 17 she says it is Monwabisi and Lollie, on page 21 he, Monwabisi, is saying it's Lollie and I - it's not different versions.

MR WESSELS: No, that is exactly what I'm pointing out to you, Mr Chairman. It seems that she's just got it the wrong way around. These two documents were not signed by the applicants in their affidavits which is before the Committee as Exhibit A and B, the correct situation is set out, and Danster will also be testifying in accordance with that situation that he was in the house, and not the present applicant. So it would seem, in fairness to the applicants that the drafter of that document, which was not signed by either of the applicants, may well have just put the names incorrectly, they had it the wrong way around. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: You've been referred by your attorney to the letter Exhibit D, and he read to you,

and you agreed to that. Do you remember your advocate reading that to you?

MR KUNDULU: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Now I want to read the next sentence to you,

Now, do you agree with that?

MR KUNDULU: Let me try and explain to you. First of all, that is the truth, that you cannot deny. Our leaders were harassed and killed, those were the people who would educate us politically. They did not get a chance to enlighten us and educate us well. We then perceived the political situation in a practical sense, we would try to fight and dispute the whole system in a practical sense. Our leaders were killed and harassed, that is why we also in turn kill and harassed.

ADV DE JAGER: Your leaders never instructed you to kill, they instructed you to unarm people and if you're, I would go as far as that, and if you're attacked by the people in unarming them, I think the situation could arise where you could shoot too. But in this case, why did you kill the people, and why do you say if you were in the house you would have killed them too?

MR LAX: I do repeat that, I re-iterate that I would have killed them as well if I was inside. The reason why I say so is because when I go and take weapons or disarm a white man at that time, and I am black, the white man would not just simply hand over the weapons to me, he would never give the weapons to me. I had to fight in order to disarm you. If you have to die, you die. I could not just get the weapons verbally, it is the talking that would cause that man to kill me. I would -if I had to kill to get the weapons I would do it.

ADV DE JAGER: In this instance, was there any resistance to get the weapons?

MR KUNDULU: As I said, I was outside, I did not see, but then I was told - first of all I saw Mr Palvie as a pretty strong man. Now Lollie and Danster, my co-accused, said to me that Mr Palvie started fighting Lollie and they say that there was no other way, they had to kill in order to get the arms.

ADV DE JAGER: So they killed him? So he was out of - he didn't function anymore, he was lying down, being killed. Is that correct, according to the report?

MR KUNDULU: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, what was the report, why was the woman killed?

MR KUNDULU: What I heard, she's the one who first went inside, she opened the kitchen door, went inside and then the husband followed. Apparently she went into the bedroom. She found the bedroom upside down as it had been searched. She apparently screamed for her husband, she cried out to her husband saying, come and see what the Kaffirs have done. That made them angry or even more angry. She was attacked because she called out to her husband to see what the Kaffirs had done.

ADV DE JAGER: You were standing outside, did you hear her screaming and uttering those words?

MR KUNDULU: I could not have heard her because she was inside and I was not too close to the kitchen, I was not close enough to the kitchen to hear her. I did not hear her.

ADV DE JAGER: And was that the reason why she was killed because she uttered those words?

MR KUNDULU: That's what I heard, that's what I was told.

ADV DE JAGER: So she was killed because she uttered a racist remark?

MR KUNDULU: Those words were provocative. The words were provocative, the Boers, the farmers were not only oppressive in the sense that they worked with the Police, they ill-treated their employees terribly. I will give you an example, a farmer is able to beat up a man, a father, with the children right there, and the father would cry, for no apparent reason.

ADV DE JAGER: Did Mr Palvie or Mrs Palvie do that?

MR KUNDULU: I can't say, I'm talking about farmers collectively.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but in South Africa we've got people murdering each other, perhaps black people murdered family of mine, but I'm not entitled to go and kill every black man then.

MR KUNDULU: At the time out perception was such that there was war. The reason why I say that a whit man, especially a farmer and a Policeman, we perceived them as big enemies, whatever the name or what they did to whom. We perceived them as big enemies collectively.

ADV DE JAGER: So I want to put it in all fairness then that you killed the Palvies because you considered them to be enemies, and it had nothing to do to get their weapons on that day, whether they had weapons or not you would have killed them because of this ill-treatment you suffered in South Africa through the hands of the whites.

MR KUNDULU: As I've said, at that time our leaders were killed and they would always say they don't know who killed out leaders. A five month old baby would die through teargas, nobody would be charged for those murders, we would just quietly bury our people. I'm trying to say to you ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: I'm only trying to ascertain the reason why you killed the Palvies wasn't in order because they resisted you in getting the weapons, it was because they and the people they represented oppressed your people and killed them. Wasn't that the reason, and not the reasons you're advancing today?

MR KUNDULU: I've said that that was one of the reasons. I did not kill, but if I was inside I would have killed for the reasons that I have said, but the main intention was to get the arms. We could not exactly get to Mr Palvie and kindly request him to hand over his firearm, he was not going to do that, he was just going to shoot. He had to be attacked in some way, even if we'd beat him just to weaken him so that we can get the firearm. He was not just going to hand it over like that. I'm here to tell the truth, there was no other way to disarm the farmers, but we had to attack them somehow. We have to first attack the man and then you'd get the firearms. If you say that you're going to get there and kindly request the firearm, you're just asking for your own death.

ADV DE JAGER: You were previously sentenced for robbery, weren't you? You just came out of Court - you were out of jail, you've been out of jail for nine months when you murdered these people, or partake in the ...(intervention)

MR POTGIETER: For robbery.

ADV DE JAGER: For robbery, you've - what was your previous convictions?

MR KUNDULU: Where did I rob?

ADV DE JAGER: No, I ask you, what was your previous convictions?

MR KUNDULU: If I'm not disturbing the Committee, I'm going to request the sentences that I have served, I don't think they are connected with this matter. That's my own reasoning, I don't think those have anything to do with this matter because I was sentenced and I served those sentences. And I was sentenced by the apartheid regime. Perhaps I did not rob anyone, but they could have falsely accused me. If we're going to go to those sentences that I served, that is going to misdirect the Committee or mislead the Committee.

ADV DE JAGER: You haven't been convicted previously of a robbery, but you have been convicted - you had three previous convictions for theft, you had two previous convictions for housebreaking with the intent to steal and theft, and two previous convictions of assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm. So you previously broke into houses and stole, isn't that so?

MR KUNDULU: Has the Committee heard my request, or does the amnesty application that I'm about here, does it have anything to do with the questions that you're asking me?

ADV DE JAGER: I must ascertain whether this was a political motive or whether you returned to your old habits of stealing and breaking into houses, that's why I'm asking you this?

MR KUNDULU: I think I've tried to explain to the Committee the reason why I'm here. According to my own understanding, the questions that the Committee is asking me, cases where I have been accused by a Government that ruled unlawfully - it's just opening up old wounds.

ADV DE JAGER: We are not going to hold this against you, those previous convictions, in the sense that because of that you're not entitled to amnesty. I only want to see what was your true motive in doing what you did, and whether it was in order to obtain weapons. And now I just want an answer on this, what would you have done if the Palvies had no weapons except the rifle you found that morning, the .22? What would you have done then?

MR KUNDULU: I have said that we went there to search and we found a rifle. When we got out I realised that Ndzimeni realised this. That's when I went and explained to him that even though we had said we'd come to his circumcision celebrations, that is not actually what we had gone there to do, we had gone to find arms. That's when Ndzimeni explained and said, if the firearms are not in the house, in the farmhouse, there should be two pistols that the white man that had gone to town used. We then waited for them to come back with the pistols. When I tried to answer your question, sir, we had gone there for weapons and Ndzimeni told us that there were two pistols. That's why we waited for these pistols, we wanted the arms and the car.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, now the one pistol you got in a bag on the table in the kitchen, is that correct?

MR KUNDULU: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Where did you find the other pistol?

MR KUNDULU: Lollie found the pistol with Mrs Palvie, he had the pistol.

ADV DE JAGER: With who, Mr or Mrs Palvie?

MR KUNDULU: Mr Palvie.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Palvie, thank you.

MR POTGIETER: Mr Kundulu, can I just ask you, in this connection the bag that was in the kitchen in which you found the other pistol, what kind of bag was it, was it a ladies bag or what kind of bag was it?

MR KUNDULU: Ladies bag, the one you sling over your shoulder.

MR POTGIETER: And that was the pistol that you had when the Police found you?

MR KUNDULU: Yes.

MR POTGIETER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: First I'd like to go back to the question of the statements that Mrs Nonkosi prepared on your behalf. In both these statements that she prepared, it was on the basis that you and Lollie were in the house, searching the house when the farmers returned unexpectedly. Was that the true position?

MR KUNDULU: No, that's not what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: And the statements went on to say that this took everybody by surprise and that you and Lollie had to use violence to get out of the situation, and you used a hammer and a knife killing them.

MR KUNDULU: No, that is not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: She got - she was the attorney who was acting for you, you told us, throughout your trial?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Now, on your present version, Lollie and Ndzimeni ran into the house to get into the house before the farmer and his wife could get back?

MR KUNDULU: They went into the house, Lollie and Ndzimeni, when the car was coming.

CHAIRPERSON: So they were in the house when the farmer and his wife returned?

MR KUNDULU: I am trying to explain, sir, when the car was coming, we ran, it was myself, Lollie and Ndzimeni. Lollie and Ndzimeni both went into the house before the car could park, it was coming at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: That's all I asked you, they were in the house before they returned, perfectly simple. And the house was a shambles, I gather, you'd searched it, you'd thrown things on the floor. You'd been searching it for three or four hours.

MR KUNDULU: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And they were there expecting two armed people to return to the house, because you believed they had two guns with them?

MR KUNDULU: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So they must have attacked them as soon as they saw them, giving them no chance whatsoever?

MR KUNDULU: As I've already said, that they would not ask them or tell them that we are here now, we are asking for your weapons. They were supposed to attack them, that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Not say, put your hands up, lean against the wall so they could search them? So they were just supposed to attack them, not supposed to disarm them? Is that what you're telling us?

MR KUNDULU: Even if they said to them, they told them to lift their hands, they wouldn't do that. They were supposed to attack them so that they can get the weapons. They were supposed to attack them.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, now I want to - your counsel asked you about Mongezi Nelani, and you said you knew him very well.

MR KUNDULU: Yes, I knew him.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you know him as?

MR KUNDULU: I knew him as a member of the SDU.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he a friend of yours, were you on good terms with him?

MR KUNDULU: No, he was the comrade, he was my comrade, because comrades get along, we got along.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm asking you this because in the judgement which you counsel has no doubt discussed with you, the court says, "Accused no 1", and you were accused no 1, weren't you, at the trial?

MR KUNDULU: Yes.

MR KUNDULU: ...(no English translation)

CHAIRPERSON: That's what you said at your trial, that Mongezi Nelani is a dangerous criminal whom you feared. Was that true?

MR KUNDULU: To answer that question, I was supposed to say that because at that time I was not telling the truth during my trial. Even if I told the truth the courts at that time were racist, even the judge was also racist. To prove that the judge was racist he sentenced me 20 years for housebreaking. That shows that the judge was racist. I was supposed to speak like that.

CHAIRPERSON: It was housebreaking with intention to rob and murder, not ordinary housebreaking. We go on now, "And accused no 4," who was Lollie - oh no, sorry, accused no 2, who was Lollie, do you remember he gave evidence at the trial where he said he was a young child who acted in fear of you, whom he considered to be a cruel and vicious man, do you remember him saying that?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, I know about that, I know that he said that in court. I don't blame him for saying that because he knew that whatever he said, that court that we were testifying in was not acceptable to us because it was a racist court.

CHAIRPERSON: How long had you been out of prison when you committed this offence, when you killed these people? Is it correct you had been out of prison for only nine months?

MR KUNDULU: I can't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: How long had you been in prison for? What sentence had you just served?

MR KUNDULU: When?

CHAIRPERSON: Before you were released, and then committed this killing. You see, we have the judgement which says that you have these previous convictions that you've been asked about and that the - this office was committed a mere nine months after you'd been released from prison. Now I want to know how long you had been in prison for. We can of course obtain the SAP69 if necessary.

MR KUNDULU: I have been arrested by the Boers many times because I was fighting against the Boers or I was offending the Boers ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kundulu, I think I must tell you, in the light of what you have said I think we should get a copy of your previous convictions so we can see what offences you committed and who were the victims, your counsel will be given a copy. You're now not prepared to say how long you had been in prison, because it is relevant as to how active you had been as a member of the STE? You can't tell me, you're not prepared to tell me, is that the position?

MR KUNDULU: I can't remember, sir. I don't know whether now it's a big problem that I can't remember this.

CHAIRPERSON: You know that your co-applicant had just been released nine months before, at about the same time as you, from serving a 12 year sentence for robbery with aggravating circumstances, did you know that?

MR KUNDULU: Am I here to be reminded of my previous sentences, about my co-accused and myself? I don't know what's going on now here.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it is relevant in assessing why you went there. As Mr de Jager has said, you went there with a boy of 14 and a boy of 15, where these offences were committed, is that correct?

MR KUNDULU: How does it come together with this case, because now this raises questions within me as well about the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Because ...(intervention)

MR KUNDULU: How does Mr and Mrs Palvie's case go with my previous cases that I had been sentenced for?

CHAIRPERSON: Has you counsel read to you the list of goods that were stolen?

MR KUNDULU: I would like to ask the Committee how this case of Mr and Mr Palvie goes hand in hand with cases that I'd been sentenced for previously?

CHAIRPERSON: Because we have to determine whether this was a political case with a political objective, or whether it was another case of robbery, theft - or perhaps we'll take the adjournment now and your counsel can read to you the list of articles on schedule, the schedule to count 4, if he hasn't already consulted with you on that. We'll now adjourn till 14h00.

MONWABISI ERIC KUNDULU: (s.u.o)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kundulu, have you had an opportunity of looking at the list of articles attached to the charge sheet?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, I got it.

CHAIRPERSON: Apart from the motorcar there are 45 articles that were taken, including a lot of clothing, do you agree?

MR KUNDULU: Yes, I saw them.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears that all sorts of things were stolen from that house, cigarette lighters, pens, tools, clocks, matters of - cassettes, things of that nature. Do you agree?

MR KUNDULU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- MR WESSELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I then wish to call the next applicant, which would be Mr Danster.

Thank you, Mr Danster. We're going to ask you just to take the oath, will you please rise.

MR DANSTER: (sworn states):

MR WESSELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Danster, how old are you?

MR DANSTER: 46 years old.

MR WESSELS: Did you grow up in the Cradock area?

MR DANSTER: Correct.

MR WESSELS: Do you have any relatives in the Cradock area?

MR DANSTER: Yes, I do.

MR WESSELS: A wife, children, or other relatives?

MR DANSTER: I don't have a wife, I just have a child.

MR WESSELS: Now you've heard the testimony of Mr Kundulu,

MR DANSTER: Yes.

MR WESSELS: And as far as that testimony relates to you, do you agree with that?

MR DANSTER: Yes.

MR WESSELS: You have also prepared or signed an affidavit setting out all the relevant particulars in this matter, this affidavit is before the Committee as Exhibit A. Do you confirm what is contained in this affidavit and adhere thereto?

MR DANSTER: Yes.

MR WESSELS: I do not propose to deal with or to lead your evidence on every aspect, I'm going to take you to the day when you were there at the dam. It was yourself and there were some youngsters swimming in the dam, is that correct, whilst the other applicant and Mr Lolosi went to the farmer's house?

MR DANSTER: Yes.

MR WESSELS: So you were not present when they first entered that house?

MR DANSTER: Correct.

MR WESSELS: When they came back, you eventually returned to the house - Lolosi's house?

MR DANSTER: Correct.

MR WESSELS: Had you been told what they had found in that house in your absence?

MR DANSTER: Yes, they told me.

MR WESSELS: Now in the course of the afternoon of that very same day the farmer and his wife returned in their motor vehicle to the farm?

MR DANSTER: Correct.

MR WESSELS: Now, I want you to tell the Committee what happened from then onwards, this is now when the car returned. What did you do and who accompanied you?

MR DANSTER: When we saw the car coming back, Lollie Kundulu and myself started running. When we got to the house Lollie and I got inside. Monwabisi was not able to go inside until the woman, the owner's wife, until she came in. She started swearing as she saw that the house was upside down. The husband then followed. Lollie and I were in the bathroom. Lollie had a knife, I had a hammer. We were waiting, there was a door that leads to the bathroom from the bedroom. Mr Palvie came in - Lollie then stabbed him. I left them there because I thought that the wife would come with her gun. I went and stood at the other door that leads to the kitchen from the bathroom. I was still waiting there and Lollie called for me. I went back to the bathroom. I got there and Lollie was being mishandled by the Boer. It seemed as if the Boer had more strength than him. I hit this man with the hammer on the head twice, and he fell. After I saw that the man had fallen down, I left them and I went and stood by the door, and the wife appeared at the door. I also hit this woman with the hammer in the head twice, and she fell. I saw that she had fallen, I left. I went to the window to - I was calling for Monwabisi to come inside. When I was coming back, going towards the kitchen, I was passing the bathroom door, Lollie came and asked for the hammer. I gave the hammer to him. I went to the kitchen, Monwabisi was busy searching the bag. I thought of two suitcases that Lollie had said we should leave with. I went and fetched the suitcases, put them in the car. Lollie came out with a wall clock and a gun. We got into the car or the bakkie, and left.

MR WESSELS: Would you just explain to the Committee what was your intention, your personal intention at the time when you went into that house.

MR DANSTER: We were looking for the two guns that Ndzimeni had told us about. We were also looking for the car keys. We wanted the car keys so that we could leave in the car or the bakkie.

MR WESSELS: And was it necessary to attack the farmer and his wife in order to achieve the object of getting the guns?

MR DANSTER: There was no other way for us because we know that those people were armed with dangerous weapons. We had to attack them in the manner that we did, because if they got a chance to take out the weapons, they would shoot us and kill us. We had not gone there to die, we'd gone there to get arms.

MR WESSELS: And how do you believe that what you did there at that farm helped you to pursue your object or what you had in mind to do with the guns?

MR DANSTER: It helped, because we did find guns. We also got the car to run away.

MR WESSELS: Were you a member of any organisation at the time?

MR DANSTER: I was a member of Cradoya.

MR WESSELS: And did you also serve the self-defence unit at Cradock?

MR DANSTER: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: Did you hold any position in the SDU?

MR DANSTER: No, I was just a member.

MR WESSELS: And in Cradoya, did you hold any position in that organisation?

MR DANSTER: No.

MR WESSELS: Who was your commander?

MR DANSTER: Comrade Xholile Lebensito.

MR WESSELS: The document which is before the Committee as Exhibit C, it is signed by Mr Ntombela, the Chairperson of Cradoya, and Mr Ngala, the Treasurer, do you know these two gentlemen?

MR DANSTER: I know Ngala.

MR WESSELS: Not Mr Ntombela?

MR DANSTER: No, perhaps if you can describe him or if I'd see him facially I would recognise him.

MR WESSELS: How is it that you know Mr Ngala?

MR DANSTER: Mr Ngala was a member of Cradoya for quite a while.

MR WESSELS: Did you have any personal dealings with Mr Ngala?

MR DANSTER: No.

MR WESSELS: In this letter it is stated, and I quote,

Are you aware of such an extraction?

MR DANSTER: Yes.

MR WESSELS: Did you personally attempt to adhere to or to act in accordance with that instruction?

MR DANSTER: I did by going to the farm to look for arms.

MR WESSELS: Would the arms have assisted in making the Townships a no-go area for the Police and their informers?

MR DANSTER: Yes, they could help.

MR WESSELS: Before the Committee is a document, and I refer in particular to page 17 of that bundle of documents, which purports to be a document relating to yourself. In the second paragraph of this document it is noted that, and I quote,

This is not in context, referring to an incident when those two persons, Monwabisi and Lollie were in the house, and that they had to use violence. Did it happen that way as it is stated in this document?

MR DANSTER: No, that's not how it happened. It's the attorney's mistakes.

MR WESSELS: In fact, even in the criminal court, as it is also reported in the later judgement of the Appellate Division, it was yourself and Lollie that was involved in the - that were in the house at the time when the farmers entered the house, is that right?

MR DANSTER: Correct.

MR WESSELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that is the evidence.

MR NYOKA: No questions, Mr Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: After you hit Mrs Palvie, you say she fell?

MR DANSTER: That's correct.

MR MAPOMA: And them became harmless, or you realised that she was harmless when you went to call Mr Kundulu?

MR DANSTER: Yes, because she was not carrying anything in her hands as well. She didn't look armed.

MR MAPOMA: Did she wake up again?

MR DANSTER: No, she did not.

MR MAPOMA: Was she assaulted further?

MR DANSTER: As I saw the pictures, it was clear that she was beaten further a lot.

CHAIRPERSON: By pictures, do you mean the pictures that were produced at the trial, taken for the purposes of the post-mortem?

MR DANSTER: The pictures that we saw in court.

MR MAPOMA: Did you assault Mrs Palvie anymore after she fell, helpless?

MR DANSTER: I just hit her twice, the one time, I did not hit her again.

MR MAPOMA: Was she hit again at all?

MR DANSTER: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: By whom?

MR DANSTER: Lollie.

MR MAPOMA: What did Lollie use?

MR DANSTER: He asked for the hammer and I gave it to him, he must have used the hammer.

MR MAPOMA: Who took the suitcases to the car?

MR DANSTER: I took the suitcases into the car.

MR MAPOMA: Did you hear Mr Kundulu say that it is Lollie who took those suitcases into the car?

MR DANSTER: I did not hear him say that.

MR MAPOMA: If at all he said that, would you say it's incorrect what he said?

MR DANSTER: If he said that, he must have been mistaken.

MR MAPOMA: So you said you had to hit first to the - to Mr and Mrs Palvie because you thought they were armed?

MR DANSTER: Yes, I'm the first one to use the hammer.

MR MAPOMA: Did they assault you before you used that hammer?

MR DANSTER: No, I was not assaulted.

MR MAPOMA: Did they pose any threat to you, or to yourselves?

MR DANSTER: The reason why I hit Mr Palvie is that he was mishandling Lollie and he was overpowering Lollie. He was - that's why I hit him so that he can loose strength.

MR MAPOMA: Who was the first person to assault anyone there?

MR DANSTER: It is Lollie who first attacked Mr Palvie, he was trying to stab him. After that Mr Palvie held - was holding Lollie and overpowering him. Lollie called out for me, when I got there and I could see that Lollie was in trouble, then I hit Mr Palvie.

MR MAPOMA: When Mr Palvie was stabbed by Lollie for the first time, he was unarmed, is it so?

MR DANSTER: I did not see any weapon.

MR MAPOMA: And in fact Mr Palvie overpowered Lollie when they were already engaged in a scuffle, is it so?

MR DANSTER: That's correct.

MR MAPOMA: Why was it necessary to attack people who were not posing any threat to you?

MR DANSTER: What we knew was that those people were armed or they had firearms. We were in danger of being shot by them. We could not just request the firearms, we had to get there and hit them or attack them in order to get the firearms.

MR MAPOMA: I take it that the standard method of disarming these farmers, was to disarm them and if necessary use force, you have to use force when you get resistance, that's what I mean, was it not the command?

MR DANSTER: We could not just take their arms like that, because when we went there we did not have guns. We could not ask these people to lift their hands in the air whilst they had guns and we had knives. Nobody's going to hand over a gun to a person who is holding a knife.

MR MAPOMA: So are you saying that your intention was to attack them and kill them and thereafter get the guns?

MR DANSTER: We just had to attack them to get the firearms, that they died, I can't help it.

MR MAPOMA: So in other words you did not have to wait until they resist before you could assault them?

MR DANSTER: We could not talk to these people. If we had firearms, perhaps we could negotiate and talk to them, but because we did not have firearms we had to try as much as we could to get those firearms from them.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, sir, I have no further questions.

MR WESSELS: No re-examination, thank you, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Why didn't you take the rifle and point that at them and threaten them with the rifle?

MR DANSTER: That would be difficult, a brainless person would do that. Those people - that was their rifle, they knew that that rifle did not have bullets, it's their rifle, if you were brainless you'd do that.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you think that they would have recognised the rifle if you've kept the rifle like this and pointed it at them?

MR DANSTER: Everybody knows what belongs to them.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, could you tell us, what was the political motive in taking one grey jacket, one grey short- sleeved shirt, one peach lady jersey, one pink sheet, one brown men’s jersey and all the other items, underpants, pyjamas, what was the political motive in taking those items, stealing it?

MR DANSTER: Even though I did not take clothing from there, perhaps I can try to explain on behalf of the person who took the clothing, because he told me his reasoning, is that what you would like me to do?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, tell us, because you carried it out of the house.

MR DANSTER: When I asked Lollie when we were already arrested, why he wanted the clothing because we were not sent there to take the clothing, he said that he was going to sell the clothing so that we get money to pay the people who helped us with petrol and transporting us to these places, and also because we were not given transport when we were instructed to go to these people. He said that he wanted to sell this clothing to get money to pay these people, so that if we had to go on another mission again, they would help us again.

ADV DE JAGER: So that's the reason why for instance he took one Polaroid camera, one key on a piece of wood, do you think he could have sold that and get money for a key on a piece of wood?

MR DANSTER: I'm giving you an answer given to me by the person who was going to sell the goods. The suit and the clock had been sold, they got sold.

ADV DE JAGER: One washcloth, one receive money for that, selling it to give petrol to people?

MR DANSTER: What could be sold would be sold, and we'd get the money. What is not sold, he would see what he does with it.

ADV DE JAGER: Like the pairs of underpants, do you think that would be sold too?

MR DANSTER: If a person wanted to buy a pair of underpants, they'd buy the pair of underpants, if they don't want to buy the underpants, they don't buy the underpants. The person who took the stuff, Lollie, would see what he does with it.

ADV DE JAGER: And you associated you with what Lollie did because you went there with a common purpose, isn't it so, or didn't you associate yourself at all with what Lollie did?

MR DANSTER: Lollie was going to account to Xholile for haven taken this clothing, but unfortunately we didn't find Xholile until we were arrested. Lollie was going to account, I was not his leader, I could not stop him.

ADV DE JAGER: Now you people are putting all the blame on Lollie, he'd stolen the goods, he'd killed the two people, he first stabbed Mr Palvie, he thereafter asked you for the hammer again, and he again hit Mrs Palvie after she was helpless, according to you. And you two adult people standing by while this 14 year old child is doing all these things, and you say he should explain why he did it.

MR DANSTER: I never said that Lollie killed those people, I said I was the first one to beat Mr Palvie with a hammer in the head. The reason why ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: I've heard your interpretation. He stabbed him with the knife?

MR DANSTER: He stabbed him with the knife.

ADV DE JAGER: Before you hit him with the hammer?

MR DANSTER: Before I hit him with the hammer.

ADV DE JAGER: So he was the first one to attack Mr Palvie?

MR DANSTER: Yes, with the knife.

ADV DE JAGER: And thereafter you hit Mrs Palvie?

MR DANSTER: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And after she was lying there he asked for the hammer again?

MR DANSTER: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And he attacked her again with the hammer?

MR DANSTER: Yes, he hit both of them with the hammer.

ADV DE JAGER: So he went back and hit Mr Palvie too with the hammer?

MR DANSTER: When I gave Lollie the hammer he went into the bathroom where Mr Palvie was. Mrs Palvie was not in the bathroom, so he first went back to the bathroom.

ADV DE JAGER: You see, Mr Danster, I find it difficult to believe that a young boy - he was doing all the damage, he was taking the goods, he was stabbing and he was slashing out with the hammer, while you, the two experienced people, the one did nothing as far as the attacks are concerned, and you only put them - help Lollie when Mr Palvie overpowered him. Did Mr Palvie have any weapon on him?

MR DANSTER: I did not see Mr Palvie with a weapon, but this is what must be understood, when Lollie was hitting these people with the hammer they were already on the floor, he was not struggling with them, he was just lifting his hand hitting them with the hammer, I had already beaten them down to the ground myself.

ADV DE JAGER: Now can you tell us where did you get the second pistol?

MR DANSTER: I don't know.

ADV DE JAGER: Who got it?

MR DANSTER: The gun that I saw was the one that Monwabisi had taken from the purse, I don't know about the second gun, and I did not see it in court as an exhibit.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't there a second pistol taken?

MR DANSTER: I know about the rifle and the small pistol.

ADV DE JAGER: So the only weapon taken there was the one in the bag, is that correct?

MR DANSTER: And the gun.

ADV DE JAGER: And the gun.

MR DANSTER: The rifle without the bullets and the gun.

ADV DE JAGER: So not one of the deceased had any gun on his body as such, or a pistol, when they were attacked?

MR DANSTER: I did not see any gun with Mr Palvie. I hit Mr Palvie because I could see that Lollie was in trouble. As for Mrs Palvie, I felt that she would appear armed with a pistol. When she appeared I hit her, then I saw that she was not carrying any arm as she was lying there on the floor.

ADV DE JAGER: And when Mr Kundulu came in there was not further resistance, and he didn't partake in any attacks?

MR DANSTER: No, when he got in the people were already lying on the floor.

ADV DE JAGER: And the purpose of taking the car was to get away from the scene?

MR DANSTER: Yes, it was to leave the place, because the Township was far off.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that the sole purpose of taking the car?

MR DANSTER: Yes, we had to take it so that we could get to the Township. It was far, these farms were far off.

ADV DE JAGER: So that had no political motivation, it was only to get to the Township?

MR DANSTER: This is all one story, you have to look at it holistically, you can't take the story apart. We went there to get weapons, we didn't know how we were going to get them. The farm was far off, we didn't even know how we were going to get there at the beginning, all we knew is that we had to get to the farm.

ADV DE JAGER: If we have to look at it holistically, should you also be responsible and give an explanation about the clothing that's been taken?

MR DANSTER: Yes, because the person who took the clothes explained to me as to the reason why he took the clothing, and I understood his reasoning. We're given instructions, we're not told how to get there, we have to find ways and means to get to the farm.

ADV DE JAGER: I see. What did they pay for the suit and for the wall clock, what money was offered?

ADV DE JAGER: He had not been paid yet, he was told he was going to be paid in the afternoon.

ADV DE JAGER: How much?

MR DANSTER: I don't know how much he charged them.

ADV DE JAGER: Weren't you present?

MR DANSTER: I was there, but I don't remember.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, you've told us that you came on the scene - you were called rather by Lollie and you arrived on the scene and found that he was being overpowered by Mr Palvie.

MR DANSTER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you hit Mr Palvie a couple of times to - so you in turn could overpower him?

MR DANSTER: Yes, I hit him twice.

CHAIRPERSON: And he fell to the ground as I understand it?

MR DANSTER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He was then also powerless?

MR DANSTER: Correct, that's why I left them.

CHAIRPERSON: And if he was armed you could have taken the weapon away from him?

MR DANSTER: Yes, if I had seen a gun I would have the gun from him.

CHAIRPERSON: And you went to guard against Mrs Palvie?

MR DANSTER: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the same thing there, as soon as she came in you hit her because you thought she might be armed?

MR DANSTER: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And again, she fell down powerless, and you left her?

MR DANSTER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: After that Lollie came and asked you for the hammer and went back into the bathroom where Mr Palvie was lying?

MR DANSTER: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And I understand from the judgement that the evidence led at the trial was that he had very serious injuries. Did you see the photographs of him?

MR DANSTER: Yes, we saw the pictures.

CHAIRPERSON: Had he also been beaten a great deal more?

MR DANSTER: Yes, I saw in the pictures. Such that the doctors could not see certain veins, that's how beaten he was.

CHAIRPERSON: Much more that what you had done, you just knocked him down?

MR DANSTER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the same with Mrs Palvie I gather, that she had been beaten a great deal more around the head, you could see that in the photographs.

MR DANSTER: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Because after you had knocked her down, if she'd had a gun, you could have taken it away from her, there would have been no problem would there?

MR DANSTER: Yes, I was going to take the gun.

CHAIRPERSON: There wasn't one. The only gun that was found was the one in the handbag.

MR DANSTER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And I think, I'm assuming now, that your counsel went through this list of stolen goods with you?

MR DANSTER: Yes, I saw the list.

CHAIRPERSON: And the only firearms was the .22 rifle and one pistol, they were the only firearms.

MR DANSTER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you had only been out of prison for a few months - 9 months I gather.

MR DANSTER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: After a long sentence.

MR DANSTER: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And I think, the evidence is that you were only released on the 28th of May 1986.

MR DANSTER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you hadn't had much to do with Cradoya or what was going on in the Townships before that date, you'd had nothing to do with it in fact.

MR DANSTER: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Last question, I don't know if you can help us with this, what sort of hammer was this, was it the ordinary hammer for knocking in nails, or was it a hammer with a heavy metal head?

MR DANSTER: It's the normal hammer that is used for nails.

CHAIRPERSON: It was produced as an exhibit at the trial, wasn't it?

MR DANSTER: Yes, the hammer was there.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR WESSELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that is the only evidence I wish to present on behalf of the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka?

MR NYOKA: No witnesses, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: No further evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Lollie still here?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, he's here.

ADV DE JAGER: I would like you to call Lollie so that he could explain to us what happened on this occasion.

MR MAPOMA: As the Committee pleases, I'll do that, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Does he want legal representation?

MR MAPOMA: I think I'll have to find out from him.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you like a very short adjournment to talk to him?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, yes please.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kwakwarie, you have been sitting here listening to the evidence that has been led here today, is that so?

MR KWAKWARIE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And as you heard, Mr de Jager feels that an attempt has been made to put all the blame on you, you heard Mr de Jager say that?

MR KWAKWARIE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And in those circumstances it was felt that you should perhaps be called to give evidence to enable you to give your version and to explain if you felt you had been harshly treated. Do you understand that?

MR KWAKWARIE: I would like to give an answer to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. Let me make it clear, we're not forcing you to give evidence now. If you want to give an answer do, explain, do so. Carry on.

MR KWAKWARIE: First of all, I was sentenced 36 years and 6 months in jail, I then stayed for 7 years in prison, I was under very difficult situations. I then finished my sentence, I was out on probation. I don't see a need for me to come here and give evidence because I've served my sentence. That is all.

CHAIRPERSON: What I was going to explain, but I think you've answered it, was that if you wanted to get legal advice and to consider the question of giving evidence, we would adjourn the matter till Friday to enable you to do that. If however you do not want to do so, if you have reached a firm decision, then there is no point in doing that. Do you understand what I'm saying?

MR KWAKWARIE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to have a chance to consult a lawyer, or are you quite happy to make your decision now?

MR KWAKWARIE: My decision is that I don't see a need for me to come and give evidence because I've served my sentence.

ADV DE JAGER: I think that's correct, if you feel that you've not been - there's nothing for you to clear your name about now or you're happy with what has been said, we're not going to force you to come and give evidence. It's an opportunity for you to put your side of the story. If you don't it, feel, well I've served my sentence, I'm happy, I'll go on with the future, then you could decide that way and we won't force you to do anything.

MR KWAKWARIE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright gentlemen, nobody wants to call any further witnesses, that's an end of the evidence, is that so?

MR POTGIETER: Yes, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to address now, or tomorrow morning.

MR WESSELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'm really in your hands. I'm ready to address, my address won't take particularly long, but I'm in your hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka?

MR NYOKA: I was not going to make an address.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, sir, I don't have much to address on, he can address.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR MAPOMA: Sorry, sir, Mr Chairperson, we've got a patriotic duty to go and watch soccer immediately.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels has assured us he - are you engaged in tomorrow's matter?

MR WESSELS: No, Mr Chairman, but I am available for tomorrow, it is no problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, whichever you - I'm not going to put pressure on you. If you would prefer to address now, you can do so.

MR WESSELS: Well I think the general feeling is that we must do so tomorrow, then I'll ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to address tomorrow?

MR WESSELS: I will do that tomorrow then, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, 09h00 tomorrow morning.

ADV DE JAGER: The general feeling is that there's a soccer match on and we should support the people.

CHAIRPERSON: We're now returning to the case we completed the evidence in yesterday, that's the case of applications of Danster and Kundulu for the purpose of argument. Are counsel ready to proceed?

MR WESSELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR WESSELS IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman, and members of the Committee, it is now for the Committee to consider whether first of all the application by these two applicants in fact comply with the requirements of the act. As far as the formalities are concerned, I submit that the applications in fact do comply with the requirements of the act. But the other two legs that must be considered, first of all, I'll deal with the question of whether there's been a full and frank disclosure of all the relevant facts. As far as that requirement is concerned, Mr Chairman, it can hardly be said, having heard the evidence, in particular of Mr Kundulu and the frankness and honesty with which he explained and described to this Committee how he felt about the deaths of the victims in this matter. It can hardly be said that under those circumstances he was not making a full disclosure of the facts. He was not trying to hide anything, and in the absence of any evidence, again saying what he claims, I'll ask the Committee to accept his evidence in toto, and to accept that in fact he made a full and honest disclosure of all the relevant facts.

Mr Danster similarly, quite frankly and honestly explained to this Committee what his part was in the killing and in executing his orders, and as far as his version is concerned, the Committee cannot but find that he too had made a full and frank disclosure of all the relevant facts.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the two suitcases, Mr Wessels?

MR WESSELS: I think we should deal with that under the requirement of whether or not the actions fall within the requirement that it must be associated with a political objective, and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it also a question of frank disclosure?

MR WESSELS: Indeed so, it goes hand in hand with that. Mr Chairman, you're quite correct in that, it goes hand in hand with that, but let me deal with that under the heading of whether or not that act can be associated with a political objective. Now, Mr Chairman, as I say, the only evidence before this Committee is the evidence of the two applicants, there's nothing to gain say that. The suggestion at one stage that the other applicant who withdrew his application, it is now conveniently placed all the blame on him, that suggestion is not really with any - there's no foundation for that suggestion, especially if one considers the position that that particular applicant has lodged a document which is before the Committee, reportedly made by him, it's part of the bundle of documents ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Can we place any value of that, it's unsigned, there is no information before us who prepared it?

MR WESSELS: That is so, Mr Chairman, but the fact remains that that document is before the Committee. It was placed before the Committee by the Evidence Leader, the bundle was prepared by the Evidence Leader. The origin of that document is not known to the Committee. However, when that particular applicant, or the former applicant, was called to the fore and asked whether he wanted to avail himself of the opportunity to counter the allegations which were made, he very readily decided and very definitely decided that he had nothing to say to this Committee. So if he was aggrieved by the allegations, and he was present when these allegations were made, if he was aggrieved by that, and if he felt that he was being placed in a bad light, one would have expected him under those circumstances to have saved face, to have at least have put his version before the Committee. He did not elect to do so, that was his right not to do so if he did not want to, but the very fact that he elected not to put his version before the Committee gives support for the contention that he did not feel aggrieved by that, and it is in line with what is contained in the document which is before the Committee on pages 23 and 25.

CHAIRPERSON: Well isn't fairer to ignore that document, to ignore the fact that he was an applicant and to consider him rather as an implicated party who was present, and then to take the point you have just made, he was present, he was given the opportunity to dispute the allegations that had been made, and he elected not to do so?

MR WESSELS: Point taken, Mr Chairman, that would probably be the best way to handle that. So the situation is still the same, the only evidence before this Committee is the evidence of the two applicants, and one must immediately bear in mind the idea of a 14 year old young boy, that was borne out by the observations of the trial court as it is reflected on page 42 of the bundle of documents. The Committee saw the applicant, but this is now some 10 years after he had appeared in Court, but the trial court's description of that particular person was,

So not too much emphasis should be laid on the fact that he, according to the indictment he was only 14 years of age. He was certainly involved in a fighter's role as was put by Mr Kundulu, a comrade's role, taking orders and executing orders. But be that as it may, to consider further the evidence of the two applicants, they maintained that they were ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, before you go on, you said the only evidence before us is that of the applicants, but there is other information before us, such as the judgement, which we must have regard to. This is not a trial where one only has regard to the evidence led at the trial, it is clear from the act that we have regard to all the information, including results of our investigation. Do you agree with that?

MR WESSELS: Indeed so, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So should we not go on and say that the court found, at page 42 a little further down, that he played a:

MR WESSELS: Well, that tends to support, indeed so, Mr Chairman, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that supports strongly your contention, and we - if we are going to have regard to findings of the trial court, that's one of the findings we should have regard to.

MR WESSELS: Well, I don't want to suggest this Committee should follow all the findings of the trial court, one must immediately ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We don't follow their conclusions, we follow - where they have made findings on the evidence, they had the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses when they say something, we accept that. We don't follow the conclusions they draw from that.

MR WESSELS: Indeed so, Mr Chairman, I'll go along with that. So, Mr Chairman, to come back to the evidence then of the two applicants, they maintained they were members of Cradoya, and there is support in that regard by way of Exhibit C and D, that in fact they were members of an organisation. They claim ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I keep interrupting you, but I think I asked you during the course of the hearing yesterday what information we had about these people, what the organisation was, etc, which is Exhibit C and D, and it may appear that at that time I was suggesting that they might not be what they purport to be, but on reconsideration I suddenly realised that Mr Ngala is in fact represented here.

MR WESSELS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So quite clearly he is what he purports to be, and if there was any suggesting that that was not so, his representative would have drawn that to our attention, which he didn't do, and he would have - if he said the signature was not, so I withdraw the suggestion I made to you yesterday that these documents might not have the value that they appear to have, because it appears quite clear from the fact that Mr Ngala has been represented, that these documents were in fact prepared by the Cradock advice office and were signed by the people that were purport to have signed it. Mr Nyoka, do you agree with that?

MR NYOKA: Yes, I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR WESSELS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: While we're at the document, what would you suggest about, although they acceded the bound of the call, what should we make of it?

MR WESSELS: I wonder whether Mr de Jager, Mr Chairman, could we just consider that aspect, because I think that is an important aspect when we get to the dealings of, first of all, what the objective was of going there, and if the Committee will just bear with me on that score. The applicants claim that they had instructions to go and get firearms from this particular far. The two applicants had no knowledge, personal knowledge of the farm. That knowledge seemed to have come from Mr - the former third applicant, Mr Lollie, let's refer to him as Lollie, because he had some contact with a person that was employed on that farm. Now that was also the trend of the trial court's findings that as it is set out on page 43 of the record, there at line 10,

So the scene as it was set even at the trial court seemed to suggest that the information about the firearms emanated from Lollie, which is also the evidence of the two applicants in this matter. Coupled with what they claim their instructions were to go to that particular farm, an instruction given to them by their commander, with the main objective being the collection of firearms, and which would then be used for the political objective of keeping the Police Forces out of the Townships. And one must also bear in mind, although that's not evidence before this Committee in the present application, but in the previous application of Peter Madyoli, the same advice officers mentioned there that the ANC at the time said that the struggle must also be taken to the farmers. But it all goes hand in hand with the obtaining of firearms, and that was very clearly on the evidence of the applicants here and in the trial court, the main objective of going to that farm, to obtain firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't it - correct me on this if I'm wrong, wasn't in fact the whole matter rather the other way around, that they were told by their leader, Xholile, to go, that they then got the information about what sort of firearms and this and that? Didn't they give their evidence - wasn't it that they got direct instructions from their leader to go?

MR WESSELS: Yes, Mr Chairman, but the leader must have got his information from somewhere. As I understood the situation, the leader did give them the instruction, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He had some information.

MR WESSELS: And that information would probably have emanated from Lollie, who was also part and parcel of the Cradoya group, and he accompanied the two applicants at the time. So it seems that Lollie was the conduit for the information which came from an employee of the farm, and this filtered through to the commander, and the commander in turn instructed the two applicants, together with Lollie, to go to that farm and do the necessary, get those firearms.

ADV DE JAGER: No, not those firearms, because when they got to the farm, they obtained new information that those firearms had been removed and they are in town now.

MR WESSELS: That is so, the information at the outset was that there was a large cachet of firearms on that farm, and that was the main objective of - or the object of going to that farm, to obtain a large quantity of firearms, which in the end they did not find there, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that one of the tragic aspects of this application, in so far as the deceased are concerned, that the target originally was somebody else who had a large supply of firearms, and that is why they were sent there. They then discovered that he had left, and we have had no information as to how long since he had left - it may have been a week earlier that he had gone, and that the deceased had moved in as supervisor. But they were then given the further information that there were other firearms available.

MR WESSELS: That is so, Mr Chairman, this whole incident is a tragic, a horrendous incident, but fact of the matter is that the information which the applicants had when they initially broke into that house and found only one firearm, left it there, obviously disappoint in not finding what they expected or anticipated in finding in that house, and then they were given information, but surely those people that will be - the victims that will be returning would have firearms on them, at least get hold of those firearms then to make up or to achieve some measure of success in getting some firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, again, that's not quite what was said, what we were told is, those people have firearms. As they had searched the house for three to four hours and found no firearms, they assumed that they would have them on them.

MR WESSELS: That is ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: They weren't told they would have, they made the assumption that as they weren't in the house, they must have taken them with them, and I didn't ask, and I was relying perhaps wrongly on my own knowledge of firearms, but it appears that these people all had some experience in this, they were not - don't seem to have been particularly impressed at getting a .22 rifle with no ammunition, which is understandable, isn't it?

MR WESSELS: Well a rifle without ammunition is of very little help in any event, because ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And a .22 is hardly what you would use in an arms struggle.

MR WESSELS: That may well be so, Mr Chairman, it can be a dangerous weapon in any event, it could result in death, but it would not be the ideal weapon for the struggle as - for the protection of a community as they had in mind.

MR POTGIETER: Mr Wessels, tragic as it is, this incident, should we not see it against the broader issue that was raised about disarming the farmers, doesn't this fall in line with that sort of objective as well?

MR WESSELS: That is so, I fully agree with that. I think that is - one must look at the whole object of disarming the farmers and using those arms that would then be obtained in the struggle against the Police Forces to keep them out of the neighbourhood where they were living and where the brutality as it is claimed took place. So one must view this as a whole - as an attempt to get all of the firearms that could be got and to use that then in furtherance of the struggle.

MR POTGIETER: So not so much an instruction to recover specific firearms, a .22 rifle or 9mm pistol, it's against the broader - a broader approach if I may put it that way?

MR WESSELS: It take your point, I think any firearm in the end would have been of use and would have been put to use, whatever the calibre, to achieve that particular object or the political objective as was set out by the leaders at the time. CHAIRPERSON: Carrying on from there and reverting to what I said earlier, the target as I understand the evidence, of targeting certain farmers, was that certain farmers were thought to be collaborating with the Police, assisting them, and those were the farmers who were to be attacked and disarmed. And in the present case on the information they had, which was that they farmer had a large stack of weapons, it would appear that they had some justification for thinking that he was one of those people, and the change takes place when they arrive too late and he's moved out with his stack of weapons. They continue with the raid on the house and then discover Police badges in there which brings back the belief that people in this farm are supporters of the Police Force. It's all an unfortunate mix-up which led them to this belief.

MR WESSELS: Indeed so, Mr Chairman, I think the finding of those Police badges must have resulted in the idea to really get at the occupants of that house. It must have, and this was in fact the claim of Mr Kundulu having found those articles there. One must also, just to get back to the clothing, one must also bear in mind that having searched the house for two to three hours, if they were bent on gathering other items other than firearms, they had ample opportunity to gather a lot more that only two suitcases full of clothing.

ADV DE JAGER: The foreman had more than that.

MR WESSELS: I beg your pardon?

ADV DE JAGER: If he had more than that.

MR WESSELS: Well, a husband and a wife in a farmhouse ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: It's a foreman, Mr - it's not the farmer, the land owner.

MR WESSELS: But still, they ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: There are poor whites too, we don't know whether they were poor or rich.

MR WESSELS: If one looks at the articles taken, two or three jerseys, two or three underpants, pyjamas, two pillow cases, certainly there must have been other items in that house, other items of value. The point I'm making is that the very fact that they only took two suitcases full of objects of clothing, etc, is indicative thereof that that was just a side issue, the taking of the clothing. That was not the main objective.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it equally indicative of the fact that there may have only been two suitcases there?

MR WESSELS: Well, we don't know, we see - I don't know where the other suitcase comes from, because according to a list of stolen ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't stolen.

MR WESSELS: ... a list of stolen items, there is only one suitcase if my memory serves me well.

CHAIRPERSON: But it does seem, it's a - as my brother has said, one suit - now that would indicate, if they're stealing suits, one would expect more if the man had more, wouldn't one? Doesn't it look as if these were poor people who had very little, and they took all they could find?

MR WESSELS: Well, we're really speculating on that score, Mr Chairman, because poor people - there were still firearms, there was a gold - a silver coloured cigarette lighter, a gold coloured flick - man's watch. Is this the type of - one Parker pen in grey ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: One silver coloured cigarette lighter, not a silver cigarette lighter. You can buy those at Tobacconists for a few rand.

MR WESSELS: We don't know, Mr Chairman. I think it is rather the number of articles taken, although it amounts to 42 in total, to take a notebook and a washcloth and a khaki shirt, really, there must have been more items of value in that house, and the very fact that they only took these items, having had ample opportunity to search that house thoroughly is indicative of that the taking of the articles was just a side issue, that is the only point I wish to make as far as that is concerned. It was there, and as it was explained by Mr Danster, somewhere along the line they had to get petrol money again, this does not correspond with the claims of Mr Kundulu, he says they were not allowed to take anything else. All of this conflict could be ascribed to the very fact that there was no leader amongst the three of them, there was no leader, and I think that is ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Wessels, what distinguishes this from the ordinary murders and housebreaking that's taking place even today, except for the fact that they say, we were ordered to go in order to get firearms for the struggle, isn't this an ordinary housebreaking, taking weapons as it being done today even, without a political motive, but we must accept here that they've been ordered, within bounds to get firearms?

MR WESSELS: Well, the moment the Committee accepts their claim that they acted on orders, then it will bring their actions within the ambit of a political motivated act, which would then entitle them to amnesty, and if the - that is the only evidence before the Committee, that they in fact acted on orders. I'm not saying within orders, they acted on orders.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Wessels, I don't think that's the problem. The problem is the element of personal gain.

MR WESSELS: But is there any indication of personal gain here, Mr Chairman, one would have thought if they were bent on taking stuff for themselves, then they would have gone to the trouble of selling the motorcar, and they didn't do that, the motorcar was the most valuable item. What did they do, they used the motorcar to convey the items, amongst the items being this long rifle, which nobody would have expected them to have walked down the street with a long rifle on the way to the Townships, so they used the motorcar to convey the items there, and having conveyed the items to the Township, they went along and burned the motor vehicle, with no indication whatsoever to use the motor vehicle further for their personal gain, and that I think is an important aspect which would indicate that they were not bent on getting things for their personal gain, it was out and out throughout their intention to do this in furtherance of the struggle - of the objectives of the struggle at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels, wasn't the motorcar the one item that the Police were likely to discover? It wasn't something small you could put in your back room, it was something that could be seen, so they got rid of it. They kept the things they could later sell and benefit themselves. Isn't the position that they may have been ordered to go and get firearms, but that they then decided that they would do a little bit for themselves while they were doing it?

MR WESSELS: But, Mr Chairman, would that not be speculation, is there any evidence ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There's evidence that they were told they must not take anything, that is your client's evidence.

MR WESSELS: That is the evidence of Mr Kundulu, it is not the evidence of Mr Danster. There is a conflict as far as that aspect is concerned, but this can be traced back to the very fact that there was no leader amongst the group. Fact of the matter at the end of the day, what was sold? A suit was sold and a clock was sold, and it was sold by neither of the two applicants, it was sold by another applicant, a former applicant. So it can - the fact that two items had been sold, can this now be laid before these two applicants as indicative thereof that they were acting in furtherance of their own personal interest? I submit with respect that would be taking it too far. If the other applicant could not explain properly why he sold certain items, even though the evidence indicates that he had not yet been paid therefore, then it's something that could be held against him, but it should not be held against these two applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Well they have been convicted of it. We are only granting amnesty for acts committed with a political purpose.

MR WESSELS: Well, let us look at what acts were committed by these two applicants which is connected with the order with which they had obtained. It is to be accepted that the order of disarming the farmers, that that would incorporate the use of violence, not necessarily killing, but the use of violence, I think that goes without saying. So they went along to the farm, broke into the house - now there were technically speaking two break-ins, but the first break-in should not be seen in isolation, this was sort of a preparatory act for the final act when they attacked the farmers to disarm him and his wife then of the firearms which they thought they had. So on the charges as they were - on the charges of which they were convicted of, housebreaking with the intent to rob and to murder, now surely that count would fall squarely within what they intended to go and do? They two murder counts ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Was there a second break-in?

MR WESSELS: Well, we had the first break-in when only two went to the house and they searched and they found the rifle, and then they went back for the second time and entered the house again. Now, there's no evidence before the court that they moved the curtain, or that they opened the window again, but they did not go in through an open door, the house was still very much in the same situation as it was before the occupants had arrived, so I think it would be fair to accept that there was a second break-in, whether it was merely the moving of an object, but it was certainly a second entry of the house unlawfully ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Second entry, yes.

MR WESSELS: But I think the Committee should not be over careful as far as that aspect is concerned, and view the housebreaking as a full picture, the initial housebreaking together with the later re-entry of the house. Whether that also constituted in housebreaking or not should not really matter, it was all part and parcel of the initial breaking-in into that house which was after a stone had been thrown through the window, so it was clearly housebreaking at the very outset. So to get back to the charges, the housebreaking at the very outset was not to rob because there were not occupants at the first entry of the house, so you can't rob if you can't apply violence, and neither can you murder if there aren't any occupants, but when they entered the house on the second time it was clearly with one intention only, and that was now to disarm the persons on their arrival there. So the robbery and then the murder goes hand in hand with that intention at the time, so the first count clearly falls within the execution of what they had in mind there. The two counts of murder goes hand in hand with the robbery, it's most unfortunate that they went to those lengths of killing the two people, but the use of force and the way that force was applied is not totally unconnected with their objective of disarming those people.

The robbery, count 4, with aggravating circumstances, there clearly the robbing of the firearms which is part and parcel of the schedule which has reference to count 4, the firearms - the two firearms, the ammunition and the car, so the four or certainly three of those valuables, as set out in the annexure, forms part and parcel of the robbery. The other items do not form part of the order. So by taking the other objects, on the evidence of Mr Kundulu, they would have exceeded the order. On the evidence of Mr Danster they would not have exceeded the order. So there's a conflict there, but even accepting that they may have overstepped the order in that regard, on the probabilities and on the evidence as it stands in any event, that was not the main objective of robbing those people. The purpose of robbing those people were to disarm them of their firearms and if they are entitled to amnesty on the fourth count of robbery, in that they disarmed them of their firearms, then I respectfully submit that they ought to get the benefit of those items, because - those items of clothing, because the Committee will not be able to give them a partial amnesty on the robbery count if they're entitled to that indeed, and to disregard the taking of the clothing. So there, they would benefit by that, under those circumstances, I submit that the Committee ought not to prejudice them in the sense that because clothing is involved, them not to grant them amnesty on the robbery charge.

MR POTGIETER: Mr Wessels, sorry, the clothing, was that packed into those suitcases on the first entry into the house?

MR WESSELS: It would appear so, because Mr Danster said that he had nothing to do with the packing of the clothing, he had merely removed the clothing, because it seems that on the second entry to the house the clothing had already been packed, because what took place there at that stage was the attack on the farmer and his wife. There was apparently very little time, except for the search of the bag, her sling-bag.

MR POTGIETER: They seemed to have spent a few hours in the house on the first occasion.

MR WESSELS: On the first occasion, indeed so.

MR POTGIETER: So it's more likely that those things would have been packed in then?

MR WESSELS: Would have been packed then by Lollie, who was in the house with Mr Kundulu at that stage, not with Mr Danster.

MR WESSELS: Which would be more in the form of a theft than in the form of a robbery?

MR WESSELS: That would be so, but one must also bear in mind now the State saw fit at the end to charge them with robbery with aggravating circumstances pertaining to, amongst other, the clothing and the firearms and everything, and robbery is theft by violence, so ...(intervention)

MR POTGIETER: Yes, I understand one has to take a broad view of this, but just for my own understanding, I think it's important, but thank you.

MR WESSELS: The theft would obviously have not been completed at the first instance because nothing had been removed from the farmhouse, it was merely packed there, so one could not argue that theft had already been completed at that visit. The theft, the removal of those articles from the farmhouse only took place after violence had actually been directed at the occupants of the house, both of them having been assaulted and then at that stage only were the items removed.

MR POTGIETER: Correct, and without that violence it might not have been possible to remove those suitcases?

MR WESSELS: Because those suitcases were removed in the motor vehicle, they needed the motor vehicle to remove it and they could only get the motor vehicle once the occupants had returned, in order to get the keys for the motor vehicle. So really, that must be seen under the robbery charge as it is framed here.

MR POTGIETER: Thank you.

MR WESSELS: On counts 5, 6 and 7, that directly relates to the firearm and the ammunition which is clearly within the ambit of what they intended to go and do there, and in execution of their order. And then count no 8, the malicious injury, and there is the word "injury", Mr Chairman, you raised the question of the damage to property, it's always been known as the malicious injury to property. The malicious injury to property of the motor vehicle which was taken with only one intention, and that is to move these items, including the .22 gun to the Township, so that too would be part and parcel of the execution of their acts.

ADV DE JAGER: But wasn't it because it was too far to walk, wasn't that the reason given?

MR WESSELS: Not only that reason, Mr ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, the other reason was added by the other witness, but the one witness said, do you expect me to walk the long distance back to the town.

MR WESSELS: No, I think that aspect was raised with Mr Kundulu, Mr Chairman, and Mr Kundulu made it very clear, do you expect me to walk with a long rifle like this in the Townships in the streets, we must hide it, and that is exactly what it was needed for. How could they have got that rifle back to the Townships without hiding it in a way, and this ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: So if it was only pistols then they wouldn't have taken the car?

MR WESSELS: Well that's a hypothetical question, Mr Chairman, the facts of this matter required the use of the motor vehicle and the taking of the motor vehicle was a necessity to finalise that act or the operation so to speak. So in that sense I submit that in casu, the taking of the motor vehicle and the malicious injury to that motor vehicle at the end to, as the trial court put it, "a futile attempt to cover their tracks", was certainly a necessity and would also bring their actions within the ambit of the requirements of this section.

I submit in the end this Committee, even though there may well be a suspicion that there could have been a intention on some of the gang members, in particular Lollie, having taken all those items or packed those items, that he intended doing so for personal gain. I submit that on the direct denial of the two applicants before this Committee, the Committee in the absence of any evidence against their claims, will find in their favour, and that is that they had no intention for any personal gain, and that they merely acted on instructions and acted bone fide on instructions, and to the best of their ability they acted within those instructions. Although viewed objectively it may be argued that they did not stick in toto to the instructions, but in the end of the matter the Committee ought to consider their actions holistically and then find that they nevertheless acted bone fide and that they acted in furtherance of what is set out in Section 22(a), and that is that they as members of Cradoya acted on behalf of and in support of that organisation in a bone fide manner in furtherance of a political struggle waged by that organisation against the State and the Security Forces in particular in liberating the masses, as it were at the time.

If there's nothing in particular, nothing else, Mr Chairman, then those are my submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR NYOKA: No submissions.

MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairman, I just want to explain the status of the documents from pages 23 - 25 of the bundle - which document forms part of the bundle, and I just want to make an explanation so as the enable the Committee to determine the status of this document and the weight to be laid on it. This document, Chairperson, is a document which we decided to include in this bundle, because at that time we were preparing the bundle we were operating under the premise that Mr Lollie Kwakwarie is one of the applicants, and should he be giving evidence he would be allowed an opportunity to verify what makes the contents of this document. Unfortunately he's no longer an applicant now, and that being the case therefor, Chairperson, it is my submission that this document has no reason now to be taken into account.

CHAIRPERSON: You have no idea where it came from, who prepared it?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, sir. That is all, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]