--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: For the record, I'm Judge Pillay. I am going to ask my fellow Panellists to identify themselves for purposes of the record, and then also the other members who are party to this hearing.

ADV SIGODI: It's Advocate Sigodi from the Port Elizabeth Bar.

DR TSOTSI: Doctor Tsotsi from Port Elizabeth.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Dawie Claasen, attorney from Pretoria, appearing today on behalf of the applicants, Mr Sigudu, Mvelase and Manqele.

MS THABETE: Thank you, Mr Chairman and Honourable Members of the Committee, Ms Thabile Thabete, the Evidence Leader for the TRC.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Committee for its indulgence. I would like to start by calling Mr Thulani Aaron Sigudu.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objections to the taking of the oath?

MR SIGUDU: (sworn states)

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well Mr Claassen, proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Sigudu, you are the applicant for in the application for amnesty in terms of Act 34 of 1995, before this Committee today, for a crime which you were sentenced on the 9^th of December 1994, is that correct?

MR SIGUDU: That is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu are you a member or affiliated to any political party?

MR SIGUDU: I am a follower.

MR CLAASSEN: A follower of which party?

MR SIGUDU: Of the IFP.

MR CLAASSEN: How long have you been a follower of the IFP?

MR SIGUDU: Since I was at school.

MR CLAASSEN: Can you tell the Committee what year that was approximately?

MR SIGODI: It has been many years now. I have forgotten the count of years.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu, at the time of the Commission of this offence for which you are seeking amnesty, were you a member or affiliated to the IFP at that stage?

MR SIGUDU: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: Were you an ordinary follower, or did you hold any position in office within the IFP?

MR SIGUDU: I was an ordinary member.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu, you submitted a Form 1 application form for this Amnesty Application in December 1996, and annexed to this particular application was, also marked Annexure A, was a statement written on your behalf which was also signed by you, is that correct?

MR SIGUDU: Yes, that is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: And you are aware, and know the contents of this said statement?

MR SIGUDU: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu, if I may just point you to a few points in this statement made by yourself, could you just very briefly, very, very briefly, tell the Committee what exactly occurred on the day of this particular incident.

MR SIGUDU: On that particular day, it was myself and the people who were in my company and it happened that we ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Who are those people?

INTERPRETER: Mr Chairperson, I don’t seem to be coming through, he doesn’t seem to be hearing anything.

MR CLAASSEN: I don’t know if the reception is any better, if the Interpreter could just perhaps speak to him. He seems to be hearing now.

CHAIRPERSON: Who were the people in whose company you were?

MR SIGUDU: It was Manqele, Thulani Mvelase and Ziegfried Mzolo.

CHAIRPERSON: Thulani who?

MR SIGUDU: Thulani Mvelase.

CHAIRPERSON: And who else?

MR SIGUDU: Sampson Manqele and Siegfried Mzolo.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair.

Mr Sigudu, would you please continue, what happened on that particular day?

MR SIGUDU: On that particular day we committed a crime, myself, Siegfried and the others and this white person, this white lady was shot and we took the money, but I must indicate that we did not succeed in fleeing with the money because the police came and they fired shots and Mvelase was injured.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu, could you just chronologically just very briefly state what actually occurred when you committed this crime.

MR SIGUDU: What happened was that we, Manqele came to us and he showed us the place after having been showed the place by Mvelase and they showed us the people and we went to these two people and we pointed our firearms at them and we demanded money. At that very same instant this white lady who was in the company of another white person got injured and an alarm went off and we fled. The police came and pursued us, fired shots at us and Mvelase got injured and that is how we were arrested.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu, this affidavit which you submitted as Annexure A with your initial application, who took this affidavit from you?

MR SIGUDU: I did this affidavit with the assistance of an IFP legal representative.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu, you, in this particular affidavit, you state that on that particular day, that you had been armed with a .38 special pistol, is this indeed correct?

MR SIGUDU: I did not have a firearm that day, only Manqele and Mvelase had firearms.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu, have you got any explanation for this apparent mis-communication between yourself and the person who took this statement from you?

MR SIGUDU: May the speaker please repeat the question.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you. Mr Sigudu, have you got any explanation for this apparent mis-communication between yourself and the person who took this statement from you?

MR SIGUDU: He said it transpired that I had a firearm and I indicated to him that I was not in possession of any firearm, only Manqele and Mvelase had firearms.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you, Mr Sigudu. You, by your own ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Why is it then, that the person who recorded your statement, how did it come that that person wrote down there that you were armed with a .38 special pistol?

MR SIGUDU: Maybe that is how he wanted it because he also learned that I was also charged for being in possession of a firearm. Truly speaking, the one person or persons who had firearms were Mvelase and Manqele.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Sigudu, you were, by your own testimony, part and parcel of what happened that day. What did you seek to achieve by what had happened there?

MR SIGUDU: We intended to strengthen our organisation financially so that we could purchase firearms. This resulted from the situation that prevailed at the time or the atmosphere rather.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu, this atmosphere that you are referring to, what do you mean by this?

MR SIGUDU: I am referring here to the conflict between the IFP and the ANC. There was a conflict going on so that there was a need for firearms so that we should be in the position to protect ourselves in case we are attacked.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu, where did you live at the time of this incident and why do you keep referring to "ourselves", what do you mean by that?

MR SIGUDU: By "us", I am referring to "us" as an organisation and I was staying at Dube Hostel.

MR CLAASSEN: Your co-applicants before this Amnesty Committee today, where did they reside at the time of this incident?

MR SIGUDU: They were at Dube as well.

ADV SIGODI: Were they at Dube at the hostel or were they at Dube, at the township?

MR SIGUDU: They were at Dube Hostel.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu, do you know if any of your fellow applicants were also affiliated to a political party?

MR SIGUDU: They were members of the organisation to which I belong.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu, did you receive instructions from anyone to commit the crime that occurred on that particular day?

MR SIGUDU: Yes, there were instructions that we received.

MR CLAASSEN: From whom were these instructions received?

MR SIGUDU: These instructions came from Wiseman.

MR CLAASSEN: Who was Wiseman?

MR SIGUDU: He is one of the inmates at the hostel.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu do you know if Mr Wiseman was in any way affiliated with a political party?

MR SIGUDU: He too was a member of the IFP.

MR CLAASSEN: Pardon me Mr Chair. Mr Sigudu, do you know if he was anything more than an ordinary member of the IFP, what was his standing within the IFP?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen tell me, is your client handicapped?

MR CLAASSEN: No Mr Chairman, he is not.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Can it be interpreted to him, please. Just explain to the witness how he could use this microphone please.

MR SIGUDU: Yes, thank you.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Sigudu, just getting back to the question of Mr Wiseman. Do you know if he held any specific or special position within the IFP?

MR SIGUDU: I would not say I have knowledge to that effect but he was present during meetings and I assumed that he is one of us.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu, did you in any way yourself stand to benefit anything from committing this particular crime?

MR SIGUDU: No, I did not intend to gain anything. This was intended for the IFP, not for any personal gain. I wanted to strengthen my organisation.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu, the victim of this incident, did you know her or have anything particular against the victim?

MR SIGUDU: It is precisely for this reason that I have come before this Commission. My profuse apologies for the injuring of these people or this person.

MR CLAASSEN: Are you presently still a member of the IFP?

MR SIGUDU: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sigudu, just in conclusion, was there anything else you could have done to further the cause as you say, of the IFP, why was what occurred on that specific day, why was it necessary?

MR SIGUDU: At the time, during those years, it was not easy to do something else in strengthening the organisation, so that the one person who led us to that, saw it as well as we did, fit to do as we did to strengthen our position.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you, Mr Chair, I have no further questions for this applicant.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Sigudu, you have testified that you are a follower of the IFP, were you also a member of the IFP?

MR SIGUDU: Yes.

MS THABETE: Did you have a membership card?

MR SIGUDU: I took receipt of the card many years ago whilst I was still at home, I don’t have the card as of this moment.

MS THABETE: Before you committed the robbery in question, were there any other activities that you were involved in as a member of the IFP?

MR SIGUDU: The role that I played was that, as a hostel inmate, I had to partake in the protection of the hostel community in case we were attacked.

MS THABETE: And how did you used to protect the community that you were staying with?

MR SIGUDU: It is known that there was a conflict between the IFP and the ANC and we sometimes suffered attacks and myself as a hostel inmate, had to fight under those circumstances.

MS THABETE: Coming back to the incident in question, on page 5 of your statement, you mention the four of you that is, Sampson Manqele, Thulani Mvelase, Mzolo and yourself, who planned, or to embark on a robbery of the deceased. How did it come about that the four of you planned to rob?

MR SIGUDU: It was for the reason that we had to get money, for example if we had lost some of our supporters during violence or going to rallies, we had to have money.

MS THABETE: Maybe you did not understand my question properly, my question is how did it come about that the four of you specifically decided to rob? Were you chosen by the organisation or did you just decide by yourselves that you that you want to rob?

MR SIGUDU: We did not take that decision, Wiseman took that decision. He was part of the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: You see in your statement, you say there that :

That is why you are being asked now. Who was the author of this plan, was it an organisational decision or a decision of the four of you only?

MR SIGUDU: Wiseman is the one person, Wiseman Kanyele, came up with this idea.

DR TSOTSI: Mr Sigudu, on page 10 Manqele seems to say that they received no instructions from anybody to carry out this, but you say you got this from Wiseman, Wiseman Mvelase. On page 10, it says "we" and then:

... and so on. What do you say to that?

MR SIGUDU: I think he is referring to the higher echelon of the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that it was IFP policy to conduct itself like this?

MR SIGUDU: It is for this reason that I am before this Commission because I know that it is not the policy of the IFP, I actually broke the policies of the IFP. The IFP should forgive me and the family of the deceased should forgive me.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you then correctly, there is no issue or question of instructions from higher up because that was not the policy of the IFP?

MR SIGUDU: Yes, I would say that is correct. It is precisely the reason why I am before this Commission to apologise to the IFP as well because this is not the policy of the IFP. I would like to apologise to the deceased as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Then we come back to the question that Dr Tsotsi asked, have you got any comment on the application of Sampson? He is likely to come tell us when he testifies that what you people did was not the result of any instructions from anybody.

MR SIGUDU: As far as I know, we were following instructions because ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: From who?

MR SIGUDU: Wiseman.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s what we need to know. I am not trying to trap you or catch you out here. You say that the IFP did not have a policy of robbing and murdering people, where would Wiseman then have got the authority to give you the instruction to go shoot these people and get the money?

MR SIGUDU: I would say that is, or should I say that followed his perception of the situation, that’s all I can say.

CHAIRPERSON: Look you must try to help us, you’ve made an application for amnesty. We still don’t know for what yet. You must help us understand your application, do you understand? ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not activated.

CHAIRPERSON: Part of your case is that you received instructions to embark upon this crime or crimes, then you say that Wiseman is the person who gave these instructions. You also tell us that the IFP did not have a policy which would justify your actions, hence we must try to find out then on what basis could you have accepted that Wiseman was giving you a proper instruction, an organisational instruction. That’s all we are trying to find out? And we are not trying to be difficult, we just need to understand it.

MR SIGUDU: Yes, I can answer that. Yes, I am saying this was not the policy of the IFP, that is why I decided to come before the Commission to apologise to the IFP and the entire South African population, but then the situation at the time was such that such things as we did were happening.

CHAIRPERSON: How were you able to act on behalf of an organisation in a manner which would not be condoned by that very organisation?

MR SIGUDU: I indicated that we were trying to get some money to assist in the event of one of us dying or attending rallies. I was doing all of this following the circumstances that prevailed.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t follow you. At the end of your statement you say that you intended giving all this money to the IFP, do you recall that?

MR SIGUDU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: How were you going to explain to the IFP when you handed them the money, where you got it from and how you got it?

MR SIGUDU: Wiseman was the one responsible for the explanation because our intention was to hand the money over to him.

MS THABETE: Thank you Mr Chair.

Mr Sigudu, exactly what was your plan with regard to the robbery?

MR SIGUDU: Our plan was to assist our organisation financially in the purchasing of firearms.

MS THABETE: Maybe I didn’t put my question clearly. What I am asking is, with regard to the robbery of Miss Govender, exactly what did you plan, how did you plan to rob her?

MR SIGUDU: Wiseman took one of us to the area where this lady was shot. Wiseman - excuse me, would you please repeat the question.

MS THABETE: Mr Chair, can you allow me to ask him in Zulu?

CHAIRPERSON: That must be done through the interpreter.

MS THABETE: Sure, thanks Mr Chair.

Mr Sigudu, one question I am asking you is that you are saying you planned this, you sat down and planned this robbery, that you will go and rob Miss Govender. Now, my question is, during the time of planning, how did you plan it, how did you plan this robbery?

MR SIGUDU: Wiseman brought to our attention that he knows better. He had said that this person keeps money, keeps cash in the bank and he was going to take one of us and he took Manqele indeed and he went to show him. After he had done that he came back and told us and a few days later we went then and executed the plan. Manqele first showed us the person and we did that.

MS THABETE: You are saying Wiseman went with Mr Manqele to show him the routine, is that correct?

MR SIGUDU: Yes.

MS THABETE: Then you say, Mr Manqele came back to you to report, is that correct?

MR SIGUDU: Yes.

MS THABETE: Exactly what did Mr Manqele report to you?

MR SIGUDU: He told us that he had seen the place because Wiseman had shown it to him.

MS THABETE: Wiseman showed him what, or who?

MR SIGUDU: He said he showed him the person who is in charge of the money, the one whom we were supposed to rob.

MS THABETE: Is that all he reported back to you?

MR SIGUDU: Yes, that is exactly what he reported to us.

MS THABETE: Mr Sigudu, why I am asking you this is because we have got a handwritten statement from Mr Manqele when he made his indemnity application, where he states that Mr Wiseman told him that the victim was working with him, they were working together, and that Mr Wiseman was retrenched because of that said lady and also because the said lady hated black people, especially members of Inkatha Freedom Party. That’s on page 13 of the bundle. And then he goes on, that is Mr Manqele, goes on to say before he could say anything, he saw Wiseman pulling out the gun and Mr Manqele tried to stop him but the bullet went off and it injured the woman. What is your comment to this statement?

MR SIGUDU: I have no knowledge of what you have just read.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chair if I may, just for the record, that is that Mr Manqele has not yet testified. It is indeed true that this application or statement as read by Ms Thabete is indeed pertained on page 14 and 15 of his application. It is however my instruction from the applicant that the version given in his general amnesty application, his indemnity application - you will see that is was superseded by a later application, and it is my instruction now that the information in this statement is indeed not entirely truthful.

MS THABETE: Can I proceed, Mr Chair? So Mr Sigudu ...(intervention)

DR TSOTSI: As you're saying, the whole statement is incorrect or is it portions of it that are incorrect?

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you, Dr Tsotsi. It is my instruction that the contents of that indemnity application is in toto incorrect, as it was done for reasons other than amnesty and that the later amnesty application, it's my instructions, is indeed the correct version of the happenings.

MS THABETE: Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Sigudu, you have said you don’t know anything about the statement that was written by Mr Manqele and I take what your legal representative is saying, but upon reading your statement on page 5, you say, it is the second paragraph:

Can you maybe explain to the Committee members how was the victim known to Mr Wiseman Kanyele?

MR SIGUDU: I have no idea as to how he knew the victim.

MS THABETE: So are you saying that he just said he knew her but he didn’t explain how he knew her, is that what you are saying?

MR SIGUDU: What I am saying is he knew her but I did not know as to how he knew the person, or the victim rather.

MS THABETE: Before Mr Manqele came back to report to you about the said victim, did you know her at all?

MR SIGUDU: I did not know the victim.

MS THABETE: Sorry, I just want to go back to your plan. I didn’t quite get your answer as to what the plan was, but I won’t pursue that question any further. What I want to find out from you is, in your plan did it come about, were there any intentions to kill the said victim?

MR SIGUDU: No, that did not come across. This is why I am here to apply for amnesty in front of this Committee.

MS THABETE: Can you explain then to the Committee Members how the victim was killed and why, if it wasn’t your intention to do so?

MR SIGUDU: The late or the deceased, the way I looked at this whole thing, the way things tend to be and tend to happen, ...(indistinct) was shot by Manqele, but it wasn’t our intention to go and kill.

MS THABETE: I don’t think you have answered my question as such. How was she killed and why was she killed? I understand that Mr Manqele killed her, but how did this happen and why did it happen?

MR SIGUDU: The way she died, the victim that is, I heard this gunshot suddenly and when I looked around I realised that she was already shot and I fled.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know when you participated in the robbery that your colleagues were armed?

MR SIGUDU: Yes, I knew that.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you think they had firearms with them during this robbery?

MR SIGUDU: Well, I think - I won’t say maybe that I know for sure why they had firearms with them.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell us.

MR SIGUDU: Well I think they had firearms. They will tell you they will furnish you with the information regarding why they had firearms at that given point in time because they are present.

CHAIRPERSON: I am asking you. What did you think could happen there with these firearms. I want to know what is going through your head. I will ask them when they ...(indistinct), but what went through your head at the time?

MR SIGUDU: I think at the time when this happened I was still young, very young, I will not have been in a position to think competently, but what I knew was that we were going there to rob a certain person. That much I knew.

CHAIRPERSON: With firearms, not so?

MR SIGUDU: They had firearms in their possession, those in my company.

CHAIRPERSON: And you knew they had firearms that time?

MR SIGUDU: Yes, I knew that.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you think they were going to do with these firearms?

MR SIGUDU: Well, the way the whole thing was, I did not know as to what those firearms were going to be used for and what they were thinking about those firearms, but what I know is that and what I knew was that we were going to rob a certain person but I could not tell what went on in their minds.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not asking you what went on in their minds, I am asking what happened in your mind. I will ask them about their minds when they testify. What did you expect was going to happen with those firearms?

MR SIGUDU: If I also had a firearm in my possession, I think I would be in a better position to answer your question now, but I don’t think I am going to answer the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Did I hear you correctly, you are not going to answer the question?

MR SIGUDU: This is a difficult question for me to answer because I did not have a firearm in my possession, it would have been better if I also had a firearm in my possession and you were asking me a question relating to me as to what was I going to do with the firearm or what were my intentions of carrying the firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let’s get onto the actual business then of the use of the firearms. Do you, or did you associate yourself with the killing of that woman or not, when she was shot?

MR SIGUDU: Yes, I am implicated in this whole thing because I participated in the plan and we planned, although we did not intend to kill, that was not our primary intention, to kill.

CHAIRPERSON: Listen to my question. It is a very important question for your case. You tell me you can’t answer the question as to what you thought was going to happen with those guns because you were not in possession of a firearm at the time. I am asking you, did you associate yourself with the eventual killing of that lady or not?

MR SIGUDU: The way this whole thing is, I ...(indistinct) me the fact that I am implicated because I was present.

CHAIRPERSON: Listen to me. I am not asking you to make any admissions if you don’t feel like making it, all I am asking is, when that lady was shot there, did you intend her to die, do you associate yourself with her killing or not?

MR SIGUDU: The killing, the act of killing, was not discussed but because the person was eventually killed, I am implicated in that and although we did not plan this killing, but now that it happened I associate myself with it.

CHAIRPERSON: You intended that she died?

MR SIGUDU: As for me that was not my intention, that the person or the victim should be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) easier, because you are making my position very difficult. Did you agree with her killing?

MR SIGUDU: That was never there, the killing, the act of killing was never discussed.

CHAIRPERSON: After she was shot, did you agree that it was correct that she was shot?

MR SIGUDU: This is how I will explain. This is why I am here, but now that it has happened it does not mean that this was planned initially.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sigudu, ...(intervention)

DR TSOTSI: When you saw your associates carrying guns to go and rob, did it occur to you that they might use these guns to shoot the lady?

MR SIGUDU: I don’t think I had any idea of that, that they would kill or end up killing or shooting, I had no idea of that.

DR TSOTSI: Why were they carrying firearms as far as you were concerned, if not to shoot with them?

MR SIGUDU: This is why I said earlier on that I will, or rather I am not in a position to answer competently this question because I had no firearm in my possession and they had firearms.

DR TSOTSI: Did you raise any objections to the use of the firearms?

MR SIGUDU: I had no objection when they used the firearm.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, Mr Sigudu, when was this plan hatched, was it hatched on that same day of the killing or did you discuss it the previous day or two days before?

MR SIGUDU: This thing was planned on the 30^th the way we planned it.

ADV SIGODI: 30^th of November?

MR SIGUDU: Not November, no, I think it was on the 30^th although I don’t quite remember as to which month it was, November or October, around there.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but the murder took place on the 3^rd of December according to the indictment that I have here.

MR SIGUDU: You mean it took place on the 30^th?

CHAIRPERSON: Look, when you discussed this issue of robbing this woman, did the discussion take place on the same day she died or on another day?

MR SIGUDU: It took a number of days before the action itself took place.

ADV SIGODI: Approximately how many days before?

MR SIGUDU: I don’t think that it would have taken 10 days, I think it was about 3,4 or 5 days, around there.

ADV SIGODI: Okay, so I take it that this was a very carefully planned robbery, was it? It was well planned, it was not something that just happened in one day, it was something that was planned over a number of days?

MR SIGUDU: Yes, it was planned but not for long days, many days.

ADV SIGODI: Okay, I'll leave that, but then do you know where your co-applicants got the guns from?

MR SIGUDU: As far as that is concerned, I bear no knowledge.

ADV SIGODI: So when did you first see the guns?

MR SIGUDU: I first saw the gun with Wise ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Yes, when, was it on the day of the murder or was it on the day before the murder?

MR SIGUDU: Days prior to this day in question.

ADV SIGODI: Did he say what he was going to do with the gun?

MR SIGUDU: As a person who brought this to our attention and these guns as well, the way this whole thing happened, they were not presented as part of the plan to be used to kill.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete have you got any more questions?

MS THABETE: Yes, Mr Chair, I do.

Mr Sigudu, did the deceased have a bag of money with her or did she carry the bag of money with her?

MR SIGUDU: There were bags of money.

MS THABETE: Sorry, I didn’t hear your answer.

CHAIRPERSON: There were bags of money.

MR SIGUDU: There were two bags of money.

MS THABETE: In your statement on page 5 you say:

And then further on, on page 23, in your letter on number 1 you say:

Can you clarify whether you did take the money or you didn’t?

MR SIGUDU: What I will explain is the money yes, was taken yes, but immediately on the scene of the crime we heard a sound of an alarm and suddenly the police appeared and started shooting at us and the money remained there, or was left there.

MS THABETE: So it would be correct for me to say that what you wrote on page 23 is not true in the sense that you did take the money but when you were being shot, you left it at the scene and ran away? Would that be correct for me to say so?

MR SIGUDU: Yes.

MS THABETE: You have indicated in your application that you wanted to rob because you wanted to buy arms, to purchase arms for the IFP, is that correct?

MR SIGUDU: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETE: According to your plan, who was going to purchase the arms for the IFP?

MR SIGUDU: Wiseman would have been the one, Wiseman Kanyele.

MS THABETE: I don’t know whether I heard you correctly, are you saying according to your plan you were going to give the money to Wiseman Kanyele?

MR SIGUDU: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETE: So when you said that you were going to give the money to the IFP branch, that’s not correct? Sorry, in page 5 you say "we intended to hand all the money to the IFP branch, you’ve just said now you were going to give the money to Wiseman Kanyele and my question is, does it mean then that it is not correct here that you were going to give the money to the IFP branch?

MR SIGUDU: I would not say that it was not true, we would have given the money to him and he would have been the one who will take the money to the branch of the IFP.

MS THABETE: I thought that you just testified that you knew that it wasn’t the policy of the IFP to rob to purchase firearms, how then would Wiseman have taken this money to the branch when it wasn't - sorry I haven’t finished, when it wasn’t their policy to rob people to purchase arms?

MR SIGUDU: Yes, it was not the policy of the organisation but because of the situation that brought this to the effect that money should be raised somehow, we should get hold of money and be able to purchase.

MS THABETE: I don’t know whether you understand my question. I don’t think you are answering my question, but I will leave that aspect. One more question from me. Going back to the scene of the crime, when the deceased was shot, exactly where were you?

MR SIGUDU: I was present, I was there.

MS THABETE: Mr Sigudu, I am asking you this question because earlier on when I asked you a question as to why the victim was shot, you said you don’t know because you didn’t see anything, now you are saying that you were there. So I would like to ask you again if you were there, why was she shot and how was she shot? What happened, how did it come about that she was shot because according to your plan, you were going to take the bags of money, you were not going to kill her and you had no intentions to kill her. How did it happen that she was shot?

MR SIGUDU: As to the shooting I don’t know how it came about, but I was there when it happened.

MS THABETE: I’m sorry, Mr Sigudu, you are not answering my question. Can you give us a picture of what happened that day. You went there, you saw the deceased, what happened, did she scream, how did it come about that she was shot? I am sure you were there, you can give us a picture of what happened that day. Please answer my question.

MR SIGUDU: On the day in question when this happened, we arrived there, Manqele was already showing this person and he shown this person to us as well and we went and we approached this person and my colleagues drew out their guns. Suddenly, I heard a sound of a gunshot and when I looked I found this person was on the ground, had fallen and we heard the alarm, the sound of the alarm and we fled. The police approached and they started shooting at us and Mvelase sustained injuries, just about the only one but he did not die, Mvelase that is.

MS THABETE: When you approached the deceased, did you ask her to hand the bags of money to you, did you say anything or your colleagues just drew guns and they shot her?

MR SIGUDU: When we got to her, they drew out their guns and they told her that:

... and suddenly I heard the sound of the gunshot and we fled.

MS THABETE: Mr Sigudu, in the light of your testimony or your evidence today, what would you say you are applying for amnesty for?

MR SIGUDU: My reason for being here is to apologise for what happened, for what we did to the family of the victim. It was not our intention to kill eventually, but as well as IFP, I would like to apologise to them and ask for forgiveness as well that we did not obey its policy and we found ourselves in that particular situation and we ended up doing what we did not intend to do from the onset and to the community at large I would like to apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: Thank you Mr Chairperson and Honourable Members of the Committee, that’s all.

CHAIRPERSON: Got any questions?

MR CLAASSEN: I’ve got no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Doctor Tsotsi?

DR TSOTSI: Did you yourself commit any offence? The question is, did you yourself commit any offence in this matter?

MR SIGUDU: You mean before that or are you referring, which period are you referring to now, or then?

CHAIRPERSON: At that incident. What do you hold yourself responsible for, why are you applying for amnesty? In respect of which offences?

MR SIGUDU: Well, according to me, I would say I did commit an offence because I did participate in this, resulting in the killing. I was part of this group.

DR TSOTSI: I see. The offence was robbery and murder, is this what you admit you have committed, is that right?

MR SIGUDU: I may say that I only took part in robbing, not killing as such, but because that happened at any rate this is why I am taking responsibility and that’s why I am here.

DR TSOTSI: Are you asking for amnesty for the murder or not?

MR SIGUDU: I think I also ask for amnesty because I played a certain role in this whole thing.

ADV SIGODI: You say that you got instructions from Wiseman Kanyele, what authority did he have over you to give you that instruction?

MR SIGUDU: I wouldn’t say he held a certain position as such or he was of authority, but he was one person who will always be present in meetings and such for the organisation, so that he is the one who brought this idea and this particular plan to us.

ADV SIGODI: In other words you did not have any reason to follow him, you could have easily said, "no, I will not take part in this"?

MR SIGUDU: I wouldn’t have done that because of the reasons he brought to my attention and I could tell that they were relevant and legitimate reasons and this is why I also, on my own volition took part.

ADV SIGODI: No, the point that I am coming to is that you had no reason not to disobey him, you only fell in with the plan because you believed what he said, but he had no authority over you, that is the point I am coming to. You didn’t have to follow him but you did so because you believed what he was telling you but he did not have any authority over you?

MR SIGUDU: I did this because he was a person who respected the organisation and always was taking part in the activities of the organisation and to me appeared a man of substance and the reasons he brought and furnished to me were quite legitimate and because all this was being done in the name of the organisation, I fell into it.

MS THABETE: Who were the leaders of the IFP at the Dube Hostel?

MR SIGUDU: The leaders of the IFP were Mr Ndlovo and others that have left, like Mvelase.

CHAIRPERSON: That statement that you made on page 4 and 5, did you read that statement before you signed it?

MR SIGUDU: You mean page 5? Please I will require the Commissioner to read it. Oh, I know it.

CHAIRPERSON: You read it before you signed it?

MR SIGUDU: The person who wrote this statement read the statement back to me and I signed it.

CHAIRPERSON: And you agreed with what he read back, or she read back to you?

MR SIGUDU: Yes, I agreed with what the person read back to me.

CHAIRPERSON: These instructions that you talk about that came from Wiseman, what exactly was this instruction or instructions?

MR SIGUDU: The instruction that came from Wiseman entailed the plan. Because of the situation that prevailed at the time, he felt it appropriate that something of this nature be done because things were difficult and the situation was not quite friendly and in case our members die we should be in a position to bury them and we should be in a position to protect ourselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sigudu, you know you are talking in riddles, it doesn’t help your application. Let me help you now, again. You say the actual killing of this lady was never discussed, it was never part of the instruction. All I want to know, in simple terms, what exactly was the instruction?

MR SIGUDU: The instruction was for us to get money only, that’s all.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s all, no robbery was discussed, no killing was discussed, just that you must obtain money?

MR SIGUDU: We should obtain money in the way of robbing, that’s all.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, was killing this lady absolutely necessary for the robbery?

MR SIGUDU: I don’t think it was necessary, but as I already explained earlier on, the person who killed her, I don’t know what prompted him to do or kill the person or what led him to end up shooting.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) stand correctly you wanted no part of that, the killing part of this whole operation?

MR SIGUDU: Please would you repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: You wanted no part of the killing section of this operation?

MR SIGUDU: According to me, I will not say I intended to kill, that was not my intention altogether.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the lady armed?

MR SIGUDU: I did not see any firearm in her possession or with her.

CHAIRPERSON: What were you going to do if this woman resisted the robbery?

MR SIGUDU: Well, in that case I wouldn’t have known what would transpire if she did that, if she resisted.

CHAIRPERSON: Come Mr Sigudu, you got an instruction to carry out a robbery for the organisation, you people discussed it, what were you going to do if she took that bag of money and beat you in order to resist the robbery? Surely you must have considered that possibility?

MR SIGUDU: Well, according to me I did not even have any weapon in my possession and I would not have known what my colleagues would have decided to do, should that happen.

CHAIRPERSON: You're excused. We'll take the lunch adjournment now.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman, I would like to call the next applicant Mr M T Mvelase.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mvelase, what language would you prefer to use?

MR MVELASE: Zulu.

T MVELASE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mvelase, you heard the evidence given today by Mr Sigudu, you also filled out an application for amnesty in December of 1996 for which you then want to apply for amnesty. Could you just start by very briefly telling this Commission what happened on that particular day of the incident.

MR MVELASE: On the 3^rd of December it so happened that we went to rob and we killed unintentionally.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Mvelase, you say that you went to rob, did you act on instruction from anyone?

MR MVELASE: Yes, we were following instructions that had come from Wiseman.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Mvelase, are you a member of or affiliated with any political party?

MR MVELASE: Yes, that is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: Can you just explain which party and in which capacity.

MR MVELASE: I am a member of the IFP.

MR CLAASSEN: At the time of the commission of this offence were you a member of the IFP at that stage and what was your capacity then?

MR MVELASE: I was as I still am, a member of the IFP.

MR CLAASSEN: Were you a written-in card carrying member or just a supporter?

MR MVELASE: I did not have any position.

MR CLAASSEN: You also lived at that stage with Mr Sigudu in Dube Hostel, is that correct?

MR MVELASE: Yes, that is correct, we resided in the hostel but not in the same house, we were not sharing accommodation.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Mvelase, you indicated that you received an instruction from a Mr Wiseman, did you know him prior to this incident, and in what capacity did you know him?

MR MVELASE: I knew Wiseman as a member occupying a position which I did not quite know well. He presented himself as somebody who had a position within the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: When did he present himself in that fashion, on the day of the murder, or sometime before that or what?

MR MVELASE: It was before the murder. He used to attend all the meetings that we had, that is IFP meetings. He used to organise quite a lot.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Mvelase, you have just indicated that you acted on an instruction given by this Mr Wiseman, could you just carefully explain to the court, to the Committee what this instruction entailed, what was decided?

MR MVELASE: The instruction was that we should go out and rob, the instruction was to go out and rob the money, which would in turn be used to further the aims of the IFP.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Mvelase, this plan that you are referring to, or this instruction, was it a plan that was planned beforehand, there was a specific plan which was to be followed?

MR MVELASE: Yes, there was a plan.

MR CLAASSEN: And you knew beforehand what this plan entailed?

MR MVELASE: Yes, the plan was that we should go out and rob, get hold of some money to further the aims and meet the needs of the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s all very well, but tell us, what are the details of this plan, were you going to rob a bank or a person or a van or what?

MR MVELASE: The plan was that we should go and rob that lady of her money or the money, and bring the money back and hand this money over to Wiseman who would hand it over to others within the leadership, his co-leaders.

MR MVELASE: If I still remember very well, it was at the end of the month, that is the end of the month of November, it could have been the 30^th.

CHAIRPERSON: That was a few days before the actual incident?

MR MVELASE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So, in this discussion you knew that this particular lady was going to be the target?

MR MVELASE: Yes, that is when we learnt.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know this lady before?

MR MVELASE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you know which lady it would be?

MR MVELASE: We discussed this by way of planning, so that one of us, Sampson Manqele had to go to the place to sort of reconnoitre, and he came back to report to us and said we could then go.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that place not a place where Wiseman used to work?

MR MVELASE: I don’t know whether he was once employed there.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair.

Mr Mvelase, before you got to the point that Wiseman gave the instruction you said that it was to be done for a specific reason, what was this and why was this decided?

MR MVELASE: Would you please repeat the question.

MR CLAASSEN: Why did you want to go and rob this money?

MR MVELASE: The intention was to meet the needs of the IFP.

ADV SIGODI: So do you know who Wiseman was going to give the money to?

MR MVELASE: No. He is the one who knew.

ADV SIGODI: But did you not ask him?

MR MVELASE: On asking him, he indicated that he was going to pass it on to other leaders.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Mvelase, this money was never given as you say it was intended, why not?

MR MVELASE: The reason is because we did not get the money as we intended, instead the money was left at the scene of the crime.

DR TSOTSI: Just a moment, excuse my interruption there. To whom was Wiseman going, to which leaders was he going to give this money, do you know?

MR MVELASE: He was to hand this money over to other leaders within the Dube Hostel.

DR TSOTSI: Who are they, I want to get their names.

MR MVELASE: The names include Mr Hlongwane, Ndlovo, and many others, some of whom have since passed away.

ADV SIGODI: Did Mr Kanyele tell you who had given him the orders, where he got his orders from?

MR MVELASE: No he did not say.

ADV SIGODI: And you did not see it necessary to ask him?

MR MVELASE: When he came up with this idea, I readily accepted because I wanted as well to meet the needs of the IFP.

ADV SIGODI: Did you know that the IFP had a military wing?

MR MVELASE: No, I did not know that.

ADV SIGODI: What reason did you have to follow the instructions of Mr Kanyele?

MR MVELASE: I perceived him as one of the members of the IFP, that is the reason I acted on his instructions.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but he was an ordinary member as far you were concerned, isn’t it?

MR MVELASE: Yes, he was a member, because he was an organiser, very active.

ADV SIGODI: But he had no authority over you, did he?

MR MVELASE: He did have authority as a member of the IFP.

ADV SIGODI: What would have happened to you if you had not listened to him? What would the organisation have done to you if you had not listened to Mr Kanyele?

MR MVELASE: I would not know, but I don’t think something would have happened to us because that which we did was something we agreed with.

ADV SIGODI: I am saying, if you had not agreed to follow Mr Kanyele’s instructions, what would have happened to you? Is there anything that the organisation could have done to you?

MR MVELASE: No, I don’t think the organisation would have done something because I don’t think the organisation knew about this.

ADV SIGODI: So at the time you did not think that the organisation knew about this so what reason did you have be believe that Mr Kanyele had authority over you?

MR MVELASE: I believed that he had authority because he was active as an organiser within the IFP, deeply involved with the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: But it wasn’t the IFP’s policy to rob and kill people, isn’t it?

MR MVELASE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How were you going to explain to the IFP where this money came from and this murder?

MR MVELASE: The one person who was to make the explanation was Wiseman himself.

CHAIRPERSON: You, as a member of the IFP would also have to answer isn’t it? You brought the IFP to disrepute.

MR MVELASE: That is correct.

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR MVELASE: May the question please be repeated.

CHAIRPERSON: Can the witness not get a permanent mike that is on all the time? Just press that button, but don’t press it all the time just leave it like that.

How were you going to explain to the IFP that you committed all these crimes in its name, for its benefit, but nonetheless against its policy?

MR MVELASE: I was going to apologise very strongly to the IFP because yes, it was not their policy that people be robbed.

CHAIRPERSON: So why embark on the robbery then, if you know the IFP is not going to like this? Why commit it?

MR MVELASE: It is because the needs of the IFP were such that I personally wanted to meet them such as donating when we were going to rallies and even in the event of the death of one of our members.

CHAIRPERSON: How were you going to explain to the IFP that you did something contrary to the policy of the IFP? Why commit the robbery when you know the IFP is going to say "we don’t want this money, our policy is not to rob and to murder"? You knew that was going to happen, why do you then commit the crime?

MR MVELASE: That’s the reason why I am before this Committee, to say that I am here because I broke the policies of the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: No, we are not here to excuse you for breaking the IFP policies, that the IFP must do. I want to know from you, why did you commit these crimes, that’s what I want to know.

MR MVELASE: I committed the crimes in the name of the IFP because I wanted to meet the needs of the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: But you knew the IFP is not going to accept it, they would punish you, if nothing else. You knew that.

MR MVELASE: I was going to apologise very strongly to the IFP for violating their policies as much as I am apologising now.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you decided, you were going to do something against the policy of the IFP and you would apologise for it? Is that what you say? That was part of the plan, do I understand you correctly?

MR MVELASE: No, that was not part of the plan but this was Wiseman’s idea and he is one who could explain in detail in case we were questioned about it. I personally was prepared to undertake an apology for myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was that lady killed?

MR MVELASE: She was killed by mistake, a mistake that was committed by Sampson Manqele.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not have the intention to kill her?

MR MVELASE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

ADV SIGODI: So, do you know how many arms or ammunition the IFP had at the hostel, did you have any knowledge about that?

MR MVELASE: No, I did not have that knowledge.

ADV SIGODI: Then why did you see the need to go and rob in order to get money to buy arms if you did not even know how many arms the IFP had in the hostel.

MR MVELASE: It was a way, or should I say I personally did not have a firearm, for example, a firearm which I could use in the event of a conflict breaking out.

ADV SIGODI: But you did not know how many arms that the IFP had, maybe the IFP had an abundance of arms. What reason did you have to believe that the IFP needed arms?

MR MVELASE: Others, or should I say some of the people who accompanied us to the robbery did not have firearms and that is one of the reasons that made me believe that there was a need for firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: But you took that decision to rob that lady before you saw the arms.

MR MVELASE: Would you please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that when you went on this venture to rob this lady, not all of you people had firearms. That was proof to you that there was a need to effect or do this robbery so that you could buy more arms. You recall saying so?

MR MVELASE: No, that is not so.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) that when you went to rob, some of you didn’t have firearms and that showed you that there was a need for firearms amongst the ranks of the IFP, didn’t you say so?

MR MVELASE: I am saying that most of the members of the IFP did not have firearms, that is why I am saying that I cannot testify as to the amount of firearms that the IFP had.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you or did you not testify that the day you committed this robbery not all the participants in the robbery were armed, do you recall saying so?

MR MVELASE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That indicated to you that there was a shortage of firearms amongst the IFP members, not so? That’s what you testified?

MR MVELASE: I am saying some did not have firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall saying that the fact that not all had firearms showed you that not all IFP members had firearms and that you required more firearms. Did you not say so?

MR MVELASE: Please repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: I am telling you, you said so a couple of minutes ago, that when you went out to rob this lady, not all of you were armed and that indicated to you that there was a necessity to commit this robbery because not all people belonging to the IFP were equipped with firearms. That’s what you said. All I want to know is do you recall saying so?

MR MVELASE: You see, the majority of IFP people did not have firearms that I would have been able to see whether they had many or less, so I had no idea of that.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairperson, just a further matter.

Mr Mvelase, can you just very, very briefly, what exactly did you do when the deceased was killed, what was your role in all this?

MR MVELASE: The role I played was to point at the person in the victim’s company with a firearm, a certain man, a white man. As I was still pointing at him with my gun, I heard a gunshot immediately that I thought was shot by one of the people in my company because it was clear that that could have been the possibility and I saw a person lying down on the floor and immediately, I fled.

CHAIRPERSON: Did I understand you correctly that you were also armed at that time?

MR MVELASE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just clarify something, maybe I’m not hearing properly. Earlier in your testimony you said you were not equipped with a firearm, did you not say so?

MR MVELASE: No, I don’t recall saying that.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chair, if I may, I believe if I understood the applicant correctly he said that:

I also understood it that he never said that he himself was not armed, but he said:

... maybe specifically implying that he was indeed armed. Thank you Mr Chair.

Mr Mvelase, is there anything else you could have done in that particular situation?

MR MVELASE: One possibility - oh yes, there was something I could have done.

MR CLAASSEN: What do you mean by that?

MR MVELASE: I could have got myself temporary jobs and worked part time, get a wage for the day, something like that. That could have been one other way but that was not quite clear.

DR TSOTSI: Mr Mvelase, do I understand you to say that you were the first to pull out your gun and point at this white man?

MR MVELASE: Yes.

DR TSOTSI: So, and the others followed, the others then also pulled out their firearms?

MR MVELASE: Sampson was the next one.

DR TSOTSI: Yes, and you actually saw Sampson pointing his firearm at the woman, is that right?

MR MVELASE: Yes that is correct.

DR TSOTSI: Now, if you did not want to kill the woman, why didn’t you stop him?

MR MVELASE: It wasn’t that easy because it was unexpected.

DR TSOTSI: I don’t understand that. I mean you had your firearm already out and there he was, you saw him pointing a firearm, surely you could have stopped him then, either by holding his hand or putting away his firearm or ... What is it that stopped you from stopping him from using the firearm?

MR MVELASE: As I explained, that wouldn’t have been that easy, I was also shocked by that act.

DR TSOTSI: What was the difficulty about it. If you saw him pointing a firearm at the lady before he shot her, weren’t you near enough to have grasped the gun from him or to have dropped him?

MR MVELASE: I was shocked and suddenly I heard this gunshot and he had already shot at the woman. And I must highlight the fact that that was not part of the plan or the intention, we did not have that intention to kill.

ADV SIGODI: Where was Mr Kanyele on this day?

MR MVELASE: We had left him at Dube.

ADV SIGODI: In other words, he comes up with the idea and plan and then when you actually go to do the robbery he is not there.

MR MVELASE: He had already indicated to us and showed us Sampson Manqele, that is why he did not have to be present.

ADV SIGODI: Why didn’t he come?

MR MVELASE: I have no idea why.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Mvelase, did you stand to gain anything personally from what you attempted that particular day?

MR MVELASE: Wiseman would have been the one to administer that as to whether I benefit from this or not, it lay entirely in his discretion, but how he was to further the mission.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen, I want to ask him certain questions about a letter to be found on page 31 of the bundle. I think it only fair that I draw your attention to that.

MR CLAASSEN: I’ve seen the letter, Mr Chair, I believe it’s in the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are aware of the letter? Okay.

Do you, or did you live at the time in the Province of Gauteng, as it is known now?

MR MVELASE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know Mr Katha Ndlovo? He is the secretary, the Provincial Youth Secretary of the IFP?

MR MVELASE: Yes, I know him.

CHAIRPERSON: Does he know you?

MR MVELASE: I don’t know whether he knows me or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know Mr Peter Magwasa, IFP Regional Office?

MR MVELASE: You mean Peter Magwasa? No, I don’t remember him.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you a card-carrying member of the IFP?

MR MVELASE: I did not have a card.

CHAIRPERSON: Then how did you obtain membership?

ADV SIGODI: Sorry just to clarify, I don’t think we have quite the same as the interpreter. Can you just ask him again if he was a card-carrying member of the IFP.

Were you a card-carrying member of the IFP?

MR MVELASE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you still a card-carrying member of the IFP?

MR MVELASE: Not now, I don’t have any card now, it got lost when I was arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you still a card-carrying member of the IFP?

MR MVELASE: As for now I don’t have the card anymore, it has since disappeared. It got lost, in other words, when I was arrested or when I got arrested.

ADV SIGODI: Tell me, how was your target identified when you were planning this? How did you identify your target?

MR MVELASE: The person who was enlightened about the place we were going to was Sampson Manqele, he was the one who had a better understanding of this whole matter.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but who had the inside information as to who would be carrying the money and from where, at what time and all that, who brought that information to you?

MR MVELASE: Wiseman Kanyele had that information.

ADV SIGODI: So what did he tell you about this lady?

MR MVELASE: He told us that this lady often goes to the bank to fetch some money.

ADV SIGODI: Did he say where she worked?

MR MVELASE: Yes, he did explain.

ADV SIGODI: What did he say?

MR MVELASE: He said this lady works in Parktown North, although I don’t quite remember the details as to where she was working.

ADV SIGODI: Did he tell you how he got that information about her?

MR MVELASE: No, I don’t remember him saying that much.

CHAIRPERSON: You know I Mr Mvelase, I ...(end of Side A of tape)... in which he states that he doesn’t know you, he brings into question your membership of the IFP. What have you got to say about it?

MR MVELASE: No, I don’t necessarily dispute that or disagree with him in that regard because it's quite a number of us as are members of the IFP, so he will not know each and every member of the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me read what he says:

He is speaking about the following:

Mr Kanyele, Mr Mvelase - that’s you Manqele, Sigudu and Mzolo. Have you got any comment about that?

MR MVELASE: This is why I said to you we are quite many in IFP, so he would not know each and every member in the IFP organisation. I don’t think if you were to ask him that question he will be able to identify each and every member of the IFP and I wonder if you canvassed that with him.

CHAIRPERSON: You wonder what?

MR MVELASE: Were they ever asked as to whether they are aware of all the members of IFP in the Dube Hostel.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, they were asked about you six or five, you five people. They were specifically asked about them and that’s why this letter was written. It includes you. Have you got any comments? You asked if he was canvassed. He was asked and it appears that they made a specific enquiry and investigation about your membership with the others and that is what they wrote to the TRC.

MR MVELASE: I maintain the fact that he will not know all of us. In fact, all of the IFP members will not know each and every individual. I know that what we did was not the policy or did not conform with the policy of the IFP. This is why we are here to ask for amnesty.

DR TSOTSI: Mr Mvelase, you told us that you were a card-carrying member of the IFP. If you are a card carrying member of the IFP, presumably your name must appear on some record of membership for IFP, and there would be no difficulty in the leaders checking from their records and finding out whether or not you are a member of IFP, don’t you agree?

MR MVELASE: Well their records, I would like to question their records. They date way back to which year? The list of the members of the IFP, their records containing the members of the IFP, dates, way back to which year?

ADV SIGODI: Alright, when were you given your card?

MR MVELASE: I got my card in 1991.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know Mr Hlongwane?

MR MVELASE: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Does he stay in the Dube Hostel?

MR MVELASE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It’s the same hostel you say you were staying, and for which you were robbing people to arm the residents of that hostel?

MR MVELASE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hlongwane will know if you were a member of the IFP, not so?

MR MVELASE: He won’t know all of us including Hlongwane himself, he won’t know all of us.

CHAIRPERSON: You are saying that you have so many IFP members in that hostel that people won’t be able to say who are IFP members or are not?

MR MVELASE: Well, there are people who are popular and well-known. Like myself, an ordinary person, who did not feature prominently some activities in the past, who would not be known as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this your first notorious activity?

MR MVELASE: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: How long had you been staying at the hostel before you committed this crime?

MR MVELASE: I arrived at the hostel in 1990, to the day of this incident in 1993 on the 30^th.

ADV SIGODI: Were you employed at this time?

MR MVELASE: I had a lot of temporary jobs.

ADV SIGODI: I heard you when you were asked what would you have done differently and your answer was, when you were asked by your own legal representative, I heard you say that you would try to get more temporary jobs. What difference would it have made to the robbery if you did not have a temporary job?

MR MVELASE: The difference would have been that - you see, the money I obtained from such part time jobs wasn’t that much, it only provided a plate or a meal for that particular day but did not stretch beyond that and to buy clothes for myself.

ADV SIGODI: Did you expect to be paid for this job that you did or this robbery that you committed for the IFP, or to be remunerated? Did you expect any form of remuneration?

MR MVELASE: What I expected was to do this to strengthen the organisation and to further its mission.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you finished with your questioning, Mr Claassen?

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair, I have.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any more questions, I don’t know if there’s any left?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETE: I have a few Mr Chairperson.

Mr Mvelase, a few questions. On page 7 of the bundle 10(a) of your application, you say that:

Is that correct?

MR MVELASE: That is correct.

MS THABETE: Exactly what was the intention?

MR MVELASE: The intention was to try and rob so that we can meet the needs of the IFP.

MS THABETE: My next question following to that, why then didn’t you act according to your intentions?

MR MVELASE: It is for that reason that I am saying that it was a mistake on the part of Sampson Manqele when he did something to which we had not agreed or planned.

MS THABETE: Did you discuss the incident thereafter as a group that had planned the robbery?

MR MVELASE: I asked him, that was when we were now in prison, and I wanted to know from him why he did that and he said it was a mistake. He could not answer as to how it happened.

MS THABETE: When you were discussing this did he tell you why he shot Miss Govender when you had agreed that you should just rob her?

MR MVELASE: He said it was a very, very big mistake on his part, which mistake he too could not explain.

CHAIRPERSON: I must be quite honest here, I find something very strange. You people don’t have any intention of killing anybody but yet you arm yourselves going on this robbery, what were you going to do with the arms?

MR MVELASE: The firearms were to be used to scare off or frighten the targets, to scare them off so that they could give us the money that we wanted. It was not our intention to kill any one of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was there ammunition in it, and why was there more than one gun?

MR MVELASE: I would say that we did not concern ourselves with having to use firearms that did not have ammunition, but basically our intention was not to go there to kill.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that your answer? What did you think was going to happen? What would have happened if this lady resisted?

MR MVELASE: I think that because there were many of us, there were four of us, there was no need really to kill her. Yes, this happened as an error because she too was not armed. I did not see any arm in her possession. Really it was not our intention to kill her, it just happened, it was a mistake. Those were not our intentions. That is why I am saying it was a very big mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mvelase, you are not answering my question. What did you think was going to happen to this woman if she resisted the robbery?

MR MVELASE: Because we were many, there were four of us, I don’t think that she could have resisted or refused to give us the money because we had firearms pointed at her.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not asking what you think, I am asking what would have happened to her had she said "no you can’t have the money" and resisted, or produced a firearm herself? What would have happened to her?

MR MVELASE: Yes, that was possible but I don’t think that she could have resisted after having firearms pointed at her.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that your answer to my question? Would you like me to repeat the question one more time?

MR MVELASE: Yes, I think the answer suffices.

MS THABETE: On page 8 of the bundle number 11(a) of your application, there is a question which asks who gave the order and in your application you said:

Can you explain why you did not write Wiseman’s name and can you also explain why you never mentioned Wiseman in your application.

MR MVELASE: I think that had questions pertaining to Wiseman been raised, I would have answered them.

MS THABETE: Sorry, I don’t understand that answer, can you repeat it please?

MR MVELASE: I am saying had they asked me questions about Wiseman maybe I could have included his name.

MS THABETE: But, Mr Mvelase, the question asks you who gave you an order. You were asked the same question today and you said Wiseman Kanyele. My question to you is why didn’t you answer like that before in your application, why are you only saying that today, now? That’s my question.

MR MVELASE: I would like to know as to which statement you are referring to and who took it from me and when?

MS THABETE: It’s on the application, Mr Mvelase, which you have signed at the end, page 8 of the bundle.

MR MVELASE: ...(no English interpretation)

MS THABETE: Why not?

MR MVELASE: I don’t think I would have failed to answer such an important question.

MS THABETE: Because it asks you who gave the order and then at number (b) it asks you the name of the person who gave you an order, why couldn’t you give the name of Wiseman?

MR MVELASE: It is for that reason that I am saying that I don’t think that I could have failed to answer such an important question.

MS THABETE: I won’t follow this question anymore. My next question to you is, exactly what was your role during the whole robbery incident?

MR MVELASE: My role was to point the firearm at these two people and rob them.

MS THABETE: What did you do during the robbery incident?

MR MVELASE: I pointed a firearm at this white male and Manqele had his firearm pointed to the female, and this female, if I still remember very well, had I think about two bags in her possession. Yes, there were two bags of money.

MS THABETE: So what are you applying for amnesty for?

MR MVELASE: I am seeking amnesty for taking part in this robbery, attempted robbery and the death of the deceased and I am seeking amnesty from the IFP as a whole for violating their policies and I am asking for forgiveness from the entire South African population.

MS THABETE: Are you aware that you were charged with attempted murder of Mr Rupert Colleen and you were actually convicted for it?

MR MVELASE: Yes.

MS THABETE: Would you say this was part of the plan? How would you justify this politically?

MR MVELASE: ...(no English interpretation)

MS THABETE: No, attempted murder of Mr Rupert Colleen.

MR MVELASE: It was within our plans because I was to point this firearm at this person. He could not have easily given the money to us, I was to point the firearm at him.

MS THABETE: Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen have you got any questions?

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you, no questions from my side Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Manqele, which language would you prefer to use?

MR MANQELE: Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any objection to the taking of the oath?

S F MANQELE: (sworn states).

EXAMINATION BY MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Manqele, I would like you to just very briefly -you are currently serving a sentence with regard to offences of which you had been committed, the same offences of which the previous two applicants applied for amnesty, is that correct?

MR MANQELE: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, I would just like to point you to - if I may Mr Chairman, page 12 of the bundle.

Mr Manqele, on the 2^nd of February, 2^nd of January 1996, you completed an application for ...(indistinct) in terms of an indemnity with regard to the crimes for which you had been committed. Do you recollect completing such a statement?

MR MANQELE: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: It is also true that during December of 1996, almost 12 months later, 11 months later, you completed an amnesty application form, Form 1, with regards to an application for amnesty which relates to exactly the same conviction, is that correct?

MR MANQELE: Please repeat.

MR CLAASSEN: Later the same year, after making application for indemnity, you also filled out an application for amnesty which greatly differs from your initial application.

MR MANQELE: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, could you just indicate to the Committee, the initial application, the indemnity application, the information which you gave on that application, is that the true facts of what occurred on that particular day?

MR MANQELE: I would not be in a position to indicate that, because what I filled in on the indemnity application is not true.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Manqele, could you just explain to this Committee, they have the bundle in front of them, the information which you disclosed in this indemnity application, why that is not the truth.

MR MANQELE: It is because I did not obtain the full truth pertaining to the indemnity or how it works. We were told that when you tell the truth, you will get further sentence, so it is best that one lies.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, now how did things differ from that time to the time of your amnesty application? Why - let me just maybe ask you this, the information given in your amnesty application, is that the correct version of events?

MR MANQELE: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: Why did you decide to tell the truth in your amnesty application and not in the indemnity?

MR MANQELE: It is because the IFP legal reps came.

MR CLAASSEN: And it was explained to you how the amnesty process works and that you should make a full disclosure should you want to qualify for amnesty?

MR MANQELE: Please just repeat that part.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele - Mr Chairman if I may just - could you just briefly tell us what occurred on this particular day of the death of the deceased, what was your involvement, your role and what exactly happened?

MR MANQELE: On this particular day in question, when this event took place or happened, I had previously been there to inspect the area, the place which was told to me by Wiseman Kanyele, together with my colleagues. He showed me the way too and the way to effect service and he further told us that these people have money and indeed I went there with my colleagues and I showed them exactly as it was shown to me that here ...(intervention)

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, if I may. You, in the application form which you completed, which you went through, you initially said it was written down that you did not receive instructions from anybody, is this the correct version, or did you receive instructions from anyone?

MR MANQELE: May I ask which application are you referring to now, because you have made mention to two applications here, one being the indemnity one and the other amnesty, which one are you referring to at this point.

MR CLAASSEN: The amnesty application, the one which you just said contains the correct information. You also state in that particular paragraph in which you shortly put down the facts of what occurred, you say that:

Is this correct?

MR MANQELE: That I did not receive any instruction from anyone, being a superior or a leader, in the organisation.

MR CLAASSEN: Are you now referring to yourself?

MR MANQELE: Right now I am referring a member of the organisation, being Wiseman Kanyele.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, could I just put it to you like this, did you receive instructions from anyone?

MR MANQELE: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: From whom?

MR MANQELE: Wiseman Kanyele.

MR CLAASSEN: And what were these instructions?

MR MANQELE: Wiseman Kanyele gave us an instruction that entailed the fact that for us to be able to be free of all the problems that emanated in the hostel from the ANC people, we should be in a position to obtain firearms and be in a position of having cash or money, then there is one way we could come out of this problem, where he works there is money that we would be able to obtain to be able to fulfil the mission we were up to.

MR CLAASSEN: What is this mission that you are referring to?

MR MANQELE: That would be - in fact myself, I was an IFP member, but each time an IFP member died or got killed, I would not be in a position to donate some money. Secondly, as a member of IFP I did not have any firearm that would enable me to stand and fight against, and defend myself from any attackers. Thirdly, sometimes we would run into a situation where we need monies in case we have activities such as rallies, we would be in a position to have money, but we would not be in a position to have money, so that would have helped.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, just very very briefly, explain to the Committee, what was your role and what exactly happened that particular day that the deceased was killed, what exactly happened?

MR MANQELE: On this day of this event I was one of the people who was directly facing the deceased and I was pointing my firearm at her.

MR CLAASSEN: What happened then?

MR MANQELE: As I was pointing my firearm, in fact as I drew out my firearm and stopped her, we did not particularly agree, in fact I could tell that she was shocked by the fact that I was drawing out a firearm and she screamed and jumped around and there were cars around us, and by so doing she happened to get into contact with the other car and suddenly the alarm from that car went off from that car and now I could not further explain to her and to why and what I wanted from her because of all this commotion that took place. And now in that very commotion with myself this side trying to pull the bags, I therefore heard the sound of a gunshot and I was confused. In fact I got confused for a minute because I did not know where this gunshot was coming from, and I let go of her and we ran off. In fact we fled.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, this gunshot came from your firearm, is that correct?

MR MANQELE: Yes, but I was only told by the police. That got clear to me when the police was relaying the whole thing to me, but when it happened I could not quite tell as to where it was coming from.

CHAIRPERSON: How far were you from this lady when you shot her?

MR MANQELE: We were quite close to each other because I was trying to pull off the bag which she had on her arm.

CHAIRPERSON: And how far was the firearm from her body?

MR MANQELE: It wasn’t too far.

CHAIRPERSON: Give us an indication.

MR MANQELE: As she hung her handbag around her arm, as is the practice with the ladies, I tried to pull the bag and she was trying to run away and then I had my firearm pointing at her, but it is not that it is in direct contact with her body, the firearm that is.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Manqele, all I am asking is how far was the firearm from her body.

MR MANQELE: The estimation will be from where I am and my legal rep is, but one thing I won’t be able to explain is ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Less than half a metre? Did we agree?

MR CLAASSEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And to which part of her body was your firearm directed when you shot her?

MR MANQELE: Because as I was pointing the firearm at her - this was not planned you know as such, that where shall I point the firearm exactly where, so that I am not able to tell exactly as to which part of her body my firearm was pointing at, but what I will try to explain is that it would be on the upper part of her body like from the head right towards the chest, the upper part of her body.

CHAIRPERSON: Look Mr Manqele, you were less than a half a metre away from her, pulling her and pointing your firearm at her, do you really want us to believe that you are unable to say at which portion of her body this firearm was being pointed?

MR MANQELE: What I would like you to believe is that you should have an idea as to where my firearm was pointing. I think it was from the head, face, right up to the chest because my firearm was not pointing down, but it was pointing to the upper part of her body, as I indicated.

CHAIRPERSON: The back or the front, on the side, or where?

MR MANQELE: The front side.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair.

Mr Manqele, this attempted robbery went terribly wrong. Did you know Wiseman Kanyele before this incident?

MR MANQELE: Yes, I knew him.

MR CLAASSEN: Did you know him in a political capacity and what specific capacity?

MR MANQELE: I knew him as a member of the IFP, so was I.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, did you in your personal capacity stand to gain anything from what occurred that particular day?

MR MANQELE: The one thing that I wanted to gain personally was that if it meant that I too should die under the circumstances that we lived in, should die, because some of our members had already died during the conflict.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, how do you feel today about what had happened on that particular day?

MR MANQELE: I can say it is very, very hurtful. I am full of remorse because ultimately when I landed in jail I concluded and understood that I violated the policies of the IFP, and that is why I took it upon myself to make an application for amnesty and direct my apologies to the families of the deceased.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, maybe just in conclusion, were there any prior specific political incidents which led to the decision that such an act should be committed, anything specifically that happened with you, with any of the people involved, that made you decide that you should take this drastic action?

MR MANQELE: Yes, there were certain things that occurred, like the dying of many IFP members, something which necessitated us to gather some money so that we could transport them back home where they could be buried. When Wiseman Kanyele came up with this suggestion, I associated with it because I too show myself waiting for my death, possibly the same way as my fellow IFP colleagues.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, was there nothing else to be done about the situation?

MR MANQELE: I would say that I did not know exactly what to do to satisfy the needs to which I have already referred, so that when Wiseman came up with this plan I felt it within myself, I saw this as an opportunity to face the challenge that we were faced with.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman, that would be all from us.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, do you have any questions?

MS THABETE: Yes, Mr Chair, but may I please have a two minute adjournment.

S F MANQELE: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Manqele, would you agree with the other applicants, that there was a plan, specifically to rob Miss Govender?

MR MANQELE: Yes.

MS THABETE: Would you also agree that you were chosen to go with Mr Wiseman so that he could show you who this specific woman was that you had to rob?

MR MANQELE: Yes.

MS THABETE: What did he show you, what did Mr Wiseman Kanyele show you?

MR MANQELE: He showed me the vehicle that they were using.

MS THABETE: When you say ...(Zulu), who are you referring to? Who is "they"?

MR MANQELE: I am referring to the one person who died at my hands and this other white male who was in her company.

MS THABETE: So who was your target, was it the lady or was it both of them, according to your plan?

MR MANQELE: Both of them.

MS THABETE: What were you supposed to do to them, according to your plan?

MR MANQELE: We were supposed to point our firearms at them on arrival.

MS THABETE: Is that all?

MR MANQELE: And then rob them of the money that they had in their possession.

MS THABETE: How did you know they carried money with them?

MR MANQELE: Wiseman Kanyele gave us that information.

MS THABETE: Did he tell you how he knew these people?

MR MANQELE: Yes, I still remember.

MS THABETE: Can you tell us?

MR MANQELE: Yes.

MS THABETE: Please tell us.

MR MANQELE: Wiseman indicated that he was employed at the place of employment of these two people, but then he did not indicate. What he told me is that he was employed there but then he did not indicate to me as to whether he was employed with the two targets or not.

MS THABETE: So would it be correct for me to say Mr Wiseman identified these two people because they worked in the same area and he used to see them carrying bags of money to the bank?

MR MANQELE: Will you please repeat the question.

MS THABETE: Would it be correct for me to say Mr Wiseman Kanyele identified these two people, that is the white man and the woman, because he worked in the same area with them and as a result he used to see them with bags of money, going to the bank? Would it be correct for me to say so?

MR MANQELE: The information to my knowledge is that he was working there, whether he was working in the same area as these people or the same firm is not quite clear, but then the one information that I had was that he was working there. Whether he was working with these people or he was working in the same area as the people was not quite clear.

MS THABETE: When you say ...(Zulu) who are you referring to, what does ...(Zulu) refer to, is it the same company, does it refer to the same area, what does it refer to?

MR MANQELE: He showed me a building in the shopping centre, but then I don’t know how or what was happening inside in terms of the different companies, who was working where or where these other people were working, etc. I did not have quite the same, or should I say, knowledge, as to whether they were working for the same employer or whether they were just working in the same shopping complex.

MS THABETE: So, in your indemnity statement, when you said Mr Wiseman Kanyele told you that he was working with this lady, were you lying, or did you mean what you just explained?

MR MANQELE: Yes, he told me that he was working at the place where these people were to be robbed were working, but then I don’t know as to whether they were working at the same company or department or different companies or what.

MS THABETE: Was Mr Kanyele employed when he went to show you these people?

MR MANQELE: Would you please repeat the question.

MS THABETE: Was Mr Kanyele still working at this building when he went to show you these people?

MR MANQELE: He was not working at the time.

MS THABETE: Did he tell you why he was not working there anymore?

MR MANQELE: No.

MS THABETE: Were you employed at this time? Were you working anywhere at this time?

INTERPRETER: It looks like we have a technical problem, Chairperson.

MS THABETE: Can you answer the question then, were you employed during this time?

MR MANQELE: No.

MS THABETE: Was Mr Mvelase employed?

MR MANQELE: I would not know because we did not live under one roof.

MS THABETE: Was Mr Sigudu employed?

MR MANQELE: He, too, I would not be in a position to say whether he was employed or not because we used to see one another as residents of the hostel and we did not discuss anything pertaining to employment.

MS THABETE: I find that a bit strange Mr Manqele, in the sense that you got together, you planned a robbery, but you did not know whether the others were working or not. What is your comment to that?

INTERPRETER: It looks like the applicant still has a problem with reception, may the question please be repeated.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, will you repeat the question please.

MS THABETE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

I say I find it strange Mr Manqele that you came together, you made a plan with these people to go and rob two people but you didn’t know whether they were working or not, what is your comment to that?

INTERPRETER: Mr Chairperson it looks like the applicant still has the same problem with reception.

MR CLAASSEN: Speak to me please, Interpreter, on channel 4. Speak to me on channel 4 please. I hear you perfectly. It’s fine, I don’t know what the problem is, it’s perfect here.

MS THABETE: Shall I repeat the question? I was saying Mr Manqele, I find it strange that you got together with these people, you stayed in the same hostel but somehow you didn’t know whether they were working or not. What is your comment to that?

MS THABETE: Chairperson I’m not getting any response.

MR CLAASSEN: There’s nothing wrong with the system Judge.

MR MANQELE: Yes, I can hear now.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you give it one more try Ms Thabete, please.

MS THABETE: Thanks, Mr Chairperson.

My question, Mr Manqele was, I find it strange that you stayed in the same hostel, You made a plan, you got together and you planned to go and rob these people but you didn’t know whether Mr Mvelase and Mr Sigudu were employed or not. What is your comment to that?

MR MANQELE: I did not know.

MS THABETE: Sorry Mr Chair, can I get some guidance. In my recollection, I think that we asked whether they were employed or not at that stage and they said they were not employed. Would I be correct to say so?

CHAIRPERSON: As I remember it, yes.

MS THABETE: Yes.

Mr Manqele, in the light of the fact that - even though you didn’t know at the time that Mr Mvelase and Mr Sigudu were also not employed, how do you justify or how would you explain to the Committee member that you did not commit the robbery for personal gain, but you committed the robbery to further the objectives of the IFP as you have alleged?

MR MANQELE: I would say that - pertaining to what befell us, I can say that we did not involve ourselves in the crime for personal gain. I am confident that had it not been for the things that were happening at the place where I was residing, I would not be here. I had been in Johannesburg for quite some time and I had come here specifically to look for a job so that I could take care of my parents, but then the situation at my place of residence was such that I ended up being here where I am today. Had it not been for the fact that members of the IFP found themselves faced with conflict which could not be escaped to save oneself, it is therefore for that reason that we did what we did for that one reason, because it was peaceful and there was stability in the years when I arrived here in Johannesburg, but then I later on found myself deeply involved in the violence that landed me here. What I can say to the Committee is that what I did with my colleagues was not that I wanted any personal gain but instead we wanted to further the aims of the members of the IFP.

MS THABETE: What were the aims of the IFP that you wanted to further?

MR MANQELE: If I still remember very well, according to what I heard from the IFP from my childhood, the aim was that we had to unite and be one and stop hatred and conflict so that things should be resolved through negotiations.

MS THABETE: So how did you seek to achieve that aim by robbing somebody?

MR MANQELE: The aim was such that myself and my colleagues found ourselves in a conflict situation. It was not the intention or aims of the IFP that we found ourselves in that position. I, for one, do not remember any IFP member coming to me or other members in a meeting or whatever, saying that we should fight, but instead what was happening is that I heard the IFP meeting, that I heard from IFP members in some of the meetings that these people are talking rubbish, they are not going to dictate to us.

MS THABETE: In other words you were not going to listen to IFP?

MR MANQELE: The ones that I am saying were talking rubbish.

MS THABETE: What I am asking is, in other words you were saying that you were not going to, by doing this you were going to go against the policy of the IF, because, as far as you were concerned, they were talking rubbish. Did I hear you correctly?

MR MANQELE: No, you did not get me well. The people whom I am saying they are talking, it is actually IFP members who were talking, referring to ANC members with whom we were in conflict...... (end of Side A of tape) ... from my childhood, as a member of the IFP, I was told that problems can be resolved through negotiations. That is why I am saying that the conflict itself was not part of the policies or aims of the IFP.

MS THABETE: Yes, but how did you seek to achieve the aims of the IFP by going to rob somebody?

MR MANQELE: There was no other way through which we could accomplish the aims of the IFP. Our involvement in the conflict was in itself the violation of the policies of the IFP. It is we members of the IFP who were involved in violence.

MS THABETE: Thanks. Mr Manqele, considering the fact that what you did was against the IFP policies, if you were so concerned about fund-raising for the IFP, why didn’t you go to IFP officials or the authorities at the hostel, because from the letter that is in the bundle it was clear that there were IFP authorities at the hostel? My question is why didn’t you approach them to find out how you could fund-raise for the IFP and do something that was within the policies of the IFP if you were so concerned about fund-raising for the organisation?

MR MANQELE: According to my knowledge, the reason for us not going to the leadership of the IFP is that the conflict - the reason for us not going to the leadership of the IFP at the hostel is that the violence that we were facing at Dube was directed at us, not them. And for the violence to reach them or affect them, it had to affect us first.

MS THABETE: Sorry Mr Manqele, can I cut you there, I am talking about authorities in Dube Hostel, I am not talking about authorities from elsewhere.

MR MANQELE: Yes, I am referring to the leadership at the hostel. The leaders at the hostel, they as leaders at the hostel were leaders because of us. Every bad thing ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Who were they? Let’s hear that. Who are these leaders at the hostel?

MR MANQELE: The ones that I still remember are Mr Hlongwane, Mr Xinde and Mr Zulu. Those are the ones that I still remember, and a few others.

CHAIRPERSON: Those were IFP members. They were the IFP leaders in the hostel, am I correct?

MR MANQELE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: They would know who their foot soldiers were, their members in the hostel, correct?

MR MANQELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And they knew you, as a resident of Dube Hostel?

MR MANQELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

MS THABETE: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

I am coming now to the incident in question. Considering the fact that there were four of you, some of you were armed, including yourself, you approached a lady, you were all men, the four of you, you approached a lady who was unarmed, how do you explain and justify this politically. Oh, sorry, before you answer that one, why did you shoot her?

MR MANQELE: It was by mistake that she got shot.

I am saying it was not my intention to shoot her.

MS THABETE: No, what I am asking is what do you mean:

Did the gun fire by mistake, what mistake are you talking about?

MR MANQELE: No, the gun did not go off by itself, but a shot went off because I made the gun to fire.

MS THABETE: So my question remains. Was it necessary for you really to shoot her, considering the fact that there were four of you, armed men, the victim was a woman, unarmed, was it really necessary for you to shoot her?

MR MANQELE: No, it was not necessary.

MS THABETE: So why did you do it?

MR MANQELE: I, too, cannot even explain how this happened. I also got a shock when the police told me that we had shot a person but at the time when this was happening and when this gun went off, it did not occur to me that I was the one who was shooting. That is why I am saying that what happened was not within my intentions. It is for this reason that I am asking for forgiveness from the family of the deceased, because it was not my intention to shoot the deceased.

MS THABETE: My last question to you. I understand what you are saying, that it was a mistake, you did not intend to kill her, did not plan to kill her, she was killed nevertheless. How do you justify that politically? What would you say is your justification politically?

MR MANQELE: The political motive is that I found myself in that situation because we had gone there to try and get some money for the IFP.

MS THABETE: Who told you that the IFP did not have money?

MR MANQELE: ...(no English interpretation)

MS THABETE: Where do you get that from? I mean, the IFP has a leader, Chief Mangasutho Buthelezi, it would hold rallies, where did you get the idea that the IFP did not have money?

MR MANQELE: I got this from the death of members of the IFP because in the event of a member of the IFP dying, we would be informed at the hostel that a member had passed away and we would have to contribute so that the corpse could be transferred back home where it should be buried.

MS THABETE: Surely there were people who were IFP members at the hostel who were working and who would make such contributions, is that not so?

MR MANQELE: That is correct.

MS THABETE: So why was it necessary to go and rob for that?

MR MANQELE: It was important and necessary because we did not have money to contribute at the time in the event of monies being required to be contributed towards the meeting of the transportation of the corpse to be buried at home.

MS THABETE: In other words, you wanted to get this money in order that you were able to contribute money if it is called for, to transport or to pay for transport for people to be taken back home, is this what you are telling us?

MR MANQELE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, any more questions?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen have you got any?

MR CLAASSEN: No questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you go first.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know why Wiseman was not at the scene of the robbery?

MR MANQELE: Yes, I know.

ADV SIGODI: Why did he not go?

MR MANQELE: He told me that it would not be appropriate because he was known in that area.

ADV SIGODI: He was also known by the victim, is that not so?

MR MANQELE: Yes, and many others who used to work with him in that area.

ADV SIGODI: I’ve got a statement here on page 16, the typed statement. It is not signed, but your written version of it is on pages 13, 14 and 15. That is the statement which you say is not true. However, you mentioned that - sorry, I cannot seem to find that statement, but there is a statement where you said Mr Kanyele was bearing a grudge against this lady particularly because she was responsible for his retrenchment at work, do you remember that? Do you know anything about that?

MR MANQELE: ...(no English interpretation)

ADV SIGODI: Okay, I’ll just get it now. Oh, yes, it’s the typed statement on page 16. Well, I get the impression that you were accompanying Mr Kanyele here to Parktown to collect his money for his retrenchment but then you go on to say:

Do you know anything about that, do you remember that statement?

MR MANQELE: Which statement are you talking about?

ADV SIGODI: I have referred to page 16, if you can help me.

MR MANQELE: Yes, now I can see the statement. Yes I can answer. My legal representative asked me about this statement earlier. I will repeat what I said to my legal representative, that this letter of indemnity did not, on arrival at the prison, or should I say the situation was such that I did not have anybody coming to me to explain to me as to how I should go about filling it in and the people who were assisting me in filling it in were people who were arrested.

ADV SIGODI: Mr Manqele, that is not the issue here. What I am trying to find out is, is there some truth in this statement? Is it not true that Mr Kanyele was retrenched whilst he had been working at the place or with the people that he instructed you to rob?

MR MANQELE: This statement is not correct.

ADV SIGODI: Alright, let’s take it step by step. Is it not true that Mr Kanyele was working at the place where these people that you robbed were working?

MR MANQELE: Yes, it is true that he was working at the same place where these two people who were robbed were employed.

ADV SIGODI: Alright, is it not true that he is the one who went to show you who the targets would be?

MR MANQELE: Yes, he took me along to show me as to who or which people were to be robbed.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, and he showed you Miss Govender and the white man, is that not true?

MR MANQELE: He showed me a car.

ADV SIGODI: Didn’t he show you the two people?

MR MANQELE: No.

ADV SIGODI: How did you identify them on the day that they were going to - on the day that you robbed them, how did you manage to identify them?

MR MANQELE: I knew them because they had come out of the same vehicle which he pointed out to me.

ADV SIGODI: How did you know that they were the right people?

MR MANQELE: I knew because of the identity of the vehicle which they were using.

ADV SIGODI: But you knew that it would be a woman that you would have to rob?

MR MANQELE: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: So where did you get this information that you supplied in your indemnity statement? Did you just pick it up out of the blue?

MR MANQELE: The information contained here is information that is such that it is information part of which was concocted between myself and my co-inmates. Some of this is a lie.

ADV SIGODI: And some of it is not a lie?

MR MANQELE: That is correct.

ADV SIGODI: Is it true that Wiseman Kanyele had been retrenched?

MR MANQELE: According to his explanation he indicated that he was employed there but when he later on told me that we had to go and get his money, he was no longer working at that place.

ADV SIGODI: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that lady involved in his losing his job?

MR MANQELE: That is a lie.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s all. Doctor? Yes, thank you, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all the evidence you have got Mr Claassen?

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair that is indeed all the evidence that I have.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any witnesses that you would like to call?

MS THABETE: No Mr Chairperson, but I would like to take this opportunity to put it on record that the victim’s next of kin were notified. They are in Cape Town and they said they are not interested in attending the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen, there are just a few things that we need to find out from you before we ... As far as you are concerned, what are the applications directed at, because I am not really certain myself.

MR CLAASSEN ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair, having looked at the applications and I mean the applications that was submitted by the three applicants, with specific reference to the convictions and also the evidence given by the three applicants in chief today, Mr Chair, it is true that, as far as it is true that in the application mention is made of the possession of illegal firearms, the attempted murder as well as the specific murder of, I think it was Miss Govender, the deceased.

Mr Chair, I think one would be more than naive to say that if one takes into consideration the requirements for the granting of amnesty and specifically the proviso or the provisions that is made by the promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, if I may just start, Mr Chair, by, I think that it clearly strikes on the three main considerations that being the objective had to be politically associated, there had to be full disclosure and obviously the question of proportionality of the act that they committed.

Mr Chair, maybe even before getting to the evidence of the applicants and their version of what had occurred, surely the question stands to be argued or was what they did, indeed politically motivated or even vaguely associated with a political objective. Mr Chair, maybe if I could just get to the letter which you specifically brought to the attention of the second applicant and it's clearly stated by both the applicants that the situation in Dube Hostel was such that they deemed it necessary to commit this act to relieve the immediate situation and their immediate pressing political turmoil in which they found themselves.

They acted, it is the version of the applicants, on the instruction of Mr Wiseman Kanyele, yet they only know him to be a member of the IFP, not a senior member or a member who holds any rank of significance within the IFP. And they say that had this robbery gone according to plan, that the money would be given to the IFP, yet in stark contrast to what they alleged they wanted to do, they admit that this is very expressly not the policy of the IFP and the IFP goes so far to, in writing, distance them from what has happened.

Mr Chair, if one looks at Section 20, and it is very broadly defined, and even if one looks at it very broadly one would be naive not to say the question remains, was there any mention whatsoever, that higher structures in the IFP knew of this and had they known would they have condoned it, which by their own account is not the situation, Mr Chair, and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen, do you think that everything that was needed to be said in order to comply with the Act has in fact been said?

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chair, it is true if one looks at, once again, at the Act itself, a broad picture of, or if one looks at the specific requirements for amnesty, surely all the points which might be considered to grant an amnesty application, might not by all the accused have been uncovered by the testimony of all the accused.

Even if that, Mr Chair, considering that and just taking into account the versions of the applicants, surely the requirements stand that these requirements should not be seen separately but they should all be met and in view thereof, certainly there are shortcomings which one cannot overlook.

Mr Chair, if I may just, with specific reference to the testimony of the applicants, and should it be considered I think, even if one gets past the political motive and should the Committee feel that there was sufficient underlying political motive, the versions of the accused themselves should be taken into account and whether they are truthful witnesses and what they allege happened could be believed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think you would be best served by leaving that in our hands.

MR CLAASSEN: I believe so. Thank you Mr Chair, I would not ... ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate your position.

MR CLAASSEN: As the Chair wishes. I would leave the decision of these applications in the capable hands of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any submissions to make, Ms Thabete? It is not necessary if you don’t want.

MS THABETE: I will leave the decision in the capable hands of the Committee Members, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. We will take time to consider this application and the decision will be published in due course. We're adjourned till 9 o’clock tomorrow morning.