CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Mr Mohlaba, I notice the other applicants, are they not here Mr Mohlaba?

MR MOHLABA: I beg the Chair's pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: I am just noting that the other applicants don't seem to be present. Do you know if they are in the vicinity?

MR MOHLABA: Yes, I am aware that the other applicants who are represented by Mr Molefe, are here and after we have agreed with Mr Molefe, that after I have led Mr Pitsi, he is going to come and move the application of his other applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: So there is no problem from your side, or the applicants' side with us continuing in their absence?

MR MOHLABA: It will be proper Mr Chairman, to investigate the reasons why they are not here, and I further say that it will be proper for them to be here to hear what is going to be said about them.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pitsi, do you happen to know where they are, if there is any problem or what the position is?

MR PITSI: Mr Chairman, I was supposed to provide transport for them this morning, but they couldn't keep up to time, so we missed each other, but they will be definitely coming.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, may I also point out that I see that Mr Joubert who appears on behalf of some of the victims, is also not present.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer, Mr Joubert came to us after the hearing yesterday and excused himself. He said that he cannot make it at nine o'clock, and that he had made some arrangement with Mr Mohlaba regarding the calling of witnesses that wouldn't effect him or his client. He has been excused.

Mr Mohlaba, could we, we will just take a very short adjournment and if we could just see you in the Committee room, thank you. We will just take a short adjournment.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. After consultation with the legal representatives, it has been decided that we will continue at this stage with Mr Pitsi's evidence. Mr Mohlaba, at the close of the proceedings yesterday, you were either at the end of very close to the end of leading Mr Pitsi in chief. Are you continuing with the evidence in chief?

MR MOHLABA: That is correct. We were touching on the, we were almost at the conclusion of evidence in relation to the so-called Juicy Lucy bombing and we did not touch on the aspect of the bomb under a Renault motor car. I just wanted to go through that one.

FRANCIS PITSI: (still under oath)

EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: (continued) Mr Pitsi, yesterday you were at the end of explaining the so-called Juicy Lucy bombing. Can we move over to the next aspect of the bomb which was placed under a Renault motor car. Do you know anything about that explosion?

MR PITSI: Yes, the limpet mine, mini limpet mine which was placed under the Renault in Proes Street, was a way of manifesting our presence, the ANC presence in South Africa in particular Umkhonto weSizwe.

MR MOHLABA: Were you in any way involved in the planning of this incident and the execution thereof, and can you explain the level of your involvement in the whole transaction?

MR PITSI: I was partly involved there. The person who took the major role there, was Commissar Makobe.

MR MOHLABA: Can you proceed and explain to us the role played by you, there?

MR PITSI: Being the Commander, we were together when planning all these operations with the Commissar and the material meaning the SPM and the mini limpet mine, was provided by me to the two compatriots.

MR MOHLABA: So you associate yourself with this transaction and take responsibility for this offence, is that correct?

MR PITSI: Yes, I do.

MR MOHLABA: It has been briefly mentioned to the Committee for the sake of clarifying that you are applying for amnesty for the offence which you have already stated. May I just enquire from you whether you know anything about the bomb blast at the municipality offices in Atteridgeville as well as the bomb blast at Saulsville station?

MR PITSI: Yes, I was aware of the explosion which took place in Atteridgeville municipality offices, but I wasn't directly involved. The person who recruited and gave training to Mr Maleka, was Odirele Mishack Maponya.

MR MOHLABA: Oh, so this particular bomb blast was carried out by Maleka and you were not very much involved there, is that correct?

MR PITSI: Yes, that is true.

MR MOHLABA: And then bomb blast at Saulsville station?

MR PITSI: The bomb blast in Saulsville station, I knew about it. I didn't take much participation on that one, but part of the planning of that operation, I was there, I knew of and that explosion, the person who placed the limpet mine, was Ernest Ramadite together with Mr Maleka.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Mohlaba, I just want to indicate that I see your clients have arrived.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. In conclusion Mr Pitsi, is there anything that you want to say in support of your application, either to the Committee or to the victims of this atrocities?

MR PITSI: Yes, in short I would like to say I am very much happy that the apartheid structures were disorganised, and furthermore I would like to say that I am very sorry to all those people we caused harm and during the process, they lost their loved ones.

I hope we will start all over again, and we should forget the past and look into the future of South Africa, thank you.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair, that will conclude the evidence of Mr Pitsi.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Molefe, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOLEFE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Pitsi, in as far as the Atteridgeville municipality blast, what was your actual role? You have said that you were not the person who placed the limpet mine there, but what was your actual role in that particular blast?

MR PITSI: Let me put it this way, that was a way of letting people know that we are in existence in Atteridgeville and besides, Atteridgeville municipality offices were the State apparatus that were not contributing towards our people.

Actually it was to bring them misery and all sorts of things that one wouldn't appreciate.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps you have misunderstood the question. It wasn't what was the motive, it was what was your role in that blast?

CHAIRPERSON: Your personal participation, if any?

MR PITSI: There wasn't much that I can talk about, because our Overall Commander which was Mishack Odirele Maponya, is the one who recruited Johannes Maleka, gave him training and gave him the orders to go and place the bomb at the offices.

MR MOLEFE: You have said in your evidence in chief, that you were the Commander of this small Unit in Atteridgeville, which consisted most of the time, of three people and later with four people, after Mr Maleka was recruited?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: Now, what I wanted to clarify is that were you one of those who gave orders to Mr Maleka to go and place the bomb at Atteridgeville?

MR PITSI: No, during the process that operation took place, I was injured, I was shot.

MR MOLEFE: And you said that you were involved in the planning of the blast at Saulsville station?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think he said he was involved in the planning, but anyway you can ask that. Were you involved in the planning of the Saulsville station bomb?

MR PITSI: Yes, partly I was.

MR MOLEFE: And did you also give or conveyed the orders to Ernest Ramadite and Maleka in respect of this blast?

MR PITSI: Yes, I did.

MR MOLEFE: Right, thank you Mr Chair, I think I will leave it at that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Molefe. Mr Mokone, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOKONE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pitsi, in your evidence and also Mr Toka submitted that not every policeman was the enemy, is that correct?

MR PITSI: It is true.

MR MOKONE: Did you have any specific criteria to determine whether a particular policeman should be classified as a target?

MR PITSI: Yes, we did have a criteria, because you should know that we had structures which prevailed in our locations starting from a Street Committee, up to a Civic Association.

Most of the time, we relied on the information. We had to go from one organisation to another, just to verify certain information that we obtained.

MR MOKONE: You said that, and also Mr Toka said it that before you execute any operation, you have to get the go ahead from your superiors, either from Botswana or Lusaka, is that correct?

MR PITSI: Yes, it is true.

MR MOKONE: Did you give these superiors a detailed description of a particular target that you want to hit?

MR PITSI: In this particular instance, yes, I gave all the details to Mr Toka, because by then I wasn't familiar to Botswana, so Toka is, actually Mr Maponya in particular, he is the one who took the motivation through to Botswana.

MR MOKONE: So you also gave them the reasons why a particular person should be eliminated?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR MOKONE: The relatives of the three policemen are here, they want to know the reasons why their children and their loved ones, were classified as targets. Can you elaborate on that?

MR PITSI: Yes, after going intensely into the matter of the complaints that we received, we followed the normal channels that I have already mentioned from the street level and the areas, up to the Civic Association and it was confirmed that these people were involved in harassing our people, bombing our houses and other comrades' houses, and it was confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.

MR MOKONE: Can you maybe tell us about one incident or act committed by Constable Barney Mope which rendered him a target?

MR PITSI: I think you will definitely bear with me that it has been ten years, we didn't keep notes of the operation that they took at that particular time.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Mokone, on this point, Mr Pitsi, the complaints that you received against the four policemen who were your target, although only three were killed, were the complaints relating to them separate and distinct, in other words there were separate complaints against Constable Mope, separate complaints against one of the other deceased, separate complaints, or were they, were the complaints against them collective, that they were acting as a group in harassing the people and bombing houses as you say?

MR PITSI: Yes, the complaints were collective. On you know, several instances, whereby you will hear that they will target a single person out, that we saw him doing this.

CHAIRPERSON: Continue Mr Mokone.

MR MOKONE: Thank you Mr Chairman. I am informed that Constable Phenyane was stationed at, he was not stationed at Atteridgeville police station, but at the Pretoria Central, how then did you classify him as a target?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, is that Constable, if you could just repeat the name?

MR MOKONE: Phenyane.

MR PITSI: If you are aware of the situation which prevailed 10 years to 15 years back, one was not confined to a certain area. The fact that they have been together, they would have joined them in harassing the people. The fact remains that he was a policeman and we had statements some time back that a policeman is a policeman, wherever he goes.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but in that sense, it seems then that he was killed because he was a policeman sitting with other policemen, and not because he did something specifically like bombing a house. What was the position, was he targeted because he did some specific acts or participated in specific acts or was he targeted because a policeman is a policeman?

MR PITSI: No, he was targeted that day because his name appeared on the list that we received from our reliable sources in Atteridgeville.

MR MOKONE: Mr Pitsi, it is not an easy decision to make to kill a person. Before you can decide to kill a person, you have to be convinced that this person deserves to die and the fact that this policemen were just generally notorious, is not sufficient. You have to come up with some reasons and examples as to why they deserve to die.

MR PITSI: The evidence which was given yesterday, there were calls after calls that anything to do with the then government was a target but we couldn't eliminate anybody as we go. We had to start with the culprits, which in this instance, unfortunately, it was the three policemen because of reasons that have already been stated here.

MR MOKONE: So the fact that not every policemen was an enemy, is not true?

MR PITSI: That one, it is a fact. Not all the policemen were bad.

MR MOKONE: No further questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Monyane, do you have any questions that you would like to put to the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MONYANE: Mr Pitsi, you have just said that you have heard from reliable sources that these three policemen or the four policemen were notorious. Who are those men, the reliable sources? I think the family of Phenyane, they would like to know those people, because according to them, Phenyane was a good policeman. As stated, Phenyane was stationed in Pretoria, Pretoria Central, not in Atteridgeville? We would like to know the names?

MR PITSI: Mr Chairman, I would like to answer the question, in a sitting like this, would it be proper to disclose the names?

CHAIRPERSON: I can't see any harm in disclosing the names. I don't know what your attitude is, are you loathe to do that? I can hear argument on it from your legal representative if you wish, I am not going to just order it without giving you an opportunity.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair. If I understand the question of Mr Pitsi here, he appear to be loathe to mention the names of people who were not notified as implicated parties because it may culminate to something else, it may be that wrong information was furnished and they acted on that wrong information.

Understandably people being people, they have lost their loved ones and they may want to take steps against such people. I will however, want to leave it to the hands of the Chair, whether he should go ahead and disclose those names.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mohlaba - the reasons for killing the man and shouldn't he make a full disclosure unless there is legal grounds on which he shouldn't disclose it, their names?

MR MOHLABA: Obviously I am not acting for those people whose names may be mentioned here. I am just highlighting the danger which may be exposed to these people who are not before this Committee, people who have not been advised that they may be publicly named as people who have caused the death of other people. I will however want to leave it in the hands of the Committee.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, well we couldn't have notified or the Committee's staff couldn't have notified those people, if their names weren't disclosed in the applications.

But the Appellate Division made a decision and said if it is disclosed at a hearing, we should inform them as soon as possible and they could have an opportunity to answer on it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in fact the Act provides that if at a hearing a person is implicated, then the Commission has a duty to send notification to such implicated person, who will then have the right to appear before the Commission and protect his or her interests.

The Act does cater for a situation where people are implicated at a hearing without prior notice. It would of course necessitate a delay in the conclusion of the hearing, because one would have to in such instance, give a reasonable time for those implicated people to respond to the notice and make up their mind whether they wish to come to the hearing or not.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Mohlaba, as I understand your client, the applicant, it seems to me that these people, these sources of information, were some kind of informers to their organisation and I am not quite sure how we are going to deal with this as a Committee, because in the past, we took a decision that applicants who do not want to disclose the names of their informers, may not be compelled to do so.

Perhaps that is something that we will have to discuss as a Committee.

It seems to me that the applicant is saying that he is unhappy about disclosing the names of these people, because they would be in danger of whatever. Perhaps we can adjourn for a very brief moment and talk about this is a Committee?

MS MONYANE: If I could just add on that. I think this is about telling the truth, the whole truth and if Mr Pitsi doesn't disclose the names of those reliable sources, I think there won't be no full disclosure, so he must disclose those names.

ADV SANDI: Do you want to disclose the names of those people, Mr Pitsi?

MR PITSI: If the Committee will allow me not to disclose, I will appreciate that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what we will do is, we will take a short adjournment and we will consider the matter and then perhaps Mr Mohlaba, if you wish to during the adjournment discuss the matter with your client, and if you want to, I know this has been sprung on you, if you on this aspect want time, or whatever to present further submissions and argument on this point, we will of course allow you to do that.

If you could take this opportunity as well to consider what your position is and whether you want to make further and more substantial submissions on this aspect. We will take a short adjournment.

ON RESUMPTION:

FRANCIS PITSI: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. During this short adjournment that we have just taken, we were approached by Mr Mohlaba who indicated that at this stage, his instructions are that his client prefers not to divulge the names of persons who provided him with information relating to the deceased policemen.

I did indicate to Mr Mohlaba that, after Mr Mohlaba had told me that he would require time to prepare a more substantial argument on this issue, that perhaps this could be done tomorrow morning, but that we just leave this part of the cross-examination of the witness, we just stand it over until then.

Mr Mohlaba will then have adequate opportunity to prepare himself and then we can continue with any other cross-examination that there might be, but I also feel that it would be fair at this stage to just present my prima facie views on this aspect which Mr Mohlaba and indeed Ms Monyane could take into account when preparing their argument for tomorrow if you wish to present any further argument.

My prima facie views, I say they are prima facie because I am not certain whether they are legally correct or not, but my prima facie view is that it may not be proper for this Committee to order an applicant what to say or not to say in his evidence.

Why I say that is the Act says that there should be amongst other criteria, a full disclosure given. If the applicant is asked a question to which he knows the answer but refuses to answer, then he may and I am not saying it will inevitably be so, but he may do so at his own peril with regard to the full disclosure criteria.

The position might be different if it was a witness other than an applicant, giving evidence. That is my prima facie view, that it might be beyond the power or it might not - it is not a question of beyond the power, but it might be incorrect to order an applicant to do it. Because if an applicant refuses to reveal the names, he may do so.

At the end of the case, if he does refuse, and doesn't state the names, then at the end of the hearing, argument will be received by both sides, as to whether or not that refusal constituted a lack of full disclosure.

It may or may not, I don't know. But that is my prima facie view and I would ask the legal representatives to take that into account when addressing. As I say, it might not be the correct view, but that is what I think it is at the moment.

Ms Monyane, if you could continue with your cross-examination, but we will leave this aspect about the names of the so-called informers over until after argument has been received tomorrow morning.

MS MONYANE: Thank you Mr Chair. According to your submissions yesterday, you stated that the three policemen or the four policemen were seen frequently at the places of bombings, do you still recall that, of the ANC places or houses? Had it ever occurred to you that they might be there because they are policemen and they were investigating what was happening at that time?

MR PITSI: Yes, it is possible, but it won't be a frequent thing that every time when there is a bombing, or there is any kind of attack on a house, every time the policemen are there first.

MS MONYANE: All the four policemen were there first?

MR PITSI: Not necessarily the four policemen, they were part of the policemen who used to be seen on the vicinity.

MS MONYANE: You further said that house 3, Mariana Street was put under surveillance and you went to Maponya and told Maponya that there is this house and there is this three policemen, four policemen, who were frequenting this house, and those policemen were notorious policemen.

Maponya ordered you to go and do surveillance at that house. How long did you do your surveillance?

MR PITSI: I will be saying this once more under correction ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before Mr Pitsi answers, when you say you, do you mean the applicant personally or the applicant together with members of the Unit, they might have surveyed the house separately at different times?

MS MONYANE: He didn't specifically say himself or, he said Maponya ordered them to go and place the house under surveillance.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pitsi, could you just tell us the extent and the duration of the surveillance done on the house by yourself and or other members of your Unit?

MR PITSI: The surveillance was done by me and the other parties of the Unit, and I am saying this under correction since it has been a long time, for a period of a week or so.

MS MONYANE: For that week you satisfied yourself that these people were frequenting that house, because my instructions are that Phenyane, the late Mr Phenyane as he was placed in Pretoria Central, he never frequented that house, it was the first time he went to the shebeen that day when they were ambushed?

MR PITSI: I would like to say it is not true.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Pitsi, when you say you kept the house under surveillance for a period of a week, was that in respect of observing the comings and goings of the four targeted policemen or did you just watch the house, the building and the general activity there, or did you watch the house with a view of seeing whether or not those specific policemen attended at that place?

MR PITSI: Yes, that involved a lot of things. Their movement in, coming in and out, and who was in that group exactly and how long would they stay in 3 Mariana, it involved a lot of things.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know the four targets, I mean could you identify them as being the targets, were they pointed out to you or when the names were mentioned, did you know who they were?

MR PITSI: Yes, once the names were mentioned, we knew who they were.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Monyane.

MS MONYANE: Thank you Mr Chair. Also yesterday, Mr Toka told us that in an instance where it involves killings, an intelligence report would be done and in my mind right now, I am telling myself, you did a surveillance for a week, no intelligence report was done on that house?

MR PITSI: Will you rephrase your question again, let me understand you very clearly?

MS MONYANE: Yesterday Mr Toka told us that before a house, before, he mentioned two criterias, he said if it is a military propaganda, they don't do an intelligence report, they just attack to make a statement, just to say that Umkhonto is in the country, but where it involves killings, like where it involves bombings, like the Juicy Lucy bombing, there was an intelligence report, and also on Mr Ndala's house, there was an intelligence report that was done by Mr Webster.

I want to know in this specific case, the case of the three policemen, was there any intelligence report done?

MR PITSI: Yes, the intelligence report was done by Odirele Mishack Maponya.

MS MONYANE: Is that your Commander, Maponya?

MR PITSI: Yes, the Overall Commander.

MS MONYANE: Mr Pitsi, you know the family of Mr Phenyane is very concerned about the fact that you personally knew Mr Phenyane and at one stage, you ever arranged for their daughter, Ngele, to go to the Holy Trinate High School in Atteridgeville. They would really like to know why you chose their father, a husband and you targeted him, because you personally knew Mr Phenyane and he was a good policeman?

MR PITSI: I can't dwell much into that one, I can't remember, it has been a long time. Besides, I had a duty to fulfil. Once you are being associated with a group of policemen, I mean you could have come anytime in Atteridgeville, those names, some of them, the people used to sing about those people because they were culprits, and once you are being associated, I had a duty to do. I was an MK soldier and I had to see to it that all those destabilising factors associated with the former South African government, were to be eliminated.

That was an order and I was carrying out some orders.

MS MONYANE: When the shooting, at the time of the attack, because these policemen were sitting outside and relaxing, did they shoot back or they didn't shoot back?

MR PITSI: No, they did not shoot back.

MS MONYANE: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is my questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, so subject to that part of your cross-examination which will stand over until tomorrow morning. Mr Dreyer, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: Yes Mr Chairman, if I may just proceed. Mr Pitsi, although I am not appearing on behalf of any one of the other victims, and more particularly the policemen, I would like to just try and establish the state of mind, the procedure followed by you, you more particularly, as part and parcel of the line, chain of command in order to choose a particular target.

It was put to you by my learned colleague that there is a possibility that these three policemen were spotted at certain venues where bomb blasts and that sort of thing occurred, simply because they attended that particular place in the cause and scope of their duties as a policeman. You then reacted to that by saying but how come then that they were there, or some of them were there, the first people to arrive on the scene so often and frequently, am I correct?

MR PITSI: That is correct.

MR DREYER: If I understand correctly Mr Pitsi, does that mean that if anyone of those policemen were simply carrying out their duties as policemen, they were good policemen and they acted promptly because they were resident in the area and they could get to a particular scene quickly after something occurred, could that not have been mistaken by any person, resident in that area, as them being involved in that particular incident?

Can you exclude that totally, that there could have been a mistaken belief as to their alliance to any former State structure or that they were harassing the people or that they were (indistinct) the principles, the ideas, the policy and the achievements of the ANC and MK, isn't that a possibility?

MR PITSI: Yes, for somebody who wasn't following the situation very well, it can be a mistake.

MR DREYER: Yes. Similarly Mr Pitsi, if I understand correctly from the evidence of Mr Toka, he indicated that yourself, Mr Mathe and Mr Ramadite were the operatives involved, more particularly in the placing and the bomb blast that occurred in the vicinity of the so-called Juicy Lucy restaurant, is that correct?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: But on the other hand, if I compare that to your evidence, you indicated that at that stage you did not physically and personally participate in the actual acts of setting those limpet mines, because you were suffering from personal injuries.

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: And if I am not mistaken that refers to an injury which you sustained because of the incident where you were shot by one of your colleagues, with a Makorov pistol or something to that extent, isn't that so?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: Now, was Mr Toka aware of the fact that you were incapacitated at that stage because of your personal injury? Was he aware of that?

MR PITSI: I would like to believe so, yes.

MR DREYER: Now, we you bedridden at that stage?

MR PITSI: Come again?

MR DREYER: Were you bedridden at that stage?

MR PITSI: No.

MR DREYER: Were you confined to your house in other words? Could you move around?

MR PITSI: Yes, I could move around.

MR DREYER: Was it possible for you to attend the particular venues where you intended setting these limpet mines?

MR PITSI: Not really.

MR DREYER: So, just to clarify the matter, what was your exact involvement in more particularly the limpet mine that exploded in the vicinity of Juicy Lucy, what was your exact involvement if I may request you to elaborate on that please.

MR PITSI: My exact involvement is that I know about it and I provided the limpet mines, because by then, they were with me.

MR DREYER: Is that the only thing that you did?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: You knew about the intended bomb blast and you provided the explosive device?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: Did you yourself carry out any kind or measure of reconnaissance in respect of the Juicy Lucy venue?

MR PITSI: No, I did not.

MR DREYER: Do you have any specific knowledge as to where specifically the explosive device was set, I mean the locality in other words, at the Juicy Lucy bomb blast?

MR PITSI: I can't say for certain, but it was corner Andries and Vermeulen.

MR DREYER: Yes. Now, you indicated that these incidents and the intended actions to be taken, were discussed thoroughly and you expressed that, that is was thoroughly done, prior to this bomb blast.

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: Is that correct?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: If it was discussed thoroughly, let us just dissect that for a moment, who took part in this discussion exactly, the planning discussion in other words?

MR PITSI: If I remember very well, it was Ramadite, myself and Toka if I am not mistaken.

MR DREYER: What about Mr Mathe?

MR PITSI: Yes, Mathe also, yes Mathe was there.

MR DREYER: Please I want you to make sure that you answer me correctly.

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: I would like to clarify it again.

MR PITSI: Okay.

MR DREYER: When it was considered to have such an explosion at that particular venue, from the outset, from the very first discussion pertaining to that particularly, who were involved apart from the people that you have just mentioned, were there any other one involved?

MR PITSI: Yes, Mathe was there.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to confirm, do you say involved in the discussion was Ramadite, Toka, Mathe and yourself?

MR PITSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And sorry Mr Dreyer, was it just one discussion or was it a series of discussions?

MR PITSI: I am not sure of how many discussions took place, but I am aware of the one that I was present.

CHAIRPERSON: You were present at one?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pitsi, can you tell us how long prior to the actual execution of this bomb blast at the Juicy Lucy venue, did this discussion or discussions, if there were more than one, take place? Was it a long time before that or is it just shortly before that?

MR PITSI: I am not, I can't be exact with dates and times, but it was shortly before.

MR DREYER: Shortly before?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: At various instances in the evidence presented by yourself as well as by Mr Toka, it was indicated that there were frequent visits to Botswana in order to obtain the necessary ratification for these intended operations, is that correct?

MR PITSI: That is true.

MR DREYER: Did you yourself, undertake any such visits in order to obtain such kind of ratification in respect of any one of these incidents?

MR PITSI: No. The only time I came with the order, it was the order of retaliation from - I think Toka has already mentioned the operation where the three Botswana citizens and (indistinct) was killed in Botswana.

I came back with the order to retaliate the death of that comrade.

MR DREYER: Yes. If there was such a trip to Botswana in order to obtain this ratification by Mr Toka or the late Mr Maponya in his capacity as an Overall Commander, what time space are we talking about, how long did it take for them to go there, discuss, get the authorisation and return with the necessary mandate to instruct the operatives to carry out a particular operation? What time space are we talking about?

MR PITSI: I can't be exact, times did vary from time to time, because depending on the availability of the people at our HQ in Lusaka. If, obviously they were available, the response will come as soon as possible.

CHAIRPERSON: How quick would the quickest be?

MR PITSI: It could be a period of a week or more.

MR DREYER: In respect of the Juicy Lucy bomb, can you tell us when the discussions took place between yourself, Mr Toka, Mr Mathe and Mr Ramadite in respect of that intended action, was the ratification already obtained from Lusaka or Botswana to carry out the operation, or was it done subsequently?

MR PITSI: No, it wasn't done subsequently, I don't know when they communicated the message to Botswana and to Lusaka, but you know, as I have already mentioned, it was shortly before the operation, the permission was granted. I don't know when was it done.

CHAIRPERSON: But your discussion was held after the order had been received to proceed with the operation?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: And to the best of your knowledge, Mr Pitsi, who carried out, if any, the reconnaissance in respect of the Juicy Lucy venue as a possible target?

MR PITSI: Everybody who were involved there, took part. To be specific Ernest Ramadite did his part and Mr Toka did his part as well.

MR DREYER: Were there any other operatives in the capacity as a pure reconnaissance or intelligence operative, that undertook a separate reconnaissance in respect of that particular venue? In other words another person, apart from the four people that you have already mentioned?

MR PITSI: Not anything that I am aware of or that I know of.

MR DREYER: You see, the purpose of my question is, it transpired from the evidence of Mr Toka that in some of these incidents use were made of the intelligence reports and briefing of a person referred to as Webster, so he was not the operative who eventually carried out the operation, so all I wanted to know is was there anyone else outside the group of four people that you have already mentioned, that carried out any kind of intelligence, observation, reconnaissance or whatever in respect of the venue prior to the discussion by the group in which this was then identified as a possible target?

MR PITSI: I am not sure of that one.

MR DREYER: You are not sure? You said everyone that was part of this group, did his part?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: So just to clarify that again, does that exclude you because of the fact that you were suffering from personal injuries, or did you in fact physically visit the vicinity of this intended blast to ascertain whether or not that is in fact a justifiable target?

MR PITSI: No, I did not visit the situation because of security reasons.

MR DREYER: All right. What do you mean by that Mr Pitsi, because of security reasons?

MR PITSI: I mean, I was hurt and there were roadblocks all over the show, they could have pounded on the car and then found me in the roadblock.

MR DREYER: I see. Even although you did not physically attend that venue, do you have any particular knowledge of the patrons of that particular venue, the Juicy Lucy?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: Can you elaborate on that please?

MR PITSI: Mainly it was the SADF members.

MR DREYER: How do you know that Mr Pitsi?

MR PITSI: Because I was born and bred in Atteridgeville, so I knew all those offices around that place.

MR DREYER: If you know all the offices around that place, do you also know that there are various other eating places, restaurants, coffee rooms, tea rooms, in the vicinity? Are you well aware of that as well?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: Now I am asking you again Mr Pitsi, on what basis do you state that you personally had the knowledge that that particular venue was frequented by members of the South African Defence Force? Did you rely on information or did you ascertain that for yourself?

MR PITSI: I will repeat myself. I was born and bred in Pretoria, I knew - that was not my first time to go to town to see that is happening.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Pitsi, are you saying that you know that Juicy Lucy was frequented by members of the Defence Force because of you know the offices in town and therefore Defence Force people must have gone there?

Do you know which sort of people go to the Wimpy Bar, ten blocks away and the Spur, three blocks away? Do you know the type of patron at each and every restaurant in town, merely because you were born in Pretoria?

MR PITSI: No, that is not true.

CHAIRPERSON: So how do you know that the SADF members went to Juicy Lucy? Are you just assuming that it was SADF because it was close to certain buildings which might house offices of the SADF or have you personally with your own eyes, seen people sitting in that particular Juicy Lucy?

MR PITSI: I did see that happening.

MR DREYER: When was this Mr Pitsi?

MR PITSI: It is a long time, it is ten years.

MR DREYER: Yes Mr Pitsi, I know it is a long time ago, but with all respect also to the victims who also attend this hearings, they would also like to know and clarify in their minds, what happened such a long time ago, in order for a proper process of reconciliation.

I am pressing on you to please tell us when, how long prior to this bomb blast occurring, did you personally sir, observe and ascertained that in fact this venue was frequented by members of the South African Defence Force, it is a simple question?

MR PITSI: It was long before the operation took place, because we use, I mean it doesn't mean just because I was an operative, I will sit back and then wait for the operation to come and then go out and do it.

We used to move around, we used to locate so many things, what will be the target and things like that. Besides, it was next to the place where we were getting on the taxi's, it is just the other side of Vermeulen.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you in fact choose Juicy Lucy as the target, the very business, the very location of this cafe or did you choose the vicinity, could it be placed in a street somewhere nearby, because people passing there would be soldiers or did you specifically choose the venue of Juicy Lucy because they would be sitting there, having lunch?

MR PITSI: I can't involve myself in that one, because recently just before, shortly before the explosion, I was not in the situation whereby I could say this will be a suitable place to place the bomb blast.

But the people who did the last surveillance, were in the position of saying this is the position where we can place our bomb.

ADV DE JAGER: But you took part in the discussions, what information, on what basis, was this target chosen and what I am really trying to ascertain, was it specifically Juicy Lucy or was it a target chosen even on the sidewalk because there would be soldiers passing there?

MR PITSI: I can't remember very well, but I will try to answer the question. It wasn't meant for Juicy Lucy, it was meant for the people just on the side of the road, for the people who will come from, crossing the Vermeulen road, going to the Juicy Lucy.

ADV DE JAGER: And the people using that sidewalk, would even be on their way maybe to the Supreme Court? It is not a matter of only people using that sidewalk for their ten paces and walking into Juicy Lucy, they would continue in that street further on?

MR PITSI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So there must have been a lot of people using the sidewalk while only the soldiers would turn off and go into Juicy Lucy?

MR PITSI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Isn't that what the position was in fact, as you saw it?

MR PITSI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So if you put it on the sidewalk, there would be a risk of killing ordinary civilians while if you put it in Juicy Lucy which was frequented by soldiers, you would have a higher percentage of soldiers being trapped?

MR PITSI: That was possible, but that was not our intention at the end of the day. Our intention was the South African, I mean Defence Force members.

ADV DE JAGER: Was there any steps taken to eliminate the risk of killing other people or injuring other people?

MR PITSI: That is a question that I won't be able to answer, because as I have already said, shortly before the operation took place, I wasn't there, I don't know what would have transpired.

The people I think, I would like to believe that the people who were there, they really tried to take a precautionary measure not to hit the civilians.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, could I ask another please. You said your involvement was limited to the fact that you supplied the weapons, the explosives?

MR PITSI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did you choose to use a, I think, SPM limpet mine on that occasion, a very strong one, which could injure a lot of people?

MR PITSI: I can't be for certain what influenced my decision that day.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it your decision or were you asked for a particular type of mine?

MR PITSI: I can't remember Mr Chairman. I just took out the two limpet mines, I can't remember what transpired thereafter.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, it was a mini and a super one?

MR PITSI: And a super yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And the super one was used at Juicy Lucy and the mini was used at this Renault in Proes Street?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pitsi, I am putting it to you that there is a material and a substantial discrepancy and contradiction between your evidence and that of Mr Toka on the very basis of the purpose and the selection of the location of this particular blast.

I am going to point it out to you as follows: it was very, very clear from the evidence of Mr Toka that this particular bomb blast was not at all directed to the injury of innocent bystanders or walkers by or people rushing by on a lunch time purchase, it was very specifically directed at members of the South African Defence Force as it was then.

It was very specifically placed at that location, because of their purported frequent attendance of that venue, whereas in your evidence now, upon a question of the Committee, you clearly stated that it was placed at that corner, to also effect people who were mere passers by.

Would you like to comment on that Mr Pitsi, because I think there is a very serious discrepancy and contradiction contained in those two versions?

MR PITSI: That is your own conclusion, I have never said that. It was not meant for any civilians, it was meant for the South African National Defence Force, the SADF by then. It was not meant for anybody.

MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, which is even more astonishing to me, is even on your own spontaneous version, you said that you were so well aware of the prevailing circumstances at that venue because the place where the taxi range or pick up points that you frequented, was just situated around the corner.

So for all practical purposes, even one of your own members of MK not being aware of this intended and planned action, could have been on his way to that very taxi rank on that very day and he could have been a passer by when that bomb exploded, isn't that so?

MR PITSI: It is true yes.

MR DREYER: Now could you explain to this Committee sir, how that would then still be defined as an act in the furtherance of the policy and the objectives of the organisation of which you were a member at that stage? How is that at all possible Mr Pitsi?

MR PITSI: It is possible because I would like to say, I reiterate my stand again, that the people who did the surveillance, they took precautionary measures not to hit civilians. If civilians were hurt on that operation, that would have been you know, a sad situation and that would have been termed, what we normally term, a cross-fire.

MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, you are currently a member of the South African Air Force?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: Now, that being a military institution, I suppose that you are well aware and you are acquainted with the whole process of decision making in such an institution?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: When there is any military operation to be executed? Do you want to tell me sir, that the military or paramilitary actions of the MK and ANC in that particular period, was not executed in a military or paramilitary fashion, in the mid-1985's?

Was it also executed in the same military or paramilitary style?

MR PITSI: I would say yes, but mainly it would depend on the operative.

MR DREYER: Right, I agree with you. Now you have already explained to us sir, that you were part and parcel of this group of decision makers, discussing and targeting this very venue, am I not correct?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: Now do you want to tell me sir, that there were no planning, contingency planning made and done in respect of this intended bomb blast, or was it just an indiscriminate decision of go along and see what you can do, do the best you can? Was that the basis or was this a well planned military operation according to your view?

MR PITSI: I would like to believe that you will understand when I say the operation was planned shortly before the actual date, and then from there, I wasn't available. The people who were concerned there, the ones who did the last surveillance, it would be proper to say that it was professional of them placing the bomb where they placed it.

MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, can I ask you in this manner and fashion, you are currently a member of the South African Air Force, if you receive a particular order to proceed and cause an explosion at point (a), do you think it would be fit and proper for you as a member of the military installation, acting upon orders and commands, to proceed there, then all on your own decide you cannot effect the explosion at venue (a), you will then have it effected at venue (b) and you will return proudly to inform your Commander that you have not execute his orders, you have not effected it at venue (a), but at least you have effected an explosion at venue (b).

MR PITSI: It has been testified earlier on that everyone was trained to be a Commander, and the decision that will be suitable for the time, that will be taken.

MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi the point that I want to make and that is a very simple point, according to the evidence of Mr Toka, the primary and the sole purpose of this explosion that took place in the vicinity of Juicy Lucy, was solely directed to members of the South African Defence Force, because he reiterated at more than one occasion, that they would not want innocent civilians to be killed by the blast. It was directed at members of the South African Defence Force.

But as it transpired sir, when this bomb was actually placed and physically placed, it was not placed in or near the Juicy Lucy, because it is approximately 30 meters or paces away from the entrance of that venue, it was placed in a flower box very close to the sidewalk, and in fact sir, the only people injured as a result of that blast, were five women, all of them being civilians, not at all connected in any way or involved with any institution of a military or paramilitary nature.

What I am telling you Mr Pitsi, according to the evidence of Mr Toka, and your evidence that it was a well planned military action that was taken, directed at a specific target, it was clearly not executed in accordance with the initial planning and the initial target. You were part and parcel of that planning sir.

Do you still maintain that the victims that suffered injury as a result of that blast, were the victims from the intended target?

MR PITSI: No.

MR DREYER: Now how Mr Pitsi, can it ever be said that it was a valid target, because it was definitely then according to your own admission, not executed in accordance with the decision that was taken by the decision makers? Do you agree Mr Pitsi?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he went so far as to admit that it wasn't what you put to him, that it wasn't executed in accordance with the plan?

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will then - prior to you answering that sir, let's clear that in our minds. If we take cognisance of the fact sir, that this mine was not at all placed in or near the entrance or at the entrance of the Juicy Lucy and it exploded in the way and the manner and fashion as it did, and it injured the people as it did, do you say that it was executed in accordance with the original planning and the instruction and the order of the decision making group?

MR PITSI: I would not say it was proper, because the person who was on the situation by then, he might have seen things that might have disturbed him or reason not to put it where it was supposed to go after they made the surveillance. It is something that was solemnly upon the operative by then.

MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, even on the version of Mr Toka yesterday and we are in agreement that we would all state very clearly that we would all be abhorred by the typical result that occurred because of the hand grenade attack on the house of one of the policemen, where for instance a 14 month old baby was killed.

I mean, that is common cause, he expressed himself in the following terms that no person in his right mind, could justify that type of thing, and I suppose you are in agreement with that?

MR PITSI: That is true.

MR DREYER: Now sir, the point that I want to make is, even if there was whatever reason disturbing the operative placing the limpet mine in the vicinity of Juicy Lucy, whatever reason disturbed him, not to set it at the venue where it was intended to be set, how can we now turn around and say because he was disturbed in the modus operandi that he intended, it is still a justified target because he had to get rid of the bomb, so he just set it at a place where it would most probably injure innocent civilians and not at all injure or kill the targeted person or group of persons? How can we then say that it was a justifiable target in accordance with the policy of MK? How can we say that?

MR PITSI: I would say it is most unfortunate that those women were hit and it was not the intention of the operative to hurt them, but it was meant for the SADF people. It was known that they leave their offices between twelve and one o'clock.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Dreyer, if I could just come in for a moment. Mr Pitsi, you just said that you would not say this limpet mine was properly placed at the place where it was supposed to have been placed. Where exactly was it supposed to have been placed, in your discussions, did you agree where precisely it should be placed?

MR PITSI: I can't be particular about the placing of the limpet mine because I wasn't on the reconnaissance where they agreed there where to put the limpet mine itself.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Pitsi, I just want to get this straight. You said that you attended a discussion, and then you talk about the last surveillance.

MR PITSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now that last surveillance was that before you were involved in the discussion or was that after the discussion that you were involved in?

MR PITSI: Yes, the surveillance came after the discussion, the last discussion we had.

CHAIRPERSON: And then, was there another discussion, a planning meeting after that last surveillance, do you know?

MR PITSI: That much I am not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: So the discussion that you were involved in, was that the final planning, that is what I am trying to find out or was there further planning done after that?

MR PITSI: There would have been a further planning thereafter because still surveillance would have been conducted and then things, they could have changed from time to time, from the time they started the surveillance.

ADV SANDI: Are you saying then there could have been further planning of details as to the place where the limpet mine should be placed, in your absence?

MR PITSI: The possibility is there, because every time when you surveil the place, things change from time to time.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but are you saying that there could have been other discussions amongst your comrades, to work out details in your absence?

MR PITSI: Yes, that possibility was there, that if they found that the situation had changed, they could have amended the plan.

ADV SANDI: After the event, did you receive any reports as to why this limpet mine could not be placed right inside the Juicy Lucy?

MR PITSI: No, the whole issue was settled between the operatives and Toka.

ADV SANDI: Did I understand you correctly earlier on to say that you only attended one planning meeting and that there may have been other discussions by others in your absence, didn't you say that earlier on?

MR PITSI: Come again, I didn't get the question.

ADV SANDI: Didn't you say earlier on you only attended one planning meeting?

MR PITSI: Yes, it is true.

ADV DE JAGER: And at that meeting, that first meeting planning, did you hand over the explosives to Ramadite and Mathe?

MR PITSI: That is true.

ADV DE JAGER: So they had this long before the actual explosion, they had it in their possession already?

MR PITSI: Yes, they did.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr De Jager, the witness said that planning meeting, he used the word, was shortly before the incident, not long before.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what shortly is, what is shortly an hour or a week or a month, what do you call shortly?

MR PITSI: That was I think a few, several hours before the operation.

ADV SANDI: Did you take part in that one, the one that you say was the last discussion meeting?

MR PITSI: Come again please.

ADV SANDI: Were you there when the last discussion took place?

MR PITSI: Yes, that is the first and the last meeting that I attended, the last meeting, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And whenever you have looked at a target and have decided on that target, you inform your Commander in Botswana and he approves of that target?

MR PITSI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So if he at that stage, when you send through the information to the Commander, was the target to be Juicy Lucy?

MR PITSI: Yes, actually it was Juicy Lucy, the so-called Juicy Lucy.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. So if it wasn't put at Juicy Lucy, he would have given approval for a bomb at Juicy Lucy or a limpet mine at Juicy Lucy, he didn't give approval for a limpet mine somewhere on a sidewalk?

MR PITSI: That one you can't categorise, because it was meant for - you can't come up with the exact place that I want to place the limpet mine at the robot. It was meant for those people there, it wasn't stated where exactly.

I don't think, okay, let me not put myself into that one deeper, but I don't think it was stated that we wanted to put it on the pavement next to Juicy Lucy or something of that nature.

ADV DE JAGER: But the soldiers are going to Juicy Lucy and you are directing it against the soldiers, that is their venue, this is their come together, so you direct it at them and they are at Juicy Lucy? On the sidewalk there are a lot of other people walking up and down?

MR PITSI: I agree with you.

ADV DE JAGER: So if this explosive was put down 30 meters from Juicy Lucy, it wasn't in accordance with the approval obtained from Botswana?

MR PITSI: Very true.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Pitsi, in final count of that particular point, do you agree with me that in this proceedings before this Committee, in the final analysis, it entails the decision about the justification of actions taken within the provisions and the four corners of the TRC Act? This is what this Committee must decide upon in order to decide whether or not amnesty is granted, are you with me?

MR PITSI: Yes, I am with you.

MR DREYER: Yes. So justification stands very central, not only in the version of the applicant of why something was done, by also in the decision making process of the Committee, isn't that so?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: No finally sir, if you would have been a policeman and you were given a legal document, a warrant of arrest, issued in respect of person A, it is your legal duty, you are legally entitled to execute, you receive an order from your officer commanding to go and execute this warrant of arrest, would that sir justify you as a policeman then, with a legal document, a valid legal document, to go out there and arrest the brother of Mr A simply because you couldn't find Mr A because you've got a valid order and a valid document?

MR PITSI: Knowing very well that I am supposed to arrest A?

MR DREYER: Exactly. So what I am putting to you in the final statement on that point sir, is that there was absolutely (a) no justification, there was no furtherance of the policy or the principles of MK through this explosion that occurred because it was not directed at the initial target, in other words the SADF members, but it was directed indiscriminately at members of the public.

In fact Mr Pitsi, when you were confronted by the Committee, your own words were and I wrote it down in my notes, the bomb, it was meant for that people there. And that is what it boils down to Mr Pitsi. It was meant for those people there, out there, and those people out there Mr Pitsi was innocent civilians, having nothing in common or related in no way to the South African Defence Force, the police or whatever other State structure.

MR PITSI: That is your own findings, I still reiterate my position that that was meant for the government workers.

MR DREYER: All right, let's move on to another point Mr Pitsi. You indicated that when these discussions took place, the planning discussions in respect of this particular incident, there were discussion of measurements to be taken to avoid injury or death to innocent bystanders, am I correct, that was what I inferred from your evidence?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: Is that correct?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: Now you being part and parcel of the planning group sir, can you explain to us very simply, I am not even asking you to go into detail, can you just explain to us, in respect of this bomb blast at Juicy Lucy, what were those reasonable steps taken? What were the contingency plans that were made and decisions that were made in respect thereof, in order to limit or exclude the possibility of innocent bystanders and members of the public that is not involved in the struggle or against the struggle, that they get hurt? What were those steps sir?

You were part of the planning group?

MR PITSI: I was part of the planning group. I didn't involve myself further after something that I wouldn't even know. After the surveillance, they would have known what best to do to handle the situation.

MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, you are not answering my question. I want you to listen to the question that I am asking you.

We have taken cognisance of the fact that you have now explained to the Committee that subsequent to the last meeting, the planning meeting that you have had with the other operatives, you did not further involve yourself personally with the execution of the deed, that we understand very clearly.

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: What I am asking you is very simple sir, at the planning stage and discussion of this incident, you indicated that there were plans and discussions in respect of measures to be taken in order to avoid injury or death to innocent bystanders, am I correct in the course of the planning?

MR PITSI: In the course of the planning, I hope - don't mix issues here, the incident that I uprightly mentioned, that it was the planning of the police because I was there, I commanded the Unit, I knew what happened, what transpired.

MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, I am not confusing anything, I think you do not listen to the question.

I am not referring to any subsequent planning on the scene of the bomb blast, that could have been taken by the final operative executing the order. I am referring sir to the planning stage where you purportedly and according to your version, there was a planning of a bombing to take place at this venue because it is supposed to be frequented by members of the SADF.

When that planning was done sir, by the planning group, were there or were there not discussions in respect of contingency plans and plans and measures to be implemented in order to limit possible injury and death to innocent bystanders, yes or no?

MR PITSI: I can't remember, I am not sure.

MR DREYER: So what you want to tell us Mr Pitsi, that this was then not a properly planned military operation because there were no contingency plans, no measures of avoidance of death and injury to innocent bystanders?

ADV SANDI: No, no, sorry Mr Dreyer, sorry, I think you have to be careful how you put that to him. He did not say there were no discussions pertaining to contingency plans. He says he does not recall if such discussions did in fact take place.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, with the greatest of respect, I think at least, and I made note of that, mental note, at least at three instances, did the applicant indicate or answer in such a measure and manner that it was clear from that, that there was indeed ...

CHAIRPERSON: But in response to the last question you asked, my note is in the course of planning, I can't remember if such plans about avoiding injury were made. That is what he said now, that there might be a conflict, but that doesn't justify you saying well then or putting to him, that is a question of argument now, based on the conflict in his evidence, but it doesn't justify you putting it to him that he has now said that there was no planning and that it wasn't a properly planned military operation. That is a question of argument.

MR DREYER: I take note Mr Chairman. If I may rephrase that Mr Pitsi, let's recap, do you still maintain that this was a properly planned military operation?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: Now, if that is the case, would you believe that the planning group would have discussed a contingency plan and measures of avoidance injury and death to innocent bystanders? Would you believe that that would have taken place as part of the planning?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: Now, can you remember in this very instance sir, whether that was in fact part of the planning process, such measures? When you were involved sir?

MR PITSI: I can't remember.

MR DREYER: You can't remember?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: It was put to Mr Toka and it was eventually quite clear that all combatants and operatives of MK as part of their training, also were trained on a political basis including their acquaintance with the policies of the ANC and Umkhonto weSizwe in respect of targets, civilian targets and that sort of thing. Do you agree that that is part and parcel of the training?

MR PITSI: I do agree, yes.

MR DREYER: Did you also receive such training as part of your own training?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: So is it fair for me to state that you were well aware of the prevailing policy of the ANC and MK at that stage in respect of civilian targets?

MR PITSI: Yes. But in any kind of situation, any war, there is no way you can divert casualties, civilian casualties.

MR DREYER: Sir, I agree with you that in every war, there are civilian casualties, but I do not agree with you that you cannot at all avoid it.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Dreyer, could this be a convenient time to take the tea adjournment?

MR DREYER: As the Court pleases.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Dreyer, just a remark on your last question, what precautions did the Americans take to avoid civilian deaths when they threw the atom bomb at Nagasaki?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman with the greatest of respect, first of all, I would say that the difference in the situation was that it is common cause that at that stage, there was a fully fledged world war, obviously they didn't take any measures because it was intended as a final and complete act in tended at the ending of the war.

It was definitely not aimed at the military target, it was specifically aimed at the civilian target and that is what I think abhorred the whole world, but in this particular instance, I would respectfully submit that this was a very isolated and selected target for a specific purpose and if the bomb was to be placed within the Juicy Lucy or very close to the entrance thereof, because it was believed that it was in fact a venue frequented by members of the South African Defence Force, that would have been a reasonable step to have been taken in order to avoid the killing or injury to innocent bystanders walking passed on the sidewalk, that was the intention that I wanted to convey. As the Court pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we are now adjourned for tea.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Dreyer.

FRANCIS PITSI: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: (continued)

Right Mr Pitsi, to proceed on the point that was pondered at the break, that we have just taken, it was the whole question of reasonable steps that could have been taken in the circumstances, a contingency plan, measures that could have been taken in order to avoid the injury or death of innocent bystanders or civilians, and as I have explained to you, it could have even involved a non suspecting member of Umkhonto weSizwe that was on his way on the pavement, to the taxi rank or wherever.

In that sense, I would also ask you the following. Would you agree with me that if in the particular case of the Juicy Lucy bombing, use would have been made of a mini limpet mine, as opposed to a SPM mine, the extent of the blast could have been limited and more directed towards the real target, if it was placed in Juicy Lucy itself or very close to the entrance? Would you agree to that?

MR PITSI: Yes.

MR DREYER: So the mere fact that a far stronger explosive device was used, and was placed at a point to which non suspecting members of the public had to pass, would you say that that was reasonable steps taken to avoid the possibility of injury to unsuspecting members of the public? According to you, we know Mr Pitsi, please we know that you were not there with the final execution of the setting of the bomb, I mean I take that as a premises, you weren't there. I am just asking you, in your capacity as an operator, as a Commander, as a MK soldier at that time, would you have considered that to be a reasonable way of executing the order?

MR PITSI: That was beyond my control because of the surveillance that was made, they could have decided to swop the mines, that I don't know and I couldn't have controlled that one.

MR DREYER: I understand, but I reiterate, I know and I take as a premises that you were not there and you were not the operative who set the actual limpet mine, all I am asking you is, the given facts as they occurred, the circumstances that prevailed, the blast, when and at the venue where it occurred, would you say that would have been a reasonable way of executing it if you, yourself were charged with that particular act, would you have done it in the same way?

MR PITSI: I would have used any limpet mine, depending on the situation.

MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, I am not referring to the type of explosive device, I am more particularly referring to the place, the actual locality where the limpet mine was set to be detonated. Would you yourself sir, as an MK soldier, well knowing of what the order and the target was, would you have done it in the same way?

I see there is extreme hesitance in your answer Mr Pitsi?

MR PITSI: I must give you a proper answer and I mustn't just jump to my answer.

MR DREYER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, what we are getting here is just an opinion, is it Mr Dreyer?

MR DREYER: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PITSI: Yes, I would have still done it.

MR DREYER: If you would have still done it in the same way, let's get to the follow up consequences. Yesterday I put it to Mr Toka that in any act or the consideration of an act for the purposes of determining whether or not such act was negligent or reckless, it entails two elements, the foreseeability of risk or injury and the avoidability of risk and injury. Do you understand that? Do you agree with me?

MR PITSI: Yes, I do.

MR DREYER: And I want to put it very clearly, I am not referring to the legal terminology or definition thereof, I am just referring to the ordinary principle of the ability of a person to judge consequences that could occur if a certain act is committed and on the other hand, reasonable steps to be taken to avoid certain risks and consequences.

Those are the two things that I am referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Dreyer, just before you continue, I just want to get the purpose of this cross-examination.

This witness has said that he wasn't there when the bomb was placed and at the discussion it wasn't decided precisely where the bomb would be placed, if it was in the flower pot or next to the traffic lights or in Juicy Lucy itself or on the porch outside Juicy Lucy. There wasn't that sort of detail put.

He wasn't there, he had no control over where it was put. Now we are going into this whole question about foreseeability and avoidability. He will only be expressing an opinion, will he not? How will that effect, whatever he says, how will it effect his application?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I would answer in the following way. First of all it seems to be a situation where Mr Ramadite, who apparently was the operative who specifically set this bomb at the venue, is not going to testify, he is not available.

CHAIRPERSON: That is understood, he can't answer for Mr Ramadite.

MR DREYER: That is so Mr Chairman, but the point is both Mr Toka and Mr Pitsi base their application for amnesty in regard to this particular incident, on the basis of being part and parcel of the chain of command.

CHAIRPERSON: We know that, but the fact is that we have heard that from him, he says that he was there, but now you are talking about the foreseeability and the avoidability of an action relating to Ramadite.

MR DREYER: With respect, no Mr Chairman, I was not going to pull the line through of foreseeability and avoidability to the actions of Mr Ramadite, I was merely, I wanted if so permitted by the Committee, to just weigh the pros and cons of practical matters regarding the type of measures that were taken.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, he says he can't remember what measures were taken to avoid it. He said that. All you are getting is, you are trying to get, solicit an opinion from Mr Pitsi which you can use in argument? Anyway proceed, but I will be listening closely. We don't want to spend hours on something that is not going to have any effect or relevance in so far as this particular applicant is concerned.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you in fact, on the facts here of placing a limpet mine, a super limpet mine during lunch hour, in a busy street in the city, can you take any measures to avoid the injury to civilians?

Can you think of anything you could do?

MR PITSI: I can't think of anything at the moment.

ADV DE JAGER: You could have used a smaller mine, then perhaps two people would have been injured instead of five or six, or whatever it may be.

MR PITSI: That is very true.

ADV DE JAGER: But once you have chosen that mine, you've got no control, you can't even switch it off once it is activated? Isn't that so?

MR PITSI: Yes, it is true.

ADV DE JAGER: So once you have placed it, whoever is a passer by, would be injured?

MR PITSI: Yes, but the effects, we must get one thing straight here, the effect, it might be a bigger mine, but it is not effective like a mini limpet mine, which is a compound explosive. It won't be detrimental as to the mini limpet would be.

ADV DE JAGER: It is not as effective as a mini limpet would be in an open street? Would the mini have been more dangerous than the super mine?

MR PITSI: Exactly, because of the type of explosive they are using.

ADV DE JAGER: I am not an expert there, so I can't say.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer?

MR DREYER: Mr Pitsi, can we just try and ascertain, do you have any knowledge of the current whereabouts of Mr Ramadite?

MR PITSI: Mr Ramadite was a victim of the intense torture during the trial, so we think he is not fit to stand trial, because he is mentally disturbed so to say.

MR DREYER: Can you maybe enlighten us to whether Mr Ramadite was acting solely and on his own accord at the actual placing or was he accompanied by Mr Mathe or anyone else that could shed any light as to the decision making process very shortly, prior to the setting of this limpet mine?

MR PITSI: Mr Ramadite has his own assignment to perform. The same applies to Mr Mathe.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he alone or was he accompanied by anybody when he executed his assignment?

MR PITSI: He was all by himself.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't anybody drive him to town that day?

MR PITSI: Drive them to town? No, as far as I am concerned, they used the public transport to go to town.

ADV DE JAGER: Carrying a limpet mine in the public transport?

MR PITSI: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer?

MR DREYER: So Mr Pitsi, apart from yourself and Mr Toka who share and accept responsibility and accountability for these specific incidents, including the Juicy Lucy bombing, on the basis of being part and parcel of the chain of command, ordering the execution thereof, there will be no evidence on the part of the applicants as to the exact facts and circumstances that prevailed very shortly before the bomb blast occurred, because of the situation of Mr Ramadite, is that what I must understand?

MR PITSI: Very true.

MR DREYER: A last question Mr Pitsi, if you say that you yourself accept responsibility and accountability for this particular bomb blast, what exactly do you mean by that in view of the fact that I have pointed out to you that apparently the final execution of the setting of the limpet mine, was not carried out in accordance with the original planning or decision or order? In view of that counter statement on behalf of the victims, what does it really entail when you say that you accept responsibility and accountability for this particular act?

Do you do that regardless of the fact in other words, that it was not executed in the manner and fashion and in accordance with the original planning, or do you want to qualify sir, the consequences that occurred as a result of the fact that it was not done in accordance with the order?

What is the basis of your acceptance of responsibility and accountability?

MR PITSI: After a lengthy discussion with our office in Johannesburg, it was felt that we should apply for indemnity and I still believe it is not a question of the organisation telling me to apply for amnesty. I still feel that it was a solemn right for me to apply for amnesty because of the mishaps that happened during the process of our struggle.

I am saying I am applying this amnesty because of there were people injured during the process of that bomb blast at Juicy Lucy.

MR DREYER: Just to make quite sure, the essence of what I wanted to know from you is, do you accept responsibility regardless of the fact that it was not carried out the way that you planned it, or do you say that you accept responsibility but you have to qualify that it was not done the way that it was intended?

MR PITSI: Will you rephrase your question please.

MR DREYER: I say, the essence of what I put to you sir is, when you say that you accept responsibility and accountability for this act, do you do that regardless of the fact that apparently the final operative executing this act, did not do it in accordance with the original planning and order, or do you say that you accept responsibility and accountability but you would like to qualify that it was not executed in the originally intended way, manner and fashion?

MR PITSI: It was an operation which was carried, irrespective of it wasn't done in accordance to the agreement, I will still apply for that.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Pitsi.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Dreyer. Mr Joubert, do you have any questions to ask this witness?

MR JOUBERT: No questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, do you have any re-examination?

MR MOHLABA: No re-examination Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms Mtanga, sorry. I will get back to you later again Mr Mohlaba. Ms Mtanga, sorry?

MS MTANGA: No questions from me, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, any re-examination?

MR MOHLABA: No re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Jager, any questions that you would like to put to the witness?

ADV DE JAGER: None.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi? Thank you Mr Pitsi, that concludes your testimony. You may stand down.

MR PITSI: My pleasure, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, subject to what we discussed earlier, this question about the naming of the people who supplied information which I said will be addressed tomorrow morning when we will receive argument and depending on the ruling there, you may or may not have to come back again. Thank you.

MR PITSI: Okay, thank you sir.

AMNESTY HEARING

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba?

MR MOHLABA: May I then be excused for a while, Mr Molefe will take the stand and lead certain applicants?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Molefe?

MR MOLEFE: Mr Chairman, I think we will lead Mr Johannes Maleka first, he is the 10th applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: 9th?

ADV DE JAGER: He is applying for amnesty in connection with which incidents?

MR MOLEFE: He is applying for amnesty in connection with the murder of the three policemen at Mariana Street, for the 8th of April bombing at the municipality at Atteridgeville and also for the 5th June bombing of the Saulsville station.

JOHANNES TSHIPANE MALEKA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Molefe.

MR MOLEFE: Mr Chairman, Mr Maleka will be using the Interpreter, he will be giving his evidence in Sesotho.

There is one amendment that we would just like to make to his application. I think I should have also mentioned this. We would also like to make an application for amnesty in respect of escaping from custody from Modderbee prison, but we will address the Commission properly at the end or when argument is supposed to be heard.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Molefe, I see that at page 59 it refers to malicious damage to property?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it at the station.

EXAMINATION BY MR MOLEFE: Can I start Mr Chairman? Mr Maleka, I take it that you were staying at Atteridgeville during the occurrence of these events, and that you were recruited into the ANC and into Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR MALEKA: Yes.

INTERPRETER: I think the applicant is on the wrong channel. The Interpreter is on the wrong channel.

MR MOLEFE: Could you just briefly tell us who recruited you into Umkhonto weSizwe and what training did you receive?

INTERPRETER: The Interpreter is on the wrong channel.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have a problem with the interpretation? I think that is on the wrong channel, it is on channel 3.

MR MOLEFE: Maybe I should just repeat the question, can you just briefly tell us when were you recruited into MK, into Umkhonto weSizwe and what training did you receive?

MR MALEKA: In 1988 I met Mensday. I met with him together with Mr Ramadite. We discussed about joining Umkhonto weSizwe and after that we agreed that we should join.

After that Mensday informed me about the appointment when to start the military training. On that day of the appointment, I was taken for training in Mamelodi.

That training included the use of explosives.

MR MOLEFE: Right, Mr Maleka, you have applied for amnesty in respect of the murder of the three policemen at 3 Mariana Street on the 18th of March. Can you just briefly explain as to why are you applying for amnesty in respect of this offence?

MR MALEKA: It happened before I joined MK. After I joined this Unit, I knew, I was informed by members of this Unit that what happened in Atteridgeville, they were involved.

That is why I am coming here to tell the Commission about this incident.

MR MOLEFE: So if I understand you correctly, or maybe let me rather put it in this manner, did you in any way whatsoever take part in this operation?

MR MALEKA: No, I did not play a role.

MR MOLEFE: So the only reason you are applying for amnesty in respect of this incident, is because there was an omission on your part, in that you did not divulge this information to the relevant authorities?

MR MALEKA: Yes, I did not divulge this information to the agents of the State.

MR MOLEFE: Right. You also applied for amnesty for the blast which took place at the Atteridgeville municipality council on the 8th of April?

MR MALEKA: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOLEFE: Can you just briefly explain to us what your role was?

MR MALEKA: On the day when I received training from Mensday about the use of explosives, we agreed that I should take an explosive and put it at the municipal offices in Atteridgeville.

MR MOLEFE: Can you just briefly give us the political motive for placing this bomb at the municipality offices?

MR MALEKA: At that time, the office was under the government and that government was not elected by the people who were the residents of that particular area.

There were rent boycotts. During those rent boycotts, many people were killed, those who were marching to that particular municipality office to discuss about the rent issue.

So people were not satisfied about what happened and I include myself amongst those people who were not satisfied.

When the decision was taken that that office should be bombed, I agreed with the people.

MR MOLEFE: Now were you alone or were you in the company of somebody else when you went to place this limpet mine at the municipality?

MR MALEKA: I was alone.

MR MOLEFE: All right, you also apply for amnesty ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Molefe, before you continue. Did the mine go off?

MR MALEKA: Yes, it went off.

CHAIRPERSON: Did it cause any damage or did it injure any people or kill any people?

MR MALEKA: Only the building was destroyed. According to my knowledge or my observation, nobody was injured or killed in that incident.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say the building was destroyed, was the whole building destroyed, flattened or was portion of it damaged?

MR MALEKA: Because it was within other offices, when you are outside, you would not see what happened inside. What I know is that there was damage in that building.

CHAIRPERSON: And at what time did you set the limpet mine to blast off, what time of the day or night?

MR MALEKA: It was around half past four.

CHAIRPERSON: In the morning or the afternoon?

MR MALEKA: It was in the afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you set it to go off at that time?

MR MALEKA: I knew that the employees within that office, they did not know anything about the oppressive laws, they were just ordinary workers, so those people were not targeted, so I wanted the bomb to explode after work.

CHAIRPERSON: What sort of mine was it?

MR MALEKA: It was a super limpet mine.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Molefe.

MR MOLEFE: You also apply for amnesty in respect of an explosion which took place at the Saulsville train station, is that correct? That happened on the 5th of June?

MR MALEKA: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOLEFE: Can you just briefly explain to us as to what your role was in that particular explosion?

MR MALEKA: We discussed about this operation. It was myself and Ernest and George Mathe.

We took a decision that we should continue with this operation. After some days, we decided that we should carry it out. We left to the station, it was on a Sunday when the trains were not that busy.

We observed a train which was on the middle line which we discovered that it was not going to take off on that particular day. Then we planted the bomb in that train.

We used a mini limpet mine.

MR MOLEFE: Was this event coinciding with any other event?

MR MALEKA: On the Monday there was supposed to be a stay away, subsequent to the Sunday. I don't know what was the stay away for and people were ready to heed that call for a stay away.

MR MOLEFE: Is there anything that you would like to add in respect of these two bombings? Is there any other thing that you would still like to say in respect of the bombing at the municipality as well as at the Saulsville train station?

MR MALEKA: No, I have nothing to add.

MR MOLEFE: Was there anybody injured at the Saulsville train station bombing?

MR MALEKA: Nobody was injured in that operation.

MR MOLEFE: Was there property which was damaged?

MR MALEKA: Yes. The train was damaged.

MR MOLEFE: You have also applied, or you are also requesting to apply for amnesty in respect of escaping from the Modderbee prison and eventually leaving the country unlawfully, is that correct?

MR MALEKA: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOLEFE: Was there anybody injured when you left or escaped from Modderbee prison?

MR MALEKA: Nobody was injured during our escape. I don't know thereafter.

MR MOLEFE: Was there any property damaged at Modderbee when you escaped from the prison?

MR MALEKA: We did not destroy or damage any property. We did not damage any property.

MR MOLEFE: That is all Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Molefe.

ADV DE JAGER: Could I just, Mr Molefe, in his application he is referring us to CC349/89. Is that the trial record?

MR MOLEFE: That is the trial record.

ADV DE JAGER: And that is also in this bundle?

MR MOLEFE: The charge sheet is in the bundle, that is the charge sheet or the trial record, as well as a judgement.

ADV DE JAGER: The judgement for those people, number 2, 7 and 8 who attended the hearing?

MR MOLEFE: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR MOLEFE: The reason why he is referring to that case is just for easy reference, so that we should know that it is in respect of some offences which form part and parcel of that case.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, it may even help him for the amendment of the escape?

MR MOLEFE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Molefe. Mr Mohlaba, do you have any questions to ask this witness? Just for the record, Mr Mohlaba indicates that he has no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mokone, any questions?

MR MOKONE: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Monyane?

MS MONYANE: No questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer?

MR DREYER: No questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: No questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: No questions Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Therefore I take it you have no re-examination Mr Molefe.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions Adv De Jager?

ADV DE JAGER: Nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Sandi?

ADV DE JAGER: The only thing that you could perhaps clear up is, he referred to we. We planted this, we did that. Was anybody assisting you in doing it or were you doing it on your own?

CHAIRPERSON: This is the Saulsville station?

MR MALEKA: I was with Ernest Ramadite.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Maleka, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

AMNESTY HEARING

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON RESUMPTION:

MR MOLEFE: I now beg leave to call George Mathe, he is the third applicant.

GEORGE MATHE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Molefe?

EXAMINATION BY MR MOLEFE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mathe, I take it that you were staying in Atteridgeville during the commission of the offences for which you are applying for amnesty, is that correct?

MR MATHE: That is right.

MR MOLEFE: You were also recruited into the African National Congress and received training as a member of Umkhonto weSizwe, is that correct?

MR MATHE: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Molefe, could you just point out in respect of which offences, so that we could have a picture in respect of which ...

MR MOLEFE: Thank you. Mr Mathe will be applying for amnesty in respect of the murder of the three policemen at 3 Mariana Street and also for the civilians who were injured there, he will also be applying for - let me just confer with him - he will also be applying for the blast which happened at the corner of Andries and Vermeulen Street, the so-called Juicy Lucy bombing. He will also be applying for amnesty in respect of the blast that took place at Proes Street, that is the one where it was placed underneath a Renault vehicle, and also for escaping from Modderbee prison and leaving the country unlawfully.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Molefe.

MR MOLEFE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Can you just briefly explain to us as to when were you recruited into the ANC and Umkhonto weSizwe and what training did you receive?

MR MATHE: My first contact with the ANC was in 1982. I received my crash course training in 1987.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereabouts did you receive your training Mr Mathe?

MR MATHE: Well, I can say that - well before I met this Unit, I was working with a Unit which was mainly for propaganda purposes in terms, it was a matter of distributing ANC literature and the South African Communist Party literature.

INTERPRETER: I think the speaker is listening to Zulu interpretation.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I have just had interception from the Interpreter's box saying that, are you receiving Zulu interpretation Mr Mathe?

MR MATHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you want?

MR MATHE: I know Sotho myself.

INTERPRETER: You can switch it to channel 2. Mr Mathe, if you can switch to channel 2.

MR MOLEFE: In actual fact, Mr Mathe will conduct his ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think if you switch to channel 2 you will get the English, and it is louder, you pick it up clearer. Just put it on number 2 Mr Mathe. Is that better?

MR MATHE: Yes, it is better.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the question, you said you used to work for a Unit for propaganda purposes, distributing pamphlets, etc, but what I asked you was, you said that you received crash course training in 1987.

MR MATHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that military training?

MR MATHE: Yes, it was.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereabouts did you receive that, overseas, abroad or locally?

MR MATHE: It was within the country, inside the country.

CHAIRPERSON: Where?

MR MATHE: Firstly, my first crash course was at Atteridgeville. It was mainly on the use of a pistol and AK47.

At a later stage I received hand grenade crash course at Soweto. In 1988, after I met the Unit, which I am here with, I received my crash course, further crash course on the same weapons and on different manoeuvres.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Molefe?

MR MOLEFE: Thank you. Who gave you this training?

MR MATHE: Well, the one in 1987, it was a guy named Silver whom I never saw again after the training. In 1987, I was trained by the late Mr Maponya.

MR MOLEFE: All right, you are firstly applying for amnesty in respect of the incident which happened at 3 Mariana Street, on the 18th of March 1988. Can you just briefly explain to us as to what was your role?

MR MATHE: In that incident, myself, Francis and Ernest ...

CHAIRPERSON: Francis being Mr Pitsi?

MR MATHE: Yes, we were ordered to execute.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry you said yourself, Mr Pitsi and?

MR MATHE: Myself, Mr Pitsi and Mr Ramadite.

CHAIRPERSON: Continue?

MR MATHE: We were ordered to execute that very same operation and my main role was to be part of the shooting.

MR MOLEFE: Who gave you the orders?

MR MATHE: I received orders from Odirele Mensday Maponya.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I didn't catch that name?

MR MATHE: From Mr Maponya.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you perhaps draw the microphone a little bit nearer to you?

MR MOLEFE: And can you just give us a description of what happened when you went to this scene?

MR MATHE: When we went to the scene, initially let me say, I was left at a certain place because in the Unit I was in charge of the logistic. Before the attack I had to remain with the weapons and the uniform, so Ernest and Francis went to reconnoitre the place for the last time, and when they came, we moved close to the target.

At the target, when we were still about to go to it, it happened that somebody saw us before we can put on our full uniform.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry before you proceed Mr Mathe. Could you describe what your uniform was?

MR MATHE: Our uniform was overalls, brown overalls.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you have any head gear, balaclava or whatever?

MR MATHE: Stockings.

CHAIRPERSON: Stockings?

MR MATHE: Stockings, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry you say that you were seen at the target area, you were seen by somebody before you had put on your uniforms?

MR MATHE: Yes, and what I want to explain is that the person who saw us was moving towards the intended target. I mean it was the direction of where we were intending to go to.

We had to quickly try to overtake him before he reached there, as he was going to alert the victims.

MR MOLEFE: According to your knowledge, who were the intended targets in respect of that operation?

MR MATHE: In that operation the intended targets were the policemen who frequented that shebeen.

ADV DE JAGER: You have mentioned this person now, and you have left it in the air. What happened, did you overtake him, did you do something to him?

MR MATHE: No, in fact what we did, we overtook him

MR MOLEFE: Yes, and you can continue and explain what happened after you overtook this person.

MR MATHE: While reaching the target, Francis started shooting, but as planned initially, we couldn't maintain skirmish.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry you couldn't maintain the what?

MR MATHE: The skirmish as planned, because that person disturbed us. At the target, I don't know how many shots I fired and in the process, due to the disturbance, as a result, we failed to maintain the initial plan, I mean the skirmish, Francis was injured.

MR MOLEFE: What type of firearm were you using and what type was Francis using?

MR MATHE: Francis was using the AK47 and I was using the pistol.

CHAIRPERSON: The Makorov?

MR MATHE: Yes, the Makorov.

MR MOLEFE: And is it so that you accidentally shot Francis.

MR MATHE: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: What weapon did Ramadite have?

MR MATHE: He was having a hand grenade.

MR MOLEFE: Was the hand grenade hurled at that house?

MR MATHE: No.

MR MOLEFE: Apparently the owner of the house as well as another civilian were injured. Did you know about this and if so, how did it happen or how could it have happened?

MR MATHE: Well, in that operation, I can say we were not intending to injure any of the civilians. It happened as a result I think, perhaps it might have been ricocheted or maybe, well the aiming was not that accurate and that is why they were hit.

MR MOLEFE: Do you know if the policemen who were there, do you know if they retaliated, if they shot back?

MR MATHE: That I cannot say. I am not sure.

MR MOLEFE: Can you just give us any specific reasons why these policemen who were frequenting this shebeen were targeted?

MR MATHE: I was born in Atteridgeville, I grew up in Atteridgeville. What I have seen in Atteridgeville during my upbringing, I was a student activist and part of the community. There were calls, people were urged to join the ranks of the liberation movements in order to destroy apartheid.

From what happened in the township, there was no any let me say, direct involvement of the Security Forces as I can say, but the very CID, Criminal Investigating police in the department, I mean in Atteridgeville, were the ones who were dealing with the political related cases.

In short I can say they played a role which was if I can say, perceived to have been for the Security Forces.

MR MOLEFE: Were these policemen known to you personally, that is the deceased policemen?

MR MATHE: At that stage the one who was very known to me was the late Mr Mphahlele.

MR MOLEFE: How did you come to know Mr Mphahlele?

MR MATHE: Somewhere in the mid-1980's I was arrested by Mr Mphahlele and his colleagues on suspicion. I was locked without any charge after severe beating, let me say, torture. I was denied hospital access. I was held in custody for a period of four days without medical treatment.

MR MOLEFE: When you were arrested by Mr Mphahlele, you are talking about being denied medical treatment, did you suffer injuries?

MR MATHE: Yes, I still have scars on my head.

MR MOLEFE: Mr Chair, I wonder if it is appropriate for him to show us his scars?

CHAIRPERSON: If he wants to, he can show them. The witness indicates a number of scars, I can see from this distance, which is about seven meters away from him, about four or five scars, each of them being about two to two and a half centimetres at length, right at the back of the head.

Would you agree with that Mr Mathe as being a reasonable description of the scars that you have shown?

MR MOLEFE: That is correct.

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: Right, the policemen who passed away, were they the only targets at that particular place and time?

MR MATHE: No, well they were not.

MR MOLEFE: Who were the other targets?

MR MATHE: There was another well, notorious policeman known in Atteridgeville by the name of David, I think Motau, Freeman and Lesley.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry you said the other policemen who were targeted were David Motau, is that one person?

MR MATHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then Freeman and Lesley?

MR MATHE: And Lesley.

CHAIRPERSON: And Lesley, so there were three others?

MR MATHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: David Motau, one called Freeman and another called Lesley?

MR MOLEFE: Besides the fact that these particular policemen, this is the deceased policemen as well as the others who fortunately survived, besides the reasons that you have given that they were investigating politically related matters and so forth, what other reasons was advanced for targeting them?

MR MATHE: I can say, well Atteridgeville, in Atteridgeville we never experienced the so-called black on black violence. But events happened whereby our comrades' houses were bombed, of which by then one logically could have said if there was any clashes between different political parties, that it is politically related, but it was common knowledge that it was the police who were involved behind the bombings.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say the police, do you talk about the police in general or these particular policemen whom you have named?

MR MATHE: Who was exactly involved, I cannot say amongst the police, but it was seen as somebody who was an instrument of the then government.

MR MOLEFE: Are you also aware that during or about that time, an interdict was sought by the Legal Resources Centre against for instance David Motau, interdicting him from attacking activists and their homes?

MR MATHE: Come again?

MR MOLEFE: Are you aware of the interdict which was granted against David Motau in respect of attacking activists' homes and the activists themselves?

MR MATHE: Yes, I am aware of it.

MR MOLEFE: Is there any other thing you would like to say about this particular event?

MR MATHE: All that I would like to say in this particular event is that under normal circumstances, a thing like that couldn't have happened.

I feel that some families have lost their beloved ones, I know that they have got kids to raise, I know that some of them were breadwinners as a result of that incident, to them I am saying I am sorry.

MR MOLEFE: Right, you also apply for amnesty in respect of the blast which took place at Proes Street.

ADV SANDI: I am sorry Mr Molefe, do you mind if I can just interpose here for a moment, pertaining to the incident you have just been dealing with at the moment.

Mr Mathe, were there any other political activists who were arrested, tortured and interrogated by the police you have mentioned, save for yourself?

MR MATHE: Come again?

ADV SANDI: Are there any other comrades from your organisation who were picked up, tortured and interrogated by the police that you have just mentioned?

MR MATHE: Yes. With a guy like Ernest Ramadite, he is a guy who was arrested many times, of which I lost count of.

ADV SANDI: Is that something that was happening generally?

MR MATHE: Yes, it was happening, it was happening generally.

ADV SANDI: You said Mr Mphahlele, when he arrested you he was in the company of his colleagues. Who were these police?

MR MATHE: As far as I can remember, it was on the day we were supposed to bury a lady who was killed because of her son's involvement, a grenade was hurled at the house and as a result, the old lady passed away.

I was on my way to attend the funeral when I was arrested.

ADV SANDI: The three police we are talking about today, who were attacked and killed, were they amongst those who were in the company of Mr Mphahlele?

MR MATHE: Mr Mphahlele was definitely present.

ADV SANDI: The three police who were killed at Mamelodi, were they amongst them?

MR MATHE: At Atteridgeville?

ADV SANDI: Yes?

MR MATHE: I have mentioned Mr Mphahlele, the one I am definitely sure of, he was.

ADV SANDI: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think just on this last incident, before you proceed Mr Molefe.

In your evidence Mr Mathe, you paint a picture of you and your comrades having to hurry to the house because you had been seen before you had put on your uniforms, and you had to overtake this person, and immediately when you got to the house, the shooting started and it wasn't as smooth as you had hoped it to be because of what you referred to, the skirmish, because of this person who had interrupted you.

Yet when evidence was given earlier by another applicant which you heard, we heard that by Mr Pitsi, that they got to the house, they checked it out, they saw a person, they decided to come from a different angle, so as not to shoot because they might hit people who were in the front door and standing there, and they went around the other side, and they came from a different angle to avoid hitting innocent people, etc. That doesn't fit in at all with the picture that you paint.

The picture painted by Mr Pitsi is a deliberate planned operation, that was conducted in an orderly and proper manner if I can put it that way. Yours paint the picture of a hurried operation, you had to run there, get there, pass this guy, shoot to such an extent that you even shot your own comrade? What was the actual position there?

Were you there Mr Molefe?

MR MOLEFE: No, no, I want to refer to the applicant's evidence in chief. He said that he was in charge of logistics, that he was in charge of the hardware which was used and that he was in charge of the uniforms that were used and that the last people who went to do the last reconnaissance, were Ramadite and Francis. That is his evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well, what do you say to what I said, what do you say Mr Mathe? You say Mr Pitsi didn't mention passing this person, having to get passed this other person who had seen them.

MR MATHE: Maybe Mr Chairman, it slipped off his mind.

CHAIRPERSON: So from where did you approach the house?

MR MATHE: We approached the house from, yes well, as I have said, well, I was in charge of all the materials which we were supposed to use, in fact to be used there, they went to ...

ADV DE JAGER: The guns also? The guns were with you?

MR MATHE: They were with me, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Pitsi says is that they even hid their guns when they moved around, I think it was after that. In any event, you can carry on Mr Molefe, we will look at that, unless you want to deal with it with your client now, we can consider that when we consider the evidence.

MR MOLEFE: Right. You are also applying for amnesty in respect of the blast which took place at Proes Street, it was a limpet mine that exploded under a Renault. Can you just briefly tell us what your involvement in respect of that blast it?

MR MATHE: I was ordered to place a limpet mine, mini limpet mine, at any spot around Pretoria, isolated spot, and I was strictly ordered to avoid any casualties, especially civilians.

MR MOLEFE: What was the purpose of that blast?

MR MATHE: The purpose of the blast was to undermine the security of the then regime. The purpose of that blast was to make the ANC presence felt. I mean it was intended that with two blasts almost, well simultaneously, everybody will know that MK was around Pretoria.

MR MOLEFE: Is it so that this blast happened at the same time as the so-called Juicy Lucy blast? Almost at the same time?

MR MATHE: Almost.

MR MOLEFE: Now, was there anybody injured at the Proes Street blast?

MR MATHE: Not any, no.

MR MOLEFE: But was there damage to property?

MR MATHE: Yes, there was.

MR MOLEFE: And is that now the Renault and what else?

MR MATHE: I know only of the Renault.

MR MOLEFE: The Juicy Lucy blast, or maybe if I move to the Juicy Lucy blast, let me go back again to the Proes Street blast.

Were you alone when you placed this limpet mine under the Renault?

MR MATHE: Yes, I was alone.

MR MOLEFE: Right. Before we go to the Juicy Lucy issue, can you just tell us how you travelled for instance to town to go and commit these offences?

MR MATHE: Yes, we started off from Atteridgeville, we used the taxi to reach the place.

ADV DE JAGER: You say we, who is we?

MR MATHE: I was with Ernest Ramadite. I would like to assure this Committee that even though we had the limpet mines with us, they were not set. I mean the timing devices were not activated.

MR MOLEFE: When did you part with Ernest?

MR MATHE: We parted at the taxi rank.

MR MOLEFE: Is that now before the blasts?

MR MATHE: Yes, it was before the blast.

MR MOLEFE: Can you also briefly tell us as to how were there blasts planned and who was present when the planning was done, and who provided you with the limpet mines?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Molefe, before you - keep that question in mind, you parted at the taxi rank. Would that be the taxi rank in Vermeulen Street which Mr Pitsi referred to or was it at another taxi rank?

MR MATHE: I parted with Ernest at Blue taxi rank.

MR MOLEFE: Okay, can you just briefly tell us how were these blasts planned?

MR MATHE: Yes, we had a planning session. Those present at that time was the late Odirele, if I am not mistaken, I think it was Mr Toka, Francis Pitsi, Ernest and myself.

MR MOLEFE: Mr Maleka was already a member of your Unit at that time, is that correct?

MR MATHE: No, he wasn't.

MR MOLEFE: He was not part of the planning of this?

MR MATHE: He was not part of the planning.

MR MOLEFE: Okay. Now what was the instruction, okay you have already explained what your instructions were in respect of Proes Street, but do you know what instructions were given to Ernest in respect of his blast?

MR MATHE: As far as I can remember, Ernest was to place a limpet mine at the vicinity of Vermeulen and Andries Street, which at the time when we sat and talked, it was a matter of that area housed the Ministry of Finance offices, Trade and Industry and the Defence Force.

MR MOLEFE: Was Ernest specifically told where to go and place this limpet mine?

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: I mean specific in terms of saying in a particular flower pot, or underneath a table at a particular place?

MR MATHE: No, in that sense, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was he told to place the limpet mine?

MR MATHE: As far as I can remember, he was told just in the vicinity there.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if you take the intersection of Vermeulen and Andries Street, you've got four corners. There is four corners, was there anything more specific or was it just at the intersection or at the corner of Andries and Vermeulen Street?

MR MATHE: I can't remember of him being that straight, specific let me say.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Molefe, Mr Mathe, I notice that you mentioned that in that vicinity there were Finance, Trade and Industry department offices. Was that an important factor when you took the decision that the limpet mine should be placed in that vicinity?

MR MATHE: You mean in relation to the Trade and Industry offices?

ADV SANDI: Yes.

MR MATHE: I had no say, I was just subordinated myself. I couldn't take any decision, not even, I mean question anything.

ADV SANDI: So this limpet mine was solely directed to members of the SADF?

MR MATHE: I think from the initial planning, it was directed at them and it was a matter of, let me just put it like this from what we were briefed, if one is having a limpet mine, and deactivates a limpet mine, one can intend to go to a specific target. If the target is not suitable, one must have an alternative target.

ADV SANDI: Finance, Trade and Industry departments, were they considered to be alternative targets?

MR MATHE: It was one of the apartheid structures.

ADV DE JAGER: Were they ever discussed in any planning, that Trade and Industry or the Minister of Finance's offices would be a target? Was that ever discussed where you were present?

MR MATHE: In my presence, I remember Ernest raising such things. He was more familiar with Pretoria than myself.

CHAIRPERSON: That is Mr Pitsi?

MR MATHE: Ernest Ramadite.

ADV DE JAGER: Oh. And Mr Pitsi, was he present?

MR MATHE: When that was discussed?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes?

MR MATHE: Yes, he was.

ADV DE JAGER: So it wasn't only the soldiers, it was discussed that all the civil servants there would be targets?

MR MATHE: No, what I am trying to say is Ernest is the one who came with alternatives, I mean in case of he can get disturbances from any other places from the intended target, what can he do with the mine if he is having it with him?

ADV DE JAGER: So it was discussed and it was planned that if he can't reach the soldiers, then you could target the people working at Finance?

MR MATHE: He is the one who was just raising that, in case of something.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, what was said if he raised it, this was a meeting, people were discussing. What was decided?

MR MATHE: Mr Chairman, as far as I can remember, he was strictly - let me not say strictly - but he was ordered to make sure that it is at the intended target.

CHAIRPERSON: Which was?

MR MATHE: Which was the soldiers who used to frequent the place.

ADV SANDI: Should we understand Mr Mathe, should we understand that to mean, you mean to say this thing about the Finance and the Trade and Industry departments, was just mentioned by Mr Ramadite in passing, and it was never followed, is that the position?

MR MATHE: He was just mentioning it in passing.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: When they informed you that they've got permission from Botswana and Lusaka to target this specific target, did they mention that they had permission to target civil servants, working at Trade and Industry or at Finance or at the State library or wherever?

MR MATHE: I was never informed of that.

ADV DE JAGER: So as far as you were concerned, there was no permission to target any other people, but the soldiers?

MR MATHE: Yes, from what I heard from the Commanders.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molefe?

MR MOLEFE: Thank you Mr Chairman. If I understand you correctly, Ernest was given the final or he was told to use his discretion as to where he was finally going to place the limpet mine, is that correct?

MR MATHE: Yes, the alternatives, he has to use his own discretion.

ADV DE JAGER: That is rather a leading question Mr Molefe. Kindly refrain from putting leading questions, if it is on such a crucial aspect. I don't mind you leading on other aspects.

MR MOLEFE: Or maybe let me rephrase it.

ADV DE JAGER: No, you've already put the question, so the damage is done. You can't do anything to it now.

MR MOLEFE: Yes. According to what has already been said in this hearing, apparently this limpet mine was placed in a flower pot, is that correct?

MR MATHE: Yes, it is correct.

MR MOLEFE: Now you have been trained in the use of limpet mines, is that right?

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR MOLEFE: If this limpet mine was just placed on a sidewalk, not in a flower pot, as opposed to what Ernest did, placing it in a flower pot, what difference would it have made?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, will all respect, may I just at this point in time, in view of the fact that this particular applicant clearly indicated that he was not present when the placing of that particular limpet mine in the vicinity of Juicy Lucy, just request the relevance of my learned friend's questions to this applicant in respect thereof, because there is no evidence before this Commission as to the exact situation prevailing there, in other words, to take one simple example, we don't know whether this flower box was filled with soil to the brim of it, whether there was a protruding edge that would have dampened the impact of the explosion.

With great respect, I would submit that the questioning of this applicant as to that particular aspect, is irrelevant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Molefe, does the applicant, did he see the flower pot before the bomb was placed in it, can he describe it?

MR MOLEFE: Do you know the kind of flower pot?

CHAIRPERSON: The flower pot, the said flower pot? Not the kind, the very one, the same one, did he see it that day?

MR MOLEFE: I am referring to that?

MR MATHE: I don't know it. Ernest told me about it after the operation.

CHAIRPERSON: What did he tell you?

MR MATHE: He told me that it was a concrete flower pot.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MATHE: And that it had soil of which there was a space, he told me, from the flowers to the end of the pot.

ADV DE JAGER: But you know that vicinity, isn't there flower pots built around that whole building? My recollection, I haven't seen it recently, but I have the recollection that there were sort of concrete flower pots and a bench to sit, that sort of thing?

MR MATHE: I am not familiar with the vicinity.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mathe, you were trained in the use of limpet mines, do you know all about limpet mines, their power, how they work, that sort of thing from a technical point of view, from a scientific point of view, in other words, are you in a position to comment on the effect of a mine under one condition as opposed to the effect of a mine under another condition as an expert?

MR MATHE: I think that Mr Chairman, will need a specialist

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the answer to his question, would it be of any relevance Mr Molefe.

MR MOLEFE: Then we withdraw it.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, whether what his view is, what it would be if it was on the pavement. My initial reaction to your question was that if it was just placed on the pavement, no one would have got injured, because everyone would have seen it and kept away?

MR MOLEFE: Yes. We withdraw that question. You maintain that your actions as a member of this Unit, were taken after you had received commands from your Commanders?

MR MATHE: Yes, that is true.

MR MOLEFE: I just want to refer to some part of the bundle, Mr Chairman, on page 92 of the bundle you are aware of the fact that amongst the buildings that were damaged there, it was the State library, it is also alleged that the Magistrate court building was damaged and that the Old Mutual building was damaged as well as a vehicle belonging to the South African Defence Force?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, once again with respect, I do not want to curtail my learned friend in the leading of his applicant's evidence, but it is clear, it transpired from his evidence up to this point, that he was not involved in this particular blast, so I fail to see the relevance of his commentary or his knowledge or non-knowledge of buildings being damaged in this particular blast. I fail to see the relevance of that evidence presented by this applicant and furthermore, if I may just point out to the Honourable Commission, that it is not the Magistrate court building at all that was damaged, there is a particular building in that area with the name the Landdrost Gebou, it has got nothing to do with the Magistrate court building at all.

The Magistrates' court is situated in Pretorius Street at the corners of Pretorius and Schubert Streets, which are several street blocks away from that particular vicinity. There might be a total misconception as to the relevance of that name, it is merely a name attached to a particular building.

But I maintain that I fail to see the relevancy of this evidence led by this particular applicant, there was a similar attempt by my learned friend, Mr Molefe, during re-examination, to introduce this evidence in cross-examination of another applicant, which in any case was at that stage not represented by him.

I would submit that we have lost a lot of time during the course of this proceedings, and we are dwelling unnecessarily on matters which is not relevant to the evidence of a particular applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molefe?

MR MOLEFE: Mr Chairman, it is my client's evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if you can ask him which buildings were damaged, you don't have to tell him the names and then get him to confirm it, because that is really leading.

Mr Dreyer, in the same breath, this is part of the indictment before us. Is it common cause that these buildings were damaged, do you deny that these buildings listed on page 92 were damaged? I mean not much turns on it. I appreciate the pointing out of the Landdrost Building not being the Magistrate's court, but is this in dispute?

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, no, it is not in dispute. The objection raised was merely on the basis of relevancy.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well, you see these are before us, you can ask your client what buildings were damaged, but you don't have to tell him which buildings were damaged and ask him what you tell him, is correct. He knows it is a leading question, as we all do, and he will just say yes.

MR MOLEFE: Maybe to save time, Mr Chairman, I will put it in this fashion. Besides the buildings that have been mentioned here, do you know of any other buildings that were damaged as a result of this explosion?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if he could just register his answer, his button was not on. Your last answer was, just repeat your last answer please?

MR MATHE: I said no.

MR MOLEFE: That is all Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Molefe. I see that it is five to one, would this be a convenient time to take the lunch adjournment. We will take the lunch adjournment and resume at half past one.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Molefe, when we adjourned for lunch, Mr Mathe had just concluded his evidence in chief?

MR MOLEFE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, is Mr Mohlaba here? Mr Mohlaba, do you have any questions to ask the witness? Mr Mohlaba doesn't have a microphone before him, so just for the record, he indicated that he has no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mokone, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

GEORGE MATHE: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOKONE: Mr Mathe, without disclosing their names, did you have any informers amongst the ranks of the police, who provided you with information pertaining to the activities of the said police?

MR MATHE: Not of any I know, myself.

MR MOKONE: So the information that you received in connection with this police, was from the community, is that correct?

MR MATHE: As I said before, I knew some of them and they are notorious.

CHAIRPERSON: In your evidence Mr Mathe, I think you mentioned only one, Mr Mphahlele.

MR MATHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know any of the other persons who were targeted or about them?

MR MATHE: Well the victims, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Continue.

MR MOKONE: Can you attribute any of the bombing of the houses that belongs to the comrades, to any of the three policemen?

MR MATHE: I cannot specify but as my Attorney said, one of the policemen was interdicted by the Supreme Court to stop the bombings of the comrades' houses.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but that was another policeman, Mr Motau, that wasn't one of these that you killed.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was can you attribute any of the bombings to any of the three deceased policemen? You, yourself?

MR MATHE: I cannot specifically.

MR MOKONE: Was any policeman identified as the one who was responsible for the bombing, not necessarily by yourself?

MR MATHE: Yes, we used to sing freedom songs about them.

MR MOKONE: My question is, was any particular policeman identified as responsible for the bombing of the comrades' houses?

MR MATHE: You mean amongst the deceased?

MR MOKONE: Any policeman?

MR MATHE: Yes, in the township it was known that especially amongst the CID police, people used to say that they were seen at night, in several comrade houses' raids.

MR MOKONE: You stated earlier that the CID's were involved in political cases. I would like to put it to you that some of your political activities, were purely criminal activities, hence the involvement of the CID's. Can you comment on that?

MR MATHE: Can you specifically say which cases?

MR MOKONE: I just expect you to comment.

CHAIRPERSON: I think if you could perhaps be a bit more specific Mr Mokone, because you have said that the deceased were involved in political cases, but then you put it to him that some of that political cases were purely criminal in nature, hence their involvement.

I mean obviously there is some political cases that, although they might have been in contravention of the then law in existence, they weren't purely criminal matters like for instance belonging to the ANC at that period.

If they had investigated something like that, okay, it would be a criminal offence in the sense that it was a contravention of the legislation that was then in existence, but it was purely political. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific about the nature of the type of crimes, that might help the witness answer that question.

MR MOKONE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Some people were assaulted, some were robbed in the name of political activities.

MR MATHE: That is right.

MR MOKONE: I repeat my question that the CID's were involved because there were some purely criminal activities in your alleged political activities? Can you comment now?

MR MATHE: What I can say is in that time, I can say everything was perceived to be criminal, everything that was, in fact everything that was against apartheid, was a crime.

MR MOKONE: I put it to you that it was the duty of this CID to investigate it if there were criminal activities involved. Will you agree with me?

MR MATHE: I do agree with you.

MR MOKONE: And hence some of these policemen were spotted investigating some of your comrades for criminal activities?

MR MATHE: As I have said, we were regarded as criminals even though we were just activists.

MR MOKONE: You said that Constable Mphahlele once arrested you. When exactly was that?

MR MATHE: I can't remember the year exactly, but it was somewhere between 1985 and 1986.

MR MOKONE: You said that he arrested you on suspicions? Of what were you suspected?

MR MATHE: At that time, there was a house which was petrol bombed in broad daylight. I am not sure from the questions that they wanted, well their interrogation, whether it was his house or one of the policemen's houses who was present during the interrogation.

There was another George whom they were looking for, of which I was picked up myself, tortured.

MR MOKONE: So as a result of this arrest, you have a grudge against Constable Mphahlele?

MR MATHE: No, it was not personal.

MR MOKONE: Do you want to tell this Committee that you did not have any hard feeling against Constable Mphahlele regardless of the assault, regardless of your incarceration for four days, without any charges laid against you, you did not have any hard feeling?

MR MATHE: If I have to put it like this, clearly I can say that I had a hard feeling against the whole system, apartheid system in general.

It was solely not personally.

MR MOKONE: Do you want to tell this Committee that it is a coincidence that after the bad treatment that you received from Constable Mphahlele, you ultimately became one of his killers, it was just a coincidence, it is not related?

MR MATHE: Like I said, that was not my first arrest. I have to put it clear in front of this Committee, that was not personal, I was only carrying out my duties.

MR MOKONE: You said that you had a list of the police you were supposed to attack.

MR MOLEFE: Correction through you, Mr Chairman. The applicant has never spoken about a list in his evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he didn't talk about a list as I understood it, in the sense of a list of names on a piece of paper, but he did mention that there were seven policemen who were targeted, the three deceased, was it seven, and David Motau, or was it six, Freeman and Lesley, I think, or Foreman and Lesley.

MR MOLEFE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MOKONE: Thank you Mr Chairman. You mentioned names of the people that you were supposed to target. Was Constable Barney Mope one of them?

MR MATHE: Well then by then I didn't know of him, myself personally. I didn't know.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was not whether you knew him, the question was at the time of the incident, was Constable Barney Mope one of the persons listed as a target or named as a target?

MR MATHE: No, as far as I can recall.

MR MOKONE: If I understand you correctly, you killed somebody you knew nothing of because he is one of the police killed on that day?

MR MATHE: I would like to make it clear in front of this Committee, that at that time, we saw the policemen when I say we, I include even the community and especially those who were participants, we saw each and every policeman as a sell out, especially black policemen and especially those who were residing with us because we were on the other side, they were on the other side.

To me, I think that it doesn't make any difference at this moment, I mean at that moment, whether he was involved in the security, whether I knew him, but the fact that they were identified as those policemen who were there.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Mathe, at the time of the shooting, at Mariana Street, were the three deceased, the policemen who were shot either by yourself or Mr Pitsi, in uniform?

MR MATHE: No, they were not.

CHAIRPERSON: So if you said you didn't know Mr Mope at all and you didn't even know that he was named as a target, who did you shoot at, who did you shoot towards?

MR MATHE: I didn't doubt the integrity of the reconnaissance which was conducted by my comrades.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you just explain, you said that you went to the scene, what did your companions tell you about the targets and who to shoot, because we have heard that there were about 10 to 12 people there, it was a shebeen and there were other people there, enjoying the services offered by the shebeen.

Now, how did you personally know who to shoot at?

MR MATHE: I was briefed about their, well the way they were sitting at that moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mokone?

MR MOKONE: Thank you Chairperson. Can you repeat your question again from the Chairperson.

MR MATHE: I said I was briefed about the way they were sitting at that moment.

MR MOKONE: When exactly were you briefed?

MR MATHE: It was after Francis and Ernest came back, after the reconnaissance.

MR MOKONE: You have just said that you perceived every policeman as an enemy, but when this question was put to Mr Pitsi, he said that not every policeman was an enemy, there were good policemen and bad policemen. What do you say about that?

MR MATHE: Myself personally, I can say that as part of the community of Atteridgeville, to me by then, every policeman was part of the system which was hated. Well I can say that by that time, one couldn't even make, I couldn't differentiate between a good man and a policeman because they were all doing the same job of - I can say that they were, well they were enforcing apartheid laws one way or the other.

MR MOKONE: Mr Pitsi is also a member of the Atteridgeville community, he is a member of the ANC, he was a member of Umkhonto weSizwe that time, the same as you are a member of the Atteridgeville community, a member of the ANC and a member of Umkhonto weSizwe at that time, but you have different policies?

MR MATHE: It is not a policy.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think if someone things there were good policemen and bad policemen and somebody else thinks that all policemen were bad, that there is a conflict of policy there, it is just a person's own views, personal views.

MR MOKONE: My last question is, I put it to you that your participated in the shooting with the intention to avenge what Constable Mphahlele did to you, can you comment on that?

MR MATHE: I say no.

MR MOKONE: That is all Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mokone. Ms Monyane, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MONYANE: Yes Your Honour, I have some questions to ask the applicant.

Mr Mathe, were you involved in the planning of this operation?

MR MATHE: At the planning, yes.

MS MONYANE: And Mr Pitsi said that we identified the targets and we went to our Commanders with the target. Were you also involved?

MR MATHE: I was the last subordinate in the Unit. Okay, let me put it like this in front of the Committee, militarily if I have a Commander, my Commander, I have to hear a lot of things from my Commander, so he cannot take me at any time, I mean, to meet his immediate seniors.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the question Mr Mathe was, the gist of the question was, did you yourself, identify any of the targets before the Commanders were approached?

MR MATHE: Myself?

CHAIRPERSON: Yourself, either yourself or yourself in conjunction with other members of your Unit, namely Ernest and Mr Pitsi?

MR MATHE: Can you please clarify me on this, overall targets or specifically the one?

MS MONYANE: I am speaking about these notorious policemen, which you have been, since yesterday they have been referring to these notorious policemen. I want to know that you were involved in identifying these policemen?

MR MATHE: In fact, where I used to stay by them, it was not far from the place where the attack took place, so I used to see them many, many times at that place.

CHAIRPERSON: So is your answer, what is your answer to the question, were you involved in identifying the policemen who were the targets of that attack yes or no, are you saying yes?

MR MATHE: Yes.

MS MONYANE: So now you are saying that you knew that Barney Mope, Mr Mphahlele and Mr Phenyane were the notorious police and as a result, you saw them as an obstruction to your mission and they had to be eliminated? That is what you are saying?

MR MATHE: I have said that I only knew of one policemen amongst the three deceased. I also stated that I didn't doubt the integrity especially of Ernest Ramadite who knew them very, very, very well.

When he came to us to say who was them, I just ...

MS MONYANE: You just said that you were born and bred in Atteridgeville and if you were born and bred in Atteridgeville, you must have known that these are the notorious policemen, A, B, C, D, are the notorious policemen if you were born in Atteridgeville.

In my mind, I am telling myself you cannot rely on the information given to you by somebody else.

MR MATHE: Please, I hope you will bear with me if I can say we were in a structure whereby myself, as a subordinate, in fact what used to happen was, if you were given an order, it was a matter of complying, if you have a complaint, you will complain after the order.

It was simply an order, and I was executing it myself.

CHAIRPERSON: No but I think what Ms Monyane is asking you about is, you said earlier that you were involved in the planning, so that is not just a question of executing an order if you are involved in the planning?

MR MATHE: Can you rephrase the question then.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Ms Monyane, maybe it can help if we can take these names of the police one by one. Before that day when this police were attacked and killed, did you know Barney Mope?

MR MATHE: I have to be honest to this Commission, I knew many policemen at Atteridgeville.

ADV SANDI: Let's talk about Mr Barney Mope?

MR MATHE: I cannot specifically say - I knew them facially, most of them, not by names.

ADV SANDI: Did you know about him, did you know there was a person by the name of Barney Mope who was a policeman, harassing comrades?

MR MATHE: Yes, I knew that.

ADV SANDI: Did you know Mr Nelson Phenyane?

MR MATHE: That I didn't know.

ADV SANDI: Did you know about him?

MR MATHE: No, except that he was a policeman.

ADV SANDI: I don't know, Ms Monyane, whether this has somehow helped?

MS MONYANE: Mr Chair, I will because the applicant cannot answer that answer and give us a straight answer to that, I will leave and move to another question.

Any policemen to you, was an enemy to you because the policemen was working for the then government, is that true?

MR MATHE: Before I answer this question, I would also like to make it clear in front of this Commission, I think the aim of this Commission is for us to reach a point of reconciliation, and I don't want to find myself answering questions which may at the end of the day, open the wounds.

If I have to say to you that by then, I hope or wish that this Commission can take it into consideration, there was anger between the community, there was anger between the people who were feeling that it was too much with apartheid.

MS MONYANE: Mr Mathe, this Committee is about the truth, about full disclosure, it is about also opening those wounds and we are also in a process of healing those wounds, hence some of the questions you have to answer.

I would leave that question and move to another question.

ADV DE JAGER: No but, sorry, I think you have already said you considered all policemen to be enemies because they were in the service of the State?

MR MATHE: Yes.

MS MONYANE: Has it ever occurred to you that those policemen, they were fending for their families, they had to work, even if they had to work for the apartheid government?

MR MATHE: I think in the closing, I said that I know some of them, or maybe all of them, were breadwinners, married with children. That is why I also extended my sincere sorry. I am saying sorry once again.

MS MONYANE: We have just heard now, you said that this policemen, the notorious policemen, were seen by some of the people at night, at your comrades' homes.

Mr Chairman, I think this question is going to lead me to the same question that I have asked Mr Pitsi.

CHAIRPERSON: But I think you can probably precede your question which I expect you to ask, do you know the people who said that of the people, he might not have received the information directly, he might have just heard it from his comrades?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know of any informers that told your Unit that these people were notorious?

MR MATHE: I was attending meetings, we used to sing even in our freedom songs, about some of the policemen in Atteridgeville. We used to sing about them, so it was not a point of in my case, for somebody to come and tell me so, so so, is notorious, especially those known to, well, the whole community.

MS MONYANE: Mr Mathe, if you knew that these police were notorious, I don't think it was going to be difficult for you to answer the question, who did what?

MR MATHE: Regarding the bombing?

MS MONYANE: Yes, the bombings?

MR MATHE: We never had access to investigate and I think if by then, we could have or if the situation was like today, whereby there is balance, I think if we could have conducted what I can call independent investigations, I think we are going to find out, really because we are convinced.

CHAIRPERSON: No but the question was, do you yourself know, you can't say well Constable Mope was involved in the bombing of a house situated at such and such a place, comrade so and so's house and Constable Phenyane was involved in a particular bombing and Mphehlele?

MR MATHE: No.

MS MONYANE: Thank you Chair. Are you going to answer that question?

CHAIRPERSON: Which one?

MS MONYANE: The question that I have just asked him, and that Mr Chair was elaborating on it?

CHAIRPERSON: The one about does he know what particular acts any of the deceased were involved in?

MS MONYANE: Yes Mr Chair.

MR MATHE: I said no.

MS MONYANE: When you were at the scene of the attack, Mr Ramadite had a hand grenade, is that correct?

MR MATHE: Ramadite.

MS MONYANE: Was that, did he throw that hand grenade?

MR MATHE: No, that was not the intention. That was not - he had the grenade in case of there can be any pursuit or unforeseeable outcomes of that operation.

CHAIRPERSON: No but the question was very simple, did he throw the grenade?

MR MATHE: No.

MS MONYANE: Mr Mathe, this interdict that was done and obtained against Mr Motau, it was only Mr Motau who was interdicted, not the other policemen according to your knowledge?

MR MATHE: According to my knowledge, yes.

MS MONYANE: Why were the other policemen not included because they were also notorious, do you know?

MR MATHE: I was not on the side of the law at that time. I couldn't know what was going to happen with the others and the rest, I didn't follow that.

MS MONYANE: Thank you Mr Chair, that is my questioning for Mr Mathe.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Monyane. Mr Dreyer, do you have any questions to ask the applicant?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: Yes Mr Chairman. Mr Mathe, you indicated that you parted with Ernest, referring to Mr Ramadite, at the taxi range, is that correct?

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR DREYER: From there onwards, until you apparently met one another afterwards, you had no contact with him?

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR DREYER: So you were not present when he executed what he targeted himself to do and neither was he, in respect of yourself?

MR MATHE: I was not present.

MR DREYER: Now, you received two mines, you and Mr Ramadite, received two mines, if I am not mistaken from Mr Pitsi, is that correct?

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR DREYER: The one was a mini and the other was a super limpet?

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR DREYER: Were you specifically given the mini limpet mine and him specifically the more serious or the other type of mine, from the outset?

MR MATHE: Yes, it was specific.

MR DREYER: And were you given that mine for any particular reason, the mini limpet mine?

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR DREYER: Why were you given a mini limpet mine and he was given another type of mine?

MR MATHE: I was not in the commanding structure's mind. As I said, we used to comply and if there was a complaint or anything ...

MR DREYER: Okay, no I understand that, but what I am saying is, the giving of a particular explosive device to each of you, was that accompanied by a specific instruction as to what should be done to that particular mine, because that particular mine is suited to a particular type of explosion or application?

MR MATHE: Yes, in my case it was made clear.

MR DREYER: So it was made clear to you, you are being given a mini limpet mine, because you must go to Proes Street and you must put it underneath a vehicle to have this blast, not to injure someone, but to draw the attention to the presence of MK in the white community or the city areas, where apparently previously they were not that active, am I correct?

MR MATHE: You are correct, yes.

MR DREYER: And it even went further, you spontaneously gave evidence to the effect that you were strictly ordered not to involve civilians, there shouldn't be any injury to civilians in your blast?

MR MATHE: Yes, I was told to avoid civilian casualties by all means.

MR DREYER: If we take it upon that consideration that you were given the mini limpet mine to execute a specific task, would it be fair and reasonable to accept that the same applied to Mr Ramadite, that he was also then given this other type of mine and he was also given specific instructions to do what with that, would you say that is a fair inference?

MR MATHE: That I cannot answer, especially on his behalf.

ADV DE JAGER: No, but let's start there, when this mine was handed to you, was the other mine at the same time, handed to Mr Ramadite?

CHAIRPERSON: In your presence?

MR MATHE: Yes, in my presence.

CHAIRPERSON: It was handed to Ramadite in your presence?

MR MATHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You were both together when you each got the mine?

MR MATHE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you at that stage told what you should do and what you should avoid?

MR MATHE: Yes, I was.

ADV DE JAGER: In his presence, in Ramadite's presence you received these orders?

MR MATHE: Yes, the final orders.

ADV DE JAGER: Right. What was his final order given in your presence?

MR MATHE: His final orders was for him to place the mine at the intended target and he must make sure that it doesn't, he must try by all means, to avoid civilian casualties.

ADV DE JAGER: And was he told where to put the mine?

MR MATHE: As I have said, at the target which was mentioned.

ADV DE JAGER: The Juicy Lucy, what was the target, the Juicy Lucy?

MR MATHE: Yes, the target was where the soldiers usually go and eat of which it was, well, the same Juicy Lucy.

ADV DE JAGER: Was the name Juicy Lucy ever mentioned?

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. You know Mr Mathe, this is astonishing to me, because every time you are requested to give particular, rather simple information about a certain thing, you seem to change your answer.

When you were questioned, or your evidence in chief was led by your own Attorney, and you were asked do you know what the instruction was given to Ernest, you said yes, he was supposed to place the mine in the vicinity of Vermeulen and Andries Street, because and then you gave a particular answer, so it was not just a blank statement.

You were even on your own accord, able to give an explanation why a particular order was given to him. When you are now questioned by the Commission, as to the specific mentioning of the name Juicy Lucy, you say yes. Surely Juicy Lucy and the vicinity of Vermeulen and Andries Street, is not the same thing? What is your comment on that? Why is there a total difference in a simple answer to a simple question?

MR MATHE: What I have to say, for my evidence I gave, I said that he was supposed to put the bomb within the vicinity of Andries and Vermeulen Street, of which he had a discretion, in fact he is the one who raised that, in case of where I have to put it, there are disturbances because he even mentioned of other places of government interest just within that vicinity.

MR DREYER: Mr Mathe, the point is that two former applicants or applicants that gave evidence prior to yourself, and which apparently served in the MK at a higher level of designation and command, gave evidence and none of those two applicants, being Mr Toka and Mr Pitsi, none of them, had anything to say about this alleged alternative target or that it was mentioned even in the passing, by Mr Ramadite, that if he fails to attract the attention or if he fails to reach the target that was intended, namely the SADF or members thereof or whatever, that he would go for any alternative target and more particularly the Ministry of Finance, Trade and Industry or whatever.

All I would like to know is, why is it that the higher levels of command, the decision making functionaries, they do no mention this to the Committee, then you come along, and suddenly you give a far more elaborate version of how there was this discussion and several other alternatives of possible targets was mentioned? How come?

MR MATHE: I have to - if I have to put it clearly, I considered even after the adjournment, they even said that, these things happened. We have to bear in mind that it was 11 years ago so it happened, it was out of their mind.

MR DREYER: Yes Mr Mathe, let me immediately put that in the correct perspective as well because I don't care what happened during the adjournment, I am not in a position to comment on that, I can only question you and I can only comment on the spontaneous evidence that was given before this Commission, and I put it to you sir, that it was a very specific issue in the evidence of Mr Pitsi as well as Mr Toka, that the whole and the primary object of this whole bomb blast that occurred in the vicinity of Juicy Lucy, was solely directed against members of the SADF that purportedly frequented that particular venue, namely the Juicy Lucy.

There was absolutely no indication, no indication of alternative targets. In fact, Mr Pitsi even said that if Mr Ramadite went along and he at the scene decided to place the bomb somewhere else, it was then the result of his own accord and not because that was the order.

All I am saying is what you have to tell us now, is a totally different story, it is simply a totally different story than the version of the two gentlemen that I have just referred to.

It is astonishing to me that an operative on your level, you have all this information, you make mention of alternative targets, and if I am not mistaken, on a question of the Commission whether or not you knew, or you got to know at some stage that there was a ratification by the command in Lusaka or Botswana, also of these alternative targets, if the primary target is not to be reached, you said yes, if I am not mistaken. You can correct me if I am wrong.

MR MATHE: No, I never said that.

MR DREYER: All right, I will leave it at that.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Dreyer, kindly ask a shorter question. I think he will not be able to answer all the questions you have involved in this long paragraph.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. The question Mr Mathe entails the fact that I have given back to you your version of what transpired at the discussion, what instructions were given and I am putting it to you that that is a totally different story, which was relayed to this Commission by the two more senior members, Mr Pitsi and Mr Toka. Can you give any explanation why that is so?

MR MATHE: Mr Chairman, I think before I ...(indistinct) this Commission, I made an oath that I will say the truth and nothing but the truth, so what I've said is the truth.

MR DREYER: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Would it not be better, Mr Dreyer, if you point out the specific differences and contradictions between his version and the versions of previous witnesses?

ADV DE JAGER: I think then we'll be here until next week.

MR DREYER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Mathe, lets just dwell a little bit more on the difference. It was put to you by the Commission that there are clearly four corners to this particular intersection of Vermeulen and Andries Street, and you were questioned whether or not there was a specific instruction to Mr Ramadite to place this particular explosive device at a particular venue, and your answer to that was there was no particular place, he had the discretion to decide.

Now that once again, Sir, is a total different story than the version given by Mr Toka and Mr Pitsi in regard to the order and the instruction that was given to Mr Ramadite, and according to them whatever order was given to him, Sir, was ratified by either the Botswana or the Lusaka commanding hierarchy. So the question is simple, why, why do they present a version to this Commission very clearly, very simply; that that was the instruction and on that instruction we gained ratification from the higher echelons of the command.

ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible)

MR DREYER: Why is that, Mr Mathe?

MR MOLEFE: With due respect, Mr Chairman, before my client answers this question I just want to place it on record that I disagree with my learned friend that there was a contradiction there. I think we've spent a lot of time with Mr Toka for instance, finding out, was Mr Ramadite told to go and specifically place this bomb at Juicy Lucy or not. We even went into describing how Juicy Lucy was and I don't think his answer was that it was supposed to be, he was instructed to specifically place it at Juicy Lucy.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but my understanding, Mr Molefe was, through the evidence of both Mr Pitsi and Mr Toka, that the targeted area was that corner of the intersection near where Juicy Lucy is at least. Now what Mr Dreyer is putting to the witness is that in his evidence-in-chief he said that Ramadite had the discretion to place it anywhere in that intersection, in any of the four corners, it could have diagonally across the street and nowhere near Juicy Lucy. So maybe if you can answer that.

MR MATHE: But in my evidence I think I've stated that he was given an order to place the limpet-mine where the soldiers ...(indistinct) frequent the place, of which in my leading evidence, I never mentioned Juicy Lucy, but I've said of a place where those soldiers ...(indistinct) frequent.

MR DREYER: I've taken note of your answer. I'll leave that for argument, let's just get ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: And when I questioned you I asked you whether the names Juicy Lucy was ever mentioned and you said yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That wasn't in-chief, that was ...

ADV DE JAGER: A few moments ago, ja, a moment or two ago.

MR MATHE: I said yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

MR DREYER: So once again, Mr Mathe, I put it to you, you tend to amend your evidence as you go along, and I'll leave that for argument.

To make quite sure that we do not misunderstand one another, did you yourself personally overhear an instruction given or a concession made by either Mr Toka or Mr Pitsi to Mr Ramadite that if he cannot attain the primary goal of setting this explosive device at Juicy Lucy in order to be effective against SADF members, that he is allowed to place it anywhere in that vicinity because of the simple fact that there are also government buildings there, and more particularly, this Ministry of Finance, Industry and that? Did you hear either a direct command to that effect, that he's allowed to do so or that any one of the two of them conceded that if he is not in a position to attain the primary goal, that he may use his own discretion? Did you ever overhear anything of that kind?

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR DREYER: Now can you ...(intervention)

MR MATHE: I say yes.

MR DREYER: Yes, your answer is yes. Now can you give any indication, Sir, why on a crucial type of matter like that, an order, why would neither Mr Toka nor Mr Pitsi relay that to this Commission because, and I will tell you why I consider it to be important, because both those two members or applicants apply for amnesty on the very basis that they were not specifically involved in any act, but because of their involvement in the chain of command. So obviously to the two of them, the commands or the orders given were important, do you agree with me?

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR DREYER: It was important to them.

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR DREYER: Now we're ad idem on that basis, if that was so important for them in their capacity as the people, the decision-makers, the people who gave the orders, why did not one of the two of them mention this alternative target at all to this Commission, why? Can you give any reason?

MR MATHE: I think what I'm trying to disclose here is the truth and if maybe it slipped off their minds or they'd forgotten after 11 years, so I'm saying what I heard.

MR DREYER: Yes, Mr Mathe, you were also questioned by one of the Members of the Commission in respect of the involvement or the importance of the Finance Trade and Industry building in that vicinity and in response thereto you made the following statement at a stage in your answer, that if the original target cannot be reached, you must find, the operative must find an alternative target. Do you remember that you said that?

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR DREYER: Do you remember that you also testified, Sir, that when the two explosive devices were given to you and Mr Ramadite respectively, that they were not armed, they were still not armed, the explosive device was unarmed, am I correct? So it was within the two of you's discretion either to arm or not to arm, am I correct?

MR MATHE: You're correct.

MR DREYER: Ja. Now why, Sir, do you say that once you can't achieve the primary goal, that you must find an alternative target, why is that so?

MR MATHE: I've - let me bring it to the attention of the Commission that with weapons like limpet-mines, anywhere there is no way a person can come with a limpet-mine and just activate it in front of the people. Usually it happens at a distance before well, the target. If I'm having the limpet-mine I won't pull out the pin at the target, I'll obviously pull it before I reach the target, then leave the mine there and go. So in this case, what I can say is if I've already pulled the pin and the target is not as I expected the situation to be, I'll automatically have to move away from the mine.

MR DREYER: Yes, I agree with you totally, Mr Mathe, but the problem that I have with the whole construction of your argument is, why then do you still proceed with that armed explosive device and place it at a particular location where it has a far higher risk of injuring or killing innocent people that's got absolutely no relation to the primary target, the SADF?

MR MATHE: Come again?

MR DREYER: I'll repeat that. You said come again, I'll repeat it again.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Dreyer, which land-mine are you referring to now, are you talking about the one that was placed at the vehicle?

CHAIRPERSON: He's just talking in theory now, saying that -I think what the question is, Mr Mathe, what Mr Dreyer is trying to get across to you is that you say that; okay, I've got my target, I'm going to put this limpet-mine at spot X, and before you get to spot X, you arm it, you pull the pin and then you come around the corner and you see spot X is impossible for you to place the bomb there because there's something unexpected, as you put it, there. You then say that you must then find an alternative target because the bomb is now ticking away, and you put it on an alternative target. Now Mr Dreyer is saying; well if that is the case, then why put it in such a place where innocent people who have got no connection with the original target, namely Defence Force personnel, may get injured? Was that the question?

MR DREYER: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what Mr Dreyer is asking.

MR MOLEFE: Mr Chairman, this particular question that my learned friend is directing to the applicant now, it's almost similar to a question that I tried to put to the applicant during his evidence-in-chief. My learned friend objected on the basis that Mr Mathe was not there when Mr Ramadite put that limpet-mine and he therefore cannot comment. And I say he must therefore not ask that question to Mr Mathe.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think any answer that Mr Mathe might give will convince the Commission that Ramadite thought in the same way.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, not in the slightest way did I connect this question that I've put to the applicant, to the conduct of the way of thinking of Mr Ramadite. I was putting a hypothetical statement to him, if on the basis that he has explained that he has to find an alternative and he's now faced with an armed explosive device and he has now, of his being put in a situation where he must find an alternative way to get rid of this. All I said, is it then fair to take this explosive device and put it at a point where there is a totally higher risk to unsuspected and ...

CHAIRPERSON: I agree with Mr Molefe, it's going to get us nowhere, whatever his answer is on this aspect because he had one bomb, he put it on the bomb(sic) and blew up the motorcar. You know, whether he says yes, it's fair or no, it's unfair, I can't see how it's going to assist us at all in our investigation here.

MR DREYER: I'll leave it at that, Mr Chairman.

Mr Mathe, were you present - I made a note that I was busy making the note when you gave your evidence and I hadn't completed it at that stage so I just want to make sure, did you ever attend a meeting or were you ever present when anyone gave the impression that the Botswana or Lusaka command ratified the setting of the limpet-mine in the vicinity of Juicy Lucy, not only because of the possible presence of South African Defence Force members, but also because of the presence of other government buildings? Have you specifically heard from anyone that such ratification has been given by the command in Botswana or Lusaka?

MR MATHE: No, not specifically.

MR DREYER: Oh.

ADV DE JAGER: Ratification in the sense of afterwards or before the explosion?

MR DREYER: Ratification, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: ...(indistinct) after the explosion in fact.

MR DREYER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MATHE: About Botswana, in fact we never as I've said, as a ...(indistinct) subordinate, I only knew of my immediate commanders, about Botswana who I was totally not in the picture.

MR DREYER: Right. And then just to put that in the correct perspective. If I understand you correctly, even prior to the explosion there was a discussion between Mr Ramadite, Pitsi, Toka whoever, his commanding officer or commanding superior prior to the explosion, that it's quite alright, if he can't succeed in setting the bomb in a location where it would be directed against SADF members, he must still place it in that vicinity because in any case there are other buildings, state buildings. If I understand your evidence correctly you overheard that, it was discussed in your presence and it was okayed by the commanding superiors?

MR MATHE: My immediate commanders.

MR DREYER: Ja. That is how I understood your evidence.

MR MATHE: Come again with your question.

MR DREYER: I've now just asked you, Sir, have you ever heard subsequent to the bomb blast from anyone that subsequent to the bomb blast because no SADF members were injured or whatever, the Botswana or Lusaka command said; we ratify this, we say it's alright, this bomb blast because in any case there were other buildings, state buildings in the vicinity. You said no, you don't know, alright? Now I want to know, I just want to make sure that prior to the explosion when there was the discussion and the instructions were given to you and Mr Ramadite to go on your each and everyone of your way and do the specific task that you were charged with, did you definitely, you yourself personally overhear either Mr Toka or Mr Pitsi saying to Mr Ramadite; listen yes, if you go there and you can't attain your primary goal of setting this device at a place where it will affect members of the SADF, you may still place it anywhere there at your discretion because in any case there is state and government buildings in that vicinity? Did you ever hear that, because that is the impression I got from ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just let him give the answer.

MR MATHE: Well I said that after Ernest came with that, I mean whereby he wanted to use his discretion in case of well there'll be any ...(indistinct) for him to execute, the order, what I heard was he was told to use his own discretion. And I've said that Ernest was more familiar with Pretoria of which after that I've never heard anymore thing ...(indistinct).

MR DREYER: ...(inaudible) just follow that up, Sir. One of the members of the Commission specifically asked you whether Mr Pitsi was present when this discussion took place about the Finance Trade & Industry building as an alternative target and you said yes, am I correct?

MR MATHE: I said yes.

MR DREYER: Yes. Then lastly, Mr Mathe, do you have an idea what happened to Mr Ramadite, what is his current whereabouts, do you know?

MR MATHE: Mr Ramadite I last saw him at the weekend but the mother told me that he will be admitted at the mental asylum because he's like he's having a relapse.

MR DREYER: I see. Now at the time when you together with some of the other applicants were charged criminally, was Mr Ramadite also charged?

MR MATHE: Yes, he was.

MR DREYER: And at the time of that appearance, prior to the escape by some of the applicants, was he still fit and sound in his mind?

MR MATHE: I grew up with Ernest Ramadite. Immediately after - because what happened after our arrest, we were placed under Section 29 of the Internal Security Act which simply solitary confinement for six months and two weeks but after we were released from Section 29 to face all these charges, it's when I saw a change in him. I saw that he was no longer the same Ernest I knew. Well, to me it's when I realised the change but we never had any counselling to this date.

MR DREYER: Alright, okay. Then, Mr Mathe, just one thing, you said that Ernest told you, subsequent to the bomb blast he told you something about a bomb blast in which he was involved, explaining everything or nothing or whatever, I just wanted to know, was this immediately after the blast that you had a prior arrangement that you would meet one another at a certain place or was it some time after that?

MR MATHE: Immediately we met.

MR DREYER: And did he at that stage give you any indication that he could not set the limpet-mine at the place which he had in mind?

MR MATHE: What he told me was that he will explain everything to the commanders but he wished that the mine doesn't injure civilians, because of it was placed under the flower box. That's what he told me.

MR DREYER: He placed it where?

MR MATHE: In the flower box.

MR DREYER: In the flower box?

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR DREYER: That's all he told you?

MR MATHE: That's all he told me.

MR DREYER: So he never indicated to you that he had to set it at another place other than he initially intended to?

MR MATHE: No, he never mentioned that to me.

MR DREYER: So for all we knew from the outset that is where he wanted to put the limpet-mine because he didn't indicate anything to the contrary to you?

MR MATHE: You want to know if he is ...(intervention)

MR DREYER: What I'm saying is, he never indicated to you; Mr Mathe, you know there was a change of plan, I had to take an alternative to the original order or plan because I couldn't set the bomb or the limpet-mine where I wanted to put it?

MR MATHE: No.

MR DREYER: He never indicated that to you?

MR MATHE: No, he never.

MR DREYER: You also mentioned that he was much more acquainted with the Pretoria area than yourself.

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR DREYER: And you also indicated that he was given the right of way to use his discretion as to where to put the limpet-mine.

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR DREYER: And that happened at the same time when you were given your orders.

MR MATHE: Yes.

MR DREYER: So when he left together with yourself and in his possession was this explosive device, he already had an order together with a mandate that he may use his own discretion?

MR MATHE: But it was stressed several times that he must deliberate the mine at the intended target.

MR DREYER: It was stressed several times?

MR MATHE: Yes, he must by all means try because there was always an alternative. I mean in case of things don't work the way one expects.

MR DREYER: I see. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Dreyer. Mr Joubert, do you have any questions to ask the applicant?

MR JOUBERT: No questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga, do you have any questions?

MS MTANGA: I have no questions, Mr Chairperson, save to say that I've consulted with Ms Penyane and Ms Tickey Maleka who were also affected in the incident of the policemen. Initially I said that Ms Maleka will give evidence and she's now accepted the view of the applicants, that they may have been injured by mistake and therefore she will no longer give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that information, Ms Mtanga.

Mr Molefe, do you have any re-examination?

MR MOLEFE: None, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Jager, do you have any questions?

ADV DE JAGER: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi?

ADV SANDI: None.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mathe, you may stand down. That concludes your testimony.

MR MATHE: Thanks.

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, the only other applicant that I'm going to represent is Mr Nkosi and we will only be ready to proceed with him tomorrow morning. I need to consult with him today. I haven't had an opportunity to consult with him yet.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, are you in a position to commence with one of your remaining clients?

MR MOHLABA: ...(no audible reply)

CHAIRPERSON: Well we're going to treat this whole lot as one - I mean we've heard all about, we can't start splitting out the evidence we've already heard. Mr Toka has given evidence concerning it, so their application is, I mean each application is a separate application but this is a hearing in respect of the eight applicants here. The only one that was treated separately was the very first applicant that we heard on Monday, because the incident that he was involved in was peculiar to him and him alone.

MR MOHLABA: That is correct, we are indeed ready to proceed and we would however want to ask for a short adjournment just to sort out the logistic as to who is getting called first.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, we'll have a short adjournment for five or ten minutes and then you can let us know.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair. I wish to call Mr Legodi, Reginald Noah Legodi who is the 7th applicant. Mr Legodi would want to testify in Sotho.

INTERPRETER: What Sotho is that, North or South Sotho?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba, the interpreter has asked what Sotho, Northern or Southern. Northern Sotho?

REGINALD NOAH LEGODI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair. Mr Legodi will be applying for amnesty for the grenade attack at Ndala's place, that's malicious damage to property, and also for a grenade attack at Mphahlele's place, another malicious damage to property and he will also apply for amnesty for escape from lawful custody. CHAIRPERSON: The first two items he's applying for, wouldn't that involve an attempted murder? Wasn't that the purpose of the using of the hand-grenade?

MR MOHLABA: It appears not to be the case.

CHAIRPERSON: I think probably what would be ...(intervention)

MR MOHLABA: It would appear I believe in ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He applies for attempted murder on his documentation, so I think if the Commission is of the view that there was an attempted murder and is also at the end of the day of the view that there should be amnesty granted, then it's been asked for, for attempted murder. We will listen to the evidence and see whether there is an attempted murder there as well.

I also might add that usually, certainly what my approach has been is that if people apply for amnesty in respect of lets say, murder and there is the use of a bomb, that that would also include the unlawful possession of an explosive device.

EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair, certainly that is the case.

Mr Legodi, you were borne in Pretoria during 1966, is that correct?

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: What is your present occupation?

MR LEGODI: I'm a sergeant in the South African National Defence Force.

MR MOHLABA: Were you during the period April 1988 and May 1988, a member of a political organisation and if that is the case, tell us the name of such organisation.

MR LEGODI: I'm a member of the ANC and their military wing, that is MK.

MR MOHLABA: Do you remember when you joined the ANC and its military wing, Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR LEGODI: Yes, I think about 1988, if I'm not mistaken. Around March of that year.

MR MOHLABA: Can you tell this Commission of the manner in which you came to join this organisation, that is how were you recruited into the organisation and ...(intervention)

MR LEGODI: It was through James Gasi, together with Rodney Toka.

MR MOHLABA: And after you had joined, did you undergo any training as a member of the MK and if you underwent the training can you explain the nature of the training given to you and where was the training conducted?

MR LEGODI: I received the first training which was about how to use the pistols and other weapons. After that we were trained in the handling of grenades. We received that training around Mamelodi.

MR MOHLABA: In your application form that is on paragraph 7 - I refer the Committee to page 44 of the paginated bundle, you have mentioned that you were a commissar of a unit, what is the name of this unit and who did it consist of?

MR LEGODI: The name of the unit was Maqidindaba and the members of the unit were myself, Reuben Kgotsa and James Gasi.

MR MOHLABA: On or about the 15th of April 1988, were you responsible as a commander of this unit?

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And do you remember an incident on the 15th of April 1988, where there was a grenade attack at Mphahlele's residence?

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Can you explain to this Committee how was this attack planned and carried out?

MR LEGODI: It was myself and Reuben Kgotsa. We made surveillance at that particular house for several days. After that we informed Mr Rodney Toka, together with the late, that is Mainstay Mapoina(?). After some few days they gave us an order to go ahead with the attack.

MR MOHLABA: You mentioned that you kept the property under surveillance and then reported to Mr Toka. Can you tell the Committee what you reported, what you said to Mr Toka?

MR LEGODI: We told them that there was a police who was staying in Tsakane. That is another section in Mamelodi. It was not far from the section where I stayed. We made a suggestion that that policeman should be attacked.

Rodney Toka said he will give us the feedback at a later stage. Thereafter he gave us an information that we should go ahead with the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, was there any reason why you suggested that that particular policeman should be attacked? Was it because he was a policeman or was there any other particular reason?

MR LEGODI: The first reason was because he was a policeman, because of the situation at that time the police were not wanted within the township. That is why we decided that he should be attacked.

MR MOHLABA: And do you know the names of this policeman, other than the surname?

MR LEGODI: If I remember well I knew his name after but I think it's Ronald Muthelezi or Buthelezi.

MR MOHLABA: Can you proceed and explain to the Commission what happened after you go the go-ahead to attack him.

MR LEGODI: After we were given that order we sat down to plan about what to use and the road we should take. We made a decision that we should take an AK47 and a hand-grenade, and one AK47. We went to that particular house.

MR MOHLABA: Who was in your company?

MR LEGODI: It was myself and Reuben Kgotsa.

MR MOHLABA: Are you referring to Thapelo Reuben Kgotsa who is the 4th applicant in this matter?

MR LEGODI: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Can you proceed and tell the full details as to what happened on that day in question.

MR LEGODI: We went to that house. I had a hand-grenade and Kgotsa was having an AK47. We went to that particular house. We passed that house and we came back again. We observed the situation in that house, then I told Reuben to go a little bit down to protect me then I'll do the attack. Then I threw the hand-grenade in that house, then it exploded.

MR MOHLABA: Do you know if anybody was injured in that attack?

MR LEGODI: Nobody was injured in that particular attack, it was only malicious damage to property.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you intend to kill Ronald Buthelezi the policeman, your target then or did you just intend to damage the property there when you threw that hand-grenade?

MR LEGODI: We were intending to kill.

CHAIRPERSON: This house, could you describe it, was it a one-roomed house, two, three, four, what sort of house was it?

MR LEGODI: It was a one-roomed house.

MR MOHLABA: Were you aware whether ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR MOHLABA: Were you aware whether Buthelezi was staying alone in that one-roomed house or whether he had a family?

MR LEGODI: I'm not sure as to whether he was staying with some members of the family but I knew that he was staying there, he was renting that house. If I'm not wrong he came from - I believe he came from Venda.

MR MOHLABA: And this hand-grenade which was thrown to this property, was it aimed at this one-roomed house?

MR LEGODI: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And the damage, was it only focused or concentrated on that house, on that one-roomed house or are you not aware?

MR LEGODI: If I remember well the windows at the next-door house were damaged.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Legodi, when you say you threw the hand-grenade, did you throw it through the window or against the wall of the house or on the roof, what was the position?

MR LEGODI: The way we planned we wanted to throw it through the window but it happened that it fell on the wall.

CHAIRPERSON: So you missed the window? You threw it with the intention to hit it but you missed the window.

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: So in carrying out this attack you were intending to eliminate this police officer, is it your case that he was viewed as a stumbling block to the realisation of the political objectives of your movement?

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Legodi, was the intended victim present at that time?

MR LEGODI: I'm not able to say that he was there but in terms of our surveillance he was supposed to be in the house.

CHAIRPERSON: If he is following his usual habits he should have been there but you weren't sure whether or not he was there. Were there lights on? What time of the day was it, was it night-time?

MR LEGODI: It was at night, approximately 11 o'clock at night.

CHAIRPERSON: Were the lights on inside or were the lights off?

MR LEGODI: The lights were off.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you keep the room under surveillance for any part of that evening or for the whole evening or didn't you watch the house during the evening?

MR LEGODI: We started surveillance the day before the, or the week before the attack.

MR MOHLABA: Before throwing this hand-grenade on this date in question, did you make a surveillance to that area to establish whether he was there or not?

MR LEGODI: According to our agreement Reuben was supposed to go there and make surveillance later, then we met later to make an appointment.

MR MOHLABA: Did you establish from Reuben whether he went there before an attack was carried out?

MR LEGODI: Yes, he went.

CHAIRPERSON: There's just one point that I can't quite understand, Mr Legodi. You said that you kept the house under surveillance for about a week and yet you don't know whether the intended victim was staying in the house with his family or not. Did you see any other people in the house during that week, other than the intended victim?

MR LEGODI: We established that there were people staying in the main house, not in that one-roomed house which was separate from the main house.

CHAIRPERSON: So as far as you were concerned the separate one-roomed house was occupied solely by the intended victim, Buthelezi?

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And in carrying out your attack you ensured that the people in the main house do not get injured, did you try and ensure that?

MR LEGODI: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And during the time of - at the moment of this attack or during that period, you were heading this unit consisting of yourself and the other two comrades, is that correct?

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And can you explain to the Committee whether you at one stage handed over your duties as a commander of the unit to somebody else?

MR LEGODI: I handed my powers to Reuben Kgotsa because in many instances I was not present, I was at work. I did that because when our senior commanders, that is Toka and company, when they come they would meet him and give him the feedback.

MR MOHLABA: Let us now move over Mr Legodi ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: How far from the window were you standing when you threw this hand-grenade?

MR LEGODI: It may be approximately 10 metres.

ADV DE JAGER: And you missed the window?

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mohlaba?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair.

Can we now move over to the attack at Ndala's place that was during May 1998, is that correct?

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And this attack was also carried out by your unit, that is the unit known as Maqidindaba, is that correct?

MR MOHLABA: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: And who was heading this unit at the time of this attack?

MR LEGODI: At the time it was Reuben Kgotsa.

MR MOHLABA: Can you explain with full details how this attack was planned and carried out?

MR LEGODI: It's Kgotsa who recommended for this attack because it was alleged that Mr Ndala was an informer. There was a certain policeman named, Mr Hlongwane if I'm not mistaken, who used to frequent the place.

Then we saw that we're going to have a problem. He used to arrive during the day. We sat down and discussed about this issue and then informed our seniors.

MR MOHLABA: Yes, proceed and explain what happened next.

MR LEGODI: After that we received an approval that we should go ahead and we attacked the house. But the way we attacked this house was not that we wanted to kill, we wanted to throw the hand-grenade outside because we wanted to scare them off and show them that we are observing them and that we had a problem about that policeman who is Hlongwane, that we wanted to attack him.

We did not have the right opportunity to attack Mr Hlongwane who was the policeman. If I remember well windows were damaged.

MR MOHLABA: Who carried out this attack, can you explain?

MR LEGODI: Reuben threw the hand-grenade. I was at the corner trying to disturb anybody who may come near us.

MR MOHLABA: And who supplied you with the arms to carry out this attack?

MR LEGODI: They came from Rodney Toka.

MR MOHLABA: Are you aware whether any person was injured in this attack?

MR LEGODI: If I remember well nobody was injured in that attack.

MR MOHLABA: You have explained to this Commission that there was information about the Ndala's or somebody at Ndala's family who was selling out to the Security Forces, how did this information come to you, can you remember?

MR LEGODI: I did not say he was an informer, I'm saying we were suspecting, we had a suspicion that he was an informer and that is why we threw the hand-grenade outside the house, just near the house, because it was just a warning.

MR MOHLABA: And thereafter you learnt or had this suspicion, you went back to your commanders explained to them that we are suspecting that these people or this person is selling out, and they did what they did and came back to you and authorised you to carry out the attack, is that correct?

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Were you advised of the step they took to verify the information or were you not privy to such information by virtue of you being an operative as opposed to a commander?

MR LEGODI: We did not know how they operated, we would only gather information and hand it over to them. We did not know who they would go about making a decision.

MR MOHLABA: And if a decision is taken by your commanders and orders are handed down to you to carry out an attack, did you have an option to refuse or were you compelled to carry out such orders?

MR LEGODI: An order is an order, you must only comply or suggest something which may be considered.

ADV DE JAGER: What would happen to you if you would say, no I'm not prepared to kill somebody, I won't obey this order?

MR LEGODI: May you please repeat your question?

ADV DE JAGER: What would happen to you if you were to tell your commander, no I'm not prepared to kill somebody, I'm not prepared to murder Mr X, I won't carry out the order, what would they do to you?

MR LEGODI: I don't know, I didn't know what they would do but I knew that I took a decision to join MK and therefore I've got to execute orders from the MK instructions.

ADV DE JAGER: But that was voluntarily, you need not obey the order, you obeyed it because you wanted to obey it.

MR LEGODI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you received - in your training, were you not told of the consequences of failure to obey orders and what discipline was expected of you as an operative?

MR LEGODI: Yes, it was part of our basic training.

CHAIRPERSON: So what did they say to you, what would be the punishment if you disobeyed the orders, if there was any punishment at all?

MR LEGODI: They would take a decision. I would not say they would do 1, 2, 3, I would not know what they would do.

CHAIRPERSON: It would depend on the circumstances?

MR LEGODI: I think so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair.

Were you ever arrested and tried in respect of these two attacks?

MR LEGODI: Yes.

MR MOHLABA: And it was heard in the earlier evidence that you are part of the people who escaped from the Modderbee Prison before the trial commenced, is that correct?

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: So you also apply for an amnesty in respect of escaping from lawful custody and leaving the country unlawfully?

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Chair, that will conclude the ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry.

Have you applied for indemnity?

MR LEGODI: Yes, I did.

ADV DE JAGER: In respect of these two offences of throwing the hand-grenade and the escaping?

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And were you granted indemnity?

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, that will conclude the evidence of Mr Legodi.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Molefe, do you have any questions to put to the applicant?

MR MOLEFE: None, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mokone?

MR MOKONE: None, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Ms Monyane here? Ms Monyane, do you have any questions to put?

MS MONYANE: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Monyane does not have a microphone in front of her, and just for the record she indicates that she has no questions to put.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer?

MR DREYER: No questions, Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: No questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson, I do have a few, thank you.

Mr Legodi, did you personally know Mr Ndala?

MR LEGODI: Yes, I did.

MS MTANGA: For how long had you known him before the incident?

MR LEGODI: I was not staying far from his place, I think it's the 2nd, the 3rd street from where he was staying.

MS MTANGA: Did you know Mr Hlongwana, the policeman that used to visit him?

MR LEGODI: Yes, I do.

MS MTANGA: For how long had you known Mr Hlongwana before the incident?

MR LEGODI: Who?

MS MTANGA: Mr Hlongwana. How long had you known Mr Hlongwana before this attack on Mr Ndala?

MR LEGODI: Approximately 2 to 3 years.

MS MTANGA: In your opinion would you say Mr Ndala knew of your political activities in your unit?

MR LEGODI: May you please clarify your question, I don't understand.

CHAIRPERSON: The question being asked by Ms Mtanga is, do you know whether Mr Ndala knew of your political activism in that you were a member of this unit, that you were a member of MK?

MR LEGODI: No, he did not know.

MS MTANGA: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

MS MTANGA: Do you know what information he was suspected to be passing on to the policeman? You said he was suspected of being, of informing, that means you attacked his house acting on suspicion and what I want to know is, what information were you suspecting him to be passing on?

MR LEGODI: I won't be able to specify what kind of information he was passing through but I knew that Mr Hlongwane was a policeman and he used to frequent his house.

Secondly, the way they met, they did not meet once but they used to meet many times.

MS MTANGA: Are you able to tell this Committee whether Mr Hlongwane and Ndala were friends or suddenly they became friends and then you were suspicious of that friendship?

MR LEGODI: Even if they were friends at that time, anybody who was associating himself with the police it would happen that he was an informer or something like that.

MS MTANGA: Were you aware, Mr Legodi, that one of the girls or a woman brought up by Mr Ndala was involved in MK activities and she was in fact in Lusaka at the time of the attack?

MR LEGODI: I'm aware of that and that is why we suspected that he was one of the informers. We knew that one who was staying at Ndala's place, one of the daughters who were staying at Ndala's place is in Lusaka.

MS MTANGA: Was Mr Hlongwane the policeman, known to your unit or generally in the community to be prying on information or activities of the politically active people in the community?

MR LEGODI: He was well-known by the community.

MS MTANGA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Mtanga. Mr Mohlaba, do you have any re-examination?

MR MOHLABA: None, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Jager, do you have any questions?

ADV DE JAGER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi, do you have any questions?

ADV SANDI: Just one, Chair.

Mr Legodi, can you tell us more about this Mr Hlongwane you've just mentioned. You say he was a policeman, where was he stationed?

MR LEGODI: He was a member of the special branch stationed at Compol Building in Pretorius Street in Pretoria, next to Home Affairs offices.

ADV SANDI: Was Mr Ndala involved in any organisation?

MR LEGODI: According to my information he was not a member of any political organisation.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I just didn't hear. Mr Legodi, after your escape, did you leave the country?

MR LEGODI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising from questions put by Mr Sandi?

MR MOHLABA: No questions, Chairperson.

MS MTANGA: Mr Chairperson, I just want to place on record that Mr Ndala is not opposing this application.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Mtanga. I take it there is no further questions.

Mr Legodi, thank you, that concludes your testimony.

MR LEGODI: Thank you, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mohlaba?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you, Mr Chair. I wonder if I could not be, I wanted leave to call my next witness tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to get some perspective here. We discussed it earlier but of the applicants that are left there are three, are there, Mr Kgotsa, Mr Kgase and Nkosi.

MR MOHLABA: I'm calling two more applicants and I believe that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Then Mr Molefe might be calling the one more. We will be calling one more, that's three. Yes, and then there may or may not be any further evidence.

ADV DE JAGER: In connection with what incidents are the other two applicants?

MR MOHLABA: The other two applicants are linked to the very applicant. One of them is linked to, it's a co-applicant in respect of the two attacks which Mr Legodi was testifying about and he's involved in a third incident wherein Mr Legodi was involved, where the remaining applicant is involved.

ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) evidence before 4 o'clock?

MR MOHLABA: Certainly we can, as long as I can be awarded a small break because I thought that we could run with Mr Legodi the ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think seeing that it's already quarter to four and there looks like a good prospect that we'll probably finish the evidence sometime during the course of tomorrow, that we'll adjourn now until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. Would 9 o'clock be suitable? And then if we do conclude the evidence then as I said earlier at the start of the hearings, we'll just have oral arguments straight off after the conclusion of evidence.

We will start tomorrow's proceedings with addresses on this question of whether or not the witness, Mr Pitsi should be compelled to disclose the names of a person or persons who divulged certain information to him.

We'll then adjourn now until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning at this venue, thank you very much.