CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We are going to start the proceedings. For the record, it is Tuesday the 27th of July 1999, it is the continuation of the sitting of the Amnesty Committee, held at Port Elizabeth. The Panel is constituted as has been indicated earlier on the record.

Today we will be hearing the amnesty application of Mzixholo Stokwe, amnesty reference AM6538/96. For the record, for the applicant, Mr Nyoka. Will you put yourself on record please.

MR NYOKA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I'm Pumelo Nyoka, for the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyoka. And for the victims, Mr Ntonga?

MR NTONGA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am B B Ntonga, from B B Ntonga and Company, East London, for the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ntonga. And then Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm Ms Thabile Thabethe, the Evidence Leader for the TRC.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Yes, Mr Nyoka, is there anything that you want to put on record, or do you want us to administer the oath to your client?

MR NYOKA: Just one, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NYOKA: I just wish to place on record that I was instructed in this matter yesterday at 2 o'clock and I wish to beg the Committee to bear with me if I don't show, you know hundred percent readiness, but I am ready, I tried my best. I was only instructed at 2 o'clock. We consulted yesterday and today. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Nyoka, I can perhaps just indicate that we appreciate your willingness to assist in this matter and we bear in mind what you had put on record.

MZIXHOLO STOKWE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may be seated. Mr Nyoka?

EXAMINATION BY MR NYOKA: Thank you.

Mr Stokwe, how old are you?

MR STOKWE: I'm 32 years old.

MR NYOKA: Where were you born?

MR STOKWE: In Jansenville.

MR NYOKA: And what is your current position now?

MR STOKWE: I'm a Captain in the South African Police Service and I'm also a protector of the President of the country.

MR NYOKA: Are you a bodyguard of the President?

MR STOKWE: Yes, that is correct.

MR NYOKA: Before, what was your position?

MR STOKWE: I was also the bodyguard of the Premier of this province, Mr Stofile. From here I was sent to Cape Town, to protect the President.

MR NYOKA: On page 11 of the bundle you have an affidavit, a statement about this application. I request you to read it briefly for the Commission into the record and if you have any additions to make you can make them. Page 11.

MR STOKWE: Yes, I will do that.

But there is something that I would like to correct in this statement. They are people here that we included. The TRC told me to respond and confirm the names of the people and I responded on the 19th, to the fax that was sent to verify that the following did not participate because those people were sentenced for life in jail and they were released as political prisoners. In this statement their names they still appear, even though I sent a fax saying that they were not there.

Also I want to correct something here because the statement. It is written here "Lesotho". We did not have camps in Lesotho, I was in Angola.

MR NYOKA: Thank you, Mr Stokwe. On page 9 of the bundle, paragraph (c), you have stated that you are applying for amnesty for murder and public violence, but what in your statement, ...(indistinct) statement, you are saying that it's for arson and malicious injury to property. I understand you're not a lawyer, public violence, by public violence, do you include the offences of arson and malicious injury to property? Because public violence is something else, arson and malicious injury to property are two different things. Were you including arson and malicious injury to property in that term of public violence?

MR STOKWE: Yes, because I was trying to write one word for all those things.

MR NYOKA: I would like the Honourable Committee to note that answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR NYOKA: Further, how would you describe the situation in 1984 and 1985, politically?

MR STOKWE: In 1984, in 1985, it was a very difficult situation because we were under the white government and at the time we were fighting to liberate the people of South Africa that were oppressed. So the situation was very difficult. Thank you.

MR NYOKA: Is it correct that you were not under threat of prosecution, criminal prosecution or you do not apply because someone else was applying for amnesty for this offence? You applied voluntarily, is that correct?

MR STOKWE: I applied voluntarily, nobody forced me. I thought that I should apply because we're staying in Jansenville, it's a small town, everybody knows each other. But at that time there was this conflict, but because we are one community I thought that I should satisfy the people that we did these things to them, so that we can have peace in that area. That's why I decided to apply for amnesty.

MR NYOKA: From the documentation there is no ...(indistinct) objection by the families of the victims. What do you wish to say to them today?

MR STOKWE: I want to say to the families I apologise to them for whatever happened to them. All the family members. But the situation at the time forced us to do what we did. For example in the case of councillors, my mother was also a councillor, I told her to resign and we ended up both in jail. So what I'm trying to say is that I did not have a personal grudge against them, but it was a situation of the time. Thank you.

MR NYOKA: Finally, the instruction that you got as COSAS was that you must render the government of the country ungovernable and unworkable, what did you construe that to mean, as a COSAS member at the time?

MR STOKWE: As a member of COSAS, when it was said that the country must be ungovernable, those were the means to try and send a message to the government. That is why we are in this present situation today.

MR NYOKA: To those that were perceived as informers and councillors, were they part of the machinery of governability or were they those that were targeted to make to country ungovernable?

MR STOKWE: In a war, if you focus on a certain target and there are stumbling blocks in front of you, you would start with them because we would not be able to reach our goal because they were informers. So in order to reach our target we had to start with them, so that was our strategy.

MR NYOKA: No further questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyoka. Mr Ntonga, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTONGA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, just a few questions.

Will I be correct to say that because you were a chairperson of the youth movement or COSAS, you had to be involved in a decision taken by the members of the organisation?

MR STOKWE: In that kind of a situation I was forced to do so because in other cases I would be arrested even if I was not present in a certain action. But as a leader you have to be involved because at the end of the day you end up not knowing what happened. So it's better to be arrested for something that you did, something that you were present in.

MR NTONGA: So you agree with me that basically you were involved because you were the leader of that group and you had to be there? That is what I am trying to put to you. You personally, you had to be there because you're the leader and if the groups take the decision you have to implement that decision, basically.

MR STOKWE: Yes, I was supposed to be there because I also guided them in certain issues and if we have meetings I was the chairperson of those meetings.

MR NTONGA: And another question. During that time, you also agree with me that the question when somebody has been labelled as an informer there were no means to check that, people had to act immediately to safeguard their interest and also to go on with the struggle. Is that not correct?

MR STOKWE: I can answer that question saying that there was no other way, but now that I have skills I can verify such an information. But we also acted on the information that we got, even though we were ...(indistinct) at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Ntonga, just on this.

Let us start with Maarman. Why did you think Maarman was an informer?

MR STOKWE: We didn't think that he was an informer, we were sure that he was an informer because in everything he was doing he was together with the whites. Because I still remember when I was interrogated he was present, saying that I must tell the truth. And again, what I've already mentioned, he went to the discos just to identify the comrades. Even he was also seen with the police in the police van, but that doesn't mean that he was an informer, but his action showed us that he was an informer.

ADV SANDI: The second person, what is the name? Is it Ntiki or Ntsiki? The lady.

MR STOKWE: Ntiki.

ADV SANDI: You also believe that she was an informer?

MR STOKWE: Surely, because she also turned a State witness.

ADV SANDI: When you say she turned a State witness, do you mean that she appeared in Court and she testified against your comrades?

MR STOKWE: She did not testify if I still remember well, but we knew the State witnesses at the time. If you were working for whites they wouldn't hide your name, they would quote your name and say that we would buy houses for people such as Ntiki. So the whites used to say those things.

ADV SANDI: Now explain this, it's not very clear to me. Did the police say Ntiki was working for them?

MR STOKWE: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Who did they say this to?

MR STOKWE: They said it to me during the interrogation.

ADV SANDI: Can you repeat what they said to you?

MR STOKWE: Yes, during the interrogation they told me to leave whatever I was doing because that would not take me anywhere and they said that the people that were working with them, they were going to buy houses for them and they also quoted Ntiki's name. So I told them that I was not going to turn against the comrades.

If I can clarify this. When we arrested or got Ntiki, she said that she was not alone, she also quoted the names, but I've forgotten the name, saying that that particular person must also follow her.

ADV SANDI: Why was the house of Mr Takayi attacked?

MR STOKWE: He was a school principal and the school principal when we - it was not the house, it was a property of Mr Takayi, he was renting a certain house, and we took out his property and we burnt his property in the street. He was a stumbling block. As a school principal, he refused to give us permission to have meetings in the school. He also called the police because we didn't want the police to come in the school premises. We tried to discuss with him and he said that he would not discuss anything with the children.

ADV SANDI: There was another house which you said was burnt, was it Mr Sooka or Mrs Sooka?

MR STOKWE: Mr Sooka.

ADV SANDI: Why was that property burnt?

MR STOKWE: To repeat again, at the time the councillors we took them as people who were collaborating with the government of the time, so that's how he got involved. He was a councillor.

ADV SANDI: There's a third name, was it Mrs Jaye?

MR STOKWE: Yes, it's Mrs Jaye.

ADV SANDI: Was her property burnt as well?

MR STOKWE: It was the same Mr Sooka's.

ADV SANDI: Was she a councillor?

MR STOKWE: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR NTONGA: Mr Stokwe - I'm trying to find my notes, is it not correct somewhere in the notes, somebody or someone in a meeting announced that Maarman was an informer and that person was - somebody else confirmed that allegation? Is that correct, or did I read the notes wrongly? Do you remember that?

MR STOKWE: Yes, I remember that, but I ...

...(end of side A of tape)

MR NTONGA: So this person was identified by this particular person in that meeting, as an informer?

MR STOKWE: Not necessarily to identify him, but we already knew that he was an informer.

MR NTONGA: Okay. Lastly, are you saying to the Committee that the second person, that is Ntiki, sealed her fate by being involved in the attack and thereafter turning against the comrades to be a witness? Is that the impression that you are giving me?

MR STOKWE: Yes, that is correct, because she turned against us.

MR NTONGA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ntonga. Ms Thabethe, any questions?

MS THABETHE: No questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Stokwe, can I just verify the dates of this incident, of these incidents. The Maarman one appears to have happened in 1985, is that right? The attack on Maarman.

MR STOKWE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You're not able to give us a more precise date than that?

MR STOKWE: No, I'm not able to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't remember the month?

MR STOKWE: No.

MS THABETHE: May I interpose, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: If I can be of assistance. On page 31 of the bundle, there is an indictment and it talks of the day of the 6th of April 1985.

CHAIRPERSON: Now there is an indication from the Court's records, that this could have occurred on the 6th of April in 1985. Does that assist you at all in locating or putting a date to this incident?

MR STOKWE: I'm not sure about the dates and I also stated that in my statement, because when we were arrested for this case, we were arrested when the schools were going to be reopened, in the first quarter.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you arrested soon after the incident?

MR STOKWE: Yes, soon after the incident, because the schools were going to be reopened in April of May, I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was when the schools were about to reopen for the second term that you were arrested?

MR STOKWE: Yes, they were going to be reopened for the second term.

CHAIRPERSON: So this could be right, this date of the 6th of April?

MR STOKWE: Yes, this could be right, even though I'm not sure about it.

CHAIRPERSON: And then the incident where Ntiki was killed, in terms of placing or putting a date on that incident. Are you able to recall in which year that happened? Was it still in the same year, was it still in 1985, or what?

MR STOKWE: Yes, it was still in 1985, but as I've already said, I'm not sure about the date, but I can still remember that I was from detention in Middelburg. I think it was in September/November, round about that time, I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was late in the year that this incident concerning Ntiki happened?

MR STOKWE: Yes, it was late in the year.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr Stokwe. Any other questions from the Panel? Mr Nyoka, is there any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NYOKA: Yes, just one, Mr Chairperson.

Page 54 of the bundle - just one question, Mr Stokwe. In the statement of Mr Nkundla, Elliot Takayi, the principal, second last paragraph, he states that:

Do you confirm that or not?

MR STOKWE: Yes, I confirm that.

MR NYOKA: No further questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyoka.

MR NYOKA: That is our evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Stokwe, you are excused. Is that the case for the applicant, Mr Nyoka?

MR NYOKA: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ntonga, were you going to present any evidence?

MR NTONGA: No, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No. Maybe I can come to the assistance of the Committee again with the dates.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: On page 67 of bundle it indicates the date of the 14th of December 1985, when Ms Ntiki Fibana was killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I didn't hear that, can you just repeat that?

MS THABETHE: Page 67 of the bundle and the date is 14 December 1985.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, is this Gladys Fibana?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Kibana.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps I must just ask.

Mr Stokwe, I'm just going to ask you again, we have a name here, again from the Court records, a name Gladys Fibana. Is that name familiar to you? Is that possibly the proper name of Ntiki?

MR STOKWE: I would be lying if I said so. I only knew her as Ntiki, but the surname is Fibana.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, was Ntiki's surname Fibana?

MR STOKWE: Yes, that's correct, but I also know the name Ntiki. So I don't know this name.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You don't know this name that I've read to you now, Gladys?

MR STOKWE: No, I don't know this name.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it seems to be an English name, Gladys. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka, have you got any submissions on the merits of the application?

MR NYOKA IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, not more than 10 minutes.

1985 is one of the most intense and active years in South Africa's political calendar on both peaceful and military or paramilitary fronts, in that it was in 1985 that (a) the ANC in exile in the Kabwe Conference, called for a people's war, where revolutionary struggle was directed towards mass struggle and the apartheid regime and its State was to be rendered ungovernable and unworkable.

The implementation of the people's war strategy comprised three elements. Firstly, to render South Africa ungovernable. Secondly, the erection of liberated zones. Thirdly, the arming of the masses. Calling on people to render South African ungovernable, the late Oliver Tambo said:

This call, though made in 1985, coincided with the ongoing internal mass struggles that had been taken place in South Africa since the Vaal uprisings of 1984.

Other 1985 events are the PEBCO 3 and the CRADOCK 4 abductions and murders, the two excruciating states of emergencies and the last of which lasted until the dawn of the new democratic era in 1989. Even the white business community inside South Africa secretly defied the apartheid bulldog regime by taking the first steps of meeting the ANC in exile, on a peaceful resolution of our political problems.

The application was not opposed by anyone, either in writing or verbally. The applicant was not in detention nor under any threat of detention, arrest or prosecution for this offence, neither did he apply as a joinder to any other application by any possible co-perpetrator. He came forward completely voluntarily and on his own and most importantly to set the record straight, with the full spirit and letter of the TRC process and in promotion of that spirit.

Thirdly, the applicant made a full disclosure of all the facts as required by the law, to the extent of even mentioning incidents or events for which he was not at the relevant time facing prosecution.

The applicant's statement in writing and his oral evidence which supplement the written statement, clearly demonstrates that there was a political motive and objective. Firstly, he was a COSAS member and chairperson, which was a strong affiliate of the UDF, which was known as the internal wing of the ANC, the UDF.

Secondly, the deceased was a police informer or at best a police collaborator, bearing in mind that there were no firm sources of verification as to who an informer is. There were no sources. That was deducted from the circumstances of each case.

The victims or arson were councillors, thus then perceived extensions of the apartheid regime. Although that ensured that the system was workable and governable. I wish to refer to page 36 of the Court judgment on extenuation by Judge Eksteen, where there was a hint that the person was an informer or a collaborator. It is stated that - on paragraph 2:

What can you deduce from the fact that, from the terminology, had lent assistance to the recognised forces established to maintain law and order in this country? That is collaboration at best.

Bearing in mind also - what I find absent in the past judgments is that there is no indication that whilst this is a crime, a gruesome crime, there was political motivation for that crime because once the judiciary mentions that, that is immediately an extenuating circumstance. In all the matters that have appeared I've never seen a sentence saying that though the crime is gruesome, it had political connotations. Why is that absent?

The million dollar - Fourthly, the ANC on page 14 fully supports the applicant's application and declared it to demonstrating fully political, the fully political motivation and political motive and seeks the granting of the amnesty to the applicant.

The million dollar question that remains to be answered is whether there was proportionality in the actions of the applicant to justify amnesty being granted, where the actions of the applicant disproportionate with the objectives sought. Alternatively, could the applicant and others have done anything else in the circumstances than killing an alleged informer and collaborator or destroying their properties? Without condoning deaths of people of the destruction of property.

Firstly, there was a general instruction from the ANC and the UDF umbrella body throughout 1984 and 1985, that comrades must do everything possible to render apartheid ungovernable and unworkable. That is a blanket instruction. Informers and collaborators and their properties were essential cogs in the apartheid wheels of governability and workability. The firm removal of any such wheel will render the entire vehicle of apartheid un-drivable.

Secondly, what informers and collaborators did to activists in the past, like the initial - even the initial arrest of our former President, the mass arrest of the leadership in Rivonia. Their information activities which led to the exiling of fellow South Africans and the detention and even death of others, they led to the raids and massacres in the Southern African countries like Lesotho and Mozambique. All the work of perceived informers and collaborators. This demonstrates the huge dangers posed by them. And the sustenance of the apartheid structures through urban councils or apartheid bantustans beyond their life because of the work of collaborators.

Indeed proportionality is present, without sounding cruel. If you want to kill a lion you cannot do so with a toothpick, otherwise the lion will end up killing you. Desperate measures required - desperate situations required desperate measures.

However regrettable such a step was, as human life is human life and will always be precious, blood relatives - if a few people had to die on the other side of the fence so that many could live like us, that could have been ordained by the Almighty. And here the applicant will answer on judgment day about his cruel actions, but today he's here to show two things, political motive and full disclosure, which he has satisfied, I respectfully submit. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Nyoka.

ADV SANDI: Mr Nyoka, this letter from the ANC, at page 14. You are not suggesting that the ANC in this letter are saying that they issued orders - they issued instructions to the applicant, that he should commit the acts we are talking about today, are you?

MR NYOKA: I'm saying that they have looked at the application and they have satisfied themselves that he has complied with the TRC requirements of full disclosure and political motive. That he acted within the ambit of the general instruction of rendering the country ungovernable and unworkable.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but you see my understanding of this letter, it is a just a restatement of the general political context which existed at the time in question. I don't understand them to be saying that they gave orders, they issued orders to the applicant that he should commit the acts. They are not saying that.

MR NYOKA: No, I am saying that even the ANC supports his application. In other applicants there were indications that they were not - that applicant who is applying for amnesty has not shown any political motive and the ANC will say so in the letter. What I'm saying, in this letter they are saying that there is political motive to them, whether they are right or wrong. That's the gist of my statement.

ADV SANDI: They are supporting his application because of the context in which it occurred. They are not saying they gave him instructions to do those things. But okay, anyway, it's our problem.

MR NYOKA: Let me say, Honourable Chair, there was an instruction to render the country ungovernable, which was confirmed three months later in Kabwe. Everything that happened is within that broad instruction. Therefore, by implication they are supporting what he did. Even without saying that, you Stokwe, go and do that to X, Y, Z. That was not the instruction, but there was an implicit instruction that what you are doing is consistent with our policy. And today therefore, post the political traumatic situation we are condoning, it was within that broad instruction.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Ntonga, have you got any submissions?

MR NTONGA IN ARGUMENT: Yes, Mr Chair. The victims instruct me, firstly that they don't oppose the application. They accept what has happened. They have grieved, cried and now they've forgotten about it. They also accept the fact that in any

war there will be casualties. They accept the fact that what was done by the applicant was done under those circumstances that existed at the time, which brought the freedom we are enjoying today. Even, Mr Chairman, in their application, I read only the last portions of their statements. Mr Maarman says this:

Mr Jantolo(?) states that:

Mr Takayi, my client says that:

Mrs Jaye also says this:

So all in all my instructions are that they now, after having cried, having lost their loved ones, understand the problem, understand the justification. As has already been said by my colleague, that it's not a nice thing to lose somebody that you love, but through this process they are at peace. They know what happened, they know why it was done and they see the reason and the consequences.

So my submission from instructions which were in the statements taken in April, and my consultation today is that all the victims who have dried their tears, ask the Amnesty Committee if possible, to grant amnesty to the applicant because they feel that there is peace now after the ...(indistinct) devastating circumstances. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ntonga. Ms Thabethe, have you got any submissions?

MS THABETHE: I don't have any submissions, Mr Chair, but I would like to put it on record that I have no objection to amnesty being granted to the applicant. I have noted that the victims seem to be raising hands. I don't know whether there is something that they want to say. I was going to suggest that maybe we take a short adjournment and allow the lawyer - because they even sent Peter to me to tell me something and not to their lawyer.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: So I would request a short adjournment just to make sure that they were not shut out.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will do that. You've got no other submissions?

MS THABETHE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka, can I just come back to you. Don't you want to just list the incidents that your client is asking amnesty for and if possible, let's try and put a date to them. We've got two. I've forgotten to raise some of the other incidents with him. But would you just list the incidents that your client is asking amnesty for. It's the killing of Mr Maarman, alright? We've got that date. I think it was the 4th of April - 9th, was it the 9th of April 1985? And then the killing of - 6th of April. And then it was Ntiki or Gladys Fibana. We've got that date. 12 - 14th of December '85. And then just list the others. There seem to have been some attacks and malicious damage to property and all sorts of things. Just list the rest of the incidents.

MR NYOKA: The dates aren't known, but it's the same year, 1985 also.

CHAIRPERSON: 1985?

MR NYOKA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The remaining incidents?

MR NYOKA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: All in 1985?

MR NYOKA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And what happened? Just list them.

MR NYOKA: Thank you. Your Worship, the first arson in on Jaye's house.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that arson?

MR NYOKA: Yes. Jaye's house.

CHAIRPERSON: On the house of Jaye. Have you got a correct spelling of that?

MR NYOKA: And Sooka's house.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that also an arson?

MR NYOKA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sooka?

MR NYOKA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Right?

MR NYOKA: And then the last one is property of principal Takayi, malicious injury to property. It was taken out and burnt, so it was malicious injury to property. This it must be stressed, happened before the other events, the other Maarman and Ntiki events.

CHAIRPERSON: But still in 1985?

MR NYOKA: Still in 1985.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So property of the principal was destroyed. And the principal's name?

MR NYOKA: ...(indistinct) the name, but it's Mr Takayi.

CHAIRPERSON: Takane.

MR NYOKA: Takayi T-A-K-A-Y-I.

CHAIRPERSON: Say again.

MR NYOKA: T-A-K-A-Y-I, Takayi.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, there is a summary of the victims on page 1 of the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we seem to have his particulars from his statement. Sorry, Mr Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: I was saying that there is a list of the victims on page 1 of the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 1?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much, we've got that. We understand we will be standing down just for a brief moment just to enable Mr Ntonga and if needs be, Ms Thabethe, just to hear if there's anything else that the interested parties wanted to raise. We'll adjourn.

MR NTONGA: Mr Chairperson, the daughter of Ntiki Fibana would like to give evidence to try to straighten up or clear up certain portions of the applicant's evidence about the activities of the mother. We have tried to see whether we can't avoid that, but she insists on coming to give evidence and I ask the Committee with due respect, whether it can allow her to give short evidence about that. It's only to clear up certain portions in relation to the mother, the late Ntiki Fibana.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what are her names? Have you got her names, Mr Ntonga?

MR NTONGA: No, not yet.

CHAIRPERSON: Well perhaps you just want to call her to come forward.

MR NTONGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just give us your full names please.

MS FIBANA: Bongisa Fibana(?).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ntonga has indicated that you wanted to tell us something in regard to your late mother, is that right?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Now before you tell us that, I'm going to let you take the oath. So for that purpose you must please stand. And we've got your full names as Bongisa Fibana, is that right?

BONGISA FIBANA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Please sit down. Mr Ntonga?

EXAMINATION BY MR NTONGA: Mr Fibana, is it correct that your mother was the late Ntiki Fibana?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

MR NTONGA: Is it also correct that you heard the evidence led by the applicant in this application?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

MR NTONGA: Is it also correct that you read his statement, which forms part of the bundle?

MS FIBANA: Yes, I read his statement.

MR NTONGA: Is it also correct that you read the statement of your grandmother?

MS FIBANA: Yes, I read the statement.

MR NTONGA: I think at page 52, Mr Chairman.

Is it also correct that your instructions are that there are a few, one or two points that you want to clear from the applicant's statement?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

MR NTONGA: Can you assist the Commission by advising it exactly where you want to clear the applicant's statement or correct it?

MS FIBANA: First of all, I would like to ask to Mzixholo, because he said he was coming here to tell the truth and I know that this happened - what happened had passed and I would like him to tell the truth. Saying that my mother was present when Skoone was killed, that is not true.

MR NTONGA: So are you saying that your mother was not involved in the first killing of the first deceased.

MS FIBANA: Yes.

MR NTONGA: Okay. Can you proceed and try to correct other points?

MS FIBANA: Secondly, he said that my mother, they didn't want to kill her.

MS FIBANA: Because what they did, they took my grandfather from ...(indistinct?) and from there they went to my home. They found myself, my mother and my grandmother and they looked for her and she hid herself next to the sofa or couch and she ran to the neighbour's house trying to hide herself. They ran after her, they took her to Mangwene.

After that they said that they were coming to take me and my sister and Membi's father helped us. He took us together with my grandmother to my grandfather's house and the police then arrived. So they did not burn the house, they burnt the dustbin.

And Mbasi said to the police that my mother was selling dagga, so the police went to my mother looking for that dagga. They beat my mother up. And the arrived the other day at my home, saying that she must clean the yard. So in that way that is how she tried to get the police to my home so that it would look as if my mother was an informer. I would like him to tell the truth.

And he is saying that they did not intend to kill her, but what I know ...(intervention)

MR NTONGA: Sorry, I don't think that is the applicant's evidence, that they didn't intend to kill your mother. Actually that's why he's here applying for amnesty, because they killed your mother. But he said that it was instantaneously, without being planned or decided in a meeting. So can you continue under that explanation.

MS FIBANA: Can you please repeat your question.

MR NTONGA: The applicant's evidence is not that they went there - the applicant's evidence is to the effect that the killing of your mother was not planned in a meeting and decided in a meeting, it was only done on the spur of the moment when they arrived there and found her there. That's the evidence. So continue, but with under that guideline, that is was - when they arrived there they did that.

MS FIBANA: He is lying because they have planned this. What I know, my mother's friend she got a call and that call said that my mother was going to be killed - they were going to be killed and that friend managed to run away, but my mother was not told. That tyre that killed my mother was found. My mother's boyfriend. That tyre was taken by a child. My mother's boyfriend. So the fact that he is saying that they found the police at home so they killed her without intending to do that, that is not true, they intended to kill her.

MR NTONGA: Is there any other point that you'd like to clear up with the Committee on the applicant's statement?

MS FIBANA: No, there's nothing else.

MR NTONGA: So in other words, you have finished your clarification or your version of the events? Is that so?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

MR NTONGA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that's ...

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ntonga.

Have you got other brothers and sisters?

MS FIBANA: Yes, I have one sister.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you the elder of the two?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Are the two of you the only children of your mother?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the name of your sister?

MS FIBANA: ...(indistinct) Fibana.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just repeat that, I haven't hear the interpretation. What is the name of your sister?

MS FIBANA: Nomisa Fibana.

CHAIRPERSON: Is your father still alive?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And do you have contact with your father?

MS FIBANA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: What are your circumstances at the moment? Are you employed, are you studying?

MS FIBANA: I'm studying.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are you studying?

MS FIBANA: Peninsula Technikon.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that in Bellville?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And what are you studying, what course are you doing?

MS FIBANA: Marketing.

CHAIRPERSON: Marketing. And which year of study are you in?

MS FIBANA: First year.

CHAIRPERSON: And subsequent to the death of your mother, who did you grow up with?

MS FIBANA: With my grandmother.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that in Jansenville?

MS FIBANA: No, we stay in Cape Town.

CHAIRPERSON: Cape Town.

MS FIBANA: Yes, in Cape Town.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time when your mother was killed, were you living in Jansenville?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But did you then subsequent to that move to Cape Town with your grandmother?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you just got a grandmother or have you got a grandmother and a grandfather?

MS FIBANA: Only a grandmother.

CHAIRPERSON: Only a grandmother. And she supports you?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Your sister did she also then grow up together with you with your grandmother?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And your grandmother looks after her and supports her too?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And what does your sister do?

MS FIBANA: She is in standard seven now.

CHAIRPERSON: At a school in Cape Town?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What school is that?

MS FIBANA: Hottentots Holland High.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, say again.

MS FIBANA: Hottentots Holland High.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm terribly sorry, I just need to put this on to hear properly.

MS FIBANA: Hottentots Holland High.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that in Somerset West?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is she a boarder at the school?

MS FIBANA: No, she stays with my gran.

CHAIRPERSON: And you?

MS FIBANA: I also stay with my gran.

CHAIRPERSON: And your grandmother, what does she do? Is she a pensioner or what does she do?

MS FIBANA: No, she's not a pensioner, she just gets money from the government. It's grants for me and my sister.

CHAIRPERSON: So she - is your grandmother responsible for your tuition fees and the school fees of your sister? So she's got to pay it from the money that she's got?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't get a bursary?

MS FIBANA: No, we didn't get a bursary, but sometimes - last year I was doing like jobs on weekends.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh so - okay, so you have been trying to partly finance your studies?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you only done that last year, have you stopped this year?

MS FIBANA: Yes, I stopped this year. I did it during holidays, June and December.

CHAIRPERSON: But were you in matric last year?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In 1985, when this incident happened, how old were you?

MS FIBANA: I don't know, but I was born in 1978.

CHAIRPERSON: You would have been very young, you would have been about seven years old.

MS FIBANA: Yes. Seven years old, but I can remember all the things that happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes. No, I'm not asking you in regard to what happened, I just want to know what your own circumstances are.

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And when was your sister born?

MS FIBANA: 1983.

CHAIRPERSON: And how does your sister progress at school? Normally. She hasn't got a problem?

MS FIBANA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: And yourself, did your schooling progress normally?

MS FIBANA: No, I didn't have a problem at school.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

I don't know if you've got anything that you want to ask, Mr Nyoka.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYOKA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Ms Fibana, I'm representing the applicant and I'm sorry I have to ask a few questions in the interest of justice, and I hope you'll bear with me. Just a few. You have said that in 1978 you were seven years old.

MS FIBANA: No.

MR NYOKA: Or if you were born in 1978, in 1985 you must have been seven years old.

MS FIBANA: Yes.

MR NYOKA: By a simple calculation, not so. Did you understand what it meant to be a State witness when you were seven years old?

MS FIBANA: No.

MR NYOKA: Did you know that your mother was going to be a State witness in this case, when you were seven years old?

MS FIBANA: No, what I know is that my mother was not going to be a State witness, because my mother was always at home with me. There were only times that she would leave me and Nomisa when she was going to Uitenhage to go and buy the dagga and alcohol. Those were the times she would leave us behind at home. The fact that she was going to be a State witness is not true. I would like this gentleman to tell the truth. That is not true at all.

MR NYOKA: My instructions are that your mother was going to be a State witness and at seven years you could not have understood that.

MS FIBANA: My mother was not going to be a State witness. My mother did not attend the toyi-toyi. She phoned my grandmother saying that if she was to be arrested she wouldn't be able to leave us alone at home.

MR NYOKA: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyoka. Ms Thabethe, have you got any questions?

MS THABETHE: No questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. The Panel got any questions?

ADV SANDI: Sorry, do you know the name Miriam Fibana?

MS FIBANA: Miriam Fibana? Gladys.

ADV SANDI: ... Evidence Leader, do you have - who could that be?

MS THABETHE: It's Gladys.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I'm just intervening. Was one of your mother's names Gladys?

MS FIBANA: Yes, her English name is Gladys. Gladys Ntiki

Txhokiso Fibana.

CHAIRPERSON: And there was a third name you say - just a minute.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Ms Thabethe what did you say? But Miriam - did you say it's the same person as Gladys?

MS THABETHE: No, I said her name was Gladys. I actually referred you to page 67 of the bundle, because I wanted to clarify the date.

ADV SANDI: So this Miriam Fibana that's being mentioned at 20, will be a different person then?

MS THABETHE: Page 20. I think it would be a different person.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Ntonga, have you got anything else?

MR NTONGA: Thank you. Nothing, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Yes, Mr Fibana, we have noted what you have said, the evidence that you have given. If there is nothing else that you want to add, then we are going to excuse you. Is that everything that you wanted to tell us?

MS FIBANA: What I would like to ask, because in this, my grandmother's statement, at the bottom it is said that she has forgiven him and we were told by telephone that we would come to the Truth Commission. We thought that we would come here and listen to his testimony and then forgive him is he had said the truth. I personally, I'm going to forgive him if he had said the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is that all that you wanted to add?

MS FIBANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for coming, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Nyoka, is there anything else that you want to add in the light of the further evidence?

MR NYOKA: I've got the request, if it's procedural, by the applicant to set the record straight. I don't know whether it's procedural, but he has made a request to me. Maybe it might take two minutes or whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Does he want to make a further statement?

MR NYOKA: Yes, just to set the record straight, if that is acceptable to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, we have to allow the applicant, if he so wishes, an opportunity to respond if he so minded.

MR NYOKA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know, perhaps I should just remind him that he is still under oath. I'm not sure what the effect of what his statement is going to be, but we'll treat it like that.

Mr Stokwe, Mr Nyoka has indicated to us that there is something else that you want to add, I assume in the light of what Ms Fibana has told us. For the purposes of what you tell us further, I remind you that you are again under oath. Do you understand?

MZIXHOLO STOKWE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: What is it that you further wanted to tell us?

MR STOKWE: I don't want to add necessarily, but to the fact that she's saying that I must tell the truth, I said that nobody forced me to come here. So what I have said is the truth. Because she was seven years old, she heard what happened and what I said is the truth as it is, because nobody forced me to come forward here, so there's no need for me to tell lies. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Ntonga, just for the ...(intervention)

MR NTONGA: Nothing, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Thabethe, I assume that you don't have anything further?

MS THABETHE: No, Mr Chair, except to draw your attention to page 67, the last line, the motive. The last sentence which starts with the motive.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And I assume that it wouldn't be strictly necessary for purposes of this kind of inquiry, to establish the factual basis for this kind of view, of belief, so long as it is a reasonable belief. It's not really one of the issues that we have to decide positively.

MS THABETHE: Certainly, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

We are minded to dispose of this matter and to, in this particular instance, in view of the circumstances that prevail here, to give our decision immediately. We will stand down just for a minute or two. I'll indicate when we are ready to reconvene.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, can I please ask for a 10 minute adjournment, I want to consult with the victims of the next matter.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MS THABETHE: Yes. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We would like to give the decision in the matter of Stokwe.

This is an application for amnesty in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, number 34 of 1995, by Mzixholo Stokwe, a 32 year old male, presently a Captain in the South African Police Services and a member of the VIP Protection Unit, responsible for the protection of the President.

The applicant testified in support of the application and the victims and interested parties participated in the proceedings through the representation of Mr Ntonga. All of these interested parties, save for the further testimony that was presented to the Panel by Ms Fibana, which will be dealt with later, have indicated that they do not oppose the application and in fact requested the Committee if possible, to grant the application.

They accepted that what has happened, resulted from the political circumstances which prevailed at the time of the incidents and as difficult as it was for them to deal with their loss, they accept that all of the suffering and sacrifices contributed to the peace that presently prevails and is being enjoyed in our country.

In view of the particular circumstances of the case, we feel constrained to give our decision in this matter immediately, unlike the normal situation where we require time to consider the matter and where we normally reserve the decision to be handed down at a later stage.

The factual background to the application is briefly as follows. The applicant joined the Congress of South African Students, also known under the acronym, COSAS, while he was schooling in Uitenhage in the Eastern Cape, during 1984. There was then already a prevailing situation of political unrest in the Eastern Cape and the police followed a strategy of recruiting informers from smaller outlying areas such as Jansenville, for their purposes. COSAS decided to deploy some of its members to these outlying areas, to counter this trend.

Applicant was born in Jansenville and it was accordingly decided that he should return there and implement the COSAS policy by establishing a presence in the area. Pursuant to this decision, applicant attempted to enrol at the school in Jansenville, but these efforts were initially opposed by the then principal of the school, also one of the victims in this matter, Mr Nkundla Elliot Takayi.

Through concerted pressure brought to bear on the principal, applicant and other students from Uitenhage enrolled at the school. They launched a local COSAS branch and applicant was elected its chairperson. A situation of unrest and confrontation with the police resulted in Jansenville.

During the course of this conflict it became known that Mr Skoone Thembisile Maarman was a police informer. Various actions on his part confirmed this fact. At a COSAS meeting chaired by the applicant, a decision was taken to kill Mr Maarman. This was in line with the call at the time by the anti-apartheid political forces led by the ANC, to render the country ungovernable and to remove any obstacles to the liberation struggle.

This decision was implemented on the 6th of April 1985, when Mr Maarman was abducted from a local discotheque and killed by a group of approximately 200 persons, including the applicant. A number of persons were arrested and charged with this incident. Applicant was in fact accused number one. They were all released on bail, subject to certain conditions.

At one stage after they had reported to the police station in accordance with their bail conditions, they were attacked by police and special constables. The youth responded to this attack by burning down the houses of Mrs Elizabeth Jaye and Mr Sooka, and also by destroying the property of the school principal, Mr Takayi.

That same night, Ms Ntiki Gladys Fibana, who according to information worked with the police and had decided to turn a State witness against the accused in the Maarman incident even though she participated in that incident, was brought home by the police to collect her belongings from the township. The youths approached the house and the police fled the area, leaving Ms Fibana behind. The latter was killed by the crowd. The applicant formed part of this incident.

The decision to kill or attack Ms Fibana was taken on the spur of the moment and because the opportunity presented itself, to act against her. After these incidents, applicant fled the country and received military training under the auspices of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the military wing of the African National Congress. He subsequently returned to the country and was deployed on Umkhonto weSizwe activities and business.

He has decided to apply for amnesty without being pressurised by anyone and basically in order to make a full disclosure of these incidents, so that the community of Jansenville and the interested parties may be fully apprised of the facts.

After the conclusion of argument in the matter, the daughter of the late Ms Fibana, Bongisa Fibana, indicated that she wanted to draw certain aspects concerning the evidence of applicant to the attention to the Panel. The effect of her evidence was that she and her younger sister are the only children of her late mother. They were born in 1978 and 1983 respectively. Their father is still alive, but they have no contact with him. After the death of her mother they have grown up with the grandmother, who maintains them from a State grant. She is a first year marketing student at the Peninsula Technikon and her sister is attending the Hottentots Holland High School in Somerset West, where she is doing standard seven. Their progress at school is normal.

She disputed that her mother was to be a State witness against the applicant and the other people accused of the killing of Mr Maarman, or that her mother was working with the police. She also expressed the view that the killing of her mother was planned and not committed on the spur of the moment because a friend of her mother's was telephoned and informed that her mother would be killed.

It is clear to us that the incident has been a particularly traumatic one for Ms Fibana, which is understandable, given the tragic circumstances under which she has lost her mother at a time when she was still very young. She still experiences difficulty to recount the circumstances of the incident.

Pursuant to the repeated requests by Ms Fibana that applicant should tell the truth, the applicant asked for an opportunity to respond, which opportunity was granted to him. He basically repeated his earlier evidence that he had acted and he is acting voluntarily in applying for amnesty and that he has no reason not to tell the truth.

In our view there is no real dispute of fact or a contradiction of the version of the applicant. The perspective expressed by Ms Fibana is perfectly understandable under the circumstances.

Having carefully considered all of the circumstances of the matter, the evidence, all of the evidence and the argument submitted to us, we are satisfied that the applicant has made a full disclosure of all relevant facts and that the incidents applied for constitute acts associated with a political objective, as set out in the Act 34 of 1995.

We are accordingly satisfied that the application complies with all of the requirements of the Act and applicant is accordingly GRANTED amnesty for:

In our opinion, the mentioned victims in respect of arson and malicious injury to property, as well as the next-of-kin of the mentioned deceased, namely:

In conclusion we wish to record that it is on the whole encouraging to note the reconciliatory attitude of the victims in this matter and the positive attitude they have expressed in regard to their sad loss resulting from the incidents which have been identified in this decision.

In our view, it is this kind of situation that creates real hope for the realisation of the overall objectives of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, namely national unity and reconciliation.

We express the hope that the situation of peace and normality which has returned to the community of Jansenville, will eventually result in their experiencing the real benefits of our new democracy.

That is the decision in the matter of Mr Stokwe.

----------

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, is the next matter ready to proceed, or would it be better to take the adjournment at this stage?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, we're ready to proceed. I was going to suggest that maybe we take the adjournment after the applicant has led his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: His evidence-in-chief?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Nyoka, you are appearing for Mr Cekwana, is that right? Just for the purpose of the record, we

will hear next the application of Mr Nukuleko Cekwana, amnesty reference AM7829/97. The Panel is constituted as previously indicated on the record.

Yes, Mr Stokwe, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: For the sake of completeness, Mr Nyoka, perhaps you must just put yourself on record again for Mr Cekwana.

MR NYOKA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MR NTONGA: Mr Chairman, may I be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, of course. Mr Ntonga, we thank you very much for your assistance and we'll excuse you. My colleague indicates that you're always welcome to observe.

MR NYOKA: Mr Chairperson, I confirm my appearance for the applicant in this matter, Mr Cekwana. Without any further ado he may be sworn in, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyoka. And then of course, just for the record, the Leader of Evidence is Ms Thabethe. Please stand and give your full names for the record.

MR CEKWANA: My name is Nkuleko Cekwana. I reside at Mdantsane, 8363 in Nutri(?) section.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

NKULEKO CEKWANA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may be seated. Mr Nyoka?

MR NYOKA: Thank you.  Mr Chairperson, I just wish to draw the Committee's attention to the following. The applicant made the application on his own. I was again roped in at the eleventh hour. I got the bundle only yesterday, in the afternoon. I've noticed that there is no statement of the applicant. So I beg leave to lead him verbally in the absence of the statement, the written statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NYOKA: I wish to do so now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll grant you that, Mr Nyoka.

EXAMINATION BY MR NYOKA: Mr Cekwana, is it correct that you filled in the application form for amnesty yourself, without any assistance?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR NYOKA: On page of the application form, paragraph 10(a) and (b), where it is stated that you must state political objectives sought to be achieved, you wrote "none". Was that your intention?

MR CEKWANA: I think it was just after I was sentenced. I was not reasoning properly because I wrote "none" there in that application.

MR NYOKA: That is also your response I assume, in paragraph 10(b), where it was asked - where you responded "none" for justification for the acts. You sought - there was no justification. Was that the similar response also? Is that a similar response also?

MR CEKWANA: I think so, because my situation after I was sentenced I was not thinking straight. Even the forms that were given, the police were in a hurry when they were telling us to fill in the form. Just imagine that kind of a situation after being sentenced. I was very much uncomfortable, that is why I committed such mistakes.

MR NYOKA: How old are you?

MR CEKWANA: I am 37 years old.

MR NYOKA: This incident happened in August 1993, not so?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR NYOKA: What party or organisation did you belong to?

MR CEKWANA: The organisation that I belonged to was ANC, ANC Youth League. As a ...(indistinct) Umkhonto weSizwe.

MR NYOKA: When did you become a member of Umkhonto weSizwe and ANC?

MR CEKWANA: I became a member of Umkhonto weSizwe in 1991.

MR NYOKA: In South Africa?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR NYOKA: Is it correct that you were convicted of murder and robbery of a firearm, in Court?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR NYOKA: What was your sentence?

MR CEKWANA: My sentence was 23 years concurrently. That made it 12 years.

MR NYOKA: Can you tell us - can you therefore tell us in your own words, in the absence of this affidavit, what happened, why are you applying for amnesty? In your words.

MR CEKWANA: Yes, I'm going to do that. In 1992, I was one of the members of the Executive Committee of the ANC in the branch of NU3 and 4. I was a Chairman of the ANC Youth League in that branch of NU3 and 4 section. At the time we were campaigning for the ANC, door-to-door campaign, voter education. After that there was a campaign of overthrowing Gqozo at Bisho. I was also involved there.

MR NYOKA: Proceed.

MR CEKWANA: Even there I was also involved. I also don't know how did I survive that at Bisho. After that, just before the end of two weeks, there was an order that was issued by comrade Mpate. He was one of the commanders of MK at the time. He was telling us that there was a policeman which was at 6 section. We had to remove that policeman because police were not welcome among the community because they were part and parcel of the government of that time.

We agreed to that. It was myself, comrade Munyadu, comrade Bobie. The three of us. We belonged to that unit of section 3. I was acting as a commander of that unit. Comrade Idu was acting as a logistics officer, the one who was in charge of the weapons. Comrade Munyadu was acting as a commissar, a person who was giving political education.

We went to NU6 to do something called reconnaissance, to reconnoitre the place where this operation was going to take place. We came back. We went there again with another comrade called Bongani Dukwana, who was the main person who knew this policeman, because we did not know this policeman.

We waited at a distance of about 100 metres. Comrade Bongani Dukwana showed us where this van was parked or where the van was normally parked and the police would walk on foot for a distance of about 300 metres. We had an R4 rifle, a 7.65. Due to the fact that it was still early, it was still bright, I requested them not to undertake the operation on that particular day because it was still early and there were other people who would be involved, innocent people who would be involved there.

Comrade Munyadu went there and I was not present and they came back. I think I went there on the fifth time. I was with Bongani Dukwana. On that particular day, comrade Munyadu was going to a meeting of the communistic party as a secretary of the branch Ruth First that is.

Dudumane was going to the meeting of SANCO, as a chairman of the area. I was with Bongani Dukwana. We arrived there in the evening at about twenty to seven. I decided to stand next to a certain yard. Comrade Bongani Dukwana as a person knew this policeman, when it was becoming dark he is the person who was going to give me a signal when he sees this policeman. We agreed to that.

He was armed with a 7.65. He was the one who was going to stage a hold-up and he is the one who was going to disarm this policeman. If I instructed to hold up and the policeman refused, he was going to shoot or fire. We agreed to that.

Yes, when he saw this policeman he gave me a signal. When it was becoming dark he lit a match. When I was still looking at that I saw him coming with two people coming behind him. Certainly he was the one. When he was at a distance of seven metres, I instructed him to hold up, but he refused. I was forced to press the safety catch because my firearm was on safety. I fired.

When I was firing apparently I had pressed on A. This R4 rifle was an automatic one. Once you press an A instead of S, it releases a lot of bullets. I continued firing and I ...(indistinct) him. I ran away. I jumped a fence and I crossed a river. I went to a certain school called Godlo. At the time I did not see comrade Dukwana.

While I was still standing there in those premises thinking, he came, he appeared running. I asked him as to where he was coming from. He said when the gun was fired he got a shock and he ran away. We left Godlo, we crossed a tar road that was going towards NU3. That is where I was residing. We did not spend time there. We proceeded to 94 section where comrade Bobie was staying.

When we arrived there they were from a meeting, these two comrades that is. They told me that the quorums had refused to agree at a meeting - there was no quorum at the meeting that is. I told them that I had disarmed the policeman. I showed them this firearm. We had to take it to the commander at NU8. Our commander was comrade Mpati Goniwe.

When we were at the integration process at Walmasdal, when he came one December in 1995, he was assaulted by the taxi people and he passed away. I went to NU8. I found comrade Mpati. I told him and I showed him this pistol that belonged to this policeman. He said: "It is good that you were not injured, you can go back to your unit". That's what he said to me.

I went back to my unit. We stayed there, still continuing doing our old job of organising. I handed over this firearm on a Monday during the day. On a Wednesday I went to 8 section. I found comrade Mpati there.

This firearm, the one that belonged to this policeman, had no magazine when I got it. Comrade Mpati gave it back to me with a magazine. I went back to NU3. When I arrived there sometimes we used to discuss there, discuss politics with the comrades. On a Friday my comrades came, that is comrade Mpati, comrade Bobie and comrade Manyadu. But on that particular day we were at comrade Manyadu's place. We were sitting there chatting or discussing.

As it was becoming late, or getting late, we head to disperse. Myself and Bongani, we had to cross to the other side when we were moving from comrade Bobie's place. We dispersed. We left with comrade Bongani. As a soldier I don't normally go straight home, go straight inside the house, I normally stand somewhere and surveil the place. Just before 30 minutes I heard a gunshot at a distance of 100 metres. It was fired twice. The firearm that was with Bongani Dukwana was a 7.65 with six bullets.

Just before the end of five minutes I saw him coming because the steep was a bit - the slope was a bit steep. He was coming running. When I asked him what was happening he said there are gentlemen who were chasing him from the other side. They had big rifles. As I had this firearm of this policeman with nine bullets, I told him that we should go up there and check. I did not see anything. I became suspicious immediately because I thought that comrade Bongani decided to play around with the bullets. I told him to give me the firearm. He gave the firearm to me. I accompanied him to his home. I took him inside the house. When he was inside the house I went back to where I was staying. That is where I spent a night.

The following day it was a Sunday. As I was still relaxing, I think the time was round about after eight in the morning, I heard someone knocking at the door in the kitchen. The door was opened. When the person got inside he went past the lady who was in the kitchen, the one who had opened the door for him. He went straight to the room with a card identifying himself as a policeman. He was looking for Nkuleko Cekwana ...(intervention)

MR NYOKA: In other words you were arrested, eventually you were arrested? Yes, or no? Were you arrested?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, I was arrested. I was taken to NU12 Police Station.

MR NYOKA: The Committee has noted that you were arrested. Do you admit that you were found in possession of a firearm with bullets, the one that was taken from the policeman?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct.

MR NYOKA: Yes. You have nothing further to say. We are not interested as such with the procedure of your arrest. You were arrested. Is there anything else that you wish to say pertaining to the application?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, there is something else. As I was still attending the trial I went to the regional office of the ANC to tell them that I was arrested, I was coming from prison with a bail of R1 500. I told them that I did not have a legal representative and the case was referred to the Supreme Court. They told me to meet with comrade Alfred Metele. I went to comrade Alfred Metele, who told me to come back the following day. I did so.

He took me to a legal representative who was in King Williams Town. I gave him the statement. Within three days an order came from comrade Mpati telling me that I should go to the MK offices. When I arrived there I was told that on the 18th of July I was supposed to go to Pretoria, where I was going to be involved in the integration process. I did that on the 18th.

A white colonel was there. We were taken in the truck. We were taken to Bisho. At about 12 midnight we left Bisho for Walmasdal, where we were going to be involved in the integration process. I couldn't attend any further trial at the Supreme Court because the authorities there did not allow me to attend the case. They said I was still busy with the integration process.

MR NYOKA: Were you one of the accused in that case? Were a participant, were you one of the accused in the case in the High Court?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, I am the first accused.

MR NYOKA: Where you present in the Court?

MR CEKWANA: No, I couldn't be there.

MR NYOKA: Okay. That's all. Mr Chairperson, that is the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyoka.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but sorry, Mr Nyoka, can you explain this. I thought in the end he was convicted and sentenced?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV SANDI: So you eventually went back to Court and you were found guilty and sentenced to a number of years of imprisonment.

MR CEKWANA: When I was on holiday in 1996, January, I was again arrested. I was taken to Court. That is when I was sentenced. My present sentence, as I'm serving now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. That was the evidence-in-chief?

MR NYOKA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the luncheon adjournment and we'll reconvene at 2 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cekwana, you are reminded that you are still under oath. Do you understand?

NKULEKO CEKWANA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Thabethe, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair, thank you. Mr Chair, I would like to indicate that I'm also representing the interests of the victims in this matter.

Mr Cekwana, you said in 1992 you became the Chairman of the ANC Youth League in zones or sections 3 and 4, is that correct?

MR CEKWANA: Will you please repeat your question.

MS THABETHE: You became the Chairman of the ANC Youth League for the sections in Mdantsane, sections 3 and 4. I just want to verify whether that's correct.

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETHE: Now can you just explain to the Committee, if you were responsible for sections 3 and 4, were you just responsible for those sections or were you responsible for the whole of Mdantsane?

MR CEKWANA: I was responsible for NU3.

MS THABETHE: And 4? NU3 only?

MR CEKWANA: NU3 and 4.

MS THABETHE: And then Sergeant Sanuse stayed or was - stayed and also was targeted in section 6, is that correct?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETHE: Now my instructions are - can you just explain why you had to go to section 6 to carry out your mission, why you didn't carry it out in your section or in the section that you were responsible for?

MR CEKWANA: We were simply taking orders from a comrade who was above me ...(intervention)

MS THABETHE: Sorry, I didn't hear, from comrade who?

MR CEKWANA: Comrade Mpati Goniwe.

MS THABETHE: Mpati?

MR CEKWANA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Should I proceed, Mr Chair, with the music?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know if it's inside or outside, I'm not sure.

MS THABETHE: It sounds very much inside.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that so. Yes, it seems as if they're taking care of that. I think try again.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

You say you received orders from Mpati. Who was he?

MR CEKWANA: Mpati Goniwe was my commander. Mpati Goniwe was a comrade who was responsible for the whole Mdantsane.

MS THABETHE: And exactly what order did he give you?

MR CEKWANA: The instruction was that there was a police from NU6 that was supposed to shoot.

MS THABETHE: I'm having difficulty hearing you.

MR CEKWANA: I also have the same problem.

MS THABETHE: Sorry, if you don't mind can you please your answer, I really didn't hear it. My question was, exactly what orders were given by Mpati?

MR CEKWANA: He said there is a policeman from NU6 that we were supposed to shoot.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, Ms Thabethe.

Was Mr Mpati's position? He was your commander you say, but commander of what? What structure, what organisation?

MR CEKWANA: He was the MK - he was in the MK.

CHAIRPERSON: So was he the MK Commander for the whole of Mdantsane?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And were you the MK Commander for NU3 and 4?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Ms Thabethe?

ADV SANDI: Just one thing, Chair.

When did Mr Goniwe become your commander for the first time?

MR CEKWANA: He stared in 1991, in March 1991.

ADV SANDI: How did that happen?

MR CEKWANA: As I was a member of the ANC Youth League I was also identified as a person who could be trained in the MK. I was summoned to the ANC office. I was told that I should meet with Commander Mpati.

ADV SANDI: Did someone introduce you to comrade Mpati?

MR CEKWANA: No.

ADV SANDI: You were taken to Mr Mpati and he became your commander?

MR CEKWANA: I have a problem with my headphones. It is okay now.

ADV SANDI: You say you were taken to Mr Mpati and you joined - he became your commander in March 1991.

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Did you have a codename?

MR CEKWANA: No.

ADV SANDI: Did Mpati Goniwe have a codename?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, he had a codename.

ADV SANDI: What was that codename?

MR CEKWANA: He was Geurrilla.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: You said you were given an order by Mpati - I just want to make sure that I'm together with you, who said you must go specifically to Sergeant Sanuse. Is that correct?

MR CEKWANA: He did not say his name, but he said there was a policeman at NU6.

MS THABETHE: Did he give a reason why you had to go and attack?

MR CEKWANA: No, he never gave a reason. The only reason was known by all the soldiers of Umkhonto weSizwe, that all the policemen should be removed in the community because they were working hand-in-hand with the government of the time.

MS THABETHE: My instructions as well, Mr Cekwana, is to ask you whether - why couldn't you attack the policemen in your section, why opted to go to section 6?

MR CEKWANA: As a soldier we were dealing with that particular person per instruction.

MS THABETHE: Okay. I'm trying to understand this. Your order was that you go to section 6 to identify this policeman. Were you shown this policeman before?

MR CEKWANA: No.

MS THABETHE: So on what basis did you attack this policeman if you had never met him before? How did you identify him?

MR CEKWANA: After we were given an order by Mpati, we went to NU6 with comrade Dukwana. Those were the two people who knew the policeman. The other - we did not know that policeman. Those were the only two people who knew the policeman.

MS THABETHE: So you say it was yourself, Commander Mpati and who else? Who went to zone 6?

MR CEKWANA: And Bongani Dukwana.

MS THABETHE: And before you actually attacked the policeman did you wait for him somewhere or you just went there and you found him and you ...? I just want you to take us from the time you went there, where did you go to, how he was attacked. Can you just take us through that please.

MR CEKWANA: We went to NU6, we waited for him at a certain spot. Bongani approached him as he was coming. I did not know him, but I told him that when he sees this person he should make a signal and then he did so and I saw him, the policeman that is.

MS THABETHE: Can you tell the Committee exactly which is the - I'll quote your words ...(Xhosa). You say you waited from him ...(Xhosa). Where exactly is that, where did you wait for him? Was it outside, was it in a house? Can you just clarify that.

MR CEKWANA: As we were moving from NU3, the time was about half past six. When we arrived there at NU6 the time was twenty to six and it was becoming dark. I went to stand next to a certain yard. I think it was a second house if I'm not mistaken. Bongani went up to approach him as he was coming.

MS THABETHE: You see why I'm asking you this is because my instructions are that before you attacked Sergeant Sanuse, the deceased, you were in the shebeen. What is your response to that?

MR CEKWANA: First of all, I never touched liquor since I was born. Secondly, we do not have a code of conduct that says that we should start at a shebeen before undertaking a mission. Thirdly, I don't even know a single shebeen at NU6. Therefore that is not true.

MS THABETHE: Yes, I just want to clarify my instructions. My instructions were not that you went there to drink. That's not clear from my instructions. But my instructions are that you came out of a shebeen house. So is your response negative? Are you saying you never went into a house or a shebeen house that day?

MR CEKWANA: No, I did not go to a shebeen, because even in that second house where I was I did not get inside, I was just next to the yard.

MS THABETHE: My instructions further are that as a result of the fact that you had come out of this shebeen house, the owner of that shebeen was chased away by the organisation in the township, which was called SANCO. Do you know anything about this? What is your response to that?

MR CEKWANA: Unfortunately I know nothing, I don't know anything that was taking place in that section.

MS THABETHE: Now I just want to find out exactly what your political reason, how you associated the act that you committed, with a political objective. Can you just tell the Committee how do you justify killing Sergeant Sanuse politically?

MR CEKWANA: First of all, I am an ANC member, I am an Umkhonto weSizwe member. Secondly, the order was issued from the MK commanders. That is why I say this action was politically motivated. Thirdly, I did not know Sergeant Sanuse, I knew when I was in front of the police or in jail.

MS THABETHE: Why I've asked you this question is because - Mr Cekwana, my instructions are that your action was not at all political, it was criminal. You were seen coming out of a shebeen and Sergeant happened to be in the place and that's why you attacked him. Do you want to respond to that?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, I would love to respond to that. I wouldn't call the comrades of the struggle, to call them in - to invite them in a criminal activity.

MS THABETHE: You also in your evidence said that or indicated that after killing the deceased you took his firearm. Can you advance a reason why you did that?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, I can give the reason for that. The reason for us to take his firearm, we did that because as the members of Umkhonto weSizwe we did not have sufficient firearms, and one of the policies of Umkhonto weSizwe states categorically that if you get hold of the enemy you must take that enemy's firearm and go and report to your commanders. That is why after shooting Sergeant Sanuse, I took his firearm.

MS THABETHE: After taking the deceased's firearm, what did you do with it?

MR CEKWANA: After taking that firearm I went to my place. I then left and went to the other comrades who were not there, those who went to the meeting. I told them that the following day I was to report to comrade Goniwe.

MS THABETHE: So did you indeed the following day go to report?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, I did so, I left the firearm with him.

MS THABETHE: So the firearm - I'm open to correction, that when you were arrested there was a firearm that was found in your possession, is that correct?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETHE: Which firearm - where did you get this one from?

MR CEKWANA: Two firearms were found in my possession. The other one I had given it to comrade Mpati after completing a course in military training and the second one I got it from comrade Mpati on a Wednesday. It was grinded, the serial number was grinded at the time. Those were the two firearms that were found in my possession.

MS THABETHE: My last question to you is, can you just give a brief account of how you actually killed Sergeant Sanuse?

MR CEKWANA: When he was coming - as Bongani knew him very well, Bongani signalled to me that that was the one. I told him to hold up. When I was in the distance of seven metres I told him to lift up his hands, he refused, he wanted to draw his gun. That is when I started firing. After that I took his firearm and I left.

MS THABETHE: Can you remember how many shots you fired, considering the fact that you said you pressed a wrong button and your firearm was an automatic?

MR CEKWANA: Unfortunately the bullets that were released, I couldn't count them because it was already dark. When I pressed the safety catch of that R4 rifle, it became apparent that I pressed the A and it was an automatic rifle, so a lot of bullets were released.

MS THABETHE: I know I said I was asking you the last question, but there's another question I want to ask you. In your application on page 1, you mention there, Bongani Lamla Mnadu and Dudumani Bobie. You've told us who Bongani Dukwana was, what about the other names, Lamla Mnadu and Dudumani Bobie? How do they feature in your application?

MR CEKWANA: Lamla Mnadu was my commissar, the person who was giving us political education in the unit. comrade Dudumani Bobie was a logistics officer, the one who was responsible for keeping the weapons after being obtained somewhere.

MS THABETHE: And then on page 3 of your application number 13, you write something like:

Would you like to explain this statement?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, I can explain that. In 1992, as we attended an march, an ANC march at Bisho, we were shot at by Gqozo's soldiers. After that we could not stay freely in our place of residence because of the Ciskeian Police and soldiers. That is why I was saying there was a conflict between them and the ANC.

MS THABETHE: Is that conflict you are talking about related to the incident that you've applied for? Because I'm trying to link it up you see. You've mentioned it in your application, so I'm trying to link it up to the act that you've actually applied for. Is there any link?

MR CEKWANA: I think that this conflict is the one that led to enmity between Ciskeian Police and soldiers.

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I just verify with the family whether they are satisfied?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Thanks. Thank you, Mr Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Thabethe. Mr Cekwana, the firearm that you used to kill the deceased with, did I understand you correctly, was that an R4 rifle?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you get that from?

MR CEKWANA: From comrade Mpati Goniwe.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he give it to you for that particular operation?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Now after you had shot the deceased you took the weapon of the deceased, is that right?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that a pistol?

MR CEKWANA: It was a CZ pistol.

CHAIRPERSON: Say again, what kind of pistol?

MR CEKWANA: CZ.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, CZ.

MR CEKWANA: Yes, CZ pistol.

CHAIRPERSON: What is it, a 9mm or what kind of weapon is it?

MR CEKWANA: It is a 9mm.

CHAIRPERSON: But was there no magazine in this CZ 9mm pistol?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now was it the following day that you handed this CZ pistol to Mpati Goniwe?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And what did you do with the R4 rifle?

MR CEKWANA: It was left with comrade Bobie Dudumane.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh I see, that was your logistics officer?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And was he responsible for safeguarding the weapons of the unit?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And what eventually happened to the R4 rifle?

MR CEKWANA: After three days, comrade Dudumane handed it over to comrade Mpati Goniwe.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if I understood it correctly, the police arrested you while you were in possession of the CZ 9mm pistol that you took from the deceased. Is that right?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you got that pistol back from Mpati Goniwe at some stage, together with the magazine?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when did this happen?

MR CEKWANA: It was during the week on a Wednesday when I had visited the 8 section. Comrade Mpati Goniwe gave me the pistol with a magazine.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it a few days after the killing of the deceased?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did Mpati Goniwe give you this pistol back?

MR CEKWANA: It is because he knew that we had only firearm, the 7.65. He did not want the unit to be without firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: So did he give it to you for the purposes of the unit?

MR CEKWANA: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But how did it come about that you were found in possession of this pistol? Did you not give it back to Dudumane Bobie, your logistics officer?

MR CEKWANA: As this happened Saturday evening, comrade Mpati visited our unit. We met and we dispersed and this pistol ended up with me because we were going to cross the river and Bongani had a 7.65, as we were going to cross the river together. That is how the pistol ended up with me.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were going to hold the pistol overnight at home?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, I was going to have it for the night and I would hand it over to the logistics officer the following day.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were arrested during the course of that night?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct, Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Nyoka, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION MR NYOKA: Just one, Mr Chairperson, just one.

Mr Cekwana, to your knowledge, was there a rule that you defy an order from your senior solely on the basis that you could not attack someone outside your zone?

MR CEKWANA: According to the army there is no chance for that.

MR NYOKA: I'm not talking about a chance, I'm talking about your rule. Do you know about any rule to that effect, not about an opportunity or chance? Do you know of any rule to that effect?

MR CEKWANA: No.

MR NYOKA: No further questions.

ADV SANDI: Was it the first time that Mpati Goniwe asked you to carry out an order, as a member of MK?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: After this incident, did he ever ask you to carry out a similar order in your capacity as a member of MK?

MR CEKWANA: After this incident I never received any instruction because I was arrested.

ADV SANDI: Did you receive any training as a member of MK? Were you a trained soldier?

MR CEKWANA: Yes, that is correct, Your Honour.

ADV SANDI: Where were you trained?

MR CEKWANA: Around Mdantsane.

ADV SANDI: What were you trained on, what was the nature of this training?

MR CEKWANA: It was physical training, disassembling and assembling.

ADV SANDI: Who was training you?

MR CEKWANA: Comrade Mpati Goniwe. And on firing.

ADV SANDI: Were you the only person who received that training?

MR CEKWANA: The three of us we received that training.

ADV SANDI: Who is "the three of us" that you are talking about?

MR CEKWANA: It is comrade Dudumane Bobie and Lamla Mnadu and myself.

ADV SANDI: How long did that training take?

MR CEKWANA: I think it took something like six months.

ADV SANDI: Was anyone of you given a codename to use as a member of MK?

MR CEKWANA: No-one of us was given a codename.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Nyoka, is there anything else?

MR NYOKA: Nothing else, Mr Chairperson. I would like this witness to stand down. I will call Mr Dudumane Bobie.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Cekwana, you are excused. Perhaps you can just move. Just move to the next seat and Mr Bobie can take the seat behind the microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: In what language is Mr Bobie going to testify?

MR BOBIE: Xhosa.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just give your full names for the record first.

MR BOBIE: Dudumane Bobie.

CHAIRPERSON: Bobie. Is it B-O-B-I-E?

DUDUMANE MORRIS BOBIE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka, you may proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR NYOKA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Bobie, you are aware of why you are here today, not so?

MR BOBIE: Yes, I am aware.

MR NYOKA: Do you know the applicant in this matter?

MR BOBIE: Yes, I know him.

MR NYOKA: Regarding this incident, what was his relation to you? His relationship to you?

MR BOBIE: We were serving in the executive of the ANC, we were also involved with the underground movement of the ANC.

MR NYOKA: When was that?

MR BOBIE: I worked with him from 1992, but I was already working there for a long time before that.

MR NYOKA: I see you've prepared your own notes, maybe you want to read from your own notes briefly. Can you do so? I don't want to distract you.

MR BOBIE:

MR NYOKA: The applicant has stated that he committed the offences of murder and robbery of a firearm pursuing a political objective. Do you confirm or deny that?

MR BOBIE: As I have already said, that is correct.

MR NYOKA: Was he acting under the instruction of his commander, one Mpati Goniwe?

MR BOBIE: That is correct.

MR NYOKA: Was there a rule that if you operated from a certain zone, you could not operate beyond that zone? Was there such a rule of not, to your knowledge?

MR BOBIE: As I have said in my statement, to remove Gqozo was part and parcel of a broader campaign to remove the apartheid regime. You did not have to be in one place and be involved in operations in one place, you can even go to Cape Town if there is such an order.

MR NYOKA: Did the applicant take anything else beyond the firearms after the unfortunate killing, from the deceased?

MR BOBIE: You mean anything that he took? Will you please repeat the question?

MR NYOKA: Did he take anything of the property of the deceased after the killing, besides the firearm? Like money or clothing etc?

MR BOBIE: I do not think so, because this comrade was never a criminal in his life. He was never involved in any robbery. Even if you can trace his record you will find that he was never a criminal.

MR NYOKA: Do you have any knowledge whether he was at a shebeen earlier, before this incident?

MR BOBIE: He doesn't drink alcohol, he's got nothing to do with a shebeen. I have no knowledge of that because I was not there, but I do not think so because he does not take alcohol.

MR NYOKA: That is all, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Nyoka. Ms Thabethe, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Just one, Mr Chair.

Mr Bobie, you've given the Committee the background, the political motive behind the killing of Sergeant Sanuse. Were you involved in any way in this incident?

MR BOBIE: Yes, I am involved because during the planning I was present, though I was not present during the incident itself.

MS THABETHE: Sorry, I didn't quite catch - what do you say? Where were you, were you there?

MR BOBIE: Yes, I am involved because during the planning I was involved, though I was not present during the incident when it was taking place.

MS THABETHE: No further questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabethe.

ADV SANDI: Can you tell us what happened at this planning meeting? You say you were there when the attack was being planned, what do you mean by that?

MR BOBIE: There was not much in the planning. I am putting it in that manner, but there was no real plan. But we had to continue with the campaign of hitting the Security Forces because this policeman was one of the policemen that was identified.

ADV SANDI: Was there any particular reason why this particular policeman was identified?

MR BOBIE: No, there was no specific reason. As Nkuleko had explained that we did not even know this policeman, but the campaign was to hit each and every policeman to drive them away from the community. He was not even known for that matter.

ADV SANDI: Who was the first person to mention his name?

MR BOBIE: The person who said there was a policeman at NU6 that should be surveilled and be reconnoitred, it was Mpati Goniwe and there was another guy by the name of Bongani, who knew this policeman.

ADV SANDI: Where were you when this planning meeting took place?

MR BOBIE: I was in the meeting at the time.

ADV SANDI: Where was that - where did you meet and talk about the action that had to be taken against the police? I'm talking about the meeting where you say Mr Mpati Goniwe mentioned the name of the policeman, Mr Sanuse.

MR BOBIE: As I've already said it was not a serious meeting, it was just a briefing to say what should happen. We did not have lengthy meetings, it was just a briefing of what was going to happen and thereafter we would disperse. We wouldn't have a meeting with a real forum, it was just a short briefing.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but was that at NU3, NU4? Which unit was it?

MR BOBIE: It was a branch of NU3 and 4. As we had so many branches in Mdantsane, those areas were divided into branches according to ANC demarcation.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but in your knowledge, were there no police who could be attacked at NU3 and NU4, where you had met and discussed?

MR BOBIE: You mean where we had met for discussions? I do not understand your question, will you please repeat, Sir.

ADV SANDI: At that stage, were you aware of any members of the Ciskei Police Force, who resided at NU3 and 4, who could be attacked in the same way as Mr Sanuse?

MR BOBIE: To attack who? Will you please clarify your question before I respond to it? ...(no English interpretation).

ADV SANDI: Let me try and understand you. Are you saying this is not a meeting that was convened specifically to discuss how members of the Ciskei Police Force were going to be attacked? Is that what you are saying?

MR BOBIE: I said we were at a meeting, not the underground meeting. We would be given an order. It was just a short meeting during the briefing. We were at the community meeting, not the underground structure. There's a briefing and a meeting. When this was taking place we were at a meeting in a different meeting. I was in the meeting of the community and Lamla was in the SACP meeting.

ADV SANDI: Did you know of any police who were staying at NU3 and NU4?

MR BOBIE: Yes, there were some, but they were no longer staying there at 3, the police that I knew. There were no policemen at that time at NU3.

ADV SANDI: Where were they?

MR BOBIE: They were staying at 17 and the others were at Bisho.

ADV SANDI: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

DR TSOTSI: What was your purpose in killing this policeman, Sanuse?

MR BOBIE: The aim was to attack each and every person who was used as Gqozo's took, because Gqozo was regarded as a monster who led the killing the Bisho people. And the people were living under threat, they couldn't hold meetings freely. Everything that had something to do with fear or in politics.

DR TSOTSI: Are you saying that the purpose was to hit at Gqozo's regime?

MR BOBIE: The aim was to hurt where possible, where people would feel because we were tired of burying our own people.

DR TSOTSI: Now my question is, were you aiming at hitting at Gqozo? Was that the purpose of the mission?

MR BOBIE: The aim of the mission was to isolate Gqozo and hit his Security Forces, so that the situation that was happening in KwaZulu Natal shouldn't take place because it looked like these police were giving weapons to criminals. We were foreseeing a situation that was similar to the one that was taking place in KwaZulu Natal, happening in the Eastern Cape.

DR TSOTSI: Yes. Was that the only reason for attacking this policeman?

MR BOBIE: There were so many reasons, but it will be difficult to mention all of them here, not unless I had compiled something. But I am just saying what I think right now.

DR TSOTSI: Please don't mention all of them, just mention two or three reasons.

MR BOBIE: The first reason. We wanted to isolate Gqozo and his government. Secondly, we were tired of burying our own comrades time and again. The comrades that we buried at Bisho, that was very painful to us. We wanted them to bury also. Because the police were used as Gqozo's tools, they had also decided to stand with him. We wanted to hurt him, Gqozo that is, with his members.

DR TSOTSI: Did the applicant know that the purpose of the mission was to hurt Gqozo, Gqozo's regime?

MR BOBIE: I do not want to commit myself to that statement of hurting Gqozo, but we wanted to drive away the white regime of which Gqozo was among the structures that were established by those whites. Therefore we were fighting with him.

DR TSOTSI: What I want to know is whether the applicant knew what this purpose was, the purpose of this mission?

MR BOBIE: Yes, he knew.

DR TSOTSI: Because I don't recall that he mentioned the name of Gqozo - I may be mistaken, in his evidence at all.

MR BOBIE: As I'm saying, there is a number of reason. The most important reason was to remove the boer regime. Gqozo were the puppets of that government. He can mention it or he can mention it in a different manner.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Have you got any re-examination, Mr Nyoka?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NYOKA: Just for interest's sake, one question, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Bobie, you identified the Gqozo regime as the chief enemy in the former Ciskei, not so?

MR BOBIE: That is correct.

MR NYOKA: And that the Ciskei Police and soldiers were part of his regime, not so?

MR BOBIE: That is correct.

MR NYOKA: What I want to know is, did you isolate the so-called South African Police, which was also in that area of the border area, did you isolate, did you separate them from a mission or did you just concentrate on the Ciskei Police? Out of interest.

MR BOBIE: The South African Police were very scarce in Ciskei. They were very scarce and therefore it was difficult to notice them, it was not easy. Even if they were there, it was not easy to notice because the Ciskeian Police were among the community. The South African Police were working without uniform, therefore it was not easy for us to identify them.

MR NYOKA: No further questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyoka. Mr Bobie, thank you, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case for the applicant?

MR NYOKA: That is the case, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Thabethe, is there any other evidence?

MS THABETHE: No, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Nyoka, any submissions?

MR NYOKA IN ARGUMENT: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

Firstly, I wish to start with the concerns raised from the side of the family, before coming to my address.

The order was given by applicant's senior to attack the policeman at zone 6 and as a command member the applicant had no option to refuse that order, despite the fact that he had to attack someone outside his zone. In fact, there is no evidence that applicant had to restrict his movements or activities solely to his zones 3 and 4.

Secondly, the fact that the applicant did not attack a policeman in his zone and instead attacked that of a different zone, is immaterial in that there's been no evidence led as a basis of fact that in fact there were Ciskei policemen or women residing in zones 3 and 4 at that time. Not before, at that time. We can only speculate as widely as possible on this issue, but there has to be a factual basis on which you can then apply the law.

Thirdly, the applicant flatly denied having come out of a shebeen before the killing. Be that as it may, the fact that the applicant could have been coming out of a shebeen does not take the matter further either as it was not stated exactly when he was seen coming out of the shebeen and what he's been doing there. It is not moral wrong to just come out of a shebeen, there could be good and compelling reasons from coming out of a shebeen. He could have been trying to recruit other people to join that struggle at the time, or it could have been an attempt to pluck up courage for what he was to do. So that is also immaterial.

Fourthly, to show that the applicant was carrying out a political mission with a political objective it's that firstly, he did not know the deceased before the incident. Secondly, he had never seen him before except at the very last moment. The only reasonable inference that could be drawn therefore is that he was pursuing a political agenda, not a criminal one. Otherwise, what would be the motive of a criminal one without further acts of robbery, taking his property or money or petrol or clothing. What would be the motive? The only other inference could be an indication of insanity, he could have been insane and there is no evidence to that effect. He was not insane.

At this stage I would like to hand over a book called the African National Congress and the Negotiated Settlement in South Africa, page 125. Unfortunately the photocopier is not working here, I could have made copies. I hope I won't forget it, Mr Chairperson, I won't forget my book. That passage, when I looked at it last night, summarises this case appositely. There the writer quotes the Radio Freedom broadcast at page 125, where I've made a mark, which was made in 1988, where the announcers made the following remarks:

What the applicant did was to follow exactly the said instruction, which summarised the general position, approach and stance of the ANC and its subsidiary or parallel structures.

If one has to take weapons from a police person or soldier, whether from his or her person or property, one would expect militant resistance proportionate to the use of dangerous means like firearms. The matter is not as simple as taking a lollipop from a baby or from a toddler. One must reasonably expect equal resistance from such police persons.

The sole purposes - even police persons or soldiers themselves of areas like Ciskei and Boputhatswana, expected such attacks on them, for the sole purpose of seizing weaponry from them and that if they resisted they would be killed. The sole purposes of which was politically motivated, not criminal robbery or criminal murder. If I can put it like that. The aim was to defend the community and to advance the cause of freedom. The agents of this were the MK and Self Defence Units. In this instance the applicant was acting within the structure of the MK.

The Ciskei regime of the time, that is - and in the period of 1992/1993, vigorously opposed the liberation movements and the liberation trend and survived only through its enforcement forces like the Ciskei Police and Ciskei Army.

So it had to be - the police or the Ciskei Army had to be incapacitated by being struck right at the soul of its continued survival, the police and the army, and the cardinal disablement of such forces by taking away their weaponry. The Bisho massacre of the previous year was a declaration of war and the acts of the applicant was an act of self defence of the people of that area.

The applicant did nothing else like robbing the deceased of his property or personal belongings, despite having ample opportunity of doing so. He just took the firearm, which was his mandate in the very first place. Late 1992 was the year of the Bisho massacre, which happened in the area of the applicant. Also the following year we must note, on the 10th of April, it was the unfortunate and shocking death of Chris Hani. So it was an area of great political turbulence and emotional trauma.

The weapons used to shoot the Bisho victims were those of the Ciskei law enforcers, the soldiers and the police, and steps had been taken to remove such weaponry so as to disable such forces. The applicant by his actions, was busy doing that job of minimising similar Bisho massacres and ...(indistinct) striking the cause of freedom. His actions therefore were politically motivated and the applicant has made a full disclosure of all relevant facts and there was a clear political objective being pursued.

The fact that there were briefings and there were no elaborate lengthy meetings with technicalities does not mean that there was no political objective, as long as sight is not lost of the fact that it was a people's war and people had to use rudimentary means and rudimentary ideas in pursuance of a political objective. It did not have to be a neat sophisticated modus operandi. I therefore ask that the Committee should grant the applicant amnesty. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Nyoka.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just one thing, Mr Nyoka. Is it not the position here that in the context of this violent conflict the applicant is talking about, even a so-called you know, a good policeman, a good policeman who goes about doing his job in a professional way without harassing people, without interfering with anyone, he would also be affected in that situation, not so, because of the perception you have, the hostility you have towards members of the Police Force? He would be affected.

MR NYOKA: Narrowly speaking he will be affected, but a good policeman would resign from such an obnoxious force and say I'm resigning, I don't want to be part of this lest I be affected. That would be a good policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but obviously we're not living in an ideal world, so it might be a way of approaching it, but there were some policemen who had to just earn a living and they would fall into the category that my colleague referred to, as good policemen. But that is not - it's was just a reality of the situation it seems, at that time.

MR NYOKA: Yes. Also - or let me not talk about a good one, a wise one would say let me move to a Bisho barrack so that I can be away from a firing zone. A wise one would do that. But sight should not be lost of the fact that the Act states - I mean the requirements are that, did you have a political motive in doing this and did you perceive that person to be an opponent or an opposition of the struggle? And if the answer is yes to both, then the actions are justifiable legally, in terms of the TRC Act. However good that person is - and it is not suggested at the all that the person is a bad person, but he was in a bad position. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that was the point that my colleague was wanting you to comment on, that of course the incident is no reflection on the situation of the victim.

Yes, Ms Thabethe, have you got any submissions?

MS THABETHE IN ARGUMENT: Briefly, Mr Chair.

My instructions, as I had earlier on specified, are that the family was concerned - actually talking about the issue of a good policeman, the father had mentioned to me that his son was a good policeman, he used to help the comrades. But I hope my learned colleague has answered his concerns, so I won't repeat anything to that effect. Their concerns basically were that he was a good policeman and they did not understand why he was attacked in NU6, when the applicant had jurisdiction in NU3 and 4, and I think my learned colleague has addressed that issue.

Especially the father also had a concern about the fact that apparently the applicant, when they attacked the deceased, they were coming from a shebeen, and my learned colleague has addressed that as well and I hope he was satisfied with the answer.

As an Evidence Leader I don't have any argument except to say that it appears that the act that the applicant committed satisfies the requirements of the Act, so I have no objection if amnesty is granted. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Ms Thabethe. Is there anything further that you wanted to add, Mr Nyoka?

MR NYOKA: No, Mr Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, may I interpose?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, of course.

MS THABETHE: Maybe I can just put it on record that the family told me that the deceased had two kids that he left behind, a girl that was born in 1988 and a boy that was born in 1991, and the victim's next-of-kin that are here today are the father and the mother. And I would recommend that they be recommended for R&R.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much, Ms Thabethe, we've noted that information.

Yes, that concludes this application. The Panel will consider the matter and will inform the interested parties as soon as the decision in the matter is available.

It just remains for us to thank the legal representatives, Mr Nyoka, for your assistance and Ms Thabethe, and to thank the family of the deceased for being present and for having participated in the proceedings. We express the hope that through being present here today, they have learnt perhaps some more detail about the tragedy that has befallen the family. And in particular we have noted the fact that the deceased has left behind dependants and we've got the details of those dependants and we will deal with that. The question that Ms Thabethe has raised we will deal with in your decision.

MS THABETHE: As the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude the roll for today, Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: It definitely does, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Well under those circumstances we are going to adjourn the proceedings and we will reconvene tomorrow morning at nine thirty. We're adjourned.