CHAIRPERSON: We're about to start I am informed, with the matter of Zandisile Patrick Kondile. For the purposes of the record today is Monday the 12th of October 1998. This is a hearing of the Amnesty Committee. My name is Denzel Potgieter, I'm presiding. I'm assisted by Advocate Gcabashe on my right and Mr Sibanyoni on my left.

For the record, Mr Steenkamp, would you place yourself on record?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Honourable Members, I'm Andre Steenkamp, I'm the Evidence Leader in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I'm Eric van den Berg, the legal representative of the applicant in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, gentlemen. Advocate Steenkamp, are we ready to proceed?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, Honourable Members we are ready to proceed but I just want for the purposes of Section 19 put certain information on record regarding the victims in this specific matter if you would allow me. Mr Chairman, Honourable Members, I was informed that both or all three the victims in this matter could not be traced at all. They used to be employed at Langeberg Food Company, the Langeberg being referred to in the bundle.

Mr Bates the Executive Officer was contacted as being the place of last employment of the victims. Apparently they left the company a few years back already. This incident happened in 1991. No further information could be traced by either the evidence ...(indistinct) or the Investigation Unit in this matter. That's all information I have on the victims, Mr Chairman, as you wish.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you asking that we proceed to deal with the matter in the circumstances?

ADV STEENKAMP: As you wish, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van den Berg, before we proceed with the application is there anything that you wish to place on record?

MR VAN DEN BERG: No, there is nothing, Mr Chairperson, we are ready to commence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ZANDISILE PATRICK KONDILE: (sworn states)

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairman, he will testify in Xhosa.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Just give me a minute before we start. Mr van den Berg?

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Kondile, is it correct that you seek amnesty essentially for two incidents, one for which you are presently serving a period of imprisonment and secondly for an incident which at the moment is being treated as an unresolved crime?

MR KONDILE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Before we get to deal with the incidents Mr Kondile, I just want to let the Committee have some of your background so that they understand who they are dealing with. Can you tell the Committee where and when you were born?

MR KONDILE: I was born in Daveyton, Benoni on the 24th of February 1961.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Where did you attend high school and what standard did you attain?

MR KONDILE: I attended school in the Transkei at a place called Mxanakwe and I stopped my education at standard eight or after I had passed standard eight.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The incidents for which you seek amnesty all took place in the context of violence at Langeberg Food Industries Ltd., when did you start working at Langeberg?

MR KONDILE: I started working there during 1983.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And where was the factory situated?

MR KONDILE: This factory is situated in Boksburg East.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What job did you do there?

MR KONDILE: I started off just as an ordinary labourer but after having gathered some experience I was promoted to be an operator, a machine operator.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What were your hours of work?

MR KONDILE: The rules there were that we start all at the same time, that is a quarter past seven up till a quarter past five in the afternoon.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were there one or two shifts per day?

MR KONDILE: There were two shifts, that was the day shift as well as the night shift.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you a member of a trade union?

MR KONDILE: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Which trade union?

MR KONDILE: I was a member of FAWU.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And FAWU is the Food and Allied Worker's Union?

MR KONDILE: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were an ordinary member of FAWU or did you occupy any of the elected positions at FAWU?

MR KONDILE: When I joined FAWU I was just an ordinary member but as time went on I was promoted and made to be a shop steward during the year 1991.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you a member of a political party?

MR KONDILE: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Which party?

MR KONDILE: The ANC.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Which trade unions were active at Langeberg during 1990/1991?

MR KONDILE: It was FAWU only and no other union operated within the area.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What was the relationship like between members of FAWU who supported different political parties?

MR KONDILE: If I can recall properly there wasn't a proper relationship, there wasn't a wonderful relationship between the members of the union as well as other political groups.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now FAWU was affiliated to COSATU, is that correct?

MR KONDILE: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened in the 15th of August 1991 at Langeberg Foods?

MR KONDILE: According to my recollection, on the 15th of August just after having reported or clocked in when we were about to start working we could hear some chanting outside the building, that is at the gate. People were chanting but because we were already inside the factory we did not know as to who these people were and as we were still working we realised that there were a lot of people inside the firm who were chanting and they were also having placards with them.

We could not identify the people who were chanting but they were wearing IFP T-shirts, they also had some placards: "Down with shop stewards, Down with FAWU Union, Voetsak ANC, Amos is a dog". Some of them had some weapons with, they bombarded the firm. They marched right into it and we had to get out of the workplace.

We could not identify any of them and we were quite surprised as to how they gained entry because there were security guards at the gate. Some of us were assaulted severely and they had to go to the management's offices.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You said that one the slogans was: "Amos is a dog", do you know to who that referred?

MR KONDILE: Yes, I do know Amos, he was a chief shop steward whom we had elected to be a chairperson and we worked at the same factory with Amos.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now a second incident took place on the 15th of August 1991 which involved two of your colleagues, can you tell the Committee about that?

MR KONDILE: If I recall well there were two co-workers, that is my co-workers, they were also members of the ANC and they were members of FAWU. They were abducted on their way to the train station by Inkatha members and they were taken to the Wadeville Hostel. They were asked certain questions by these Inkatha members and they were also taken to an open veld where they were shot at. The intention was to kill them but luckily Wellington survived but John was killed execution style. It is John who later related to us that Ntuli was present amongst the attackers as well as the abductors. So he was the sole survivor of the incident.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was this incident told to you by the survivor?

MR KONDILE: Yes, he related to us, that is the survivor related the story to us as to how he survived and how they were abducted at an earlier stage.

ADV GCABASHE: Was it John who survived or Wellington who survived? There's been a bit of a mix-up I think.

MR KONDILE: I think it was Wellington if I recall quite well.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You made reference to the name of Ntuli, who was that?

MR KONDILE: Ntuli was a member of Inkatha and he also worked at the same factory. We knew him very well to be as staunch member of Inkatha and he was living at Westgate Hostel.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairman, there is a document in the bundle of documents which has been made available to you. At page 66 of the bundle, headed:

I intend to call Mr Simpson who testified at Mr Kondile's(?) criminal trial in mitigation and I just wanted to take Mr Kondile through the chronology so that he can identify those incidents which he has personal knowledge of.

Mr Kondile, if you look at the bundle of documents in front of you, page 66 of the bundle, you will see it's marked at the top right-hand corner. Can I refer you to page 67, paragraph 6. It starts - it says:

...(intervention)

MR KONDILE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Alright. What I wanted to do was, this is the incident, if you read the paragraph, this is the incident that you've just testified about.

MR KONDILE: Yes, this is what I've just been relating.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you have personal knowledge about that?

MR KONDILE: Yes, I do have personal knowledge because I know the two people who were abducted as well as the survivor who came back to relate the story to us.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If you look at the next paragraph ...(intervention)

MR SIBANYONI: Maybe before going to the next paragraph, what is the name of the hostel you talk about?

MR KONDILE: It's Wadeville Hostel.

MR SIBANYONI: I see in this paragraph they call it "Actonville Hostel", is it one and the same hostel?

MR KONDILE: Actonville is the town or it's near the Indian area, Actonville. It's only a street that divides the hostel as well as the area but the hostel is Wadeville Hostel, it's called Wadeville Hostel.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

I was going to refer you to the contents of paragraph 7 which deals with an incident relating to Amos Makanja, do you know about that?

MR KONDILE: Yes, I do know.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then if you have a look at paragraph 8, there's an incident which deals with a Mr Msotho, do you know about his death?

MR KONDILE: Yes, I do know about his death.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then also in paragraph 9, there was another attack on the home of Amos Makanja, did he tell you about that attack?

MR KONDILE: Yes, he related it to us. I even went to his house to see the aftermath of the attack, I witnessed the aftermath.

MR VAN DEN BERG: In paragraph 10 it deals with the death of Philios Shilakwe on the 21st of August, do you know about that?

MR KONDILE: Yes, I do know him and I know about the incident because we worked together. I even know where he died, next to the shops.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The same paragraph deals with the shooting of Amos Gamede, do you know about that?

MR KONDILE: Yes, I do know.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Who was Mr Gamede?

MR KONDILE: Mr Gamede was also a shop steward at the factory, at the same factory where I worked. He was an ordinary worker but he was elected by his co-workers to be a shop steward.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then if I can refer you to paragraph 11 and that relates the death of a Solomon Mokwatanja, also a FAWU member, do you know about that?

MR KONDILE: Yes, I do.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Paragraph 12 talks about a attack at the factory gates at Langeberg on the 27th of August, were you present when that happened or did you know about it?

MR KONDILE: I would request the Committee to bear with me because it's quite some time after this happened. I can't recall, I have absolutely no recollection of Sampson Shlajayo, I don't remember and I was not present when this took place. I have no clear recollection of the matter.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can I refer you then to paragraph 15 on page 69. I'd referred you to paragraph 15 on page 59, did you know Rosoline Makulukulu?

MR KONDILE: Yes, I knew her.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And did you know about the attack on her home?

MR KONDILE: Yes, I do.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What I wanted to ask you is that in the light of the incident on the 15th of August and these subsequent series of attacks, what did you together with your fellow shop stewards do?

MR KONDILE: We realised that we were being attacked continually and we had to report this matter to the management in order to get its opinion and report the matter to the police as well.

We reported to the offices of the ANC, that is the ANC Headquarters and we thought that we could get some help who we could enlist some opinions as to how to deal with the matter.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was the matter reported to the offices of the Food and Allied Workers Union?

MR KONDILE: Yes, that is correct, we reported the matter to the offices of the union as well as the ANC headquarters. We went to all the places to report because we wanted to get some help. We realised that we were being attacked by other people and we wanted the world to know that this was happening.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What did the people at FAWU say to you and to your fellow shop stewards?

MR KONDILE: I think we sent a delegation of four shop stewards who gave us a report back that they are from the offices and they said there was absolutely nothing they could do because people were killing each other and the atmosphere was quite violent, it was quite a volatile situation so we had to do anything in order to protect ourselves, to protect the union as well as to protect ourselves as members of the ANC because people were being forced and coerced to join Inkatha. So we decided to walk in groups when we go to work as well as when we come back from work and we would make some lift clubs in order to go in groups when we go back to our places and when we go to work.

We had a belief that they were going to help us with arms or any help they could give us in order to be able to protect ourselves. So we resorted to lift clubs and walking in groups to and from work.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You said that you had expected that you would get help, you said: "they would help us", are you referring to FAWU or are you referring to the ANC or are you referring to both of them?

MR KONDILE: I'm referring to both of them, that is FAWU as well as the ANC.

MR VAN DEN BERG: One of the things you testified about was that they would give you arms, did that happen?

MR KONDILE: No, it did not happen, we were not given any arms.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What did the shop stewards do as a result of the meetings with FAWU and the ANC? What did you as shop stewards do?

MR KONDILE: We realised that we had tried to report the matter to the police, the management of the firm, COSATU, ANC as well as FAWU but to no avail. We decided not to fold our hands for Inkatha to kill us, we decided to fight back in order to defend ourselves as well as other innocent people who were being forced and coerced to join Inkatha. That is the resolution we took as shop stewards.

We decided to implement the steps that we had decided on. We gathered the other workers and told them about the decision because we had a meeting later on and we told our co-workers about the situation and the fact that we had gone to seek some help. We realised that as men we had to protect the womenfolk, protect the union as well as our organisation but that it should be a collective effort.

We even decided that we were going to try and find some arms in order to protect ourselves but we needed money in order to be able to get firearms and ammunition. We agreed on that point and some money was collected. I had kept the money. I was told to take the money ...(intervention)

MR VAN DEN BERG: Sorry, Mr Kondile, the Chairperson and the two panellists are writing down what you say so you need to go just a little more slowly so they are able to make proper notes of what you say.

You'd got to the point where you said there was a decision to collect money, what was the money for?

MR KONDILE: The main aim of collecting the money was for us shop stewards as well as the men who were working at the factory to go and buy some arms and ammunition so as to protect ourselves as well as the womenfolk, the organisation as well as the union so that people should not join Inkatha forcefully. So we decided to stand up and fight for ourselves, so the money was for the purchase of arms and ammunition.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What arms were purchased?

MR KONDILE: We bought four AK47's from Spruitview as well as 9mm, two 9mm rifles or guns with the money that we had.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You say 9mm rifles, were they, do you mean rifles or do you mean handguns?

MR KONDILE: There were four AK47's and there 9mm which are handguns, that is two of them. All in all there were six.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Which of those weapons did you have personally?

MR KONDILE: I had an AK47. I also got a 9mm from my friend who was a member of the Self-Defence Unit in Daveyton and he also used to give me the 9mm because I couldn't handle the AK during the day or be in possession of an AK during the day.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you have a license from the South African Police for any of those weapons?

MR KONDILE: No, we never had licenses. We used to hide these arms because they were not licensed.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You said a decision was taken that people should defend themselves, what did that involve?

MR KONDILE: In protecting ourselves we decided that we should give them a taste of their own medicine. They were hunting us down, they knew where we stayed and they knew where each and every one of use lived. Some of our members were killed in their houses or along the way to their places, so we decided that we should also hunt them down, look for them in their houses. If we see them along the way we should shoot to kill.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You say: "they" and "them", who are you referring to?

MR KONDILE: That is the people I can identify, I can give you the names. Some I do not their names but I could identify them facially, so it was a two way thing. I knew some of them facially, some I knew their names.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were they members of a political party or who were they?

MR KONDILE: That is correct, they were staunch members of card-carrying members of Inkatha.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now your application for amnesty contains an application in respect of a person called Alfred Myante or Manyante, can you tell us what happened to him? Can you tell us what you remember about the incident?

MR KONDILE: Alfred was a very dangerous person as far as we were concerned. One, he was a Xhosa speaking person, he lived with us but he defected and joined Inkatha. He became a card-carrying member of Inkatha. He also gave Inkatha members our addresses. He spied on us by giving information about us to Inkatha members. We moved from the respective areas where we stayed and went to other places, running away from the very same person but we realised that he was all over the place hunting us down. So we decided that he was a potential victim because of the activities in which he was involved as far as Inkatha and the ANC was concerned.

We were told as to where he stayed or we got some knowledge as to where he stayed. A certain man who knew him showed us where he stayed. We went to Alfred's place to see and verify as to whether he stayed there and we did not get him that day but we verified that he lived there.

We went back that very same evening and we got him at that place, we killed him and we went back to another person's place but we could not get anybody there.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You talk about: "we", who else was involved?

MR KONDILE: It was myself, my friend, Joseph, a very close friend of mine but I've forgotten his surname.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If the Chairman would bear with me for just a moment.

Mr Kondile, if you look at the bundle of documents in front of you at page 86 there is a letter from the Amnesty Committee headed:

Addressed to:

Do you know who Joseph Mabaso is?

MR KONDILE: I think it's Robert Mabaso. I know of Robert Mabaso, this should be a mistake.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So this is not the Joseph who was involved in the incident with you?

MR KONDILE: I was with Joseph but I've forgotten his surname. I know that his name is Joseph, then there is Robert Mabaso. I'm just trying to recall. Yes, that is correct, this is the Joseph I was with. I do remember now that his surname was Mabaso.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now the death of Alfred Machi, in your amnesty application, if you look at the bundle of documents on page 4, page 4 of the bundle of documents. Do you have it?

MR KONDILE: Yes, I have it.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Could you have a look at paragraph 9, paragraph (a) and (i) you'll see in 3 it says:

And when it asks for dates, you say:

Can you remember the exact date when this matter occurred?

MR KONDILE: I think this happened during 1991 in the month of September but I do not remember the exact date. I'm trying to recall the dates, it's a long time since this has happened but I think it was during the year 1991, the month was September but I'm not sure of the date.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Earlier in your evidence I referred you to page 66 and that memorandum and we referred to certain of the paragraphs in that memorandum. Can I refer you back to the memorandum and page 69, paragraph 13 and paragraph 14. Do you just want to take your time and read it? Is this the incident that you've testified about?

MR KONDILE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now can you recall, you said it was yourself and Joseph who were involved in this attack, can you recall who did the actual killing? Was it one of you or both of you?

MR KONDILE: On this night he had an AK47 and I had a 9mm handgun, we went to his place. Joseph is the one who used the AK47, who shot with an AK47.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What else can you recall about that evening?

MR KONDILE: After having killed him we decided to go out and look for Robert Mabaso who was also a member of Inkatha.

We proceeded to his place and it was still early, something to seven or something past seven and we did not want to get into a house and find a situation where people were sleeping inside the house and we had to attack the house itself, so we decided to go there early so that we could see and identify him because we wanted him specifically and not anybody else who was innocent.

We proceeded to his place. The lights were on but the other room was shut, one was open. I went into the one that was open and the other guy went to the other room, proceeded to the room where the door was shut.

We got to the place and we knocked at the main door. We could hear a female voice from inside who was asking as to who we were. We said it's us but we did not really identify ourselves. They did not open. Then came a male voice who asked as to who we were. We realised that it was Mabaso speaking. He opened the door and when we realised that it was not Mr Mabaso we decided not to shoot because we wanted a specific person.

We left the place and we said he should tell that dog that we are looking for him, so we fired some shots in the air and we left. This poor woman was screaming, telling us that Mabaso was not there, he was at the hostel. We left the place without having injured anyone.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you ever charged criminally with either of the two offences that you've just testified about?

MR KONDILE: No, we were never prosecuted because we were running away and hiding ourselves and I don't think there's anybody who knew that it was us who were committing these deeds. We had some code of secrecy amongst ourselves not divulge anything or any of our activities.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now the second incident for which you seek amnesty is the incident for which you are presently serving a term of imprisonment ...(intervention)

ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry, before we go to that incident can we just get clarity on whether or not the applicant shot at Robert Mabaso, as stated in paragraph 14 on page 69? I'm not too clear about that, thank you.

MR KONDILE: No, I never shot Robert Mabaso.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

I wanted to move on to the incident for which you are presently serving a 12 year term of imprisonment, that's the death of Busumgani Shandu and the attempted murder of a Mr Ngcobo. Can you remember when Mr Shandu was killed?

MR KONDILE: Yes ...[end of tape] ...[inaudible] during 1992, the month was June. I think the date was between the 6th and the 12th, I'm not very sure.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Before you come to describe the incident, at your criminal trial you pleaded that this incident or your defence was that of self-defence, in other words that you were taking steps to guard yourself against an attack, is that what happened?

MR KONDILE: Yes, that is correct, that is what I said, that I was defending myself.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Will you tell the Committee what in fact happened? I think if we started earlier on in the morning in your consultations with me you described an incident which occurred as you were coming to work that morning, will you tell the Committee about that?

MR KONDILE: Excuse me, where did you say I should start? How it happened or - could you please just repeat your question, I've got no clarity.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened when you were on your way to work that morning. Start with that incident.

MR KONDILE: It was a Friday morning and I was expecting to get my wages and knock off earlier because it was a Friday but because we were not free to move in the streets because of the situation that I've already explained and I did not want people to know as to what transport I was using I was moving between a taxi, a bus as well as vans.

Fortunately on that particular day I used the staff bus which used to pick us up from Daveyton to the factory. I boarded the bus and just as we were getting close to the factory, just about to take a turn into the factory, we heard some gunfire whilst we were inside the bus. The gunfire was coming from outside the bus. We went to peep through the windows as to what was happening. We saw shop stewards, that is Amos Gamede as well as another man by the name of Welcome who was a shop steward. They were being attacked and shot at and we were screaming inside the bus.

I ran to the driver and said to the driver he should stop the bus so that I could get out but the driver refused and said it's very dangerous for him to stop at that point because the attackers were just nearby and he was also fearing for his life. He drove the bus.

We went past and we saw that the attack was still going on. He stopped the bus at quite some distance and I was the first one to get out of the bus and went back to the scene of the attack. That is where our shop stewards were being attacked. I wanted to go and help them. I did not have anything, any gun but I felt that as a man I should go and see what was happening and see as to how I could help.

I could see them finishing Mduduzi off and I was at a distance seeing that they were chasing Welcome. I saw Joseph and I think they saw me and Joseph coming towards their direction. They fled the scene, they went towards Wadeville area and Mduduzi was lying on the ground at that stage dead.

This factory was having mixed sexes working, there were woman as well as men working in there and women were screaming inside the factory. We decided to go back into the factory and not go outside. So we went into the firm believing that we would be safe inside there and I collected all the other people who were outside and we instructed the policeman or the security guard to lock the gate so that nobody would gain entry into the factory.

Immediately when I went into the factory the very first thought that crossed my mind was what we had discussed earlier on as men and members of the ANC. We said because they are killing us with so much precision, they work together with us during the day and they send people to come and kill us after hours because they would point us at an earlier stage then they would kill us at a later stage. If anyone of us would kill or be killed outside then the first thing that must happen when we get into the firm, we should attack the very ones that we are working with.

When we got into the factory I tried to identify some of the members of Inkatha who were working at the same factory and there were a lot of screams at that time. Nduduzi had died and was left outside.

I proceeded to the office of the shop stewards. Luckily when I got in there the shop stewards were there as well as other members of the ANC and we were seeking some solutions as to how to deal with the death or the killing of Mduduzi. I came up with the plan and said: "You guys should stop crying, let's put our plan into practice, that we should seek out the members of Inkatha who we were working with in the factory and we should also attack them because they were attacking us with so much precision."

We went out of the office and we told ourselves that we were going to kill anything and everything that had to do with Inkatha, whether it was women or men. I'd not had a gun on that day but I knew that members of Inkatha did carry guns into the factory at times.

I went into my locker, I got a bayonet and went to some bosses of Inkatha at their working site. They did not see me at that stage, they were laughing and saying: "Those dogs think that we have finished, this is just the beginning, we are going to kill them one by one." That is at the stage where I got to them with the bayonet ...(intervention)

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Kondile, may I interrupt you there. You say when you got to them, can you identify who you're talking about?

MR KONDILE: I'm referring to two men who were members of Inkatha, that is Ngcobo and Shandu. These were the men who were laughing and saying that: "These dogs think that we are finished, this is only the beginning. This belongs to Inkatha, this is an Inkatha stronghold."

At the time that they were talking they did not realise that I was on my towards them and I got to them at that stage. I repeated their words and that is when I started attacking them. I started off with Ngcobo. I hit him, he fell onto the ground and Mbatha came with a steel pipe and he tried to hit me with it but I blocked using my hand and the steel pipe fell off. I stabbed him at that stage and he fell onto the ground. I started chasing Zwane. Now a fight had broken out outside the gate. As I was still running I could hear some gunfire. When I looked I realised that it was a policeman. He had pointed a firearm at me. I proceeded towards the policeman. This policeman took this bayonet from me. Luckily he let me off and when he let me off I joined the other workers and we were chasing all the other Inkatha members.

Now a fist-fight broke out. I was the only one who had this bayonet which was taken by the policeman and now we were fighting using stones and all sorts of weapons that we could lay our hands on. I got to a certain corner where Mabaso was cornered. I think it was in a house or a workshop. He was cornered there and Mabaso was in the midst of the people who had cornered him.

I asked them as to why they weren't dealing with Mabaso or killing him, they said that he had a gun with. Then I went inside and said Mabaso does not have a gun. I proceeded and went straight to him. Just when I was about to grab him he took out the gun. He tried to aim and shoot. A struggle ensued and luckily he missed me but he was able to hit me or shoot me in the foot. We ran out of the workshop.

Luckily the police had heard the gunfire going off at an earlier stage and they came to the workshop. We pointed Mabaso out, that he had a gun. The police came and arrested him. I ran to the change room at that stage because I knew that I had attacked these two men at an earlier stage so I wanted to have a change of clothing. As I was still in the locker-room the police came and saw that there were some dead bodies lying all over the factory floor. They went around asking for Patrick, Patrick Kondile and I told them that I was Patrick Kondile. Unfortunately at the stage when I stabbed the two men I was identified by a certain supervisors as well as some foremen who were working at the factory. That is how I got arrested because there are people who witnessed the incident.

I was arrested there and then. Mabaso was also arrested. We were put into a van. I was still bleeding from the gunshot wound. Mabaso had shot me as well as a chief shop steward, that is Amos Makanja who had been shot in the hand but he was not killed. That is how I got arrested and taken to Boksburg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Kondile, can I just take you back to the death of Shandu and the attempted murder of Ngcobo. Which of the two did you attack first?

MR KONDILE: I started off with Ngcobo.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you recall if you stabbed him at all?

MR KONDILE: I stabbed him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened with Shandu?

MR KONDILE: When Shandu realised that I was attacking Ngcobo he also came to Ngcobo's assistance, when he heard Ngcobo screaming. Luckily when he got there Ngcobo was already dead so I was able to face him now. He tried to hit me with a steel pipe and I blocked using my hand and I stabbed him as well. My aim was to kill them. That is when I started chasing Zwane, after having killed Shandu.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You were subsequently arrested and that you've testified to. After a criminal trial you were convicted of the murder of Shandu and the attempted murder of Ngcobo, is that correct?

MR KONDILE: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You now seek amnesty for the four incidents that you've testified about, well really it's the death of Nyante, the attempted murder of Robert Mabaso, the murder of Shandu and the attempted murder of Ngcobo as well as for unlawful possession of an AK47 and a 9mm pistol. Is there anything else that you want to say in support of your application for amnesty?

MR KONDILE: Yes, I would like the Committee to know that what I did was because of the situation that prevailed at the time when we were being attacked and killed indiscriminately by members of Inkatha. We had tried to call some meetings and have some talks with the members of the opposite group but they were not very co-operative.

They had guns so we also had to resort to violence because there was absolutely nothing that we could do. At that time we had decided that come what may we just had to attack them because they were also attacking us and killing members.

I was just an ordinary worker who was not interested in any negativity or fights that were going on at the factory but we realised that they were working hand-in-hand with the management because at some stage they left work for a period of three to six months. They were killing us but they were being paid by the management even though they had absented themselves from work. They were not acting according to their principles of no work, no pay. They were paying Inkatha members whilst the Inkatha members were absent from work and busy killing us.

These are some of the reasons that made us to reach a resolution or a decision to protect ourselves as well as members of the ANC and FAWU because now this turned into a political row. They were killing members of the ANC as well as FAWU members so we decided to target them as members of Inkatha. That's what I could say to enlighten the Committee as to the situation that prevailed, thank you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And finally, Mr Kondile, are you prepared to answer any questions which any person might have to put to you in respect of these incidents for which you seek amnesty?

MR KONDILE: Yes, I am prepared to answer any questions that anyone of the Members of the Committee may have.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg. Advocate Steenkamp, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I have only two or three questions if you will allow me.

Sir, can I refer you to page 11 of the bundle. Mr Chairman, page 11, paragraph 11.

Do you have that in front of you? The last sentence of that paragraph, I just want to have some comment from you. There you say:

This is now UWUSA.

Now my question to you is, how did you learn this? How did you know this?

MR KONDILE: I don't remember anything to that effect, that UWUSA got its funding from the police. I do not know anything about UWUSA, I know about Inkatha which was attacking us.

ADV STEENKAMP: Then on paragraph 15 and 16 - on the same page Mr Chairman, paragraph 15 and 16.

I read paragraph 15 for you:

Can you explain to the Committee what exactly was the advice or the specific instruction you received from the ANC headquarters regarding this feud that was allegedly, or that was raging at this industry? What happened exactly, what were your instructions?

MR KONDILE: What we were told at the ANC headquarters was: "Comrades, you see that people are being killed everywhere, all over. We are not surprised about this incident that you're relating to us and we were told not to be fools, we should use some transport to and from work."

That we should also not be careless, we should walk in groups to and from work so as to be able to protect each other and we should find some means to protect ourselves as well as our organisation so that people will not leave ANC to join Inkatha because they were being forced to or they were being scared into joining Inkatha. So we decided that as men and as would-be victims we should employ any means possible or available to us to protect ourselves.

ADV STEENKAMP: Did they instruct you to take weapons yourself and go after these people, Inkatha members, to kill them or was this decision taken by yourself?

MR KONDILE: The decision to take up arms and to protect ourselves was taken by us as a group of shop stewards who were under attack from the IFP members, as well as other workers who were fearing for their lives. We took the decision as a group.

ADV STEENKAMP: Then my last question to you, according to the Court record, page 60 - unfortunately it's in Afrikaans, Mr Chairman and that's line 25 to 30, page 60. There's a remark by the learned Judge.

I just want to ask you to comment on it. Do you have that Sir, page 60? You'll see there line 25 to 30. I'll read it into the record for record purposes, Mr Chairman:

Now Mr Chairman, this was in the incident of the killing of Mr Shandu and the attempted murder of Mr Ngcobo.

My question to you is this Sir, was this not the real motive for the killing of Mr Shandu, because you were enraged at the killing of your friend and not as you put it today, that it was some sort of political motivation? You decided to kill this person because you were very enraged.

MR KONDILE: This is a very clear issue. My friend was not the first one to be killed, Amos Gamede. People had been killed before and it was not the first time for me to kill a person.

We were hunting each down, we were killing each other but they had actually started off so we decided to give them a taste of their own medicine and the only way to do that was to do what they were doing to us.

There was no personal vendetta on my part to kill Mr Shandu because my friend had been killed earlier on. He was not the first one to be killed and Shandu was not the first one to be killed by me either.

Even besides that issue or that matter, we had attacked others before and we had been attacked before and that was a resolution that was taken as a group that we should also attack them. If it was a personal vendetta I would have killed him only and not continued to kill others who were attacking us. We decided that as a group of shop stewards because we tried to speak to them earlier on, to have some peace talks but they were not co-operative. That is why we decided that we should also attack them because they were working with us during the day and in the evening they were sending other people or coming to attack us themselves. The bosses were inside the factory and they were using hostel dwellers to come and attack us.

When I saw Mduduzi during that day when he had been killed we decided to retaliate there and then. Even now there is peace, Inkatha and ANC members are working together. It's just that I was unfortunate to be the one who was arrested and I had to take the brunt for everything that happened there. But I can point out that there is relative peace at that factory. This incident helped to quell the violence that was taking place at that factory.

Had they not seen our guns, that is had the management not seen our guns they would still be killing us, that is why we tried to take the guns into the factory. Unfortunately one spied on us and told the management that we had some guns that were stashed away within the factory and we asked the management to withdraw the charges against us and the charges were withdrawn but they confiscated the AK47.

The following day the police arrived to search the place, nothing was found except for the fact that the management had taken that AK47 and given it to the Inkatha members. I'm showing you that this was not my decision or a personal decision, it was a decision taken as a group to protect ourselves as a group as well as other innocent people and other members of the ANC because we could see that the law was taking sides and it was taking too long to deal with the matter.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Steenkamp. Mr Sibanyoni?

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Kondile, let me maybe ask for more clarity on the question which was asked by Advocate Steenkamp in connection with UWUSA. Are you saying you don't know anything about UWUSA?

MR KONDILE: What I know as I was working at that factory as a shop steward, as workers we were members of FAWU. I don't know about UWUSA. I think there were members of UWUSA who were Inkatha members also and they wanted people or the workers to join UWUSA so that it could be a legal union which operated within the firm but it was not operating at that time in the firm itself or at the factory. I think UWUSA was an Inkatha union. That is why I say I do not know anything about UWUSA because they never succeeded in forcing people to join UWUSA and it never got to be in the factory itself.

MR SIBANYONI: But as a shop steward during that time, was there any moment where that union as UWUSA was at issue or was discussed?

MR KONDILE: Yes, there was a stage where we encountered problems with regard to UWUSA. As Inkatha members wanted UWUSA to be active with the factory and we decided to join hands as members of the ANC and we had joined FAWU.

We wanted to stand firm and be members of FAWU because we realised that others were now being threatened into joining UWUSA. They were defecting and leaving our union, FAWU, and they would say that they want to join UWUSA. But UWUSA was not operating within the factory but they had been issued cards to join UWUSA in order to get the majority, or they required a number that they wanted for UWUSA to be operative within the factory. That is all I know. But UWUSA never succeeded to operate or be active in the factory.

MR SIBANYONI: Do you perhaps know why you were being targeted, in other words the people whose names are mentioned on page 66 and 67, what was the cause of this conflict?

MR KONDILE: If I recall well I think the reason - firstly, I would say the manner in which the management hired the workers. Secondly, because we didn't see eye to eye with the Inkatha members. For instance, if we decide to engage in a strike action we wanted the management to address our grievances. For instance if we say we want R30,00 extra we would sent by the workers to negotiate with the management and if the management do not want to comply the next best thing for us to do is to go on a strike or on a go-slow until such time that the management complied with our request or our demand.

Now we noticed that there were other groups or members who were not joining us in the struggle or in the strike when we demanded more wages, instead the Inkatha members were alienating themselves from us and working hand-in-hand with the management but when we get a raise they would also get a raise.

The other reason was that when COSATU announced that there should be a stay-away, go-slow or a strike for one day, two days or whatever number of days where we would not go to work then we would do that accordingly and we would inform other workers that we are engaging in a strike action, go-slow or a boycott and thereafter we would go back to work and discover that the Inkatha members were continuing work.

When we go to check their clock cards as shop stewards we realised that they had been working all along and they had been working whilst we were on strike. They would tell us that they have come to work and they don't care for the union because the union is disguising itself, it was actually the ANC that was operating within the factory.

I think the other reason was the hiring system at the factory. I think we were about 900, there were temporary workers who could have been 20, 30 or 40, to come and help us when there was a lot of work to be done and the system that was used was that a white person who was being helped by Amos who was our chairman, would hire these people but we were not aware that these were Inkatha members and after the period or the temporary period has come to an end the other ones had to leave, others would get permanent employment. They had to choose from the 20 and get the 10 that was going to get permanent employment.

We would be told at a later stage because Amos would be involved in the selection of the permanent workers and the other ones who had to leave. After the other ones had left or the other group, we would realise that the people who had left were members of the ANC and the ones who had got permanent employment were members of Inkatha. That's one of the reasons that angered members of the ANC and FAWU, the selection process with regard to getting permanent employment. That is when the people got angry because the rumour circulated that the selection process was unfair, it was favouring Inkatha members. I think these are the three basic reasons that I've already elaborated on, that caused this fight.

ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry, can I just ask? Which Amos, you talk of Amos, which Amos?

MR KONDILE: It's Amos Makjanya.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you. I understood you saying the management was sort of - these are not your words, were biased in favour of Inkatha. You were saying they were even paid when they were absent from duty. Were your members, in other words members of FAWU, not paid when they were absent from duty?

MR KONDILE: No, we would not be paid. There was a police of no work no pay. Even when we go on a tools-down strike we would not be paid, even when we inside the factory itself. We would not be paid because they would say no work no pay, but the Inkatha members were getting paid whether they were at work or not.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Gcabashe?

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, Chair.

You mentioned earlier in your testimony that you reported the attacks on the workers to management, you also reported to FAWU and the ANC. The report to management, what was the solution suggested by management? Did they do anything at all to protect the workers?

MR KONDILE: When we reported to the management they said there was absolutely nothing they could do because whatever was taking place took place beyond the gates of the factory, so whatever happened outside the gates had to be dealt with by the police. He said to us he was dealing with fights or anything that broke inside the factory itself but not beyond that. The only day that he actually helped us was when we were out on lunch we had gone outside to buy some food and as we were still buying food we got shot at and some ran into the factory.

There's a certain guy by the name Biza who was shot and he fell just next to the gate. That is the day that we said that we were going to sleep inside the factory. That day he phoned the buses to pick us from the factory to our respective places. That is the only day that he helped us with regard to being attacked because that was an indiscriminate attack on everybody who worked at the factory.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. A different question, you say you collected money from the workers to buy these arms, yes?

MR KONDILE: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Was it from all of the workers or most of the workers or just very few people?

MR KONDILE: As I've already said that we were about 900, that is women as well as men, we were asking for donations but people were quite willing to donate because this was regarded to be for a good cause of protecting ourselves so people donated freely and wholeheartedly.

If I remember quite well I think it was R3 058,00 that was collected and which was deposited into a bank account and withdrawn as the need arose.

ADV GCABASHE: And then Zwane, you attacked Ngcobo, you had a fight with Ngcobo, a fight with Shandu and Zwane, just to summarise. Where was Zwane when the whole incident started, when you started fighting with Ngcobo then Shandu? I wasn't too sure as to where he came in.

MR KONDILE: We have different working stations, some would be working where I am and others would be a distance a little bit further. When the fighting broke I think Zwane was a distance from the point where I was attacking Shandu and Ngcobo. At that stage when I had finished dealing with Shandu and Ngcobo I saw Zwane dashing off. I think he was just nearby and that is when I started chasing him until the policeman came to help.

I think when I started attacking Shandu and Ngcobo probably he saw when I started attacking and Zwane did not come to help. When he realised that I was attacking the two he tried to run for his life. That is when I started chasing him.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. No further questions, Chair, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van den Berg, any re-examination?

MR VAN DEN BERG: No, Mr Chairperson, I have none.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Is that the evidence of Mr Kondile?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That's the evidence of Mr Kondile. I wanted to call an additional witness, a Mr Graham Simpson who is present but I haven't had an opportunity just to discuss the matter with him, so I'd ask for a short recess, perhaps five or ten minutes if that would be in order.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, we'll adjourn for a short while and you will advise us once you're ready to call Mr Simpson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I will do so, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg, are you ready to proceed?

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I'm indebted to you and to your Committee Members for the indulgence. May I call Graham Simpson. He is present and he's seated on my left.

GRAHAM SIMPSON: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr van den Berg, over to you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Simpson, you're presently employed by the centre for the study of violence, is that correct?

MR SIMPSON: That's correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What is your position there?

MR SIMPSON: I'm the director.

MR VAN DEN BERG: How long have you been involved with the centre?

MR SIMPSON: Since its formation at the end of 1988, so just about 10 years.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What are your formal qualifications?

MR SIMPSON: I have a Master's Degree in History and a Law Degree.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What sort of work has the centre been involved in?

MR SIMPSON: Over the past 10 years we've been involved in a fairly broad range or work, primarily revolving around understanding political and social violence in South Africa. We deal a lot with victims and victims' needs and provision of direct services to the victims and we have done considerable work in the areas of criminal justice reform, particularly in relation to policing.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You testified at Mr Kondile's criminal trial in mitigation of sentence.

MR SIMPSON: That's right.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You also prepared a report. Mr Chairperson, that's contained at pages 16 and following in the bundle before you.

Mr Simpson, you have a copy of the report in front of you. Could you tell the Panel how you prepared this report, the methods you used in the compilation thereof.

MR SIMPSON: I must emphasise that the report was prepared only once Mr Kondile had been convicted of the murder of Mr Shandu and the attempted murder of Solomon Ngcobo. So it was in that context that the report was prepared. It was based on an acknowledgement of the Court's finding in that matter.

The report was an attempt to build up some of the background in what was in my view a very dramatic context to this particular incident, both drawing on my experience in work in violence in industrial conflict but particularly in relation to the political conflict as it was playing itself out on the East Rand during that period.

By way of methodology, I drew on a number of documents that had been prepared for the trial, in particular I drew on an affidavit by Mr Barry who was then representing Cheadle Thompson and Haysom in which a number of the incidents which I refer to my report were documented and the case numbers that I cite were drawn from that.

I then went on to interview the chief shop steward at Langeberg Foods at the time. I sought out a number of the South African Police Service personnel who were involved in the investigations but as I indicate in my report it was impossible to get hold of any of those who were directly involved. And I interviewed the Chief Human Resources Manager at Langeberg Foods in relation to the conflict as well and he also provided me with extensive correspondence which had been in the hands of management during that period.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I understand, Mr Chairperson, that the report has been read.

Mr Simpson, do you confirm the contents of the report?

MR SIMPSON: Yes, I do.

MR VAN DEN BERG: There are just a couple of aspects that I want you to elaborate on. Firstly, at page 6 of the report under the heading:

ADV GCABASHE: What page is that in the bundle?

MR VAN DEN BERG: It's page 21 of the bundle, sorry.

You there deal with the interaction between the Food and Allied Workers Union and the IFP, particularly at the bottom of page 21 or page 6 of the bundle of your report. Could you just read that into the record please?

MR SIMPSON: If I can just the context of this was an attempt to demonstrate that in fact what presented itself very much as a conflict taking place in and around the workplace had in fact in my view been entirely shaped by a wider set of political conflicts that were taking place in the area. And the background was the very extensive politicisation of the trade union movement, the particular concerns with the IFP at that stage to utilise both UWUSA and hostels as key recruiting grounds in an area in preparation in the course of the negotiation process.

The portion that I quote was drawn from a letter which reflected attempts by the IFP to secure that kind of stronghold and it was a letter to Langeberg management demanding amongst other things:

The reason I think this is important is because at that stage these were being referred to as IFP rather than UWUSA members and it's very important that both in the minds of a large number of the protagonists at the time, there was actually little distinction between FAWU and the ANC at that time and UWUSA and the IFP and this by reference to a letter on IFP letterhead to the management. So there was an active process of engagement between the IFP and management in those guises.

The quote does go on to look at a demand, point 3:

And it suggests, certainly in the context it was very strongly motivated by the IFP at that stage, that they were trying to get FAWU's recognition undone as the majority union in that area or as part of a wider political struggle.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You then deal at page 8 of your report, 23 of the bundle, with an application for a firearm license by Mr Mkanya. Can you comment on that?

MR SIMPSON: Yes, this was also drawn from a letter written by Mr Ward of Langeberg Foods where in response to repeated pleas from Mr Mkanya who was the chief shop steward in the area, referring to, certainly in the interview that I had with him, five alleged attempts on his life. There was it seems some recognition by management of the dangers of the situation and they wrote a letter supporting his application for a firearm license from which I've quoted saying:

The importance of that line for me in the Court record, in the Court proceedings, was precisely that I was trying to demonstrate that in the environment at the time there was a very strong sense, the people were under attack, unprotected and were very threatened and the resort to seeking arms for that purpose was both through illegal and through legal means.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Then at page 11 of your report, that's page 26 of the bundle, Mr Chairperson, you outline the details of a meeting between Mr Ward of Langeberg and a Mr Moosa Myeni, a leading official of the IFP. Would you expand on that please?

MR SIMPSON: Certainly. The importance of this both to this hearing, Mr Chairperson, and in the context of the extenuation case that I was attempting to make, was that there was a very strong suspicion in a highly volatile and very politicised environment. The report documents the history over 18 months of escalating conflict, repeated killings and I document 12 murders including those of the victim in the case. The importance was in recognising that there was a strong suspicion, and I argued that this was a very important factor in escalating conflict in the area, there was a strong suspicion that there was collaboration by management in the factory, the IFP and the South African Police Service.

Certainly from my reading of the situation considering the number of cases that were reported to the South African Police Service and the failure to advance any of those cases to the point of either arrest or prosecution would whilst it may not have indicated the kind of conspiracy that was suspected, would certainly have in a sense sustained those beliefs amongst the people at that time.

What is less difficult to sustain but equally understandable was the perception of this collaboration between management and IFP. And partly in order to demonstrate my own objectivity in the matter, I felt it important to cite this paragraph because, to cover this point, because what I did come across was the fact that there were in fact meetings between IFP leadership in the area and the management of the factory, that is may have reinforced the belief that there was this collaboration but that in fact from the correspondence between management and UWUSA, well the IFP, it seemed like they were actually fairly staunch in rejecting the IFP's demands and were fairly committed to a majority unionism approach in the factory. Nonetheless the perception certainly of the FAWU shop stewards that I interviewed and Mr Kondile, was that there was such a collaboration.

What is more important though in my view is the line that I've quoted from Moosa Myeni, IFP leader in the area and that was cited in the minute of the meeting constructed by the management personnel who I think were fairly objective about it, quoting him as saying:

And I think that that is particularly relevant to this Committee.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Are you able to comment, Mr Simpson, about this particular conflict in its broader context on the East Rand?

MR SIMPSON: Certainly. At our centre we have done a very extensive, well we had at the time done very extensive research into that conflict in the East Rand, including, and I must emphasise this, a series of direct extensive qualitative interviews with hostel dwellers in the area during some of the high points of conflict in which the hostels were the flash-point and the relationship between migrant labour and political battles or particularly the hostels as an organising battle during that phase of negotiations was very clear to me. So certainly on the basis of our research in the hostels I would be able to comment on the area more generally.

I also along with a couple of colleagues have published two articles, reviews of political violence, one referring to 1990 and the other particularly relevant here to 1991, which documents a lot of this. Amongst other things one of the factors that I pointed to in my report which I consider to be of particular relevance is that one must remember that it was in the course of 1991 that the so-called "Inkatha-gate" scandal broke.

And whilst individuals on the shop floor may not have been aware of this, it certainly is reflective of the extent to which politics and the machinations of the workplace had become very substantially enmeshed. I remind you that the "Inkatha-gate" scandal involved an acknowledgement that funds particularly drawn from, as I understand it South African Police Service funds at that stage, had been used both to fund a couple of Inkatha rallies and had been provided as backing funding for UWUSA.

So that the context of the politicisation on the shop floor during that period has been the basis both of extensive research by ourselves as well as a number of other cases during that period, although not specifically on the East Rand.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You interviewed Mr Kondile prior to testifying in mitigation, do you have any recollection of some of the things he might have told you which support you thesis?

MR SIMPSON: Well most of the material is contained in the report and I've drawn on, I had at the time, drawn on Mr Kondile's interviews where appropriate and where I could.

There was certainly a couple of areas in which he indicated very clearly to me that he believed, and I think I've quoted it in my copy half way down page 12, I'm not sure what that ...(intervention)

MR VAN DEN BERG: Page 27 of the bundle, Mr Chairperson.

MR SIMPSON: Where he stated to me:

Certainly in relation to Mr Gamede who was killed on the same day prior to his attack of Mr Shandu, he expressed some of the sentiments that I've included in report. I did try and get Mr Kondile to affirm the statements and the chronology of the events which I had received from elsewhere but obviously some of those things were within his direct knowledge and some of them weren't.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And in your view this all took place in a political rather than a workplace context?

MR SIMPSON: Yes, part of the reason I was before the Court was to attempt to demonstrate that in fact to view this simply as an industrial conflict would actually denigrate it of some of its most significant explanatory factors.

I did however extract a number of key issues which in the industrial context resulted in escalating conflict and contributed to the problem but the overall objective of this report ironically presented to the Court on March 28, 1994, which if I recall correctly was the date of the Shell House Massacre, was to demonstrate that this part of an enduring and pervasive political battle being waged in the East Rand, that the incidents that I covered revolved not only around what happened on the shop floor but a number of killings that took place in the communities of the area.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibanyoni?

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, no questions, Mr Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, none, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume you wouldn't have any re-examination?

MR VAN DEN BERG: No, Mr Chairperson, I don't.

CHAIRPERSON: And you want Mr Simpson to be excused?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, he may be excused, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Simpson, you are excused from further attendance.

MR SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that conclude the evidence that you had wished to lead, Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, that is the case for the applicant in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: We will now take the lunch adjournment and we will reconvene at 2 o'clock. We adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Steenkamp, are there any other witnesses that will testifying?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, Honourable Members, there is a request of Mr Joseph Mabaso who is present here today, he is sitting next to me here. He is the person that received the notification according Section 19 of the Act, which appears on page 86, Mr Chairman.

I can maybe just for the record, Mr Chairman, indicate that the statement that was submitted by Mr Kondile which appears on page 10, and specifically paragraph 4, where is he is applying for the murder of Alfred Matanje of - I don't think I've pronounced it correctly, during September 1991, as you would recall, Mr Chairman, the applicant implicated Mr Mabaso as being the person who was responsible for the shooting incident where an AK47 was allegedly used.

Mr Mabaso elected to testify and tell his side of the story if you would allow it, Mr Chairman. He asked me to lead him on certain questions. I will just be sketching his background briefly and ask him a few questions about the information that was put before the Committee, if you would allow that, Mr Chairman.

He is Zulu speaking, Mr Chairman.

JOSEPH MABASO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Mabaso, just for the record, am I correct in saying that you were the person that was referred to by the applicant as being Mr Joseph Mabaso? At the time of the incident you used to work at the same factory as the applicant was working, is that correct?

MR MABASO: Yes, that is correct.

ADV STEENKAMP: Okay. Just for the record could you indicate what your current occupation is and where do you stay?

MR MABASO: I stay at Vosloorus, Morimba Garden, Extension 9. I'm working at Boksburg.

ADV STEENKAMP: Where do you work in Boksburg?

MR MABASO: Langeberg Foods.

ADV STEENKAMP: Do you know the applicant before the Committee?

MR MABASO: Yes, I know him.

ADV STEENKAMP: Can you explain to the Committee how you know him?

MR MABASO: I know him because we were working together at the factory.

ADV STEENKAMP: For how long had you been working together?

MR MABASO: We've been working together for a very long time. I have 13 years worth of experience. I'm not sure whether he was employed there before me or after me.

ADV STEENKAMP: Just briefly, you are aware of the incident that happened during 1991 where there were certain labour relation tensions at the factory, am I right?

MR MABASO: Yes, I know about that because I too was a shop steward at the time.

ADV STEENKAMP: Did you belong to any union?

MR MABASO: Food and Allied Workers Union, FAWU.

ADV STEENKAMP: Now if I'm not mistaken you have heard the whole testimony of the applicant, am I right?

MR MABASO: That is correct.

ADV STEENKAMP: You heard the specific piece of evidence where the applicant has referred to you as being the implicated party in the killing of Mr Alfred Myante(?) during September 1991, did you hear that?

MR MABASO: Yes, I did hear that testimony.

ADV STEENKAMP: Can you describe or can you relate to the Committee exactly what your perception or your understanding of the incident was?

MR MABASO: First of all I was a shop steward at Langeberg. Yes, there was conflict between, among the workers at Langeberg and this pertained to UWUSA and/or Inkatha. The entire shop steward committee was up to date as to what was happening.

ADV STEENKAMP: Let's start from the beginning. Can you recall a meeting with the ANC, where a meeting was held at the ANC offices about the whole incident?

MR MABASO: Yes, I do remember. I was among the delegates at the meeting.

ADV STEENKAMP: Was the applicant present?

MR MABASO: No, he was not present at that meeting.

ADV STEENKAMP: What discussed and what was the purpose of the meeting?

MR MABASO: The purpose of the meeting was because of the continuation of the conflict. We therefore wanted to inform them that people were dying and we wanted to know if they wouldn't come so that discussions can be held to find out if there cannot be a solution.

ADV STEENKAMP: Was there any decision taken at that meeting to resolve the conflict?

MR MABASO: Yes, they did try to call leaders from both parties. As a result there was a peace committee that was established.

ADV STEENKAMP: Now going to this specific incident, are you aware of this incident where Mr Alfred Myante was killed?

MR MABASO: I only heard that it occurred just like that.

ADV STEENKAMP: Can you give any indication why the applicant should refer to you as being the person who shot the late Mr Myante with an AK47?

MR MABASO: I think because we were all together in the union, he too was also my friend and I never paid him a visit since he was arrested. Maybe that's one of the reasons that is resulting in him implicating me. We did everything as a committee, maybe he is bitter thinking that we left him in the lurch.

ADV STEENKAMP: Now you've heard the testimony of the applicant, is there anything else that you would like to put before the Committee that you differ with from him?

MR MABASO: Yes, I would say that. Firstly, whatever was happening ourselves as a shop steward committee we used to discussed among ourselves. We would involve the management where necessary so that this violence could come to an end.

ADV STEENKAMP: There was also testimony by the applicant that there was a group decision, if I'm not mistaken, taken by the group of people to defend themselves and if necessary like in this incident, to defend themselves by taking up arms, do you agree with that testimony?

MR MABASO: No, in our committee there was no-one who came up with the idea that people should take up arms. Everything that we did we did peacefully, not violently.

ADV STEENKAMP: Was there any decision to kill any of the other members of Inkatha who was apparently responsible for this violence?

MR MABASO: It was an intention between the ANC and the IFP but I would not say or single out any particular party as having been responsible.

ADV STEENKAMP: ...[inaudible] was there any specific decision taken to kill any of these people?

MR MABASO: No.

ADV STEENKAMP: Is there anything else you would like to add to your evidence Mr Mabaso?

MR MABASO: What I can say is that I was surprised when I received the summons summoning me to the TRC, firstly because I don't know what it is that I have done. This is news to me. That is all I can say.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van den Berg, questions?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

You confirmed that you know the applicant in this matter, Mr Kondile?

MR MABASO: Yes, I now him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: That you were fellow shop stewards at Langeberg Foods?

MR MABASO: That's correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you know the deceased in this matter, Mr Myante, did you know him?

MR MABASO: Yes, he was supervisor at the factory.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And he was a supporter of the IFP?

MR MABASO: I wouldn't say about that, I don't know which party he supported because he was at work all the time.

MR VAN DEN BERG: ...[inaudible] and the only reason that you can offer for Mr Kondile implicating you is that maybe you didn't visit Mr Kondile in prison?

MR MABASO: Yes, I think that may be the reason.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Have you submitted an application for amnesty?

MR MABASO: What for?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Is it correct that you've not submitted an application for amnesty?

MR MABASO: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: No further questions, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: None, Mr Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: Just one aspect. Is it possible that though you were a shop steward there may have been a different grouping that was a little more militant than the bigger grouping of shop stewards and maybe that militant group, I'm just speculating, is a group that the applicant belonged to?

MR MABASO: Yes, that may have been possible. We could be in the same committee but if we'd not perceive things the same yes, some people are likely to move a different way.

ADV GCABASHE: Is it possible that a group of shop stewards could have taken a decision to deal with the attackers in the same way the attackers were dealing with them, is that possible?

MR MABASO: That is up to the people as to how they perceive a situation.

ADV GCABASHE: Are you then saying that that might have been so but you don't know about that?

MR MABASO: As I have said I really don't know.

ADV GCABASHE: You can however say that when you came to give the report back to the workers after seeing the ANC, the applicant was one of the persons who you reported back to or would have been part of the group who you reported back to?

MR MABASO: Yes, because he was not party to the delegation to the offices. We gave them a report back when we came back.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, Mr Mabaso, thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

Mr Mabaso, have you listened to the testimony about a number of incidents where members of FAWU were attacked and some killed, allegedly by members of the IFP?

MR MABASO: Yes, I did hear that testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm that that was what happened?

MR MABASO: Yes, some people died, as you have just indicated.

CHAIRPERSON: The advice that was given to your delegation when you visited the ANC offices, can you tell us what was that advice, what did they tell you?

MR MABASO: When we arrived and told them about the situation at the office we used to phone them before coming, telling them about the situation. They sat us down and we discussed and we discussed that it would be better if a peace committee was summoned, discuss so that there should be peace at Langeberg.

Board were drawn and put on the wall to this effect, that all the shop stewards who were committed to peace should attach their signatures to that black board.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you given any advice about your response if you are attacked, if you are under attack?

MR MABASO: Would you please repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: Was there any advice given to you in this discussion at the ANC office what you should be doing if you are being attacked?

MR MABASO: After our discussion we decided that only the peace committee can bring about peace and should we happen to be attacked we should make it a point that we move around in groups, use transport and not travel on foot.

CHAIRPERSON: What about defending yourselves?

MR MABASO: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: What about defending yourselves, was there any discussions around defending yourselves against these attacks or warding off these attacks?

MR MABASO: No, nothing was discussed to the effect that we should attack but it was indicated that it would not be possible for us to be attacked if we were moving around in a group and using transport at the same time.

CHAIRPERSON: So was there no discussion about you defending yourselves against these attackers at all, apart from walking together in large groups?

MR MABASO: Yes, the important thing was that we should move around in groups. We would see how to get out the situation ourselves as adults.

CHAIRPERSON: So you had no idea, even if you were in a group and you were attacked, you had no preconceived plan or no idea as to how you ought to be dealing with

that situation?

MR MABASO: As I have indicated it was up to an individual to see what to do under such circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Steenkamp, have you got any re-examination?

ADV STEENKAMP: No further questions, Mr Chairman. May I ask if it's possible that the witness be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mabaso, thank you very much for giving evidence. You are excused from further attendance at the hearing.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further witnesses from myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg, are you in a position to address us?

MR VAN DEN BERG ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

The applicant seeks amnesty for a number of incidents which are detailed in his affidavit which was deposed to on the 21st of September '98, and those are:

The Act requires that for an applicant to be granted amnesty he must comply with the requirements of the Act, those are the he submit an application form on the prescribed form within the period so allowed. The application form is before you and was submitted on the 10th of May which at that stage was the final date for submission. It was the 10th of May 1997 that that was submitted to yourselves.

It then requires that the act or omission for which the application relates must be an act associated with a political objective. This is more clearly stipulated in Section 20(2) and (3) of the Act. I would respectfully submit that insofar as Section 20(2) is concerned, the applicant complies either with Section 20(2)(a) or (2)(g). (2)(a) is that he was a member or a supporter of a publicly known political organisation or liberation movement. Alternately that he was a person who associated with any act or omission committed by any of the person set out in (2)(a) to (2)(f).

You will recall the testimony of Graham Simpson who testified that the lines between members of the ANC and members of the Food and Allied Workers Union or unions affiliated to COSATU, that the lines of command between those two organisations were blurred and that one was dealing not so much with industrial conflict as with political conflict. In fact Mr Kondile's evidence, in his evidence he spoke interchangeably about his membership of the ANC and membership and his rank as a shop steward at FAWU. He spoke about those things interchangeably.

If one has reference then to Section 20(3) one needs to look firstly at the motive involved and there has been evidence both from the applicant and Mr Simpson, confirmed by Mr Mabaso, as to the political conflict at the time. There is contained in an affidavit by Mr Barry a list of some 10 or 11 killings of FAWU members at the time.

Mr Kondile testified that whatever - his involvement at that time was to protect the ANC, was to protect and was to protect his fellow employees at Langeberg Foods.

The context I've already alluded to and that's been testified to both by Mr Kondile and Mr Simpson and that is the context of spiralling political violence on a factory floor in the East Rand as a precursor and a run-up to the 1994 elections.

The legal and factual nature of the act. Insofar as Myante is concerned, it was a killing with an AK47. Unfortunately I understand that the docket of that criminal investigation are no longer available. But Mr Kondile has testified as to how the act was carried out and with whom he was accompanied at the time.

The details of Shandu and Ngcobo, he has again testified to. There is additional information contained in the transcript of his criminal trial and you have before you the judgment when he was convicted as well as the judgment in respect of his sentence.

In this particular application the provisions of (3)(a) and (3)(d) are, I would submit, fairly similar, that these were acts essentially of self-protection. They were acts to protect the ANC and to protect FAWU in a battle with the IFP for political supremacy in the area at the time.

Insofar as Section 20(3)(e) is concerned, which deals with the execution of an order or the approval of an organisation, Mr Kondile has testified to a joint decision taken by the shop stewards. Now that evidence is not confirmed by the only shop steward who testified here and that is Mr Mabaso. Mr Mabaso is in an invidious position I would submit. He has been implicated in a murder, it's the first time that evidence of this murder has emerged in the public domain. He has not submitted an application for amnesty. He says that he's not submitted such an application because he was not involved but nonetheless the only reason he can give for his implication is the alleged bitterness of Mr Kondile, that he did not receive a visit. So I would submit that the evidence of Kondile in this regard must be accepted and must be preferred.

And then finally you're called upon to look at the relationship between the act, omission, offence and the political objective pursued, with particular regard to proportionality. The facts of the matter are that we have some 10 or 11 deaths of FAWU members. Against that we have the death of Mr Myante, the attempted murder of Mr Mabaso such at it was, he wasn't even present at the time. You have the incident which gave rise to an ongoing fight using fists and steel pipes and suchlike objects on the morning on which Mr Shandu and Mr Ngcobo were attacked. I would submit to that the acts are not out of proportion to the circumstances at the time.

There is no evidence before this Committee that Kondile gained personally by his participation in these acts, in fact he's serving a 12 year term of imprisonment.

Insofar as personal malice is concerned, personal malice, ill-will or spite, he was asked by Mr Steenkamp to comment on the finding of the learned Judge who convicted and sentenced him and he said all of this happened in a context, there was nothing personal about this. So I would submit that there is no evidence insofar as that is concerned.

The final criterion is that he must make full disclosure. He had come here as a sentenced prisoner in respect of two of the acts for which he seeks amnesty. He has been open with this Committee and has said effectively:

Insofar as the other acts are concerned, there was no reason, no compulsion whatsoever for Mr Kondile to disclose those. As far as we have been able to ascertain the facts of the murder, the attempted murder, the unlawful possession, those facts are not in the public domain. It is not as if he awaits a criminal trial if he is not granted amnesty here. There is no reason whatsoever for him to have disclosed those. I would submit he has disclosed them because the Act requires him to make full disclosure and that is precisely what he has done.

Those, Mr Chairperson, are my submissions. If there are any other aspects on which you would like me to address, then I'm willing and happy to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van den Berg, just one issue. The attempted murder of Robert Mabaso, what are

the circumstances of that particular one, was there in fact an attempted murder on Robert Mabaso or what is your submission in that regard?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, my submission would be that whilst an act of murder was planned and whilst they set off to execute it, Mabaso was not found, a warning was left by the firing of shots in the proximity of his home. I would submit, Mr Chairperson, that at worst to the, or at best to the applicant we are dealing with conspiracy. I don't believe that insofar as they took the ...(indistinct) that it fulfils the definitional requirements of murder or an attempt. They certainly conspired to murder him. I don't know that they took it any further than that.

CHAIRPERSON: So what is the offence for which you are seeking or the applicant is seeking amnesty for in respect of this incident where Mr Robert Mabaso is concerned?

MR VAN DEN BERG: The application is framed on the basis of attempted murder but I think that, and I submit that in the light of the facts which have been disclosed today that there are insufficient facts to grant amnesty of attempted murder. I submit that there are sufficient facts for conspiracy and it it's necessary then we would move for an amendment from attempted murder to conspiracy to commit murder.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll hear what Advocate Steenkamp has to say about that but are you formally moving for an amendment along those lines?

MR VAN DEN BERG: As it pleases you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Steenkamp, when you address us would you deal with the latter issue first and just give us your attitude in regard to the Robert Mabaso incident?

ADV STEENKAMP ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Mr Chairman, with all respect, I would agree with my learned colleague on the facts as they are as they pertain to this incident it is probably conspiracy to commit murder and probably not attempted murder as it is, although technically speaking that falls within Schedule A offences as well. I think it's

just a technical difference between the two offences. I would agree with my learned colleague there.

As far as the rest of the application is concerned, Mr Chairman, I really don't have any specific submissions except to say that I was not in a position to establish exactly what the position of the victims were because it was basically impossible. But as far as the requirements of the Act is concerned, Mr Chairperson, I don't have further submissions and I leave it in the hands of the Committee. If there is anything else I would ...(indistinct) on that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Steenkamp. Do you have anything to say on the amendment of the application to provide for, in the alternative to a conspiracy to murder of Robert Mabaso?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I would with all respect agree. I'm sure it's within the discretion of the Committee as it stands.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr van den Berg, one aspect that just bothers me a little. The applicant testified that at the time of the attack on Ngcobo, Shandu, Zwane, there was then, he then joined some of his other comrades after the bayonet had been taken off him and there was a Robert Mabaso who was in one of the work stations who was said to have a firearm, if I recall correctly. He then said to people he doesn't have a firearm and approached Robert Mabaso who, the long and the short of it is, this Robert Mabaso then shot him.

Now what I am wondering about is 1) is this the same Robert Mabaso who had sought to attack, to deal with at an earlier time, 2) whether or not it's the same Robert Mabaso, did he commit any particular offence on this occasion that he may understand himself to be asking for amnesty for. I wouldn't like to find that he can now be charged with something that he things he adequately dealt with before us. If you could just clarify that particular situation for us, what I call the second Robert Mabaso incident.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Certainly. My instructions are that this is the same Robert Mabaso. That what occurred at the time was an attempt probably to assault Mr Mabaso but that that was curtailed by the production of a firearm during which a fellow shop steward and Mr Kondile were shot. But it seems as if the police were on the scene very, very quickly.

And I'm not sure, I certainly don't understand my instructions to the effect that any offence was in fact committed at the time. Although of course the definition of assault is so wide that presumably the simple manhandling of Mabaso would qualify. But my instructions are not to apply for anything in that regard.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, thank you gentlemen for your assistance. We will need to consider the matter and then formulate our decision. So the decision in the matter is reserved. Thank you for your assistance, Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairman, may I be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, indeed, you are excused.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I will leave my details with Mr Steenkamp so that in due course the decision can be communicated to us.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I don't know if you want to take a two minutes break before I get the next case on the roll? It will be the case of Mr Manyamala. I promise it will take about two minutes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, we'll take a short adjournment to allow you time to reschedule and to get the next case for us, thank you. We'll adjourn.

ON RESUMPTION

ADV STEENKAMP: Honourable Members, thank you for the indulgence. We're ready for the next matter, Mr Chairman. The applicant being Mr Manyamala, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Steenkamp. For the purposes of the record, it is Monday, 12th October, 1998. It's a sitting of the Amnesty Committee in the application of Saint Mkululi Manyamala, matter number

AM 3150/96. The panel is chaired by myself, Denzel Potgieter. I'm assisted by Advocate Gcabashe on my right and Mr Sibanyoni on my left.

Mr Steenkamp, just for the record.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm Andre Steenkamp, the Evidence Leader. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Shayi?

MR SHAYI: Mr Chairman, I am Gama Shayi, I am for the applicant, Mr Saint Mkululi Manyamala.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

Advocate Steenkamp anything that ...[inaudible]

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just for the record's sake, as far as the requirements of Section 19 and 18 is concerned specifically you will see it from the record, Mr Chairman, there was actually two victims in this matter, the first one, Mr Willem Stephanus Fronemann who was actually killed in this incident and then there was also Mr Rush Jennifer Barker who was shot and injured in this incident.

My information is the following, Mr Chairman, regarding the tracing of this witness. She was notified but the notification was sent back to the Commission without being filed on her. The other thing is, Mr Chairman, I specifically asked the Investigation Unit again to go and see if they can find Mrs Barker but to no avail. She left a previous address. Certain enquiries were done in the specific vicinity and even information which we were trying to obtain from the old security firm that used to work at her house was also to no avail.

As far as we are concerned, Mr Chairman, it was not possible to trace the victim at all and I would move to ask the Committee, Mr Chairman with your indulgence, that we proceed with this matter as it stands. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Steenkamp. In the light of the circumstances that you have placed on record we are satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate the single remaining victim in this matter and that in the circumstances we will proceed to hear the application.

Mr Shayi, do you want to put anything on record before ...[inaudible]

MR SHAYI: Nothing before, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR SIBANYONI: Which language are you going to use, Mr Manyamala?

MR MANYAMALA: I'm going to use isiZulu.

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni.

Mr Shayi, over to you.

EXAMINATION BY MR SHAYI: Mr Manyamala, you have brought an application for amnesty for an incident which took place on the 3rd of February 1993 and which led to multiple convictions and sentences, is that correct?

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, that is correct.

MR SHAYI: Now just for your background, where were you born and where were you resident between these incidents?

MR MANYAMALA: When these incidents happened I was staying at Zola North in Soweto where I was born and grew up.

MR SHAYI: And how far have you gone in your education?

MR MANYAMALA: I went as far as standard nine.

MR SHAYI: Now how was the situation in Zola North or in your locality when this incident happened?

MR MANYAMALA: The situation at Zola North were I grew up was such that there wasn't much of violence. We don't have hostels nearby, thank you.

MR SHAYI: Were you a member of any political organisation at that stage?

MR MANYAMALA: Yes.

MR SHAYI: And which political organisation were you belonging to?

MR MANYAMALA: I was a member of the African National Congress.

MR SHAYI: ...[inaudible] were you a straight supporter or were you a card-carrying member of the said organisation?

MR MANYAMALA: I was a card-carrying supporter of the ANC.

MR SHAYI: Now were there any duties that you were doing at that stage for the organisation?

MR MANYAMALA: I was an activist at the time.

MR SHAYI: And how active were you?

MR MANYAMALA: Before this incident happened I had already recruited a self-defence unit which was under the ANC.

MR SHAYI: And what were the duties of the SDU's?

MR MANYAMALA: The duty of the SDU was to defend the people.

MR SHAYI: Defend the people against who specifically?

MR MANYAMALA: Between 1992 and 1993 people were being attacked by the IFP in Soweto. Those were problematic people together with the security forces.

MR SHAYI: Were these people who were attacking the people in Soweto residents in Soweto as well?

MR MANYAMALA: ...[no English translation]

CHAIRPERSON: We might have had some technical difficulty, won't you just repeat the question, Mr Shayi?

MR SHAYI: These people who were attacking residents of Soweto, were they also residents in Soweto?

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, they were residents at the hostels in Soweto.

MR SHAYI: Were they members of any political organisation?

MR MANYAMALA: I would not say that they were members or not but as far as I'm concerned they were followers of the IFP.

MR SHAYI: And what necessitated the formation of these SDU's?

MR MANYAMALA: As I have already explained that people in Soweto were being killed and victimised by these IFP followers, that is the reason that led to the formation of the SDU's.

MR SHAYI: Was this option of forming SDU's formulated by the residents of Soweto or was it an instruction from any political organisation that you were affiliated to?

MR MANYAMALA: If I were to take you back to the time during the negotiations, shortly after the unbanning of the ANC people were being killed, government on the other side was negotiating with liberation movements so that people complained and they appealed that a structure be put in place so that they could be protected.

MR SHAYI: And who came with the solution?

MR MANYAMALA: Shortly, it was the community that came up with this idea.

MR SHAYI: Was it taken to the political organisation itself?

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, here before me I have a statement or a submission that was submitted by the ANC before this very same Committee. There is a passage where the ANC clearly states that people were complaining and appealing to the ANC that a structure be put in place so that they can be protected. I don't know whether it is permissible for me to continue explaining about this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see that you have the ANC Submission to the Truth Commission. Do you want to draw our attention to a specific section, specific page in that submission or ...

MR MANYAMALA: I would refer you to paragraph - would you please bear with me, I'm trying to locate the page.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please take your time.

MR MANYAMALA: Okay. Chairperson, I would request that we proceed for now, my lawyer is trying to locate the page.

MR SHAYI: So are you in a position to say that the action by the community was sanctioned, positively sanctioned by the political organisation, namely the ANC?

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, the complaints of the community were complaints that were understood by the ANC, realising that people were dying like flies.

MR SHAYI: Now in the execution of their duties were the SDU's allowed to use any weapons whatsoever?

MR MANYAMALA: I think everybody knows that the ANC is a non-violent organisation but at the time the people who were attacking the community were using arms and therefore we were forced to do the same, use arms to defend ourselves.

MR SHAYI: So do you know whether the said arms were licensed on not?

MR MANYAMALA: These arms I would say we took our own initiatives, these arms did not come from the ANC.

MR SHAYI: In other words they were not licensed?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

MR SHAYI: Now, you belonged to a particular SDU, is that correct?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

MR SHAYI: Now do you know whether there was anybody in the said unit who was dealing directly with a political organisation or were you directly involved with the political organisation in your personal capacity and as a member of the self-defence unit itself?

MR MANYAMALA: We have Thembasi Sinamela a comrade who trained us in self-defence. He is the person to whom we took our complaints and he would take these complaints further.

MR SHAYI: So when you say further, are you referring to the people above, namely the top echelon of the ANC?

MR MANYAMALA: I wouldn't want to elaborate on that because I'm not sure, I was not there, I just knew he took these complaints further.

MR SHAYI: Now briefly can you just tell the Committee what aspects led to the incident on the 3rd of February 1993? In other words what went wrong?

MR MANYAMALA: I would say that we had just been trained, it was after a month of fighting at the township where there is a hostel opposite Mzimhlope. There was a fighting between the SDU against the IFP members. Six guns were lost.

I was a leader or a commander of 12 people within the SDU. I then decided that I should go and try and get hold of other firearms because people were in danger and we were short of firearms. I organised successfully and came back with firearms from Gadafi who resided in Thokoza.

MR SHAYI: When you say that you decided that you should go for firearms, did you personally take the initiatives or did you consult with this comrade Sinamela?

MR MANYAMALA: Myself as a leader or commander of the unit had a responsibility of taking care of anything that was in short supply. I contacted the comrade beforehand and he agreed, knowing what the situation was like.

MR SHAYI: When you said "the comrade", are you referring to comrade Sinamela or this Gadafi?

MR MANYAMALA: I'm talking about comrade Sinamela who was above us in rank.

MR SHAYI: And then after reporting the said incident to comrade Sinamela, what instructions were given to you?

MR MANYAMALA: I explained the situation to comrade Sinamela, indicating to him that guns were lost and I indicated to him that I intent procuring other firearms. He agreed and he said provided I will find them at a good supply so that people are not endangered.

MR SHAYI: Did you at that stage have any contacts as far as firearms are concerned?

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, I tried comrades around Soweto but I failed. And before the 3rd of February 1993 we were at a night vigil at Spruit and that is where I met comrade Gadafi whom I had already met before and I discussed the matter with him and we agreed that we should meet on a particular day at Spruit.

MR SHAYI: This comrade Gadafi did agree to supply you with firearms?

MR MANYAMALA: When I arrived at Spruit he indeed told me that guns were ready and available.

MR SHAYI: Now did you at any stage arrange with him on how the firearms should be collected and on what day?

MR MANYAMALA: When I arrived at Spruit I had thought he would not have organised the guns when I got there. We were travelling in a car that was not in a good condition and I explained to him that I would not be in a position to carry the guns in the car that was in such a bad condition and indicated to him that it's quite a distance from Thokoza to Soweto and should it happen that we are pursued by police along the way, they would definitely apprehend us and should we happen to come across a roadblock we would be arrested. The car was a legal car and it was not safe to transport these guns in this kind of vehicle.

MR SHAYI: And then what solution was given to you by this comrade Gadafi or what decision did you come to to actually get you out of this dilemma?

MR MANYAMALA: Chairperson, let me indicate that Gadafi is not the one who made the decision. I indicated to him that he should lend me his .38 which he did so that I could to and organise a vehicle that could transport the weapons.

MR SHAYI: Now when you moved from Soweto to Spruit, did you have a firearm in your possession?

MR MANYAMALA: As I have explained before, Chairperson, we did not have firearms, we were only in the position to get hold of firearms when we arrived at Spruit after having met comrade Gadafi. I think that's understandable.

MR SHAYI: And then after having been given this .38 and after having decided that you should go for an alternative transportation, what did you do?

MR MANYAMALA: After having received this .38, Gadafi remained behind and he indicated that we will find him at a particular spot when we came back. We moved around but we could not find what we were looking for and we went towards Gosforth Park. As we were approaching we went just behind the golf course where I saw a red Toyota Corolla Twin Cam and I observed that it was a roadworthy vehicle.

At home I have a half-brother who fixes broken cars and I'm used to seeing to seeing roadworthy cards and I realised that that was a car that we could use for the mission.

MR SHAYI: And then were you on your own when you saw this Toyota Corolla?

MR MANYAMALA: As I have explained, I indicated that "we", that means I was not alone, it was the driver, myself and another comrade.

MR SHAYI: And after seeing the motor vehicle, what did you do?

MR MANYAMALA: After seeing the vehicle, myself as a person who is knowledgeable about vehicles, we walked past and, or should I say we drove past the area and took a different direction from the one from which we came and I indicated to one of my comrades to take the left direction.

I went to speak to the driver, a white male and white female who was seemingly a passenger and I requested this person to please get out of the car and he reacted as if he understood what I was saying but he drew his firearm, a 9mm, he may have locked the safety pin, he tried to shoot, I side-stepped, there was nothing that I could have done and then I retaliated.

MR SHAYI: You retaliated by shooting back?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

MR SHAYI: Now at the time of the shooting at this white person, what was in your mind?

MR MANYAMALA: Myself as a kind person was not for the idea of shooting but the situation was such that I was forced to shoot. Our lives were in danger and therefore I was forced to shoot.

MR SHAYI: Now did you hit this white man and the woman as well or was it just the white man?

MR MANYAMALA: I meant to shoot only the male but unfortunately the woman was also hit by a bullet. I don't know whether it is the same bullet that I used to shoot the male. The female died and the male got injured.

MR SHAYI: And at the time of your deserting or of your leaving with this Toyota Corolla ...(intervention)

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, can I interrupt? I think the interpreter didn't quite understand what the applicant was saying because he interpreted different facts to us as to what the applicant is saying about who died and who survived. He got them mixed up. Can you just go over that testimony?

MR MANYAMALA: ...[no English translation]

ADV GCABASHE: It was simply just getting the persons mixed up, who died and who survived, that's all.

MR SHAYI: Now Mr Manyamala, who was hit ...(intervention)

MR MANYAMALA: Let me put it this way, I shot the male and he died. The female was hit by what I can call a cross-bullet, she didn't die.

MR SHAYI: And then when you drove off in the motor vehicle were you aware that the female was still alive?

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, we opened the door because our intention was not to kill her. We opened the door and she got out and we drove away.

MR SHAYI: Then did you finally load the firearms?

MR MANYAMALA: Do you mean the guns that we were to pick up from Gadafi or which ones?

MR SHAYI: Yes, the ones which were to be picked up from Gadafi.

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do with the other body of the deceased?

MR MANYAMALA: We removed the body from the vehicle, put it on the grass and we drove away in the vehicle. We also took the gun which he was using to try and shoot us.

MR SHAYI: What were you intending to do with the motor vehicle after you had acquired the firearms?

MR MANYAMALA: After loading the firearms our intention was to drive from Thokoza to Soweto, deliver the arms, after which I ordered the comrades in my company to go and burn the vehicle. The reason being that the police should not be able to trace us.

MR SHAYI: Would it have made any difference whether the occupants of the motor vehicle were of any race but the white race?

MR MANYAMALA: That would not make any difference because we were not after the skins, a person's skin colour but we wanted the vehicle.

MR SHAYI: And you were later arrested and brought before the Court of law.

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

MR SHAYI: And in the Court itself you pleaded not guilty and you denied everything, is that correct?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

MR SHAYI: Mr Chairman, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Advocate Steenkamp, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, if you would allow me just one or two questions.

Sir, as I understand it you took the car and the gun, is that all you took from the deceased or the two occupants, only the car and the gun?

MR MANYAMALA: As far as I'm concerned those are the only two things that we took because we found nothing in the boot, we just wanted the car. Fortunately we also got a firearm.

ADV STEENKAMP: What about the handbag of the lady with all her personal belongings, what about that, didn't you take that?

MR MANYAMALA: I did not see a handbag, I don't know whether it was taken away with the car when it was going to be burnt or not. I wouldn't say yes or no but I personally did not see it.

ADV STEENKAMP: Because this was uncontested in Court that only after you'd killed the deceased you took the lady's handbag with the gun.

MR MANYAMALA: That is news to me, I did not see any bag. It may have been in the cubby-hole, not in the boot but really, I did not look around inside the car. I wouldn't say yes, there was a bag or not, I'm not in a position to say.

ADV STEENKAMP: When you told the Supreme Court, via your advocate, that you were never on the scene you lied to the Supreme Court, is that correct?

MR MANYAMALA: Let me briefly explain that I pleaded not guilty in Court, the reason being that after my arrest I was not treated well by the police and I was not treated well in Court and I realised that I was already convicted. That is why I pleaded not guilty.

ADV STEENKAMP: No, no, no, Sir, my question is, you told the Supreme Court specifically on page 36 that you were never on the scene, that would be your testimony, is that correct? Is that what you said to the Court, because this is part of the record? Now my question to you is you lied to the Supreme Court. I can maybe just ask you the follow-up question, are you also applying for perjury for when you testified in the Supreme Court or not or are you also applying for amnesty?

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Steenkamp ...(intervention)

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, I told lies in Court but I am here to divulge the truth.

ADV STEENKAMP: Are you also applying for amnesty for that?

MR MANYAMALA: As far as I am concerned the Court is not the same thing as the Truth Commission. I'm here to ask amnesty for killing the male and wounding the woman and taking the firearm.

ADV STEENKAMP: Can I ask you maybe to look at page 13 of the bundle, Mr Chairman. My question and I'm referring to paragraph 21, Mr Chairman.

Maybe you can help us - sorry, you don't have that in front of you.

MR MANYAMALA: No.

ADV STEENKAMP: You see there, paragraph 21:

And if you look at paragraph 22 at page 40, Mr Chairman:

Are you also applying for amnesty for possession of the three AK47s and the 9 shotguns?

MR MANYAMALA: Is that a statement or a question?

ADV STEENKAMP: It's a question Sir, are you applying for amnesty for those guns and ammunition because I don't see it in your original amnesty application?

MR MANYAMALA: The guns that appear here were not found by the police and I was not prosecuted for them, I was only prosecuted and sentenced for killing and taking the firearm away from the person that I had killed.

ADV STEENKAMP: I think you misunderstand me Sir. According to this additional statement of yours it seems to me that you were also in possession of these firearms and my question to you is are you also applying for amnesty for the possession of these firearms, because in the statement you admit being in possession of them. Do you understand my question?

MR MANYAMALA: Mr Chairman, before answering I would like to confer with my attorney.

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, Chairperson, this amnesty application I did it at the time before consulting with my attorney. I did not discuss the firearms in my application form, I only discussed the .38 and the 9mm and now that these guns are included here I would say yes, I include them in my application for amnesty.

ADV STEENKAMP: I'm sure that is for the Chairperson to decide, whether or not this will be amended, whether or not your application will be allowed to be amended. I'm sure that is for the Chairperson to decide.

My next question to you Sir is, was it ANC policy to rob people of their vehicles, take their personal possessions and kill them at the scene? Do you understand that as part of ANC policy?

MR MANYAMALA: The policy of the African National Congress is silent on attacking people. You must understand that we were engaged in a struggle. I would not have used sacks or bags to transport these in a train. I was engaged in a struggle here.

ADV STEENKAMP: Maybe just a yes or no, was this part of ANC policy as you understood it or not?

MR MANYAMALA: No, it was not policy of the ANC.

ADV STEENKAMP: And you say this was not a racial attack, am I right?

MR MANYAMALA: Would you please repeat your question, my gadget is dysfunctional and now I don't know what's happening.

ADV STEENKAMP: I'm just trying to confirm your evidence that you said in chief that this was never intended to be a racial attack or conflict at all, am I right?

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, that was not an intention, it was not meant to be a racial attack.

ADV STEENKAMP: The reason why I'm asking this is because looking at your amnesty application, page 3 if I maybe can refer the Honourable Chairperson and the Committee Members to page 3 and specifically paragraph 10(b), the first five lines.

Do you have that in front of you, Sir?

MR MANYAMALA: Will you please give me a chance so that I can browse through?

ADV STEENKAMP: I would just refer you to the first five lines or maybe the fifth line to be exact. I will read for you there. I will start with the sentence:

This is the third sentence ...(intervention)

MR MANYAMALA: Okay, I have identified the paragraph. I believed that ...(intervention)

ADV STEENKAMP: Can you listen to my question first?

MR MANYAMALA: Okay.

ADV STEENKAMP: I will read for you from:

What did you mean by this sentence or paragraph?

MR MANYAMALA: I am trying to explain here that many people who were victimised were victimised by the police who were serving the them racist government.

ADV STEENKAMP: Are you saying people were killed because of their skin colour, is this what you're saying here?

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, that was the case insofar as the previous government was concerned.

ADV STEENKAMP: Was this the reason why you attacked the white people in this car, was this your motivation?

MR MANYAMALA: No, this is not the motivation. I have already indicated here before that I did not intend to kill a white person. It didn't matter whether the person behind the steering wheel was black or white. It just happened that the person was at the scene at the wrong time.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I didn't want to waste your time, if you can bear with me with one or two questions. I'm nearly finished.

Sir, maybe you can answer this question for me. You're saying today to this Committee that this accident or incident was politically motivated, may I ask you why there doesn't appear a shred of evidence in the whole of the Court record about this politically motivated incident as you put before the Committee today? Nothing in the Court record indicates at all that this incident was politically motivated, why didn't you put that before the Judge when you had the opportunity? Can you explain this to me please?

MR MANYAMALA: I think you must have forgotten what I've said here earlier on. I did not want to admit guilt in Court because I have already suffered victimisation at the hands of the Court officials and the police and thirdly, I was convicted before I appeared before the Court of law because the attorney at the time told me that I would be given, or sentenced to 25 years if I pleaded guilty and if not I'd be sentenced to death.

ADV STEENKAMP: Why was this never put before the Judge maybe as a mitigating factor before sentence, that you had a politically motivated motive when this incident happened? You were under instructions, you believed that this was ANC policy, why didn't you tell the Judge that?

MR MANYAMALA: I don't know whether you understood my answers. I indicated to you just now that I did not say or render that testimony because of the attitude of the Court officials.

ADV STEENKAMP: My last question to you, maybe you could elaborate on that. What was the attitude of the Court officials, was there a problem with any of the Court officials and if so, did you discuss this with your attorney or did you tell the Judge about this?

Thank you, Mr Chairman, that will my questions.

MR MANYAMALA: When I explained everything to my attorney I indicated to him and I said to him that the confession statement was compiled in an illegal way and I requested him to expose it and he told me that all the testimony that appears in that statement convicts me. He indicated to me that he was going to try as much as he could to convince the Court insofar as the confession statement is concerned.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Steenkamp.

Can you just explain to us the person that you referred to as comrade Sinamela, you say that he was a higher ranking official than yourself, is that correct?

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, that is correct. He is the one who was training us within the self-defence unit.

CHAIRPERSON: And was he a member of any political organisation?

MR MANYAMALA: Comrade Sinamela was a member of the ANC and he was also an MK soldier.

CHAIRPERSON: And you would normally report to him within the activities of the self-defence unit?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you assume that he would then report further, either to MK or to the ANC?

MR MANYAMALA: I wouldn't say the MK because the MK had already been disbanded at the time but I would think of the ANC. I knew that he was reporting to the ANC but to whom exactly in terms of position or ranking I would not say.

CHAIRPERSON: So you saw him as a link between the self-defence unit and the ANC?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you had reported to him that your unit had lost some of the weapons and that you were going to look for ways of finding new weapons for the use of your unit?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And did he agree that you can go ahead and do that?

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, he did but I would like to explain briefly as to how he agreed. He agreed with the full knowledge that the African National Congress did not bring back home trucks and horse and trailers full of firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: So he knew that you had to use your own initiative to find ways and means of getting firearms for the unit?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And what he in fact did was to confirm that you should use your initiative and get weapons for the unit?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he at any stage repudiate you, did he at any stage indicate to you that he disagreed with the way in which you went about procuring these arms?

MR MANYAMALA: You see comrade Sinamela was a matured person politically speaking. He was trained as a guerrilla, he knew what was happening in a war situation. I did not struggle explaining the situation to him, he understood and he agreed with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are you there any other questions? Mr Sibanyoni?

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Manyamala, I heard you saying after the use of the vehicle the intention was to destroy it so that you could not be traced by the police, was it because of the shooting incident or even if the vehicle was handed over to you without any resistance, would you still dispose of the vehicle?

MR MANYAMALA: I'd like to rectify your statement if you say we tried to burn it. I ordered that it be burnt. You see if supposing nobody was hurt or shot we would still burn the car so that no testimony or evidence should I say, could lead to our arrest.

MR SIBANYONI: The reason I'm asking you this question is, we have heard of incidents where comrades use other people's property, like a motor vehicle but after using that motor vehicle they would take it and abandon it somewhere. Now I'm asking you to tell us the reason why was the vehicle supposed to be disposed of instead of being abandoned somewhere after it has been used?

MR MANYAMALA: As I have explained Chairperson, the intention behind the burning of the vehicle, myself as a person in charge of the unit was thinking about the possibility of police locating the vehicle and securing fingerprints that my lead or could lead to our arrest.

MR SIBANYONI: Was the vehicle eventually burnt?

MR MANYAMALA: The vehicle was not burnt. The comrades who were operating under my command were not trustworthy, they vehicle was subsequently recovered from them and this led to my arrest. That is why they did not apply for amnesty, because I told them that for example I indicated to them that we all went to look for a car and after the car was used for that purpose I indicated to them that they should burn the vehicle and should it happen that it transpires later on that they did not burn the car I will not take that responsibility because you defied my orders.

MR SIBANYONI: When you approached this vehicle or these people sitting in this vehicle, did you expect them not to offer any resistance from you taking the vehicle from them?

MR MANYAMALA: As far as I am concerned, as a peace-loving person, I did not expect any shoot-out between the two of us.

MR SIBANYONI: If they didn't resist, if they surrendered and let you have the vehicle, what would you do after using the vehicle, what would you do with the vehicle after using it?

MR MANYAMALA: I did explain earlier on and I'm going to explain today or now that it was not important whether a person was hurt in the process or not, what's important is that the car had to be burnt after it has fulfilled its use.

MR SIBANYONI: Last question, if the gentleman in the car didn't offer resistance would you have still shot at him?

MR MANYAMALA: As I have explained that I'm a peace-loving person I would not have shot him if he were not fighting.

MR SIBANYONI: No further questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni. Advocate Gcabashe?

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, Chair.

I have a couple of questions. Let's start with Soweto. You lived in Zola?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Essentially the SDU that you were part of operated in Meadowlands at Mzimhlope? This is what you have testified, is that correct?

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, that's how I testified but the unit that I led operated near hostels in three places, Meadowlands, Motelsani near Merafi Hostel and Jabulani near a hostel.

ADV GCABASHE: Now did this SDU unit report to any particular local ANC structure, because in 1993 there were branches all over the place? How did you operate in relation to the ANC?

MR MANYAMALA: I have already explained but because I'm patient I will explain again. I was commander of the unit and there was another person above myself and that is the person who liaised with the ANC. He is the one that I reported to and he would report further.

ADV GCABASHE: I heard that explanation but the question is a very different question. You were a card-carrying member of the ANC, yes?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: You were also a member of a particular SDU, yes?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: That SDU was a structure of the ANC?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: The ANC had been unbanned in 1993, preparations were being made for the elections, there was a lot of trouble around, I don't dispute that. What I am asking is, in relation to your mother organisation, the ANC, you as a card-carrying member of that ANC, which branch did you relate to? Where did you get that card?

MR MANYAMALA: From the Zola branch.

ADV GCABASHE: So you chairman, your secretary, everybody at the Zola branch knew that you were a member, that's not disputed. Out at Meadowlands, how did you relate your ANC activities to your activities, your activist activities at Meadowlands? How did you connect the two, your chairman and secretary who knew you and what you were doing for your organisation but in a totally different area that's a long way from Zola?

MR MANYAMALA: I am trying to explain here that at the time during which the struggle was still very strong, fighting the apartheid system, we used to use a slogan to the effect that an injury to one is an injury to all(?) and at the time there wasn't much of violence in Zola and therefore we decided to go and assist in other areas where the violence was rife.

ADV GCABASHE: Now did your branch, be it your chairman, your secretary, anybody at your branch, know about your activities out in Meadowlands or was it only Sinamela who knew about your activities in that locality?

MR MANYAMALA: Let me explain that our chairman knew about the existence of the self-defence units but I would not agree or disagree that he knew or not about certain things because we fed information or reported to Sinamela.

ADV GCABASHE: Let's go to Spruitview ...(intervention)

MR MANYAMALA: No, Spruitview, Natal Spruit or Thokoza.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, it was said to us it was Spruitview and I happened to know Spruitview which is why I was ... Let's go to Thokoza and Gadafi and the fact that on the day you arrived he had these firearms. My question is, knowing you had a car that was not quite roadworthy, that you were not too comfortable about in relation to transporting the firearms, what was the urgency in finding a better car there and then? Can I follow it up with a related question? Why couldn't you sit down and plan either as a group or with Gadafi, on how to transport these without repossessing somebody else's vehicle?

MR MANYAMALA: I earlier on explained that I met comrade Gadafi at a night vigil and he told me to come and see him on the day which the incident occurred. We had not any idea at the time that he had already procured firearms.

When we arrived there he told us that firearms were already available. I had to go and try to get hold of a vehicle because our people were dying and we wanted to do everything as quick as possible so that people's lives could be saved.

ADV GCABASHE: So you in your judgement felt it was important to immediately transport those firearms back to Soweto, there was no room for thinking about how else to do it?

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, that is correct. People were dying and sometimes our heads would jam, we would not think properly. We just wanted to come up with a solution to make it a point that our people are safe.

ADV GCABASHE: Now correct me if I'm wrong, in your testimony you say that you looked around for a vehicle and couldn't find one and then decided to go to Gosforth Park but you looked somewhere else first. Tell me if I'm wrong, before you went - you didn't go directly to Gosforth, is that correct?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct. I explained that on that very same day we did not find any vehicle that was suitable for the job, in town that is.

ADV GCABASHE: I want to know where you looked before you went to Gosforth Park.

MR MANYAMALA: Let me not tell a lie here, I'm not quite familiar with Germiston and I was not even familiar with Gosforth Park at the time, I just knew that that was a place for horse races and that's where we landed. I only got to know that it is Gosforth Park after my arrest.

ADV GCABASHE: So you were really not expecting to find a car at Gosforth Park, you just happened to come across a car that looked suitable, by sheer chance?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Now the woman who was in that motor vehicle gave evidence in Court and page 35 of the Judgment - I want to come back to the handbag issue because I have understood that you were really the leader of the group of three and my understanding is correct, isn't it?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct, I was leading these three people but I don't want to bind myself to the evidence about the bag because I did not see one.

ADV GCABASHE: Who did all the talking as of the time that you to this motor vehicle?

MR MANYAMALA: Would you please explain, I don't understand as to who was talking and saying what.

ADV GCABASHE: You approached this motor vehicle and my perception is you were in charge, so my perception is the plan was you would do all the talking essentially because you approached the driver, am I correct in this?

MR MANYAMALA: Ourselves as activists within the ANC do not take solo decisions, we would put our heads together and discuss a matter.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, so what had you discussed, who was going to do the talking, because I'm sure you didn't expect the two of you to be giving instructions at the same time? I could be wrong. What did you discuss and then what actually happened? What did you discuss and how did you go about putting those discussions into operation?

MR MANYAMALA: Yes, I was in charge of the unit. I came up with ideas that I am the one who should carry the firearm because I have knowledge about firearms, so that nothing should go wrong. I also explained this to comrade Sinamela.

ADV GCABASHE: You see the reason I ask this is, if you were at the driver's door and your colleague was at the passenger door and your colleague spoke to this particular woman about her handbag, is it possible that you would not have heard him? Just explain because you were there, you can explain it best.

MR MANYAMALA: Let me explain this. There is something that I did not explain quite well. My colleague on the left-hand side of the vehicle stood there and the window was closed. He broke it. I am the one who was talking to the people, the window was closed on the other side.

ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry I think the interpreter - you were going a little fast, he missed a little bit about what you were saying but from trying to listen to both you are saying that the passenger window was closed and the comrade on the other side broke that window. I didn't quite get that, what I'd like to know is did you not hear him say anything at all, certainly to this particular woman about this bag? Because the record on page 35 speaks about a bag that was taken. She may have been lying, you are best able to help us with that. I don't know.

MR MANYAMALA: Let me take my time and go slower. As I was on the right-hand side, my colleague on the left-hand side, the window on the left-hand side where the lady was sitting was closed and when the first gunshot was fired I retreated and retaliated. It is only then that my colleague broke the window. I would not tell a lie and say I heard him talk because there was an exchange of gunfire at the time.

ADV GCABASHE: Then you got into the driver's seat and did the driving, is that right?

MR MANYAMALA: No, after shooting him my colleague after breaking the window unlocked the door, took the woman out, came to the other side of the driver's seat, we pulled the white man who was already lying down and I took the left-hand seat and we fled.

ADV GCABASHE: And you saw no handbag as you sat on the passenger's seat?

MR MANYAMALA: No, I did not see any handbag.

ADV GCABASHE: Then a final question, when did you find out that the motor vehicle had not been burnt?

MR MANYAMALA: I learnt about this on the day during which I was arrested at dawn because the police came and they asked whether I was Saint Manyamala and I said yes and they indicated that they had come to arrest me for stealing a car at Gosforth Park and killing a white male and injuring a white female. It then occurred to me that that is how the evidence led to me. My comrades met me after my instruction and they told me that they had burnt the car but I learnt later on that they were telling me lies.

ADV GCABASHE: I know I'd said that was the last question but there is one I missed when I was asking you about arriving at Gosforth Park and the car at Gosforth Park. How did you get there, were you walking or in the other car that you were not happy with? How did you get to Gosforth Park?

MR MANYAMALA: We went to Gosforth Park by car and we took the back side of Gosforth Park, we drove past this red vehicle, parked our vehicle further down and we walked back towards the car that we had seen parking or parked somewhere.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Mr Shayi?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SHAYI: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Now Sir, you say during your cross-examination that when you were in Court you never disclosed the whole truth, is that correct?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

MR SHAYI: And you say this was on the advice of your attorney who said that you will be given 25 years or death if you were to plead guilty, is that correct?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct. That's one of the reasons yes, and the police had already harassed me. At the time there was an Interim Constitution, there was a clause in the Constitution, if I'm not mistaken, a clause which indicated that police or anybody else does not have a right to harass or intimidate any other person.

MR SHAYI: And you are here today to disclose the whole truth?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

MR SHAYI: And you say ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, the speaker's mike is off.

MR SHAYI: Thanks, Mr Chairman.

You say that although your branch was in Zola, you were in the SDU in Meadowlands, is that correct?

MR MANYAMALA: That is correct.

MR SHAYI: Was there any danger that was caused by the hostel dwellers to the Zola residents?

MR MANYAMALA: Very much so.

MR SHAYI: And between Zola and Meadowlands, which is closer to the hostel?

MR MANYAMALA: Would you please repeat that question?

MR SHAYI: Which is closer between Zola and Meadowlands to the hostel that you were protecting the resident against?

MR MANYAMALA: Meadowlands is nearer to the hostel. I agree that the people of the hostel were creating problems in Zola because these IFP members did not car whether it was nearer the hostel or not. As long as they were assigned to carry out those duties, they would go out and carry out those duties regardless of whether the spot was nearer the hostel or not.

MR SHAYI: I'm now referring to the answers that you gave relating to the Court record on page 35, on the handbag. You say that you weren't aware that your colleague was actually talking to this lady about the handbag, is that correct?

MR MANYAMALA: Would you please explain, you're talking about two females, there was one female. Would you please explain that, I don't understand quite well?

MR SHAYI: Ja, you say that your colleague who was on the left-hand side of the vehicle where the lady was seated didn't, as far as you are concerned, talk about the handbag or you never heard him talking to the lady about the handbag, that is your colleague, is that correct?

MR MANYAMALA: As I have already explain after breaking the window, he actually broke the window after the gunfire because the window was closed all along. For example if a gun were to be fired now each one of us would try to save themselves, that is why I'm not in a position to say whether he did speak about the handbag or not.

MR SHAYI: But if there were any valuable items in the motor vehicle, would he have had an interest in them?

MR MANYAMALA: If there was anything that I had seen in the vehicle, because I'm the one who was in charge, first of all we were not after people's property, we were only forced by the situation to take the car. Had it not been so I would not have instructed my underlings to go and burn the vehicle after its use had been fulfilled.

MR SHAYI: No further questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Can you just indicate to me, Mr Shayi, have you managed to find the portion in the ANC Submission on SDU's?

MR SHAYI: May I beg Mr Chairman's indulgence in ...(indistinct), I thought that my colleague was actually busy perusing it. Mr Chairman, according to the instructions that I have, that are relayed to me by my colleague here, it seems as if it's just a general layout of how the SDU's would actually operate and this is actually listed on page 64 of the submission of the ANC of documents itself.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Is that the testimony of the applicant?

MR SHAYI: That would be the case for the applicant, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Steenkamp, is there any other witness?

ADV STEENKAMP: No further witnesses, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are you able to address us, Mr Shayi?

MR SHAYI: Mr Chairman, we actually were of the opinion that we would actually move for an adjournment until tomorrow morning for summation. Before doing that I would actually move for an application after having consulted with client on the three weapons that are mentioned in the affidavit, to likewise move for an amendment to actually seek amnesty in relation to those other weapons.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I just want to understand, are you saying you're not in a position to address us?

MR SHAYI: Yes, maybe tomorrow morning, Mr Chairman, if an indulgence can be sought, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we have reached about quarter past four in the afternoon. We have unfortunately through circumstances which could not be controlled by us entirely, not been able to commence at the normal time this morning. I am about adjourn the proceedings but perhaps before I do that, were you going to make the application for the amendment now or what is your position in regard to it? Can I just get clarity on that as well?

MR SHAYI: If the Committee allows I'm made to actually move the application from where I am, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, you are able to motivate one if you so wish. Did you intend to do it now?

MR SHAYI: That will be in order, Mr Chairman. May I just be given a short recess, maybe two minutes just to consult with him or maybe I can bring it prior the summation tomorrow morning?

CHAIRPERSON: No, okay, if you're not in a position to do it straight away then I'm going to adjourn the proceedings in any event until tomorrow. So you might as well bring your application for the amendment and to address us on the merits of the application then tomorrow morning.

MR SHAYI: As the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: We will be adjourning the proceedings now until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock when we will reconvene and finalise the matter which we are presently hearing. We're adjourned.