THEMBISILE MAJEBE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Majebe, the affidavit which is in front of you is also before the Committee, do you confirm that this affidavit was made by yourself and that you abide by its contents?

MR MAJEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Wait Mr Mbandazayo, just which one are you talking about that you would want to rely on?

In the bundle we have an application that starts on the page marked 1. Attached to that form is a document headed "Statement by Thembesile Majebe", starting on page 8 and that proceeds to page 40. We have now been handed a document headed "Affidavit"; it seems that the same person has made an affidavit.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the document you wish to lead him on?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairperson, I've tried thusfar to facilitate the leading of evidence made with this affidavit from that statement.

CHAIRPERSON: This will be Exhibit A then.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: I'm sorry Chairperson, perhaps I have just to explain the status of the document from page 8 to page 14. Mr Chairperson this statement is in fact a statement which was prepared by the TRC investigator, he having had an interview with the applicant, otherwise it's not a statement which accompanied the amnesty application of the applicant as such. Thank you sir.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson to facilitate the proceeding of this matter, what I will do, though it it's contained in the affidavit, I wouldn't necessarily confine myself to the affidavit to certain paragraphs but what is going to happen is what is contained in the affidavit I will ask just to lead the applicant on the contents, not necessarily to referring to a particular paragraph. Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Majebe, can you tell the Committee in your own words what led to yourself attempting to kill the victim, Lucky August?

MR MAJEBE: In 1993 there was a dispute amongst PASO students and COSA students. Mr Lucky August was the secretary for the ANC Youth League in Fort Beaufort, he was one of the people who was involved amongst the leaders who were forcing the other students to be chased away from the school.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes what were you at the time yourself?

MR MAJEBE: I was the PASO organiser at the time. I was a student at Namibia, I was in Standard 8.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, proceed.

MR MAJEBE: Mr Lucky August, between 7 and 8pm, we saw Mr Lucky August with two of his comrades, they were three in total. They came towards us, we were sitting at a place where his elder brother who was a priest stayed, next door to the place we were sitting. He got out of that house and came towards and went past us going towards his home. My late comrade Luyanda Zote also stayed on the street. He went to his home, we had no business with him at the time, we just were on our own business, but after five minutes had elapsed when he had got into his house, Mr Gcabashe who was fixing a car underneath a street lamp in the township looked shocked and we joked with him asking him what was going on. He said that Lucky was threatening Ngulu Leko with a gun and was telling him how he was going to shoot him. We asked where the person was and he said that he went to his house. We asked what had happened, he said that he asked this boy to go and fetch a screw driver and when he was going past his house he threatened him with a gun, therefore he was shocked. After the shock he decided to take a walk.

We went to look for him, we didn't find him ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry it's not quite clear to me, whom did Lucky threaten to shoot?

MR MAJEBE: Ngulu Leko.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that the man working on the car?

MR MAJEBE: No it was a little boy who was helping the man that was fixing the car.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: When you say little boy, about what age was he, this Ngulu Leko?

MR MAJEBE: Between eight and ten years of age.

ADV SANDI: Did he have any association with anyone of you or your group, this Ngulu Leko?

MR MAJEBE: His elder brother was a member of our organisation, the PAC. When we went to look for him we stood three houses away from Lucky's house, we waited for about five minutes and schoolboy Charlie appeared with a coke bottle. When he saw us he went back to the place where he came from which was Lucky August's house. A few minutes after he had got into the house, Lucky came out of the house alone, he came using the road coming towards us. We did not care much because we were sitting on the pavement just next to a hedge. He then came exactly towards us and his one hand went towards his waist as if he was going to take out something. When he was about two to three steps away from us I leaped and I took a pickaxe and hit him with it until he fell.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that a pick handle or a pick axe?

MR MAJEBE: A pickaxe. I hit him with the handle.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Majebe. Interpreter, did he say pick axe or pick handle? I think he says pick handle.

INTERPRETER: Pick handle, I apologise.

MR MAJEBE: When he fell I went to search what weapon he had around his waist. I found a gun, a .38, we usually call it a fly wheel, around his waist. I took it, I hit him again on the face twice with the pick handle, this is when he was still down. I then ran off with his gun, we left him there. Whilst this was happening I was with Luyanda Zote who had been threatened by Lucky August with death and Thembela Father. What caused all this were the threats that he had made towards my comrades and the spirit he spread around the school that we should be kicked out of the school. He was not even at school, he was just a member of the Youth League, ANC Youth League in the community, not at school. Should I continue?

MR DE JAGER: Just to go back to the attack with the pick handle, did the pick handle on the one end contain an axe or was it only the handle and you used the back side of the pick axe or was it only the wooden handle separate from the pick?

MR MAJEBE: It was just a handle, a pick handle.

CHAIRPERSON: How many times did you hit him after you had disarmed him?

MR MAJEBE: I think twice.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereabouts on his body?

MR MAJEBE: Around the head.

ADV SANDI: What was he doing at that stage?

MR MAJEBE: He was lying on the ground.

CHAIRPERSON: How many times did you hit him before you disarmed him?

MR MAJEBE: Before he fell on the ground I hit him twice on the face.

ADV SANDI: When you hit him twice on the face, that is after you had disarmed him, what was your aim, why did you do that?

MR MAJEBE: The reason why I hit him after I had disarmed him was because I was angry at the time and the way he had threatened people. I knew him pretty well, I did not expect him to do all the things that he was doing.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, how many people were lying in wait there for Mr August?

MR MAJEBE: There were two with me, I was the third person.

CHAIRPERSON: Three of you. And according to your affidavit, you were lying on the grass, the three of you behind the hedge, is that correct?

MR MAJEBE: Correct, we were not lying behind the hedge, it was the hedge and then the lawn, the grass and we were just there.

CHAIRPERSON: Could Mr August see you when he approached you?

MR MAJEBE: Yes he saw us because where we were, it was dark where we were and just when you got down there was light so where he was he could see us.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand your evidence correctly, you of the three are the only one that assaulted Mr August?

MR MAJEBE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: When you hit him before he fell, before you disarmed him, did he bleed?

MR MAJEBE: It was dark, I did not see any blood.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were near the light, you could see you, isn't it?

MR MAJEBE: Where we were there was no light but on both sides there was light. If you were standing where we were where it was dark you could see.

CHAIRPERSON: You said that Lucky could see you when he approached you because there was light, not so?

MR MAJEBE: I said he was coming towards ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He could see you because you were ...(intervention)

MR MAJEBE: He saw shadows, he could not see who it was particularly, he must have seen shadows.

CHAIRPERSON: That's not what you told me now.

MR MAJEBE: I said where we were it was dark, the light was on both sides, on the left and on the right. When you're coming towards us you could see our shadows reflected on the light on both sides.

CHAIRPERSON: No that's not what you said. I asked you that when you were lying there on the grass and when Mr August was approaching you, could he see you and you said yes he could see because there was light, not so?

MR MAJEBE: Maybe you didn't understand me sir, I said where we were the hedge that was blocking the light but he could see our shadows because there was light on both sides, on the left and on the right. Only when he comes much closer could he see exactly who it was.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja okay, so where you were lying on the grass, when he got to you he would have known who it was, not so?

MR MAJEBE: I don't know whether he knew exactly who, if he could see exactly who we were.

CHAIRPERSON: But you say that if he came close to you people he would have seen who it was.

MR MAJEBE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How far was he when you saw him?

INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon, the speaker says it is the distance from where he is sitting to the white wall on the opposite side.

CHAIRPERSON: I reckon about 10 metres or a little bit more?

MR MAJEBE: We could say, which wall?

CHAIRPERSON: Oh that wall there, I'd say it's about 15 metres, are we in agreement, Mr Sandi?

MR SANDI: M'Lord, is it not a little bit more than 15 metres?

CHAIRPERSON: Generous to the witness. Mr Mapoma would you accept plus or minus 15?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson I would accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: Then all the representatives agree it's more or less 15 metres.

Tell me, how were you able to see that it was Mr Lucky August at that distance, if you say that he would only be able to see who it was if he was close to you?

MR MAJEBE: First of all there was a street lamp and it was lit on the side where he was coming, and as I've already said we saw him before and we saw the clothes that he had been wearing and I know him well.

CHAIRPERSON: Does he know you well?

MR MAJEBE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know how he knew it was you people at that position if it was difficult for him to see?

MR MAJEBE: Please repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: If it was difficult for him to see at a distance and had to be near you in order to identify you and your colleagues with perhaps an intention to attack you or whatever, can you tell me how from a distance of 15m or more was he able to say who it was that was on the grass?

MR MAJEBE: I think something is not clear, I made a distance with that wall, that distance is when we saw him emanating from his house coming towards us. The road would pass close right next to the grass where we were lying, for example if we are lying where I am sitting, the road would go past where the speakers are, therefore from the speakers so to speak he then changed his direction and came straight towards us.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Majebe, listen to me very carefully. This is not a criminal matter. We don't sit here in order to pass sentence on you. In fact what we are sitting here for is to entertain your application for amnesty and if you comply with certain aspects of the law, we are obliged to grant the amnesty for you, do you understand? So let us forget about all the technicalities of distances and lighting. One of the aspects that you must comply with is to tell us the truth, do we understand?

MR MAJEBE: I'm listening sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Therefore I'm asking you now, never mind the technicalities of lighting and distance, as I understand your application, it was your view that Mr August was coming directly to you with a view of attacking you and your colleagues, not so?

MR MAJEBE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell us, if you can't then say you can't, can you tell us how he would have known that you were on the grass during the night?

MR MAJEBE: He knew that it was us because Schoolboy went to tell him that we were lying there.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't Schoolboy come and tell you this is what he intended, that is to attack you? That's how I understood your evidence or am I wrong?

MR MAJEBE: That was Ngulu Leko and not Schoolboy. Mr August was with Schoolboy. Ngulu Leko was the boy that was threatened, helping Mr Gcabashe with the car.

CHAIRPERSON: Correct, now your colleagues, were they armed?

MR MAJEBE: Yes they were.

CHAIRPERSON: What with?

MR MAJEBE: They also had pick handles.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?

MR MAJEBE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Nobody had firearms?

MR MAJEBE: One person had a firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was that?

MR MAJEBE: Thembela.

CHAIRPERSON: That is one of your colleagues?

MR MAJEBE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So he had a firearm and a gun?

MR MAJEBE: Could you repeat your question please?

CHAIRPERSON: Which one?

MR MAJEBE: Did you say he had a firearm and then?

CHAIRPERSON: Pick handle.

MR MAJEBE: He had a firearm and a pick handle.

CHAIRPERSON: But therefore I'm saying, listen to my two questions carefully because a question or two ago I asked you what the others had and you said pick handles, and I asked: "Is that all"? and you said: "Yes". Then I asked you whether anyone had a firearm and you said: "Yes one of them". Therefore I'm saying listen to the questions carefully, do you understand?

MR MAJEBE: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say one of you had a firearm but the person who had a firearm, also a pick handle did not attack Mr Lucky August, correct? It was only you that attacked him, correct?

MR MAJEBE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you only armed with a pick handle, nothing else?

MR MAJEBE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You only struck him about four times with this pick handle in the vicinity of his head and face. correct?

MR MAJEBE: I hit him twice before he fell. I don't remember exactly how many times I hit him after he had fallen.

CHAIRPERSON: You've already said about twice, I'm not going to hold you to that but it's approximate.

MR MAJEBE: Alright.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree you hit him about twice thereafter?

MR MAJEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So all in all it was about four times?

MR MAJEBE: Yes approximately.

CHAIRPERSON: You did nothing else to him?

MR MAJEBE: After I got his gun I ran off with the gun.

CHAIRPERSON: No after you got his gun you hit him about twice more?

MR MAJEBE: Correct and then I ran.

CHAIRPERSON: Did your other two colleagues also run away at that time?

MR MAJEBE: They ran before me, they ran off before me.

CHAIRPERSON: And you left Mr August there?

MR MAJEBE: Yes I left him on the ground.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know what happened to him thereafter?

MR MAJEBE: I do not know what happened to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Majebe can you tell the Committee; you are telling the Committee the two of you, yourself it was Luyanda and another one, but in Court you were charged with Mr Biko, can you tell the Committee why was that that you were charged with Mr Biko, not the two others, yet you say that they were the people that were there? You didn't mention Mr Biko was charged with you.

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct. I was accused with Mr Biko who a PAC member in the court but in the incident he was not there, he was not part of the incident at all. My view is that it was the PAC and the ANC that were fighting, he got involved because it was known that he was an ANC member, to fulfil the aims of the ANC because what they wanted to do is to be an obstacle in the PAC struggle. He is the one who obstructed the aims of the PAC struggles in Fort Beaufort.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson I don't think the interpretation was right. In fact the interpretation is that Mr Biko, he is the person who made PAC to be strong, to grow in Fort Beaufort so that's why he was mentioned as one of the people who attacking Lucky August, not the other way around.

ADV SANDI: I agree with you, maybe we can ask him to repeat what he said. Can you repeat everything you just said?

MR MAJEBE: I think that the reason why I was accused with Mr Biko is because the problem between the ANC and the PAC in the community. Mr Biko was the person who was strong and helped the PAC in Fort Beaufort to be strong and to stand still. The reason why he got involved was because they wanted to destroy the PAC altogether in Fort Beaufort and only wanted the ANC to exist there.

MR DE JAGER: What were the names of your other two colleagues who were involved and were lying behind the hedge that evening?

MR MAJEBE: Luyanda Zote and Thembele Fata.

ADV SANDI: They are both dead now I understand?

MR MAJEBE: Correct.

ADV SANDI: Did they die as a result of this conflict?

MR MAJEBE: No. I was not there but I heard that Thembele was shot in a taxi war and Luyanda was stabbed by a friend of his when they were playing.

MR DE JAGER: Were they involved in many fights?

MR MAJEBE: I don't know them as such.

MR DE JAGER: And after this incident, we know at least they've been involved in two fights now, well each one in one fight and that was fatal fights, but before that do you know of any other fights they were involved in?

MR MAJEBE: No I know of no other incidents except this one that I am about here?

MR DE JAGER: During that week preceding the present incident there were a lot of incidents where other people were wounded and attacked, were they involved in those attacks?

MR MAJEBE: Not that I know of.

MR DE JAGER: Were you involved in those attacks?

MR MAJEBE: Yes there were incidents that I was involved in before this one.

MR DE JAGER: Was Mr Biko involved in those attacks?

MR MAJEBE: No.

MR DE JAGER: There were two Mr Biko's, Mr Vuyisile Biko and Mr Tekane Biko, is that correct?

MR MAJEBE: That's correct.

MR DE JAGER: Were anyone of them involved in any attack?

MR MAJEBE: I know Tekane well because I was at school with him. He was a church goer, he didn't smoke or drink, he was born again, he was saved, he didn't like violence even at school.

MR DE JAGER: And you, were you born again and a church goer and didn't like violence?

MR MAJEBE: No I was not saved, I was not a church goer. I did not like violence but I did protect myself from violence.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chair.

Mr Majebe, you heard in Court what happened and you heard the victim Mr Lucky August who was sitting down there narrating his story and how he was injured in the incident. What do you say to that today?

MR MAJEBE: First of all I would like to say to Mr Lucky August that we were all in the struggle we must accept what happened during the struggle, he must accept as a freedom fighter but I know that it is not easy to accept this because I would not accept it either as I see him and the way he is now. Because of the oppression of the time, of the day, we swore that we would fight against the oppression. If he could find peace and realise that in a struggle in a war there are casualties.

MR DE JAGER: And now answer the question that's been asked of you by your counsel.

CHAIRPERSON: It was put to you that you heard what he said in the criminal trial, have you got any comments about what his version was in the criminal trial? Isn't that the issue Mr Mbandazayo?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson, thank you. Let me put it this way, you heard Mr August, what he told the Court, how he was attacked and what time of the day this incident happened. Now I want you to comment on that.

MR MAJEBE: Because it was in court and there was a case, he wanted me to be found guilty. He said I attacked him during the day, it was not in the day, it was between seven and eight, it was in the evening. We didn't talk to him as he said, that we asked for tobacco or cigarettes, we did not throw a stone at him as he said in court, we didn't stab him with anything but what happened is that I hit him with a pick handle.

MR MBANDAZAYO: That's all Mr Chairperson at this time.

CHAIRPERSON: You know there's medical evidence as there was in a criminal matter, that says that Mr August lost his sight as a result of being stabbed in the eyes. Have you got any comments about that, do you know anything about that?

MR MAJEBE: I heard that report from court and they way that they said that he was injured in the eye. It was not a sharp object, it was a pick handle that I hit him with, not anything sharp.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please repeat that last statement?

MR MAJEBE: If it was a sharp object it would have interfered with his brain or his skull, his skull would have been cracked.

CHAIRPERSON: Now look, all I want to know is whether you deny or confirm that he was stabbed in his eye, leave alone the technicalities of which neither of us is an expert.

MR MAJEBE: Yes I deny it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, I want to ask witness a particular question but I'd like him to take advice first from you. The question being whether he accepts in view of his last answer that Mr August's blindness is the result of his activities but I don't want him to answer the question, I want him to take advice first. Secondly, maybe you can consult with him also, we have in our possession the judgment at the criminal trial wherein certain factors relating to medical evidence is mentioned, it does not seem that that section of the judgement in any event has been put into dispute. I would want to ask you afterwards whether you accept that bit of evidence or do we need to call a doctor or whatever or solve that problem in any way the panel deems fit. I will adjourn now for tea so as to give you an opportunity to consult with him.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

THEMBISILE MAJEBE: (s.u.o.)

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson. As Chairperson, during the interval I did consult with my client Mr Chairperson and Mr Chairperson can ask the questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Majebe, there is evidence before us that the reason that Mr August lost his sight was because he was stabbed in the eyes. Now do you accept, you've already said that you don't know anything about that, correct?

MR MAJEBE: I know that he was injured and the cause of that but the fact that he was stabbed with a sharp object, I don't know anything about that because what actually happened as I have already indicated before, Mr Lucky August I hit him with a pick handle. He was supposed to be shot by my comrade who was later afraid and I decided to hit him with a pick handle.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you accept that he lost his sight as a result of your actions?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Lastly, I'm not suggesting that you stabbed him or not, but there is evidence before us that he was stabbed in the eyes. Do you contest that medical evidence or not? The medical evidence doesn't say you did it, neither am I suggesting at this stage that you did it, but do you accept that medical evidence that he was stabbed in the eyes at some stage or the other or not?

MR MAJEBE: I'm here to tell the truth first of all, I'm not here to apologise or to accept something did not happen because I want forgiveness, I'm not going to do that. All I know and what I did is what I'm saying that Mr August was supposed to be shot by the comrade that was with me, therefore I injured him with a pick handle. I accept that the evidence from the doctor that he was injured in the eyes, I accept that but I do not accept that he was stabbed by a sharp object, therefore I'm not going to change my statement and say that he was stabbed with a sharp object because I want to get amnesty, because I'm the one who was hitting him, there was no knife.

CHAIRPERSON: The Doctor indicates that he was stabbed in the eye. Do you say the doctor was wrong or do you accept what the doctor says?

MR MAJEBE: I do not accept the fact that he was stabbed because I've already said that I hit him with a pick handle. He was never stabbed with a sharp object. I was the one who was doing it and I am sure that the doctor was not there, but the doctor saw wounds. The pick handle that I was using was not that smooth, maybe it could cause some injuries that would look like it was done with a sharp object but I'm sure that if the object was sharp his bones could have been cracked, maybe he could have died because of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Now look here Mr Majebe, I didn't asked you to give me a medical lecture. I am not an expert, neither are you about how injuries are inflicted, all I'm asking you is that somehow the doctor has made that finding, if you dispute it, well and good, that's all I'm asking, are you able to dispute what the doctor has said? If you do dispute it say so, if you don't say so, but I'm not asking for explanations how injuries were inflicted.

MR MAJEBE: I said I'm here to tell the truth, I'm not here to satisfy anyone, to say what a particular person wants me to say and to hear it from what happened, the doctor does not know the object that caused his injuries, I'm the one who knows it, that doctor says that it's a sharp object, I dispute that because I'm the one who hit him with a pick handle.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Mbandazayo, I don't know if I'm going to get further.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson I've already indicated that there's nothing to lead further, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi, have you got any questions?

MR SANDI: Yes I do Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SANDI: Now Mr Majebe if Mr August was not carrying a firearm and he just walked past you whilst you were lying there on the ground, on the grass, would you Mr Majebe have attacked?

MR MAJEBE: I hope that in front of you you do have my explanation or my application. Mr Lucky August, what he did initially before he was seen at that site, he threatened Luyanda Zote, he threatened to kill Luyanda Zote. If he is not there at his place he would kill his mother and cut off her breast and the breast would be put on top of the table, that would be a message. When we saw him we had already got a report. As we went there we went there to watch him. It is clear that we went there to prevent him from attacking.

MR SANDI: The question remains, Mr Majebe, if Mr August did not have a firearm and he walked past you in the street while you were lying there, would you Mr Majebe have attacked him?

MR MAJEBE: At the time that we talked about there was conflict between PAC and the ANC and we knew Mr August as a person who would attack us, therefore we were forced to protect ourselves against him.

MR DE JAGER: No the question is very simple, whether you had to protect yourselves or whether there was conflict or not, counsel is asking you only one thing, you were lying there, he walked past, if he only continued walking on would you have attacked him or not?

MR MAJEBE: I was going to attack him. The reason for that is this, at that the time at Fort Beaufort there was conflict between ANC and PAC and he was a member of the ANC and we knew very well that he was one of the people who have contributed in what was happening there and as a leader we were supposed to attack him so that his subordinates who were attacking PAC members could stop and learn a lesson from him.

CHAIRPERSON: So it had nothing to do with defending Luyanda’s house and his person, as you told us before?

MR MAJEBE: That is a combination because even the threat was part of what was happening between his organisation and my organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: So why didn't you go out to attack him at same other time, why did you lay in wait for him as if to say, well certainly the impression I got was to see if anybody was going to come and attack this house and then defend the house? And when he came he appeared to be taking something out of his waist at which point he was then attacked.

MR MAJEBE: As I said, one of my comrades had a gun, he was supposed to shoot him from the beginning but he was afraid. He waited for him to come closer but I realised that we could be in danger, I decided to hit him first.

MR DE JAGER: So you were in fact lying there to ambush him?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct as he also went to our place to attack us.

MR DE JAGER: Was he alone when you attacked him?

MR MAJEBE: Yes he was alone when we were attacking him.

MR DE JAGER: So all the stories that you've been trying to guard the house, that you've only been lying there waiting and see whether he would pass there, that's not the real issue, the issue was you were ambushing him there and you would like to kill him because he was your opponent?

MR MAJEBE: To be our opponent is something else. He was destroying our organisation. We had authority, it was our authority to go and attack and protect our organisation against anyone who would do anything similar to what he was doing.

CHAIRPERSON: If he was such a great threat and destroying your organisation, why didn't you go and attack him at his house the day before or the week before?

MR MAJEBE: We wouldn't find him in his house.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you know, did you try?

MR MAJEBE: Mr Lucky August as I've told you before, I know him. I even know that he is a trained guerrilla. As a person who's got the same training, we wouldn't find him in his house, the only place we would find him was in the street or on the way to further his mission, whatever mission that he was about to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So you saw him going into a house, not so?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That was before you got any message, correct?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you and your colleagues run to that house and attack him if he was such a great threat to your organisation?

MR MAJEBE: We couldn't just go into his house because we knew that he was a trained soldier, we wouldn't just go there straight to him, we were supposed to be cool and calm down because we would be injured by him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Sandi.

MR SANDI: Now Mr Majebe, is it correct or not that when you attacked Mr August you were acting in self-defence?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that was self-defence, we were protecting ourselves.

CHAIRPERSON: So did you commit a crime then? Do you think you committed a crime by assaulting him?

MR MAJEBE: That was not a crime to protect ourselves or to defend ourselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Now therefore I'm asking you, when you attacked him it was in self defence and in defence of your organisation, therefore you did not commit a crime? Do I understand you correctly?

MR MAJEBE: That was not crime but according to the government of the time what we did was regarded as if we were breaking the law but we the people of the organisation, we knew that that was not breaking the law because that was also contained in the documents of the ANC that anyone who was trying to destroy our organisation is not to be allowed. That's what we did, therefore that was not breaking the law.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I know. I think we all know what the law under the previous government was and the law under the present government, etc. What I'm trying to establish, because under both laws if a person approached a matter in self defence then it was not a crime, everybody is entitled to defend himself, not so?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is directed at finding out precisely what your position was. When you hit Mr August, were you attacking him or were you defending yourself?

MR MAJEBE: I was defending myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SANDI: You were defending yourself because he had this firearm.

MR MAJEBE: I was defending myself and I was also defending my organisation because if I die, if my organisation will lose and die and his intentions would be fulfilled. I was not attacking him but I was just attacking him because he wanted to destroy my organisation so that his own organisation can be successful.

MR SANDI: And when you attacked him, did you intend to kill him?

MR MAJEBE: That would depend on the situation, that would depend on the attack, but all I was doing, I was just defending myself against him but killing was no-one's intention, it would just happen.

MR SANDI: But this attack on Mr Majebe, was it planned?

MR MAJEBE: The attack was not planned but what we did when we saw him, we knew what we were supposed to do about him because if we had planned he would be in the trap from the first time that he was appearing because he was not the only person that we were waiting for. Anyone from the ANC if he would appear at the time we would do the same with him.

MR SANDI: So you saw him walking, he went into a certain house and then it was at that stage that you decided to attack him?

MR MAJEBE: He went to a certain house and we were watching him and we told ourselves that we had seen him and we were supposed to do something to him.

MR SANDI: And then once he went into the house you went to arm yourselves.

MR MAJEBE: As we were sitting they were waiting anyone like him, not waiting for him only, we were ready for anything that would happen. It's not that we were waiting for him specifically, anyone from the ANC organisation was to be in the same danger, all the time we were ready for anything that would happen.

MR SANDI: So any member of the ANC irrespective of age, irrespective of anything, if he or she appeared there you would have assaulted that person, attacked that person.

MR MAJEBE: That is not so. There were children and other people who were also supporters of ANC but we were looking for the people like him who were the leaders, who were the perpetrators of what was happening because they were the people who were giving instructions. Therefore we would be wasting time if we would rush for the subordinates instead of getting to the leaders straight. That is why we were waiting for the leaders like him.

MR SANDI: Now the plan to attack, as I understand your evidence ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: If you wanted to kill him and your colleague got cold feet, why didn't you take hold of that firearm and do it yourself if he needed to be killed? You were there, you had disarmed him, you had rendered him ineffective, why didn't you just take hold of the firearm that was in the custody of your colleague who was supposed to have shot him and do the job yourself?

MR MAJEBE: First of all the people who were with me were the task force members who were waiting for my orders. I gave one of them an order and then he defied the order and as a person who had issued the order I was supposed to attack because as I was issuing an order he was not standing still, he was on the way approaching us. I did not have a chance to take the gun because the other comrade was also afraid and I wouldn't have time to go and get the firearm from my comrade, he could have shot me first. What I thought of immediately at the time was to attack him.

MR DE JAGER: Why didn't you shoot him with his own gun after you had taken his gun?

MR MAJEBE: He was ineffective because he was already lying down and my aim was not to kill him but I just wanted to take, I just wanted him to stop trying to destroy our organisation and try to chase our members away.

CHAIRPERSON: So you thought by hitting him four times with a pick handle, that would do the job? A trained guerrilla as you put it would now desist from political activities because he got clouted with a pick handle? Is that what you're saying?

MR MAJEBE: Professor Sobukwa said that if a person is very stupid you can use a pick handle to show him the right way. I was not actually killing him, I was just giving him some discipline because I wanted him to know that the way that they are doing in their politics is not the right way because their mistake is that if a black person has committed a mistake to another black person they attack that particular person but if a white man had done something wrong to a black person they just go on a peaceful march to that particular person. I was trying to show them that the PAC is regarding them not as our enemies, our only enemies were Boers and the Boers were befriended by them, therefore we were trying to show them that they are not supposed to fight us, they are supposed to negotiate with us. I was trying to take him off that mind-set.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you finished with that answer? Then answer this. Your colleague was supposed kill him by shooting him, not to teach him anything, isn't that so?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct, he was supposed to shoot him, if he died he would just die like that. Maybe if he was not shot at another - we were not going to be able to control the situation whether he dies or not after being shot, we were not ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Look here, there was a plan to kill him you said, correct? There was a plan to kill him, your colleague was supposed to shoot him, not to teach him anything, not so?

MR MAJEBE: Shooting him to death, to the others who would still be alive at the time, that would be a lesson.

CHAIRPERSON: You gave an order to somebody who defied your order you say, your order was to shoot and kill him, that is Mr August, correct? Remember you said so?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The simple question is, asked by my colleague, that when this order was defied you had Mr August's firearm yourself in your hand, why didn't you then shoot him because he was supposed to be killed? You were defending your organisation against the man who was destroying your organisation?

MR MAJEBE: I issued the order to shoot him, he was not shot and I hit him and he fell and it was clear that he wouldn't be able to do anything, therefore I didn't see a reason for me to shoot him while he was lying down. If I was not satisfied I could have shot him with his own gun.

MR SANDI: Now Mr Majebe, do you accept that the original court magistrate who convicted you of the offence of an attempted murder of Mr August, that he did so correctly, in other words that the finding he made that you are guilty of that offence is correct?

MR MAJEBE: What I did as a person who was opposing the government of the day, I did not regard that as breaking the law but the Boer government regarded it as law-breaking and I was prosecuted because of it, that is why I was found guilty by him. That is why I made this application for me to be here because I was not supposed to be prosecuted.

MR SANDI: As you are sitting there now Mr Majebe, do you accept that the finding made by the magistrate that you are guilty of an attempt to kill Mr August was correct?

MR MAJEBE: As I'm sitting here I am against that finding but unfortunately I don't have any power. That was done and the aims of that government were fulfilled. I'm opposing that. If I was not opposing that I wouldn't come here and ask for amnesty, I would be in prison.

MR SANDI: So you have come to ask for amnesty because the magistrate's finding that you were guilty of an attempt to kill Mr August is wrong?

MR MAJEBE: I am here with the aim of trying to show anyone that what I did at the time was not wrong to members of ANC because that is contained, even our documents are not against that, but anyone who is not a member of PAC will take that as a wrong action but I'm here with the aim of trying to do away with what used to happen during the old government of the Boers. I am not sure if you are satisfied sir.

MR SANDI: I'm not satisfied but I'll proceed to the next question.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Sandi, before you proceed to another question.

Mr Majebe, why didn't you tell the Court that you were acting in self-defence? Why didn't you tell the Court that there was this background of conflict between your organisation and the complainant's organisation and that it was in that context that you had attacked him?

MR MAJEBE: The Boers were happy and they knew everything about it. They were prosecuting, doing all these things to me. It’s because they knew very well that I was going to overthrow their government. They imprisoned me and prosecuted me because I was protecting their regime.

ADV SANDI: Did you tell the Court that you were aware that the complainant was a member of the ANC?

MR MAJEBE: If there was a reason for me to do so I would do that but there was no reason because I was even against - I did not even admit that I hit him, but here I do admit that and I even give my reasons for doing that but in Court I did not even do that. I did not even admit to knowing him as a person who was hit or as a person who was a member of whatever. I said all the things that would save me from conviction.

ADV SANDI: Yes but you could not have convicted for saying this man had a firearm, he was trying to shoot me, I took the firearm away from him and here's the firearm as an exhibit.

MR MAJEBE: If I was collaborating with that government of the Boers I could have done so but unfortunately I was not working together with that government, therefore I could not do anything like that because he was going to gain at the end of the day.

ADV SANDI: Where is the firearm, what happened to the firearm?

MR MAJEBE: It was confiscated during a raid in the base.

ADV SANDI: Carry on sir.

MR SANDI: Mr Majebe today we learnt you issued the order to one of your colleagues to shoot Mr August.

MR MAJEBE: That is correct.

MR SANDI: Secondly we learnt today that you were commanding this operation to shoot and kill Mr August.

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

MR SANDI: Do you have the document that you yourself -no before I come to that question, do you have the application which you submitted to the Committee which you signed while you were in prison seeking amnesty.

MR MAJEBE: Yes it is here with me.

MR SANDI: Could you look at page 1 of that document. Do you see that on page 1 of that document you describe yourself as a PASO organiser?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

MR SANDI: Elsewhere in the document you mention that you were trained in the camp as a member of APLA.

MR MAJEBE: That is correct.

MR SANDI: Now in this document, that is the application, you don't mention anything about the fact that you were a commander.

MR MAJEBE: Just repeat your question.

MR SANDI: In the application you made to the Committee you don't mention anything that you were a commander of operations.

MR MAJEBE: That is correct, it is not all the information that is contained in this paper.

MR SANDI: Who appointed you to that position of commander?

MR MAJEBE: The person who trained me.

MR SANDI: Has he got a name or not?

MR MAJEBE: He does have a name, it's Diyo. The name is Diyo.

MR SANDI: When did he give you that rank of commanding officer?

MR MAJEBE: That was in 1993.

MR SANDI: So at the time that you were involved in this incident relating to Mr August, you were this commanding officer having been appointed to that position in 1993?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

MR SANDI: Now you had other people under your command?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

MR SANDI: And Vuyasile Biko was one of them?

MR MAJEBE: That is not so.

MR SANDI: Was Vuyasile Biko a member of ANC and a member of APLA?

MR MAJEBE: I know him as a member of PAC.

MR SANDI: And Tekana Biko, was he a member of APLA?

MR MAJEBE: At the time he was a member of PASO and he was also in the task force.

MR SANDI: Now why didn't you mention this information in your application that you were appointed to the position of commander?

MR MAJEBE: The time was not yet right for me to explain that because as you look at this application you've got only a few lines to supply information. I was just mentioning things I saw them necessary to be contained here.

MR SANDI: But sir you were asked pertinently in the application to describe the capacity in which you committed the offence in respect of which you are asking for amnesty.

MR MAJEBE: Will you please show me that part here in this document?

MR SANDI: On page 1, paragraph B, that's where you state that you were a PASO organiser during the event and that you were also from the APLA camp.

MR MAJEBE: As you see this part, the only names that would fit in this part I inserted them but because of the space that was not enough I couldn't put anything further.

MR SANDI: And also in this application you don't make mention of the fact that you issued an order that Mr August be killed by one of your colleagues by shooting him.

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct but I don't think that there was a question that needed that type of an answer because I was just answering all the important questions as I knew that I would get a chance to answer other questions when I'm here.

MR SANDI: Look if you look at page 4 of the said application, on that page you state in detail what happened before Mr August was attacked.

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

MR SANDI: And nowhere do you mention that you issued an order.

MR MAJEBE: What I want to make clear to you is that when I was filling in this form no one was advising me as to how to go about it, I was just doing it myself. I will take last incidents and put them in front but if there was a person who would give me advice as to how to do it I could have done so, but unfortunately I did not know to fill in the form, that is why some of the things are not visible here.

ADV SANDI: Yes but surely Mr Majebe, you don't have to be told by anyone that you were an APLA commander having been appointed in 1993 by Diyo, do you?

MR MAJEBE: There was no need for that but I did not know that you would like to know that. If I knew I could have done so but unfortunately I did not know. I thought that you were going to ask me everything that is concerning Mr August's injuries, I did not know that you were going to investigate about me. I was just explaining the action, the one that I'm actually applying amnesty for, I did not know that the fact that I was a commander would be an issue here but if I'm requested to do so I could do that.

ADV SANDI: Have you mentioned that anywhere in your affidavit?

MR MAJEBE: Will you please repeat the question sir?

ADV SANDI: Maybe Mr Mbandazayo can assist us.

MR MAJEBE: Could the speaker please repeat the question?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, that's the first page of the affidavit.

ADV SANDI: Oh thank you.

MR SANDI: Now Mr Majebe I would like to go back to the incident as to what actually happened there. So when you saw Mr August, is it correct that on the day that you attacked him he was wearing a lumber jacket?

MR MAJEBE: He was wearing a track suit and a T-shirt. The track suit had an ANC badge on the side.

MR SANDI: The track suit was it short sleeved or what?

MR MAJEBE: It was a track pants with a T-shirt, a short sleeved T-shirt.

MR SANDI: And the T-shirt, was it tucked under the trousers?

MR MAJEBE: It was not tucked in.

MR SANDI: So firstly, you did not see Mr August threaten Ngulu Leko with a firearm?

MR MAJEBE: That is correct.

MR SANDI: You were not present at all at the time when this incident allegedly took place?

MR MAJEBE: That is correct.

MR SANDI: Now how did you get to know about this threatening of Ngulu Leko with a firearm?

MR MAJEBE: Mr Gcabashe was fixing the car when he saw Mr August drawing a gun on Ngulu Leko, as an elderly person he was very shocked. As we used to crack jokes with him, he went past us and he was very shocked. We were just joking and then he told us what happened, he told us the whole story.

MR SANDI: And you mentioned that Ngulu Leko is not a member of the PAC, it's his brother who was PAC ...(indistinct).

MR MAJEBE: That is correct.

MR SANDI: Now just before I deal with the next point I just want to clear that point, in your application you say that Ngulu Leko was a member of PAC.

MR MAJEBE: His brother was a member. I think that was a mistake because Ngule was still young at the time therefore he did not have a right to be a member but his brother was a member. I can say that he used to like the organisation because he grew up in front of us and he used to be around when we were discussing PAC matters, like a young boy always following his brother.

MR SANDI: He was eight years old at the time?

MR MAJEBE: Between eight and ten years of age.

MR SANDI: Did you accept that - you do say in your application that Ngulu Leko was a member of the PAC? At page 4 of the application.

MR MAJEBE: Yes I did mention that in my application.

MR SANDI: Mention it yourself?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct. The reason for this is because I knew him as a person who used to like PAC. He used to attend our meetings as a child and that was an indication that when he reaches a certain age he would join PAC and be in the same place as his brother, but at the time, the age, we did not allow him to be a member. We were not following Lucky August to protect Ngulu Leko but then we heard some things that he said came to our minds and we also wanted to protect Luyanda’s home because we knew what he was up to.

MR SANDI: Before you assaulted Mr August you did not speak to Ngulu Leko?

MR MAJEBE: He was nowhere to be found at the time.

MR SANDI: Now can you tell the Committee, why is it that you are divulging for the first time this name of Mr Gcabashe in your application, why didn't you mention Gcabashe before?

MR MAJEBE: I think I forgot because when I mentioned Ngulu I was supposed to mention his name but if I did not do that maybe I forgot to do so.

MR SANDI: Does Mr Gcabashe live in Fort Beaufort?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

MR SANDI: What is his full name, what are his full names?

MR MAJEBE: I know him as Makwesi Gcabashe, I don't know his real name but Gcabashe is his surname.

MR SANDI: So after Mr Gcabashe had spoken to you you went back to the place you were guarding and you as you say you were lying there on the grass?

MR MAJEBE: When Mr Gcabashe was telling us this we were not yet at that place. I want to explain this again, Mr Lucky August, we saw him for the very first time when we were next to the base sitting next to the offices as the offices were opposite to the houses of Mchizani's house, he was sitting next to his brother's house. He went past us and he went straight to his brother's house and he left the house and he took another direction to his home. From Luyanda Zote's house it is a third, - he went to a third, a fourth house from Luyanda Zote's house. As we were sitting there talking about this and we knew that he had bodyguards and Brigay came to us and we discussed and he told us. We did not mention anything to him, we did not tell him that we were going to attack Mr August, we just left and we just joked about the matter again and he left but something came to our minds that he had a gun and the fact that he threatened Luyanda and Luyanda was there and we was forced to go and do that because it became clear to us what he said during the day he was willing to do it but we weren't there to defend ourselves, we did not intend to injure him. He knew very well I did not have any personal grudge against him because I remember we were friends. The other day I gave him a tape recorder. I did not have a problem with him but I wanted him to stop what he was doing to my organisation that I loved so much. That was the reason for us to do that, that was the reason to end our friendship at the time but right now I do not hold any grudge against him. Even before I did not have a grudge. I hope that even my mother - I never allow even my mother to try to destroy my PAC organisation because no-one sent me to join PAC. I learnt a lot of things and I like it. That is why Mr Lucky August is in that condition.

MR SANDI: Mr Majebe, you saw this firearm, you yourself, you saw this firearm for the first time after you had attacked Mr August.

MR MAJEBE: I did not see the gun before but as he was approaching us his hand was around his waist and he did not know what was under his T-shirt where he was actually touching. When he was lying down I touched his waist, that’s when I got the gun.

MR SANDI: So you saw the gun for the first time after you had assaulted him?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

MR SANDI: Then you took the gun and ran away.

MR MAJEBE: I took the gun, I hit him again and I ran with the gun.

MR MAJEBE: After taking his gun I hit him.

MR SANDI: And now when you say that he was trying to take something out of his waist, you didn’t know at the time what it was he was trying to take out?

MR MAJEBE: Are you talking about time, watch time or time of the year, what is it that you are talking about?

MR SANDI: It was at the moment when you saw him doing that?

MR MAJEBE: It was when he was approaching us.

CHAIRPERSON: You were defending your organisation at the time it was being under attack by what you call oppressors, correct?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: There has been a change of government since, correct?

MR MAJEBE: There is a change in now. There is something that I can say, it a change in some of the things but not in everything.

CHAIRPERSON: We all agree but there has been a change of government, not so?

MR MAJEBE: Yes the change that I agree with is putting Africans in parliament to rubber stamp the things that were done by the government that oppressed us and be granted freedom to be involved in politics, but that was not the reason for us to fight at the time, that was something like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Listen to me carefully now, I’m not here to listen to political speeches, you understand? I’m busy with your application, you understand?

MR MAJEBE: Yes I do but I’m forced to mention this because I’m here because of politics. If I was here for my personal gain I would put politics aside but I’m here because of politics.

CHAIRPERSON: Now are you able to live in this new South Africa peacefully?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is my wish because I’m very proud of my country, that is what made me to join PAC and fight for my country.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Pan Africanist Congress not represented in Parliament?

MR MAJEBE: There are PAC members in Parliament but they are not part of the government of national unity but they are just there as an opposition party.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, there is also a Constitution operative in this country that was not operative during the days of apartheid, not so?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now tell me something, every time you think that the PAC loses a vote or doesn’t get what it wants then the opposition must be killed, or have you now changed?

MR MAJEBE: Will you please repeat your question sir?

CHAIRPERSON: You said that during the time of this attack that you needed to get rid of the opposition because they were obstacles to the march of the PAC.

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: There must today be certain decisions or certain hopes of the PAC that doesn’t come into fruition because they are outvoted or for some reason it doesn’t materialise, correct?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That is because at times because other parties think differently, correct?

MR MAJEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That being the case, are you going to go around deciding that because a person belonging to a particular political party doesn’t agree with the PAC, action must be taken against such a person or you able to accept that other people are entitled to have different views?

MR MAJEBE: As the PAC organisation used to be a liberation organisation and now it’s becoming a political party, as much as I accept the present situation of the PAC and agree with each and every documentation, I agree with each and everything that satisfies me and my PAC, I support everything that is in line with PAC, but anything that is going against PAC I'll never support it.

CHAIRPERSON: Now will you do anything about everything that goes against the PAC, such as attacking other people? That’s what I’m asking.

MR MAJEBE: Will you please repeat the question, I have a problem with interpretation.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you will never support anything that goes against the policy of the PAC, correct?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And I think you’re entitled to do so, not to support anything that goes against it. What I’m asking, will you attack anybody who does not support the PAC?

MR MAJEBE: That is that particular person’s democratic right, I don’t have the right to stop him from doing so. Even if a person wants to leave PAC and introduce his own organisation as long as that particular person is not going to disturb PAC movements, I accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: But in losing your vote it will also disturb the PAC’s march to what it considers the ultimate type of government, not so?

MR MAJEBE: If the PAC loses votes what ..? Will you please repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: If the PAC is in a position where it loses a policy vote against opposition in parliament it will in effect stop the PAC’s march towards what people thinks is the ultimate government, are you going to attack people for voting against the PAC or can you live with that now in the New South Africa?

MR MAJEBE: A person who does not vote for PAC, that’s that person’s democratic right. If PAC is losing the vote it will always be the opposition party and I will always support it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi have you got any more questions?

MR SANDI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I've got no more questions.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, thank you, I don't have any questions.

MR DE JAGER: Before this incident was Mr Duma’s house burnt down?

MR MAJEBE: It was burnt down during this incident.

MR DE JAGER: Why was it burnt down and by whom?

MR MAJEBE: It was burnt by the members of SANCO and COSAS members and ANC because Mr Duma was a member of PAC, that was the only reason.

MR DE JAGER: That week before this incident - this incident happened on a Saturday night or Sunday night, can you remember?

MR MAJEBE: If I’m not mistaken I think Mr Duma’s house was burnt down on a Sunday morning, if I’m not mistaken.

MR DE JAGER: Ja, but this incident now, the attack on August, was that a Saturday or a Sunday?

MR MAJEBE: It was on a Saturday because the attacks on our people was going on and we were expelled from school by COSAS and these comrades were perpetrators. That was already happening at the time, we were expelled from the school because COSAS was against PASO. They tried to change the community school into something else, that is where the conflict started. This conflict started between the PASO and the COSAS, the PASO that I was the organiser and the people from the outside interfered with pupils and they burnt down the houses of the PAC members.

MR DE JAGER: Yes I understand there was a conflict between the ANC and the PAC or it started with the conflict with PASO and COSAS and then it spilt over into the community, is that correct?

MR MAJEBE: That is correct.

MR DE JAGER: Right now the attack on Mr August when you hit him with the pick handle, was that on a Saturday or a Sunday?

MR MAJEBE: It was on a Saturday.

MR DE JAGER: Did you have a regional meeting of the PAC during that week before the Saturday?

MR MAJEBE: No what we were doing, everything that was being done by these other comrades and the opposition party, we used to report it to the office and tell them that these people are attacking us and we were seeking for solutions. The answer was if they attack us we are supposed to protect ourselves, that’s what we did.

MR DE JAGER: Yes but that was on the 23rd of February, so it was a day or two before the accident that you had reported it to the regional office?

MR MAJEBE: Which one? Because that happened - the chairman’s house was burned down and he reported the matter to the regional office and our expulsion from school before the teacher’s house was burned down, we reported that.

MR DE JAGER: Look at paragraph 10, there you say that you reported it to the regional officers and you contacted them for further advice and the date was the 23rd of February 1993, so it’s you yourself that said it.

MR MAJEBE: I was not sure about the date therefore I don’t want us to concentrate on dates because the reason for me to mention those dates, when I was sentenced in Court it was said that Mr August’s attack took place on the 25th therefore I was trying to match the dates with the incident because I was not sure. I was not recording the dates of the incidents, therefore I was trying to remember them with Mr Lucky August’s attack because he was not the first victim, his incident was not the first incident, a lot of things were done by his comrades.

MR DE JAGER: Sir, I'm not asking you about it. Please, you signed this affidavit this morning, so it’s got nothing to do with what happened in the court. And this morning you told us under oath that it was on the 23rd of February.

MR MAJEBE: Yes that’s so, I calculated from the date when Mr Lucky August was attacked a as it was said that he was attacked on the 25th of February 1993.

MR DE JAGER: Okay then two days before he was attacked, you had a meeting with the regional offices.

MR MAJEBE: Your question is not clear sir, will you please repeat?

MR DE JAGER: Did you have a meeting with the regional offices of the PAC two days before you attacked Mr August?

MR MAJEBE: No we were never in a meeting, we were just reporting by phone, we would phone from the office and report to their office. They were not coming to us and held meetings.

MR DE JAGER: So you called them by phone, did you call them two days before the attack on Mr August?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

MR DE JAGER: To whom did you speak?

MR MAJEBE: We did not ask his name, he was a comrade who was at the reception. We asked for the chairman of the region, he said he was not there and we wanted to know who else was in the office and he referred us to Mr Mpondo. We reported the matter and we wanted him to tell REC about what was happening.

MR DE JAGER: And what instructions did you get?

MR MAJEBE: He told us that the comrades are scattered all over and they’re busy. The executive meeting will actually take time as they usually hold meetings once a month and the meeting was already past at the time, therefore we were to protect ourselves if these comrades were attacking us because each time they have nothing to do, if they don’t have programmes they normally keep themselves busy by attacking us. That is something that they used to do, they were not doing that for the very first time.

MR DE JAGER: Right. That very evening when you attacked Mr August, there was no attack on you or your comrades, was there?

MR MAJEBE: There were a lot of people whose houses where burnt, their furniture and everything, people were chased away from their homes.

MR DE JAGER: On that very day, is that correct?

MR MAJEBE: Before the incident to that time they would come from time to time.

MR DE JAGER: Right, now during that week you were armed with an AK47.

MR MAJEBE: During this time I would usually carry a pistol ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please repeat the answer.

MR MAJEBE: Okay, during the time that this happened, before the incident, I used to carry a pistol, a Tokarev then after the members of the community were organised to attack the PAC members from house to house, I then carried an AK47 but we knew that we were not going to just hit anyone, we were going to hit the leaders that were the perpetrators of all this or the people that organised this whole thing.

MR DE JAGER: On the day when you attacked Mr August, was it the same day when the ANC attacked Mr Tiyo’s house?

MR MAJEBE: We protected ourselves from Mr August by attacking him between seven and eight. After that I left with my comrades with the pistol that I was carrying to look for his comrades, we didn’t find them. We came back at about ten at night, I then took an AK47, went to the township, tried to find them but we didn’t find them. It was a Saturday that very same night.

MR DE JAGER: Sir, I'm only asking you one question. That day when you attacked - you attacked him the Saturday evening, is that correct? You attacked Mr August Saturday evening?

MR MAJEBE: That’s correct.

MR DE JAGER: When did they attack or march to Mr Tiyo’s house?

MR MAJEBE: Sunday morning when they went to attack Tamsangqa Duma’s house as well.

MR DE JAGER: That was after you attacked Mr August?

MR MAJEBE: Please listen to me carefully, I want to explain. On the Friday I shot this man who’s hand is raised at the back, I shot him in the stomach, on the Friday I was with three of my comrades. On Saturday I attacked Lucky August by hitting him with a pick handle. I then went to Mr Tiyo and reported that I attacked Mr August, that he must expect anything. I didn’t go on Saturday to him. We went past his house, we said that we were looking for his leaders that had run away, we can’t find them. The comrade with the black jacket, they said that he’d run away, he’d gone to the rural areas. We didn’t find them in their houses, their houses were locked but they left their cars behind. On the Sunday they got up in the morning an they went to attack Tamsangqa Duma’s house. I had already got a report that my subordinates who were from different kinds of townships found that priest and his comrade Mqoto. They reported to me, they found them and they shot them. They came to report to me because they were my subordinates and I got to know this.

MR DE JAGER: Sir, I understand what you're - I don’t know what you’re trying to answer because I’m not trying to get you into a corner, I’m looking at your affidavit. In paragraph 13 you say,

That’s what I’m asking you about, I’m not trying to trick you.

MR MAJEBE: Perhaps you’re not understanding me sir, I was trying to tell you what happened the weekend. This Tiyo incident was on the Sunday. I wanted to tell you what happened before Mr Tiyo was attacked on the Sunday.

MR DE JAGER: Right. We've heard that, you told me what happened on the Sunday, but on that Sunday you were carrying an AK47, is that correct?

MR MAJEBE: Correct. It was not the first time I had an AK47, that’s what I’m trying to say to you because the Saturday night I took my AK47.

MR DE JAGER: At what time on Saturday night?

MR MAJEBE: It was at night.

ADV DE JAGER: After you'd hit Mr August?

MR MAJEBE: After we had attacked Mr August.

MR DE JAGER: And before that you carried a Makeroff pistol?

MR MAJEBE: Correct. When we went to the township to find his comrades after we had hit him or attacked him.

MR DE JAGER: Did you carry a Makeroff pistol before the Saturday?

MR MAJEBE: No.

MR DE JAGER: Now when you ambushed Mr August and wanted to kill him, why didn’t you take the AK and shoot him with the AK?

MR MAJEBE: I’m going to say this first ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please start again?

MR MAJEBE: The teachers took them to a community hall, they decided or reached a conclusion because we were not part of the meeting, we heard after that what they decided. They were thinking about Mr Mhlapo who was a teacher at the school. He was a chairman of the PAC. Diesel and I, I had a Makeroff pistol, Diesel had a 9mm. We went there and they sang around Mr Mhlapo’s house but they didn’t do anything. I got there and I said this door must be open so that they could see, if they did anything they could see if we were there. They then decided to leave then threw a stone, we got out and we stood at the door and they ran off but when we were attacking Lucky August I didn’t have it with me, I had it with me after we had attacked him to look for his comrades, that was before 10 o’clock. When we didn’t find them we went back to the base, that’s when I took my AK47 and left again.

MR DE JAGER: Okay now you were struggling for freedom at that stage to liberate the black people of South Africa from the oppressive white government, is that correct?

MR MAJEBE: Correct.

MR DE JAGER: Also fighting the same struggle?

MR MAJEBE: Correct.

MR DE JAGER: Now what do you want to achieve by attacking your own brothers in this political struggle?

MR MAJEBE: Everybody in South Africa knows, all the political parties know that each and every party has a problem with the ANC. The ANC always protects itself, they tell themselves that they’re the ruling party because they have the most members. They are cheating themselves, their struggle. We don’t know whether their struggle is best for the black people or the Boers. They make peaceful marks, they have petitions and they take it to the Boers but if a black person makes a mistake against them they take whatever they have and they fight that black person instead of sitting at a table and negotiating or talking. It is the ANC that were burning the black people down but they are the very same people who claimed that they wanted freedom. We had to fight when they attacked us because they wanted to destroy us. We’re not just any organisation that they bullied. Even though there is a small number of us we stand by what we believe in.

MR DE JAGER: I understand that but at that time the political aim was to get the Boers out of the government, wasn't that so?

MR MAJEBE: We had nothing to do with taking the government out, the Boers, we just wanted our land that they killed our fathers for.

MR DE JAGER: Okay. Now you want your land, that’s your political objective. Now how could you achieve it or how could this assault on Mr August enhance that political objective?

MR MAJEBE: I said before that the PAC said 'peace amongst Africans, war against the enemy’. Mr August is not my enemy but a brother and any other black person who is in another organisation but we would not accept being attacked by them, even as Africans or black people. Why didn’t they call us to the table so that we could talk. They burned us down with tyres, they killed us. We wanted to know if the freedom that they wanted was from us. When they were killed by the Boers they would make peaceful marks, make petitions, go and sip tea with the Boers. They attacked us because they undermined us, they looked down on us. This is why we had to protect ourselves, we didn’t want freedom from him, we were protecting ourselves from the attacks that he was embarking on us.

MR DE JAGER: Mr Mbandazayo I’ve attempted to get from the applicant what his political objective was and I couldn’t succeed and the only reason why I was asking that is because the Act enjoins us to find out what a person's political objectives, what he wants to achieve by do a certain thing in the political struggle and that’s why I’ve been asking the questions and I leave it there because I couldn’t get an answer on that.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Mr Majebe just a few questions. Let me start off by saying you’ve had plenty of time to make the speeches you want to make and I will be happy if you could just answer the questions very briefly. Where you can you can say yes or you can even say no, if you don’t know you can also say I don’t know to the questions I will be asking you.

Now let us start with the murder of Nomangwane on the 24th February which you said was carried out by ANC-aligned members, was Lucky August one of those people?

MR MAJEBE: This is a very painful question because in my life I have never thought or dreamt that a comrade that has given themselves to the struggle be killed that way. Mr Lucky August was the leader of the whole incident.

ADV SANDI: Was he there when this person was killed? Did he also take part in the killing of this person?

MR MAJEBE: I would not know because I was not there, I did not see it but I know that he was the leader of the whole incident. If he didn’t want it to happen he could have stopped it.

ADV SANDI: Okay let us talk about another incident, that is when the house of Mr Gedde was burned down, was Lucky August one of the people who had done this?

MR MAJEBE: As I said, and I repeat it, when these things happened we were not there, we were chased out of the township, we were just going to the township to protect ourselves or to fight. They do whatever they want to do in our absence but we were clear in our minds that the people who caused all those incidents were the leaders. The people would say that they were obeying orders of their leaders; the leaders wanted those things to happen. This is why we decided to attack their leaders and not the crowds.

ADV SANDI: Was he there on the day the house of Mr Duma was attacked, do you know if he was there?

MR MAJEBE: There were many people there, I can’t even identify one person there were so many people. I was too angry, I couldn’t see who was there and who was not.

ADV SANDI: Let’s go back to this day where you say a whole crowd of ANC-aligned comrades forced teachers to get into a community hall where people were incited against you, did you see Mr Lucky August on that day, was he one of the members of this crowd?

MR MAJEBE: Those were students, Mr August was not a student. I saw Mr Grootboom, he was standing with his other comrades outside the school yard, they looked as if they were guarding something or against something. The COSAS members would go to them and chat with them, they looked like they were taking advice from them. When we lifted our hands and wanted to talk we were told that we were already chased out of the school and we had no say.

ADV SANDI: Are you able to point out any incident where you witnessed Lucky inciting members of his organisation or anyone against your organisation? Are you able to point out any incident of that nature?

MR MAJEBE: No because I was not a member of the organisation, I could not go to their meetings. I was not welcome to their meetings so I would not know but I know even from my organisation that subordinates obey leaders and this is why I’m sure it is their leaders, the ANC leaders that were egging the subordinates on.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Majebe.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the lunch adjournment now.

THEMBISILE MAJEBE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo have you got any re-examination for the witness?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairman, just a few points.

Mr Majebe, am I correct that you attacked Mr August because of the political conflict which was there in Fort Beaufort between ANC and PAC?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Am I correct that the reason you were attacking was because you felt that as PAC you are unable to operate in Fort Beaufort because of the ANC?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

ADV SANDI: Mr Mbandazayo, was it not his evidence that he was protecting himself as well as his organisation in the context of the conflict that was taking place there?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairperson, I think maybe that’s the way I put it that because he was protecting it because he could not operate, that’s maybe the way I put it. There is nothing they can do if the organisation does not exist, so he has to protect it in order to operate in Fort Beaufort.

ADV SANDI: He had a firearm, he wanted to shoot them, wasn’t that his evidence?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairperson.

And that it was your feeling that you cannot, PAC cannot fulfil it’s objective if they are unable to operate in Fort Beaufort.

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Hence you took that decision that in order for it to exist and be able to fulfil its objectives you have to protect it and its members?

MR MAJEBE: Yes that is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Have you got any other witness?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson I won’t waste the time of the Committee, I won’t be calling any other witnesses, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the applicant's case?

MR MBANDAZAYO: that’s the applicant’s case Mr Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi have you got any witnesses?

MR SANDI: Mr Chairperson, Mr August is available, I do not intend calling him unless you wish to hear him.

CHAIRPERSON: No no we have no intention of calling him but I must offer you the opportunity to call him if you so wish.

MR SANDI: I do not wish to call him.

MR DE JAGER: As a victim, are you opposing the application and if so on what grounds?

MR SANDI: The major ground is that the applicant for amnesty has not made full disclosure to the Committee of circumstances surrounding the attack upon Mr August and secondly even if it is accepted that there was this conflict between these two organisations in Fort Beaufort, they did not warrant the taking of such drastic measures as the applicant in this case did.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you intend to call any other witnesses?

MR SANDI: No Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, to whatever extent you have an interest in the matter, that’s it? You don’t intend calling any witnesses for that purpose?

MR SANDI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, any witnesses that you intend calling.

MR MAPOMA: No Chairperson there’s no further evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m going to adjourn for a short while then.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, do you want to add anything for the purposes before we consider the issues?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m sorry I thought you were done.

MR MBANDAZAYO ADDRESSES: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I do understand. Mr Chairperson I won’t waste the time of this Honourable Committee, suffice to say that Mr Chairperson it’s not in dispute that there was a political conflict in Fort Beaufort

between ANC and PAC. I would use those major organisations Mr Chairperson knowing that they had structures which ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: By way of alliance or whatever, those were the key groupings.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Then I will use it in that context Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson there’s no dispute regarding that matter, as you would see in the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you agree that maybe even if it started as a student problem it developed into what we call basically a two party fight.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairperson, that’s what I’m trying to get to, it started as a student thing but it ended up being handled at a higher level Chairperson. As you would recognise in the bundle that also United Nations, OAU went there because of the conflict which was there trying to resolve the matter at Fort Beaufort. Then if that the Committee accepts it, now the ...(indistinct) would be Mr Chairperson whether the applicant has made full disclosure with regard to this incident Mr Chairperson.

Mr Chairperson the applicant has been convicted for this incident, for attempting to murder the victim Lucky August, there is no dispute about that but the question is whether the way he alleges that he did this is the way it happened. Mr Chairperson, it is my submission that the applicant has nothing to lose, he is not going to be convicted again, there is no reason for him to mislead this Committee and tell him the other way around. As such Mr Chairperson taking into account the circumstances at the time of the happening of this incident, that some other things happened not necessarily the way they happened but because of the passing of time some events, people tend not to narrate the events the way they happened as all of us know Mr Chairperson, I can’t lecture to you about that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is clear by the interpretation of the Act given all the influences on memory, one cannot expect anybody to relate a blow for blow account but rather to narrate a substantial material account of what occurred, why and how, not whether, if for example someone was stabbed, not whether the knife was six inches long or ten inches long, that’s irrelevant, but whether a knife was used is material. Do you follow what I’m saying?

MR MBANDAZAYO: I do get your point Mr Chairperson. I agree with you Mr Chairperson exactly, that’s the point I was trying - you put it more, I can’t put it more than you have put it. What I’m getting at Mr Chairperson is that the medical evidence is there that an object was used, which of course the applicant is saying that he used a pick handle to assault the victim ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think that’s common cause.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson my contention is that I’m not here to come and dispute what the doctor is saying, that’s the finding that’s his specialisation with regard to that but Mr Chairperson what I would like to tell the Committee is that the evidence we have is that of the doctor and also what was said by the victim in court which of course Mr Chairperson it's not the intention of this Committee, it is not a court of law this one. What I’m getting at is that taking into account, regard the circumstances of the matter, that also the applicant is here, he is saying: "I agree inasmuch in court I came up with an alibi that I was not there but I admit I am the person who caused the suffering on the victim."

MR DE JAGER: In that connection you said he’s got nothing to lose and I think it’s correct, but Mr Biko has also been convicted but he was never sentenced because he disappeared and according to the evidence it was actually Mr Biko who used a sharp instrument and stabbed the victim. The applicant here said no Mr Biko could never do so because he’s a reborn person and he’s a religious person and he’s a ...(intervention)

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson without - I think there are two Bikos, the other one you are talking about is not the one who is religious that he was talking about, I'm not sure, Mr Chairman.

MR DE JAGER: You see you’ve got no reason not to tell us the whole truth. Couldn’t it be that he’s protecting Mr Biko because he had been convicted but never sentenced, he never served a sentence and if he would now say it’s true that in fact Mr Biko used the sharp instrument then that may in the long run be to the detriment of Mr Biko?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson if I can answer this way. The applicant has the liberty to say it was one of he people he mentioned that he was with who stabbed him but he did not do that and both of them died. If he wanted to convince the Committee or to lie to the Committee and say look one of the applicants who happened to die did stab the victim, but he’s not saying that.

I don’t think Mr Chairperson he’s protecting Mr Biko. Mr Chairperson just for the benefit of the Committee I happened to meet Mr Biko in Butterworth because I was trying to get to the whole truth of this matter and I was trying to - even before the dead line, I was trying to assist people to apply for amnesty and he’s one of the people I approached to apply for amnesty. Unfortunately Mr Chairperson he couldn’t apply for amnesty. What he told me was that he can’t apply for amnesty because he does not want to lie because he would be lying to the Committee to say that he was there, yet he was not there, just because he wants to get off and that was there reason he explained to me he ran away because he cannot confess because he was never there.

So I wouldn’t know, I won’t be able Mr Chairperson to throw some light, to say he’s protecting him in that aspect. Mr Biko had an opportunity - I can even tell the Committee I happened to speak to him about this matter and he totally refused, that’s what he told me, that you need to confess. Now if I’m confessing I’m confessing to something which I did not do.

MR DE JAGER: Well according to all the evidence, even according to today’s evidence Mr Biko wouldn’t have made a false confession if he confessed that he was there.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairperson, for instance Mr Chairperson, just to tie it up, the applicant was acquitted of shooting one of the victims who is here, Mr Grootboom and actual fact the reason for his acquittal is because the victim happened to point to another person and yet he is saying I’m the person who did that. Well it’s one of those things Mr Chairperson which shows that sometimes it’s difficult when circumstances like this, I don’t blame the victim for saying that because the circumstances were such that it was very difficult at that time in Fort Beaufort.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you accept that the medical evidence that was produced to us has not been disputed?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson it’s not disputed, that medical evidence and as such Mr Chairperson, as I indicated that I don’t want to belabour this point to the time of the Committee, it is my submission that the applicant on the balance of probabilities has satisfied the requirements of the Act, that what he did on the day in question was not for personal gain and what he did, he believed he did it on behalf of the bona fide belief that he was doing it on behalf of his organisation and as such I request the Committee to grant the applicant the amnesty as applied, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you address us on the issue of proportionality, whether we should consider it and if so how it is applicable to this one?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson my argument is always that on the question of proportionality, on the foot soldiers with the hindsight Mr Chairman that he was not given any specific order with regard to this incident. Mr Chairperson because the organisation to which he belongs in a way approved what was done by the applicant and as such Mr Chairperson I’m saying that when it comes to the applicant that the proportionality on this matter should not be applied. It can be applied on the leadership of the organisation which approved the taking of such actions by the applicant.

Even if Mr Chairperson it can be argued that proportionality should apply in this matter, my contention is that which evidence points out that, it’s not disputed that members of the organisation, though not personally to the applicant, the applicant did not suffer himself personally, members of the organisation died in the process, even both sides died in the process.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if that is so and we want to consider or examine the implication of proportionality, Adv Sandi on my left had to go through a prolonged bit of questioning of the applicant to ask him and even quoted examples and whatever, as to what Mr August did exactly to couch him under a category whereby he justifiably should be targeted for treatment at least to the extent to which he was treated and unfortunately we did not get a direct answer for the simple reason that the applicant chose to say: "I wasn’t there at any of those incidents but I know he’s responsible." He didn’t go so far as to say why he thought so.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I agree with you Mr Chairperson that those questions were asked. Mr Chairperson my submission is that as Mr Chairperson would know, he’s more experienced than myself in this field, some people tend not to answer questions directly, they come the other way round when answering questions but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We’ve had a bit of it.

MR MBANDAZAYO: But Mr Chairperson what I’m trying to get at is that what I can discern, I can gather from what he was saying is that the only reason that he was targeted is because he was in the leadership of the ANC at the time which of course the youth league, as I indicated that it includes the whole structure, and they believed that the leadership was behind what was happening at the time in Fort Beaufort, hence they have to target the leaders because they believe that they can stop the whole thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Were there members of the PAC that were killed in that area by members of the of the ANC or don’t we know?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson I have an example of one Mr Chairperson which I know, I can vouch on it, the one which is mentioned, Nomangwane who was burned to death, but luckily they were convicted and they are out because they were granted amnesty because of that or rather I know about that one, it is one I can mention Mr Chairperson. I don’t want to, because I don’t know the others (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I just wanted to clear something up in my mind and you’ve done so.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I’ve lost thread now on what we were talking. Mr Chairperson unless there is another point you want me to address.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Mbandazayo, why do you think, why do you suggest that proportionality can only be applied in regard to those leaders to whom he was accountable, because as I understand his evidence, the leaders who had come from the regional office told them that they should defend themselves if they are attacked. Surely you can’t apply the principle of proportionality to a person who was not there on the spot, he was not part of the decision to attack a particular victim, you can’t can you?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson my contention is that if you approve that something should be done, even if we are not involved there, your approval, definitely you are the only person who is responsible for that because others just carry orders. But the question is, he did not prescribe the way it should be done and the question of defence Mr Chairperson is subject to interpretation whether it means you have to wait for somebody to attack you before you defend yourself.

ADV SANDI: But surely Mr Mbandazayo you ...(indistinct) use a hammer to kill an ant, can you?

MR MBANDAZAYO: That’s true Mr Chairperson, that’s true.

MR DE JAGER: If as you’ve mentioned, one of your members had been necklaced or burned would it be out of proportion to kill a member or members of the party who has been responsible for the killing?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, speaking for myself, I know this is not - I don’t think even if, whether there was even five members who were killed it's in order to kill another person for that purpose, but taking into account the context ...(intervention)

MR DE JAGER: Ja not legally but in that situation that ...(intervention)

MR MBANDAZAYO: In that situation Mr Chairperson, I would agree with you, it won’t be out of character to do such a thing because definitely it’s a situation where it was tit for tat.

CHAIRPERSON: It goes further because as I understand the evidence it was an attempt to protect the PAC, not specifically in retaliation to a particular attack but generally the PAC was under siege.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairman the PAC - at that time although this was taking place according, I think we got it correctly Mr Chairperson, though this incident happened, this particular one, already there was a feud which was going on, people were displaced, they were no longer in their homes so it was part of what they were doing that they wanted also to operate so they had to respond to that.

CHAIRPERSON: No I can understand that. If that is so and Mr August was perceived to be a leader, one of whom was responsible for this siege on the PAC and given the evidence that there was a decision by the PAC at some level or forum that we need to get rid of the leadership who are so besieging us, why didn’t they shoot him as they planned? That is the evidence. I don’t mean to put you into a corner, if you can’t answer it well ...

MR MBANDAZAYO: Well Mr Chairperson I can’t answer that one but I would only say that it was a human factor because at the end of the day all of us are human.

CHAIRPERSON: A fortunate one, the man’s still alive.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Fortunately Mr Chairperson he is still alive.

CHAIRPERSON: Now assuming we accept that his eyes were stabbed out, can you think of a reason other than being malicious that that occurred? I mean it would not have occurred had they shot him, killed him, finished clinically, they didn’t do that for whatever reason. It’s not quite clear why that didn’t happen. Assuming we find that the doctor’s evidence is acceptable, would the stabbing of his eyes, can be considered other than malicious?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson I wouldn’t agree with you more on that one. Definitely Mr Chairperson I would come to any other conclusion, what would I say if somebody was stabbed in the eye, that situation, if that’s the case Mr Chairperson. What I wanted to stress is that Mr Chairperson, though we are not disputing the doctor’s evidence that a sharp instrument was used doing that, but it depends what type of pickaxe he was using which might have caused that damage that resulted in his eyes having to be taken out. That’s my point Mr Chairperson. If it was something like a pick which is not ordinary, maybe it was not straight as we know it, a damaged one, a broken one, definitely Mr Chairperson it’s my argument because I’m not trying to say to the Committee that it must accept that, it’s my argument that it can cause that damage and be seen as something which was ...[indistinct] instrument was used in doing that.

ADV SANDI: He didn’t say that Mr Mbandazayo, it was a pickaxe, he said it was a pick handle. I think he specifically tried to illustrate that there was no sharp part of this particular handle.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes that’s what, this is a pick handle Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

ADV SANDI: The sharp side of it had been taken off.

MR MBANDAZAYO: The iron part was taken off but Mr Chairperson I think when Mr Chairperson just ...(indistinct) ask him I think after tea break he was asking him about this sharp object, while with the doctor, he tried to come up with the explanation that the possibilities that the pickaxe when he was hitting him down, it may happen because at the end it was not round it was a damaged pickaxe, it is possible that it caused the damage. But of course Mr Chairperson, Judge Pillay said to him well we are not interested in technicalities and all those things because all of us, we are not experts. He was not trying to say, he was -in fact he - I’ll put it this way, he was not trying to say it’s him who did that, the doctor does not say it was him but he was just trying to ask whether any other particular person. But of course he mentioned it because this other guy who had a firearm was afraid, he did not shoot and they ran away. That’s why he said it was him, he was sure that it was him who assaulted the victim, and he took his firearm. Well I hope at the time the sanity prevailed on him not to shoot him.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything more?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson I have nothing to add unless the Committee wants more.

CHAIRPERSON: That's enough. Mr Sandi I would just like to have the address of Mr August please.

MR SANDI: I beg your pardon Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: The address of Mr August, can you give it to me please, have you got it with you?

MR SANDI: I'll have to go through the bundle. Unfortunately he’s blind, could I walk up to him? It’s 111 Zwide Location.

MR A CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR SANDI: It's 111 New Tinis Zwide Location, Fort Beaufort.

CHAIRPERSON: Do they still use words like Location? Is that a formal address, Location?

MR SANDI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Fort Beaufort you said?

MR SANDI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got a telephone number perhaps?

MR SANDI: Could I give you the telephone number of the Advice Office in Fort Beaufort, that’s where he ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: They’re writhing something there, perhaps you should go down and get the address, the correct one so that we won’t make a mistake with the address.

MR SANDI: Mr Chairperson I’ve been given the following address, Mr August has since moved from the previous address. He now resides at 1376 Nohashe Street, P O Box 110, Fort Beaufort and the telephone number of the Advice office in Fort Beaufort, that’s where he can be contacted, the code is 04634 634 and the number is 31738.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that P O Box number the Advice Office number?

MR SANDI: That’s Mr August’s box number.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, we will adjourn for a short while.

F I N D I N G

CHAIRPERSON: I want to say at the outset that during the history of our country there have been many gruesome acts. Aside from the black and white divide that we’ve experienced and clearly created and caused by apartheid, there was also the differences between us black people. This was also in one way or the other caused by the existence of apartheid. This has given rise to many struggles and attempts to eradicate apartheid. Certain tactics were employed which resulted in what has been described as tragic. There are many differences and different views on the morals of the results of the political activities, for example the killings, armed combats and so forth. That this madness could possibly continue is too disastrous to contemplate. It is to be hoped that the people of this country will embark on the road to live as nation as we should have done in the first place. I cannot decide for Mr August to forgive and forget but perhaps one can philosophically accept that what has gone by is done and approach life from now on as best we can with a view of contributing towards our country as a person in a uniform nation.

The applicant makes application for amnesty in terms of Act 34 of 1995 in respect of an assault on Mr Lucky August at Fort Beaufort on or about the 20th of February 1993. The applicant testified that political tension developed at the Nebiba High School, a local secondary school at which the applicant was a student at some stage. Briefly it seems that the matter of admissions to that school took on quasi political proportions and consequently the differences between the Congress of South African Students and the Pan African Student Organisation was underscored by the problems related to admission to the school.

The applicant was indeed a member of the Pan African Student’s Organisation. Mr Lucky August was not a student at the school during the material time. However the school problems with it’s political flavour flowed over to the community. It appears that a dispute developed into a political confrontation between essentially the African National Congress aligned grouping and a similar Pan African Congress aligned grouping.

During the confrontation and as a result thereof a series of attacks on persons and property occurred. Mr Lucky who seemed to be a member of the grouping aligned to the African National Congress was one such person who was attacked.

The applicant testified that he and some of his colleagues received information that Mr August intended to attack the home of one Luyanda Zote who aligned himself with the applicant’s grouping. By design he applicant and some of his colleagues lay in wait for Mr August at a position in front of that house and near a hedge.

He says it was during the night though at times he indicated that there was sufficient light to see certain things. I will refer to the lighting presently. The applicant said that he was armed with a pick handle at the time, his colleagues were also armed with pick handles and one of whom also had a firearm. The plan was that the one armed with a firearm was to have shot at Mr August and ensure his death. It seems that Mr August appeared in the street along which the applicant and his group lay. Mr August was thought to be coming directly towards the applicants group.

It seems according to the applicant, that one of his colleagues who was armed with a firearm got cold feet and did not proceed with shooting at Mr August. As a result of touching his waist as if to produce something, Mr August may have given the impression that he was producing some type of arm. The applicant immediately jumped up when Mr August was near him and attacked Mr August by hitting him twice in the face with the pick handle that he had; as a result thereof he fell. The applicant says he then disarmed Mr August of a .38 firearm which he found in the vicinity of his waist. Thereafter the applicant hit Mr August twice more on the head while he was still lying on the ground and they all left.

Perhaps it is necessary to indicate that it seems that the applicant’s two colleagues were on flight before the applicant himself decided to run away. He testified that he does not know what happened to Mr August thereafter. It seems also that Mr August was hospitalised as a result of the attack and it is common cause that Mr August has lost the benefit of his sight as a result of the attack.

The medical evidence indicates that Mr August was stabbed in the eyes and as a result lost his sight. The applicant does not have any knowledge thereof he says and he denies that it occurred at all. He accepts that Mr August lost his sight when he was assaulted as he described. He specifically denies knowledge or participation in the stabbing out of Mr August’s eyes.

Section 20 of the Act prescribes that amnesty shall be granted provided the deed for which application is made was committed for political reasons and the applicant must have made full disclosure of the actions, and I include motive for it, leading to the acts for which the application is made.

There is some difficulty regarding the reasons for the applicant’s actions, at times he stated that it was a cause of defending himself and/or his organisation. On the other hand he suggested that it was for political reasons. Whatever the case may be we have decided to give him the benefit of such doubt and to find that the attack was committed with essentially political undertones. Our difficulty lies though with the compliance with the requirement that full disclosure ought to be made. The independent medical evidence for which there is no basis to dispute, clearly relates to eye injuries caused by sharp instruments and as a result of which Mr August lost his sight. We find in the circumstances that Mr August did in fact lose his sight as described by the doctor coupled with the fact that it is accepted and agreed that he lost his sight during this attack. We therefore find that he in fact lost his sight by being stabbed during this attack on him.

Furthermore the applicant changed his evidence on many occasions as it suited his version when checked against other factors. Example the lighting of the area during the incident, the reasons for the attack and so forth. He was evasive on crucial issues and did not answer questions at the time. He was never direct. He did not or could not tell us all the material aspects related to the assault and therefore we are not able to really say what exactly happened. He was not able to quote one instance of Mr August participating in any of the offending activities against the Pan African Congress and its members which lay the foundation for the applicant’s actions against Mr August.

INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please go a bit slower?

CHAIRPERSON: This also again raises the matter of Section 23 subsection 3 in respect of proportionality. Even a most generous interpretation ...(indistinct) it is in our view one which is quite unproportionate to the offending membership of the ANC by Mr August which may have been the reason for the applicant’s displeasure.

INTERPRETER: We request that the speaker please put on his earphones because when the interpreter’s left behind we then indicate.

CHAIRPERSON: Another important aspect which we need to consider is the actual stabbing out of Mr August’s eyes. Even if he was destined to die and such a plan failed, it is quite gruesome and unacceptable to find any positive moral in having to stab someone’s eyes out. The stabbing of his eyes was a malicious act which we find was sustained during the attack. This malice also does not comply with the requirements of the Act. Consequently we are not satisfied that the applicant has made full disclosure as envisaged by the Act of the events for which he applies for amnesty.

THE APPLICATION IS THEREFORE REFUSED.

MR LUCKY AUGUST whose address is given to us as

P O Box 117, Fort Beaufort is DECLARED A VICTIM as defined by the Act and it is recommended that he is treated as such in terms of the Act.

This session is adjourned until tomorrow 9a.m.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS