CHAIRPERSON: We were this morning to continue with the part heard matter of Mr Mbanjwa and Mr Ndaba. They are both present and represented by their counsel, Mr Wills. Unfortunately and tragically we were told a few minutes ago that the mother of the deceased in this application had been shot yesterday afternoon. For those of you who had been present throughout the hearing on Monday will recollect that reference had been made to her and to the fact that she might give evidence and she had in fact been expected to be here as a witness today. In our view it would be impossible to continue with the hearing in these circumstances until there has been a complete investigation into the killing of this woman, Mrs Dombi Jeanette Kanisa and the motive for that killing has been ascertained. We are unable to ascertain a date to which we can adjourn the hearing because the investigation will obviously take some time.

I can however place on record that we, the members of the Committee, have taken steps to ensure that a full and comprehensive investigation is conducted as soon as possible. So we are obliged to adjourn this matter to a date to be arranged and on behalf of myself and the Members of my Committee and I'm sure everyone else connected with this application, we would like to express our sympathy to the members of Mrs Kanisa's family in their tragic loss and to trust that this will not mean further violence. Thank you, we now adjourn this hearing to a date to be arranged and this application to a date to be arranged and todays hearing will adjourn for the arrival of the people who are still expected. We will commence the other matters set down for today once we are in a position to continue once all the parties are here.

Are we now ready to start with the application of Mr S C Masondo number AM4183/96?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you put yourselves on record?

MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairman, my name is Zuko Mapoma, I'm the evidence leader. Thank you, Sir.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Chairperson, I'm Konki Molohlanye, I'm appearing on behalf of the applicant in this matter, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mapoma, could you tell us, you're appearing for the victims in this matter, is that correct?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes Chairperson, I'm appearing for the victims, I've just consulted with them. The victims who have been identified are the relatives, in fact the grandfather of the children of the deceased person. The children in question are minor children, Azandi Sibisi who is 7 years old and Anele Sibisi who is 5 years old. These children were born out of the deceased's girlfriend by the name of Azi Sibisi and both Azi Sibisi and these children stay with Bafana Anes Sibisi who is a father to the mother to the children, he's a grandfather to the children, so to speak, they are all dependant on him. He is here attending the hearing today.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you just for the sake of the record and for a report back to the Cape Town office, tell us how you managed to get hold of the victims?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, to start with, when we came for the hearing the position was that the victims were not located altogether because the mother to the deceased was unknown where she resides now and out of the court record, the court judgement, it transpired that Manes Sibisi was a brother to the girlfriend of the deceased, did testify in court and his address was located from the court judgement and pursuant to that, the Committee has directed that Manes Sibisi be located so that the minor children of the deceased can be located as well with a view to identifying the victims which has been done. Yesterday we sent our witness protection to pick them up, they are here today. Unfortunately the mother to the deceased person, her whereabouts is not known even by the victims who are here now. They say that she used to stay in KwaMashu but now has left for the farms somewhere in Shlabatini, they don't know where so all the attempts to locate the mother to the deceased have been fruitless, unfortunately.

ADV DE JAGER: When were these attempts made, since yesterday? Or were there previous attempts to locate her?

MR MAPOMA: The investigative unit of KwaZulu Natal has indicated that they have been making attempts to locate the victims since the matter was set down but in vain. Now the last attempt to locate these particular victims who are here was made yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood it, the only attempt made before yesterday was to locate the deceased's mother?

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no attempt made to locate the woman by whom he had children or the children although an address was given in the papers before us?

MR MAPOMA: Yes that is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The investigators in Durban had not been told about these people, they were not aware of their existence or this address until we told them yesterday?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, that's the position.

CHAIRPERSON: Where does this gentleman live do you know? Bafana Sibisi?

MR MAPOMA: He lives in Section C KwaMashu, house number C1227 KwaMashu.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the address set out in the judgement which is part of the record?

MR MAPOMA: Exactly.

EXAMINATION BY MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Chairperson.

SKOMUZO CHRIS MASONDO: (sworn states)

MR MOLOHLANYE: If I may proceed Mr Chairperson? I have here an affidavit by Mr Skomuzo Chris Masondo that I request the Honourable Committee to take note and this affidavit taken as Annexure A, evidence and to further amplify that affidavit I refer the Committee to the application of Mr Masondo in the bundle, particularly page 4 and page 5 which are attached to the application.

For the record, Honourable Committee, I request Mr Masondo to read the affidavit for the Committee and to confirm it and after that we proceed with Zulu but he can read the affidavit in English, Chairperson.

If you're ready Mr Masondo? Can you read the affidavit in front of us for the Committee?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Mr Masondo. I have one question to ask, the statements you made in court were they truthful as this one?

MR MASONDO: They were not truthful.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Mr Masondo.

ADV DE JAGER: Why wasn't it truthful?

MR MASONDO: I was afraid that I was going to be convicted.

MR MOLOHLANYE: On the 5th February when you attacked the deceased, did you notice any other person beside the deceased at the scene?

MR MASONDO: There was somebody seated on the bonnet of the car, that is the front of the vehicle.

MR MOLOHLANYE: So what happened to this person when you approached the deceased?

MR MASONDO: I think when we fired at the policeman he fled, he was a young boy.

ADV DE JAGER: What age approximately?

MR MASONDO: He could have been 12.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Did you know this policeman before?

MR MASONDO: Because a decision had been taken to attack the police all police were monitored. There were policemen who were residing at B, D and other sections that we knew of.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Was this policeman staying at D-Section when he was found?

MR MASONDO: Yes he was residing at D-Section.

MR MOLOHLANYE: But he was shot in C-Section?

MR MASONDO: That is correct.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Did you know that he would at C-Section at the time?

MR MASONDO: No I did not know.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you. No further questions.

MR SIBANYONI: Can I just say, I'm not satisfied with your answer, he asked you did you know this policeman before you attacked him, did you know that he was a policeman?

MR MASONDO: We knew that he was a policeman.

MR SIBANYONI: How did you know?

MR MASONDO: As I noted before when after that decision was taken after that decision was taken that we were going to attack the police we investigated and found out who were the police residing in the nearby sections so we monitored them. I even knew where his house was.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Masondo, what is your standard of education?

MR MASONDO: Standard 10.

MR MAPOMA: When did you pass Standard 10?

MR MASONDO: In 1992.

MR MAPOMA: Now was there any relationship between the police and the IFP in KwaMashu during the time that you killed the deceased person?

MR MASONDO: There was a relationship between the IFP and the policemen. It was a relationship between, the police were under the then KwaZulu government, the Zulu Police.

MR MAPOMA: I take it that there was an original executive committee of the ANC Youth League in your area, am I correct?

MR MASONDO: That is correct, there was a branch executive committee.

MR MAPOMA: And the branch executive committee was answerable to the regional executive committee, is that not the case?

MR MASONDO: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: And as the chairperson of the branch executive committee you were the ex-officio member of the regional executive committee of the ANC Youth League, is that not the case?

MR MASONDO: If there was a meeting that was to be held at a regional level, they will send a message that they would require representatives from the branch but it was not specified that I personally would be involved but they would send a message that representatives would be present at that meeting.

MR MAPOMA: Who was accounting to the regional executive committee, is it not you as the chairperson of the branch?

MR MASONDO: It was myself and the secretary who communicated or who were in contact with the regional executive committee.

MR MAPOMA: Now this position that you took to attack policemen, did you get the approval of the regional executive committee of the ANC Youth League?

MR MASONDO: No.

MR MAPOMA: Did you consult in any way with the regional executive about this stance that you had taken?

MR MASONDO: No, we only reported about the problem that we encountered in the township. I went with Cedric to explain what the situation was but they only informed us that they would only be able to handle or resolve the problem when they heard later on but at that time we were facing this problem in the township.

MR MAPOMA: You know, Mr Masondo, what I wanted clarity on from you is whether your position to attack policemen was the ANC position because you took it yourselves without consulting with the ANC?

MR MASONDO: It was not ANC policy to attack policemen. We took the decision as a branch, it had not been approved by the regional committee. After we had failed to receive any assistance or to find solutions from the regional level we discussed this matter as a branch and took that decision with our members who told us that they wanted us to defend them in whatever possible way.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you then take a decision that you should attack policemen?

MR MASONDO: The decision to attack policemen was not taken at that general meeting. At that general meeting people told us they wanted to be defended but they left the decision to the branch executive committee as to how this would be done. At a meeting of the executive committee it was then decided that we should address this issue. As the branch executive committee we discussed on a strategy and we decided that after having made several attempts we should then take a decision of defending ourselves and at that time my colleagues said that ...(intervention)

MR MAPOMA: You are running too fast for the interpreters.

MR MASONDO: Sorry. After that general meeting with all the members, the branch executive committee met separately and the issue that had been discussed a the general meeting was discussed further and it was decided that we should find a way of defending the community and my ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Could you go a little bit slower please, we've got to write down what you're saying and they've got to interpret it so kindly go a bit slower, go sentence by sentence please? The executive meeting met and you decided to do what?

MR MASONDO: It was agreed that one person should be responsible for that issue of defending the community and I was elected as that person at the meeting of the executive.

MR MAPOMA: Is there any leader of the ANC who encouraged this action of attacking policemen?

MR MASONDO: You mean someone residing in KwaMashu?

MR MAPOMA: No, anywhere. The senior leader of the ANC, senior to you who encouraged this step of yours of attacking policemen?

MR MASONDO: If I remember correctly there was no ANC leader who specifically told us that we should attack the police but if I remember correctly, Harry Gwala was sometimes mentioned at the rallies that police were our enemy.

ADV DE JAGER: But could we just distinguish, there's a difference in attacking a policeman and taking his firearm for instance and a decision to kill a policeman. Did anybody ever authorise you or did you self decide that you should kill a policeman in order to get his weapon or did you decide to go and rob his vehicle?

MR MASONDO: No one authorised us to kill policemen. The decision was the police would be attacked but no one specifically said that decisions means that we will kill them but in the process of attacking them policemen were killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it a decision merely to attack policemen or was the decision that you wanted to disarm policemen and to do this it might be necessary to attack?

MR MASONDO: That decision was we were going to attack the policemen and disarm them. It was not specified that we were going to kill them.

CHAIRPERSON: But the purpose, was the purpose in attacking them so you could disarm them or did you want to attack them so you could hurt them?

MR MASONDO: The purpose of attacking them would be to disarm them.

MR MAPOMA: Now when you shot the deceased, were you aware that he had a firearm?

MR MASONDO: When we attacked any police we did so under the impression that they had a firearm.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, could that answer be repeated please? When we attacked any police we were under the impression that they had firearms?

MR MASONDO: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you attack other policemen?

MR MASONDO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We're talking about you personally now, did you yourself attack other policemen?

MR MASONDO: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: You were asked whether there was any other person who was in the vicinity of the policeman when you shot him and you said there was a young boy who ran away. Was it the only person who was there?

MR MASONDO: It's the only person that I remember.

MR MAPOMA: Is it not correct that there was a two year old child who was having a chat with the deceased at the time when you shot him?

MR MASONDO: I would not dispute it but the person that I remember correctly was the one who was sitting on the bonnet of the car.

MR MAPOMA: And where was the deceased?

MR MASONDO: He was seated inside the vehicle in the driver's seat.

MR MAPOMA: Was the door of the driver opened or closed?

MR MASONDO: It was closed.

MR MAPOMA: And you saw one person apart from the deceased, is that what you're saying?

MR MASONDO: Yes I remember the boy I referred to earlier.

ADV DE JAGER: He was sitting on the bonnet of the car, not in the car?

MR MASONDO: He was not seated inside the vehicle, he was seated on the bonnet.

MR MAPOMA: The young boy who you talk about you say that at the time that you shot the deceased the door was opened and the deceased was talking to the two year old child of his?

What would you say to that?

MR MASONDO: I do not remember that. It will be difficult to dispute what he says because I do not remember that.

MR MASONDO: But Mr Masondo please, I mean your target was just in front of you and the target in front of you was talking to somebody who was immediately next to him. Is it possible not to say that person, that young person?

MR MASONDO: I did not see that person.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you on the same side of the driver, on the driver's door side of the car?

MR MASONDO: I was on the driver's side.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you lean through the window to shoot him?

MR MASONDO: We moved close to the vehicle on his side.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MAPOMA: At the time you shot him was he looking at you?

MR MASONDO: He turned his head and faced towards us. When we drew our weapons and told him not to move, that is when he turned.

MR MAPOMA: And where was the briefcase?

MR MASONDO: It was on the back seat in the vehicle.

MR MAPOMA: And he was not trying to reach the briefcase at the time you shot him? is that correct?

MR MASONDO: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: So any suggestion that at the time you shot him he was trying to get hold of the briefcase is not correct, is that what you're saying?

MR MASONDO: Yes that would not be correct.

MR MAPOMA: Now after you shot him did you search him?

MR MASONDO: Dumsani searched him.

MR MAPOMA: Where were you at the time?

MR MASONDO: I was standing behind Dumsani and Kosanati was standing on the other side of the car.

MR MAPOMA: Isn't it correct that you ran away immediately after you shot him?

MR MASONDO: No, we did not. After his body had been searched and we were about to leave I told Dumsani to remove the briefcase from the vehicle and we thereafter fled and as we were running away we shot in the air.

MR MAPOMA: Why were you taking the briefcase away?

MR MASONDO: After Dumsani could not locate a firearm on his body we thought that it might be in the briefcase.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you. Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

MR SIBANYONI: Concerning your position in the ANC Youth League branch, it appears to me from your answers that you were not aware that as the chairperson of the branch you were automatically mandated to attend or to be and ex-officio member of the region, did I understand your response very well that you were not aware that that was your sort of constitutional right but you are saying that it had happened some time that you will be requested or any other person would be requested in your place?

MR MASONDO: No, what I knew was that if I was supposed to attend a meeting I would be informed. For instance a letter would be sent through KwaMashu office and they would be distributed to the branches accordingly. I was not aware that I would automatically sit on meetings at regional level

MR SIBANYONI: Now after you complained to the region about the problems you were experiencing in the community, why didn't you ask for their permission whether you can take some steps to disarm the police to enable you to be armed to defend yourself?

MR MASONDO: As I mentioned before at the meeting that we held it did not arise that we take that step to inform the regional committee, that opinion was not raised.

MR SIBANYONI: Did you feel that you had power to make such a policy decision to say we are now disarming police in order to have arms to defend ourselves? Did you feel that as a branch you were entitled to take such a decision?

MR MASONDO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever ask the regional can you please give us arms so we can defend ourselves, defend the community? We're now talking about 1993 when the ANC had supplies of arms in this country.

MR MASONDO: We did not specifically ask for arms but we explained our problem and we told them that we needed to defend our community and we requested them to assist us in any way possible and they said they were going to get back to us which they did not do.

CHAIRPERSON: What I can't understand is surely it would be much easier to ask them and get arms from them than to try to disarm policemen who would just go away and get another weapon? Your little branch was not going to disarm the South African Police Force, was it?

MR MASONDO: That is not how we viewed it, we felt that we would carry out a decision even if it was going to be difficult but that was a decision we had taken and we were going to carry it through.

CHAIRPERSON: So you never thought of asking your superiors in the ANC to supply you with arms so you could then properly defend your community?

MR MASONDO: No, we did not specifically ask for firearms.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

You spoke about the late Harry Gwala. He was a member of the National Executive of the ANC, was he not?

MR MASONDO: That is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: And we were told the ANC had it's own self defence unit structures and those were the people who were expected to defend the community, not the ANC Youth Branch. Were there no SDU structures formed by the ANC in your area?

MR MASONDO: No there wasn't, up until my arrest there was no SDU in my area.

MR SIBANYONI: Did you receive any training to use firearms?

MR MASONDO: No.

MR SIBANYONI: But we are told the ANC requested some MK or former MK members to train people who were serving in the SDUs, do you know of any people who were trained in your area to defend or to be part of the SDUs?

MR MASONDO: I heard about that but as I mentioned before no one came to our area, approached us on that matter of training people to defend the community. No one did that.

MR SIBANYONI: After disarming the deceased we gather from the trial record that you took this firearm to your girlfriend's place, is that so?

MR MASONDO: It was not my girlfriend, it was Nomiso Khumalo, a friend to my girlfriend.

MR SIBANYONI: And the firearm lay there until you were arrested and you pointed it out there, is that so?

MR MASONDO: That is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: It was there for something like ten days am I correct because this incident happened on the 5th February and you were arrested about the 15th or you were doing the pointing out on the 15th, is that so?

MR MASONDO: That is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: It would appear this firearm was not needed to be used by the youth league or by yourself but you wanted it for your own personal needs, what is your response to that?

MR MASONDO: I was the commander of that unit, I had that responsibility to safeguard these weapons and give them to persons whom I trusted. It was not to be that these weapons would be carried or brandished wherever we went but we would use such firearms when we went out on an attack or maybe if we were attacked we would use them to defend ourselves but they were not meant to be carried at all times.

MR SIBANYONI: But did Nkosi Nati Khanyile, Dumusani Mtetwa and yourself had firearms? You didn't need any further firearms, what do you say?

MR MASONDO: We were not the only members of the defence unit and we had not put down a policy on the amount or the number of firearms we were going to take or disarm the police for the purpose of defending the community.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you and your two friends keep your firearms?

MR MASONDO: The firearms would be in our possession if we went out on a mission. It was agreed that after each and every instance I would be responsible for collecting and keeping these firearms safely so that they are not used in other instances but they were only issued out when we went out on an operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you the person who pointed them out to the police, the firearms that you had in your custody?

MR MASONDO: Yes I pointed the firearm at Nombuso's place in 1993.

CHAIRPERSON: How many firearms did you point out?

MR MASONDO: Just one, they got the other one from Kosanati.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you'd just told me that all the firearms were handed back to you and you were the person who kept them in safety until they were issued for another operation? Haven't you just said that?

MR MASONDO: That is what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you keep them?

MR MASONDO: I used to keep them or I used to give them to any person whom I trusted as it so happened that I gave this other firearm to Nombuso. The other one was at D-Section. When I was arrested the police requested me to point out a firearm that was removed from Mr Mthembu, that is the one that I pointed out.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the only one?

MR MASONDO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't have one in your possession?

MR MASONDO: They did not find any on me.

MR SIBANYONI: What happened to the firearm you used on the day you disarmed the deceased?

MR MASONDO: I did not show it to the police.

MR SIBANYONI: Where did you obtain that firearm the one in your possession when you disarmed the deceased?

MR MASONDO: We had disarmed another policeman.

MR SIBANYONI: Before the incident on the 5th?

MR MASONDO: That is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: And where did Kosanati Khanyile and Dumasani Ntetwa get their firearms?

MR MASONDO: The attack on Mr Mthembu was not the first attack on policemen, the firearms that we had on that day, the three firearms, had been obtained from attacking the police and disarming them.

CHAIRPERSON: So all these other firearms had been obtained from attacking and disarming police?

MR MASONDO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So the police should have records of all the numbers, is that so?

MR MASONDO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And how many policemen had been killed in these earlier attacks?

MR MASONDO: I will not remember the number but there were many that were attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: There were many did you say?

MR MASONDO: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: But the interpretation was there were many who were attacked. Were they killed?

MR MASONDO: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you in fact kill any of the other police when taking their arms?

MR MASONDO: Yes there were.

ADV DE JAGER: How many were killed there?

MR MASONDO: I can remember two before this incident.

ADV DE JAGER: So if you've killed a person, have you killed so many people in your life that you even can't remember the number of people you've killed? Why would it take you so long? An ordinary man would say listen, I've killed two people or I've killed four, but you can't give us a straight answer? It is correct then that you killed two other policemen apart from this one?

MR MASONDO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that before or after this incident?

MR MASONDO: Before.

MR SIBANYONI: Where was it, in which place?

MR MASONDO: KwaMashu.

MR SIBANYONI: Which year?

MR MASONDO: In 1992.

MR SIBANYONI: Why did you then only apply for amnesty for the death of Tokazani Mthembu and not for the death of the other two policemen and attack of the others where you were disarming them. Why did you single this one out?

MR MASONDO: I was not advised when I made my application, I thought that when you apply for amnesty you do it only in regard to a crime that you have been convicted for but when Ashega arrived at Westville Prison I informed her that there were other incidents that I had been involved in.

MR SIBANYONI: The finding which was made by the trial court in this incident of Mthembu was that you people were not aware that the victim was a policeman, what do you say about that?

MR MASONDO: I will dispute that.

MR SIBANYONI: And another information was that you attacked him, immediately ran away and only thereafter someone amongst you there said take the briefcase which will mean your motive in attacking was not to disarm him because if that was the case you would have taken the briefcase immediately. What do you say about that?

MR MASONDO: The purpose was to disarm him. After Dumsani had searched him. Before we left the scene I told him to take the briefcase.

MR SIBANYONI: Was it not after you've ran for a while that you had to return to the car and take the briefcase?

MR MASONDO: No.

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

ADV DE JAGER: But if the purpose was to disarm him, he didn't resist at all, did he?

MR MASONDO: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Well why didn't you search him for the weapon and take the weapon and go off without killing him?

MR MASONDO: I would not be in a position to tell you why that happened. When this happened it did not occur that we should just take the firearm, even shooting him was not something that was pre-planned, it happened on the scene. I cannot explain as to why we didn't just disarm or maybe just shoot at him.

CHAIRPERSON: You went to disarm somebody and you say you cannot explain to us now why you just shot him dead? What sort of person are you? Can you give no reason why you shot him?

MR MASONDO: I was trying to explain because it was put to me that he could have been just disarmed. I was trying to explain that we had not specifically decided before that we were going to kill him but we happened that sometimes when we were in the process of disarming a person that person will end up dead.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR MASONDO: I cannot specifically explain but it used to happen.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you in fact disarm any person without killing him?

MR MASONDO: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So you had the experience that you could take a weapon without killing a person, is that correct?

MR MASONDO: Yes, it used to happen that way.

ADV DE JAGER: Now could you then please explain to me why you shot Mr Mthembu, a man speaking to his small child, why you could have taken the weapon without shooting him because he didn't resist?

MR MASONDO: That's what I was trying to explain earlier that on earlier occasions it would happen that in the process of disarming a person, that person will end up being shot or dead. I cannot explain the reasons but it happened.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but you've also told me now that sometimes you took a weapon without killing a person, isn't that so?

MR MASONDO: Yes, that used to happen.

ADV DE JAGER: Now why in certain cases did you decide to kill a person and in other cases not?

MR MASONDO: It used to happen and it is not true that all persons who were disarmed were killed but I cannot explain why.

ADV DE JAGER: How many people in fact can you give us, if not exactly an approximate figure of how many people you in fact disarmed? Was it 10 or less or 20 or more?

MR MASONDO: There could be 10.

ADV DE JAGER: And in that process you killed 3 people or more?

MR MASONDO: There were three.

ADV DE JAGER: Now in this case the man was turning his head, looking at you and you and your friends decided to kill him without even asking him whether he wouldn't voluntarily hand over his weapon?

MR MASONDO: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: There were two of you with guns on the driver's side and the other one with a gun on the passenger side, so there was nothing this man could have done. He was offering no resistance, just sitting there?

MR MASONDO: Yes he did not resist.

CHAIRPERSON: And you have told us you went very close to the car and shot him dead?

MR MASONDO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell my colleague here why? Do you just enjoy killing policemen?

MR MASONDO: We did not enjoy it but I am not going to lie and say there was a reason why we killed him for instance that he resisted or he tried to run away but he was eventually killed.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mthembu, he wasn't a member of the security police or involved in fighting with the ANC, wasn't he an ordinary policeman doing his duty to protect people there in the township?

MR MASONDO: He was a policeman. I am not in a position to say whether he was fighting the ANC or the people in the township, I cannot say but our decision was to disarm the police and it was not specified which members of the police force.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but there were even members in the police force who were members of the ANC? So you didn't know whether he was a member of the ANC or whether he was a member of the IFP or whether he was interested in politics at all?

MR MASONDO: No we did not know his political affiliation, we were carrying out a decision that had been taken. We had not realised that there were police who supported the ANC or not but we decided that our decision was based on that fact that the police were working under the then apartheid government.

CHAIRPERSON: But you have told us it was not ANC policy to kill the police? Do you remember telling us that?

MR MASONDO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You, your little branch decided that you would disarm the police so you could have weapons to defend the community?

MR MASONDO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That was your decision to disarm the police. Why did you kill this policeman? It was no part of disarming him?

MR MASONDO: As I mentioned earlier, in the process of disarming the police some were killed. Killing someone is not something pleasant or good but it happened. I cannot give reasons as to why he was killed in the process but that is what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that is what makes your evidence so completely unintelligible to me, I can understand you saying if in the process of disarming someone he tried to struggle or reach for a weapon and he got killed but to just say as you do say again and again, "I can't give any reason why he got killed, he just got killed", when it was not your policy to kill? You killed someone by pulling the trigger of a pistol, it requires a conscious act on your part and it is clear that you had done it a number of times, you had killed people deliberately. You didn't bother to ask for amnesty for the others but you are asking for the one you were convicted of and you cannot tell us how you came to kill him? Your objective was to disarm him, that was your political objective. Your political objective was not to kill him. Why did you kill him?

MR MASONDO: I cannot put a reason as to why he was killed. What we knew is that after his death we would take his firearm and that would be disarming him. We did not discuss that the killing of somebody was outside our policy. In our minds that was part of the same thing because our purpose was to disarm them.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes but this was after the peace agreement had been signed by the ANC and while negotiations were going on, isn't that so? You were aware of the peace agreement that at that stage the political parties were trying to have a form of peace established in the country?

MR MASONDO: I was aware of the negotiations between the ANC and the then government.

ADV DE JAGER: And you told us that you were aware that it wasn't the policy of the ANC to kill policemen at that stage, isn't it so? Didn't you tell us that?

MR MASONDO: Yes I did say so.

ADV DE JAGER: Now even if you had the discretion how could you act contrary to your party's policy?

MR MASONDO: We had taken a decision at branch level because of the situation that prevailed.

ADV DE JAGER: What happened to the other - I presume you were successful in disarming ten people so you had round about ten weapons. What happened to all those weapons?

MR MASONDO: After everything had taken place there was a war, a fight that erupted between the IFP hostel dwellers and the township residents. Those firearms were used in that conflict.

ADV DE JAGER: You never handed in back to the police?

MR MASONDO: No.

ADV DE JAGER: So those firearms are still in circulation and they are still being used today illegally to kill people?

MR MASONDO: After my arrest I left everything to Dumsani so it is possible that yes, they may be in somebody else's hands.

ADV DE JAGER: And there was an opportunity given by the government and the present government, you could come forward and hand in your weapons without being prosecuted. You were aware of that?

MR MASONDO: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: But you people never considered handing over these weapons?

MR MASONDO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: One point I'd like to clarify, can you go back into this, is you were asked if you agreed if it was not the policy of the ANC at that time to kill policemen and your reply to that was "yes but we had taken a decision", but as I understand your evidence you had not taken a decision to kill policemen, had you?

MR MASONDO: No it was to disarm the police.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was not ANC policy, it was not a decision of your branch to do this but you went on doing it? Why?

MR MASONDO: The death of a policeman would happen in the process of them being attacked. I cannot explain why it happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he opted it happened once, something you know should not have happened. You should have stopped committing such attacks. You knew then that you had done something contrary to your party's policies, didn't you?

MR MASONDO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you just went on and on?

MR MASONDO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination please?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Masondo, I think the members of the Committee have been posing one question and that is what was the reason for you to kill Mr Mthembu at the time? Can you give any reason that made you to kill, Mr Masondo, was it an act that happened at the spur of the moment or was it planned?

MR MASONDO: It was not pre-planned that we were going to kill him. On attacking the police it was not specifically decided that we were going to kill policemen and it must also be clear that when we left or when we went on our way it was not our purpose to kill Mr Mthembu but we came across him along the way.

MR MOLOHLANYE: So is it your evidence that Mr Mthembu was killed by mistake?

MR MASONDO: I would not say it was by mistake because we were responsible for the act. Although I cannot explain why he was killed, our intention was to disarm him but in that process he was killed. If that act of killing him had been a mistake maybe he could have been shot just once.

CHAIRPERSON: Had you got any masks on your face?

MR MASONDO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: So the three of you went right up to the windows of the car on each side occupied by a policeman whom you knew lived in the area and you say you just went there to disarm him but if you had just disarmed him he would have certainly been able to identify you wouldn't he?

MR MASONDO: I think so.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Masondo, as you have said in your evidence that there were attacks on the police before this incident. Those previous attacks before this one, the police were they resisting or is there any history of the police resisting you disarming them?

MR MASONDO: Yes there were some who did resist.

MR MOLOHLANYE: So what happened to those who resisted your disarming them act?

MR MASONDO: They were shot.

MR MOLOHLANYE: So is it your evidence that those who were shot before were shot because they were resisting?

MR MASONDO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you changing your evidence now?

MR MASONDO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you told us earlier that you cannot explain or give reasons why those people ended up dead, now you say "oh, they ended up, they were shot because they resisted." Why didn't you tell us that when you were asked this question earlier?

MR MASONDO: There is an incident that took place at B Section. At that incident that policeman was being disarmed, I pointed my firearm at him and he tried to draw his firearm and I shot at him but Mr Mthembu did not do anything.

MR MOLOHLANYE: So is it your evidence that Mr Mthembu was killed because you thought maybe he might resist?

CHAIRPERSON: He has not said that.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Sorry, Chairperson, I'm indebted to you.

ADV DE JAGER: Was this policeman that resisted and whom you shot, what was his name?

MR MASONDO: I do not know his surname.

ADV DE JAGER: Where was it and when did it occur?

MR MASONDO: It happened in 1992 in B Section.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the policeman on duty, did he live there or what?

MR MASONDO: He had come to see another policeman at B Section, he was not on duty.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Chairperson.

The decision as you have stated in your evidence to attack and disarm the police was taken by yourself and members of the ANC Youth League in the branch, is that so?

MR MASONDO: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: By the executive in a meeting of the general meeting?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you, I'm indebted to you Advocate de Jager.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, was it even the executive or was it the members that he pointed to the defence unit. If you look at the bottom of page 2 of his affidavit he says he appointed the defence unit and then he goes over the page and in paragraph 6 he says:

That was the defence unit pointed by him from the branch executive.

MR MOLOHLANYE: So this decision that you took with your members of the defence unit, was it a mandate of the ANC Youth League in the branch, the executive to be precise?

MR MASONDO: The branch executive committee gave me the mandate to elect people who would be in the defence unit. I was going to discuss with those persons a strategy of defending the community. The executive had given me the mandate to form that defence unit and to appoint people who would be in that unit.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairperson, just one aspect.

Mr Masondo, you have been involved in many incidents, disarming the police. Are you in a position to remember the details to say in these incidents this and this happened or are you failing to recall?

MR MASONDO: I could perhaps recall the location of maybe the people who were involved in those incidents.

MR MAPOMA: Are you having any problems to remember the finer details of each incident?

MR MASONDO: It would be difficult to remember everything. Perhaps if I could have time to think about it I could try to remember.

MR MAPOMA: The reason I'm asking you that question is because in your affidavit in paragraph 8, page 4, you are saying the policeman then attempted to turn his head in a manner that would enable him to get a better view of us. In other words you the assailants, but when we look at the judgement on page 21 of this bundle evidence was led that the deceased made a move to grab his briefcase which was on the back of the seat and then it goes on to say:

and also there is information that he was shot at the back of his head, in other words he was looking away from you.

What do you say about that?

MR MASONDO: I'm not certain of where he was shot in the head but I do not remember him struggling or trying to reach for that briefcase.

MR MAPOMA: Did you ever feel threatened before shooting at him?

MR MASONDO: We were afraid.

MR MAPOMA: Is there any action from the deceased which made you feel threatened? If so, what was that?

MR MASONDO: Except for the fact that he turned his head but that did not threaten us.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

Is that your case?

MR MAPOMA: That's my case Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you prepared to go on now or do you want to consult or what?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I would like to consult with the witness to call.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you let us know as soon as you are ready?

MR MAPOMA: Yes I will do that, it won't be long.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn until you are ready to proceed.

MR MAPOMA: As the Committee pleases.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I'm calling on behalf of the victims Menzi Sibisi.

MENZI SIBISI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.

Menzi, do you recall the event that took place on the 5th February 1993 when Mr Mthembu was killed?

MR SIBISI: Yes I do remember.

MR MAPOMA: How old were you then?

MR SIBISI: I was 16.

MR MAPOMA: Could you tell this Committee what happened on that day?

MR SIBISI: The deceased used to come to my home and on his visit he would request me to bring his child to him. He came around and parked the car, I saw him and I took the child and went to him. He was seated inside the vehicle. The child was two years old.

MR MAPOMA: What is the name of the child?

MR SIBISI: Azandi.

MR MAPOMA: Was the deceased the father to that child?

MR SIBISI: Yes he was.

MR MAPOMA: Okay, you were saying on that day you brought the child to him when he parked the car. Carry on there?

MR SIBISI: As we were seated there and he was talking to the child.

MR MAPOMA: So where were you seated?

MR SIBISI: I was seated on the bonnet.

MR MAPOMA: Which side of the car were you seated, the driver's seat or the passenger side?

MR SIBISI: On the driver's side.

MR MAPOMA: And where was the child at that time?

MR SIBISI: The child was standing next to the door.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, carry on then?

MR SIBISI: As he was still talking three men approached. They approached the car from the front. As they approached there didn't seem to be anything amiss about them but as they just passed the car they turned back and came back to the driver. They insulted him and said he should not move. One person tried to shoot at him.

MR MAPOMA: At the time they told him not to move, where was the child?

MR SIBISI: The child was there next to the door.

MR MAPOMA: Then carry on?

MR SIBISI: One of them tried to shoot but the gun didn't go off. Thereafter Tobazani tried to reach for his briefcase for his firearm that was in the briefcase then at that time the second person shot at him at the back and one of them searched him and couldn't find the firearm and they made as if they were leaving then one of them said they should remove the briefcase and then they then took the briefcase and fled. A neighbour approached and they shot in that person's direction and the neighbour went back into his house and that's when they fled.

MR MAPOMA: Where exactly was Tobazani shot on the head?

INTERPRETER: At the back where the witness is pointing.

MR MAPOMA: Now at what stage did you get out of the scene if at all you did?

MR SIBISI: When this happened I was shocked. When they went to the other side of the vehicle that's when I picked up the child and ran into the house.

MR MAPOMA: Was that before they shot?

MR SIBISI: It was after he had been shot.

MR MAPOMA: Is it your evidence that at the time they shot at the deceased the two year old child was in the vicinity of the scene?

MR SIBISI: Yes he was present.

ADV DE JAGER: Was the car door open or closed?

MR SIBISI: They opened the door as they were searching his body.

ADV DE JAGER: No, I'm asking did the boy sit there, the two year old, was he standing outside next to the car and was the front door of the car closed or open? How did the deceased communicate with the child?

MR SIBISI: The child was shorter than the car door. The child was outside and the door was closed and after they had fired the shot they went around the vehicle and that is when I picked up the child and ran into the house but when they fired the shot the child was present outside the vehicle.

MR MAPOMA: So you say after they searched him, proceed there?

MR SIBISI: They searched him and did not find anything on him and they took a few steps trying to flee but then at that time one of them said the briefcase should be taken and that was then they took that briefcase.

MR MAPOMA: And then after taking the briefcase?

MR SIBISI: A neighbour approached and tried to say something and they fired in that person's direction, he thereafter went back into his house.

MR MAPOMA: Then they ran away?

MR SIBISI: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Mr Sibisi. Thank you Sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Sibisi, are you honest in this evidence that you are giving to this Committee?

MR SIBISI: Yes I am.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Mr Sibisi, in 1995 you were a witness in the same matter in court, is that so?

MR SIBISI: That is correct.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Do you still remember what you said in court in connection with the incident?

MR SIBISI: What I have said I've said it because it's the truth.

MR MOLOHLANYE: My question is do you still remember what you said in court?

MR SIBISI: Yes I do.

MR MOLOHLANYE: So as you've said earlier just now that what you've said now is true and then what you said then is what want to tell this Committee that is was a lie?

MR SIBISI: What I have said here today I know to be what I said in court as well.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Mr Sibisi, I'll put it to you that what you're telling the Committee now is not your evidence that you gave in court.

CHAIRPERSON: What portion are you referring to? I have not seen a copy of his evidence in the court, I have merely seen a copy of the judgement which purports to quote portions of it. Some agree with what he said and some don't.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Chairperson, I'll refer the Committee to page 21 of the judgement. In paragraph 20 where Mr Sibisi according to the judgement by the Honourable Judge there, the evidence that was given by Mr Sibisi in saying that the three assailants came running past, having done so they turned around and came back each drawing a firearm as they did so. Sibisi realised that there was trouble, he jumped off the vehicle, took the child and ran to his house on the opposite side of the road.

MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairperson, for the record it reads:

"The three assailants came hurrying past"

not running.

ADV DE JAGER: And I don't think - I think this is a summary of the evidence in the judge's words not a quotation directly from what the own words of the witness, isn't that so?

MR MOLOHLANYE: That is so Honourable Member but ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, no in essence it's, I presume, it's correctly summarised.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you should put the words to him but you should put the contents to him that what appears here appears to indicate that he took the child and ran to the house before the deceased was shot?

MR MOLOHLANYE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand that because it appears from what the judge said at the trial that in your evidence at the trial you said that you realised there was going to be trouble so you took the child and ran to your house before the deceased was shot but after you had run away, they told the deceased not to move and shot him? Do you understand that that seems to differ from what you have told us. Here you have said that it was after the shot was fired that you took the child away?

MR SIBISI: I do not know, I'm not sure about that but what I remember is what I have said here today.

MR MOLOHLANYE: In that case Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR MAPOMA: No re-examination Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Just one or two Chairperson.

Mr Sibisi, you are saying the deceased, that was Tobazani, tried to reach for his briefcase. Where were you at that stage?

MR SIBISI: As I mentioned before when this happened I was shocked, I did not know what to do. I was at the scene and when they went around the vehicle I was still present. After that I picked up the child and ran away.

MR SIBANYONI: Were you still sitting on the bonnet when he tried to reach for his briefcase?

MR SIBISI: I was on my feet by that time. I was on the same spot but standing, I was no longer leaning on the car but I was close to the vehicle, I was just at the scene.

MR SIBANYONI: The person who fired the shot, was he on the same side of the car with you or was he on the other side of the car?

MR SIBISI: He was on the driver's side.

ADV DE JAGER: And you, were you also on the driver's side?

MR SIBISI: Yes.

MR SIBANYONI: When you took the child and ran away, what was the deceased doing, was he still sitting, was he lying, what was he doing?

MR SIBISI: Please repeat that question?

MR SIBANYONI: When you took the child and left the car, what was the deceased doing?

MR SIBISI: They opened the door. His head was against the car door.

INTERPRETER: In fact he hung his head as the witness indicated but he was seated.

ADV DE JAGER: When these people approached the deceased, did he try to hide them?

MR SIBISI: No.

MR SIBANYONI: When they said he should not move, did he move?

MR SIBISI: Not at that time. He only moved after they had attempted to shoot him and that is when he turned for the briefcase.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: There are just a few points I'd like to clarify. You've told us about this child Azanda. Who was Azanda's mother?

MR SIBISI: Her name is Azi. A-Z-I. Azi, my sister.

CHAIRPERSON: And did she have any other child with the deceased, Mr Mthembu?

MR SIBISI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What's the name of that other child?

MR SIBISI: Anele.

CHAIRPERSON: Anele, and is she younger?

MR SIBISI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MAPOMA: There is no further witness Chairperson, that is the evidence for the victims. Thank you.

MR MOLOHLANYE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson, I believe then this is my opportunity to go to submissions, my closing submissions? Thank you Chairperson.

It is my submission, Chairperson, that in this particular application we have an application that is genuine and which in terms of Section 20 of the Act does qualify the applicant to be granted amnesty on the following grounds that the act that was committed by the applicant was committed with a political objective with the conflicts of the past and that political decision was not merely taken by the applicant on his own but it was a decision that was taken by the community in the section in which the applicant stayed.

CHAIRPERSON: We are talking now about the murder of the deceased, the killing, you say that decision was taken by the community?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, the killing of Mr Mthembu comes as a result of a decision that was taken by the community that they need protection and in their protection the executive of the ANC should decide which measures to take and therefore they decided to disarm the policemen and in disarming the policemen, Mr Mthembu was killed. Therefore it would be my submission that Mr Mthembu's ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Why was he killed?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, Mr Mthembu was killed because the applicant and the community in KwaMashu saw this policemen as justifiable targets at the time. As he has stated in his evidence that even leaders or African National Congress leaders said in public that policemen were their targets.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't say that.

MR MOLOHLANYE: I stand to be corrected, Chairperson, but he said and then he quoted Mr Harry Gwala.

CHAIRPERSON: To say "the police are our enemies", that was the quote he gave.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Harry Gwala sometimes at public addresses said that "the police are our enemies", that does not mean you attack them.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, my understanding and your understanding may differ from the situation at the time. When a leader makes such an uttering the people on the ground took it seriously and took it in a manner that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But we have been told by your applicant that the policy of the ANC at the time was not to attack the police, he told us that several times.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Chairperson, I won't deny that. As we all know that the policy of the ANC was not to kill or to murder anyone but it happened on the ground that people or the supporters of the organisation, not only the ANC, but all supporters of every organisation did partake in the killings and murdering of other people, then they did so, that they did all these acts for their own organisations, for the good of their own organisations. So in the present instance you can say that the applicant did the killing and attacking of police not only from a directive order but as a people on the ground who saw it necessary for themselves to protect their own membership which was the ANC.

Going further, Chairperson, the applicant in his application on page 4, if I may refer the Committee, on answering question 10(a), 6 lines from the top, says in his application:

and I can't see that but I think it's the last sentence, I'll just end up there and go any further. It is clear from the application that the decision to kill or to kill Mr Mthembu did not only come as an instant or something that - but they took a decision to disarm the police and it was foreseen by them that going to disarm policemen was not going to be an easy thing to do. In the process a person might be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: But my problem is there is not a shred of evidence given by the applicant to suggest why it should have been done in this instance?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Chairperson, I'm indebted to you.

CHAIRPERSON: His application, his affidavit says, if you look at the affidavit that he has filed, it said:

No reason at all.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, as I gathered from the answer that was given by Mr Masondo, I think he is a honest applicant or witness that you have because he knew by saying that then the deceased might have been killed cold-bloodedly, without any reason. We have an honest ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You say he is honest but he is saying that the deceased might have been killed cold-bloodedly, he is being honest?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So that is not with a political objective, that is just cold blooded killing.

MR MOLOHLANYE: The decision to kill and disarm the police, when they took that decision it was known, it was foreseeable that the policemen might be killed or a person might be injured.

CHAIRPERSON: That was never said.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Molohlanye, if that was the case, if the applicant told us that "listen, we've considered the police to be our enemies and we decided to kill every policeman we could come across" that would perhaps be understandable and you would say well, "that was the decision taken and we've killed him because they were our political enemies", but his evidence is "we took a decision to disarm the policemen" they've disarmed ten other policemen, in the process only killing three. He was asked "why did you kill three, why didn't you kill all ten then?" It may be that if they resisted in order to get the firearm it would follow that they would have killed them, that may be a position but in this particular instance there was no resistance according to the applicant and you said he was honest about it and I think he was. If he's been honest and if it's true what he says, they could have taken the firearm without killing him, they could have achieved their objective without killing him. Wasn't the killing then totally disproportionate to what they were after, namely to take the firearm?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you. If I may refer the Committee to the affidavit, paragraph 8, I'll start at line 2, that:

I draw the attention of the Committee to that line, that the policeman was ordered not to move.

Then when you go two lines further:

ADV DE JAGER: If I'm confronted and I see three people with a gun and this man says "don't move" and I'm turning my head to look at this man standing with a gun, can you say I've done something that would threaten you and even he, on his own evidence, if he said okay, the turning, I was threatened by the turning of his head but he said no, I wasn't threatened.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, we don't have any evidence in saying the manner in which the deceased turned, whether he turned slowly or the manner in which he turned did make them afraid or else or otherwise.

CHAIRPERSON: He said they were not frightened, your client said so and he turned away from them, he turned to look away from them.

MR MOLOHLANYE: The deceased, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. He was shot in the back of the head.

CHAIRPERSON: Chairperson, the exact position of his head in which he was shot has not been anywhere stated. He might have been shot on the side, back of the head.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja but even so, would that make a difference unless we've got evidence by the applicant that he was threatened and that he couldn't achieve the purpose namely to disarm the man without killing him?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, under cross-examination the applicant stated that they were always afraid when they attacked the police. Every time they went ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: I'll always be afraid when I attack anybody because there is a risk in attacking anybody, isn't that so?

You would be afraid if you attacked anybody?

MR MOLOHLANYE: That is correct, Honourable Member, and I believe that is a reason that led them to shooting the deceased when he turned his head because they were scared, frightened and every time they were afraid when they went to attack policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: But isn't it grossly disproportionate as my colleague said, to kill a man because he turns his head to look and you get frightened? You are not killing him for any political objective in those circumstances, are you?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, that particular time we are talking about a situation where there was fighting in KwaMashu, there was violence.

CHAIRPERSON: But there were negotiations between the government and the African National Congress, peace was on the way, we are talking about 1993?

MR MOLOHLANYE: I will definitely agree with the Honourable Chairperson about that but the fighting took place and continued up until after the elections in KwaZulu Natal.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't that IFP/ANC?

MR MOLOHLANYE: It was IFP and ANC. The police at that time were under the KwaZulu Natal, the KZP Police as they were known then and all the police were seen as the targets by the people, they were seen as collaborators by the then government of KwaZulu Natal.

ADV DE JAGER: That's quite correct, if that was the evidence before us, that they killed him because he was a collaborators with the IFP and that they resolved to kill the policemen because they were after collaborators, but his evidence was none of that sort: "we wanted to disarm him, that was our objective, our objective wasn't to kill enemies" because they never resolved to kill him in any event. The only resolution was to disarm him and if in the process of disarming he had done something to cause them to kill him, we will try and see whether that would be sort of accommodated in the original objective but here they wanted to disarm him.

According to the evidence they could have done that without killing him and that was the reason why he was asked "well, why then kill him?" and he didn't say "I've killed him because we wanted to kill him because he was an enemy of our community at that stage" or that he was a policeman harassing the community. We've specifically asked him "this man, you knew him, what did he do to the community?" and he never offered that explanation.

CHAIRPERSON: The deceased was in fact a member of the South African Police stationed at Greenwood Park.

MR MOLOHLANYE: That is correct, I'm indebted to you.

And Chairperson, I believe that the applicant although the act was disproportionate to their main objective, their main objective was to disarm the policemen not only to go and kill him as the evidence was given by Mr Masondo, but the action happened in a spur of the moment, in the attacking, when they went to an ...(indistinct), on the spur of the moment it happened that they shot the deceased, that's why he is also ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So it was no political objective, it was an act on the spur of the moment?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, a political objective in the sense is not only to kill a person. There are strings of events connected to a political objective.

CHAIRPERSON: The problem is here on his evidence the only objective was to disarm policemen so they could get guns to protect the community, that was all that was decided.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, if I may refer you back to the affidavit in paragraph 5, it says:

CHAIRPERSON: But there was one impediment namely the absence of our means to secure arms and ammunition to protect the people, that was the purpose, to secure arms and ammunition to protect the people.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Therefore Chairperson, I thank you, it was foreseen by the applicant and the defence unit that a person might be killed in the process. People might lose their lives in the process.

CHAIRPERSON: This is the last time I'll say this, my colleague here has put to you that that could well be the position where someone tries to defend himself, drawing a gun, you can anticipate that, but there is no such evidence before us?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, as I've referred you to paragraph 8 where the deceased...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I am referring to the evidence your client gave before us today.

MR MOLOHLANYE: The evidence that the client gave was based on this affidavit which was accepted by the Committee as Exhibit A.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes but let's have a look at paragraph 8. What do you want to draw our attention to?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Honourable Member. Your attention is drawn to where Dumusani ordered him not to move, therefore if you ordered it's common cause that when someone points a firearm at you and says don't move ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: And you turn your head to look at him or to look at the other one appearing at the other side also with a gun?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Chairperson, that will be defined ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: And if you blink your eye it will be defined as a movement too?

MR MOLOHLANYE: No.

ADV DE JAGER: You see I get your submission that the turning of the head and it said "in a manner that would enable him to get a better view of us", that was interpreted as against their order not to move.

MR SIBISI: That is correct, Honourable Member and it will be my submission, Chairperson, Mr Masondo does qualify for amnesty in terms of paragraph 20. I thank you.

MR SIBANYONI: I'm sorry, what do you say about the information that the weapon was not kept in the kept in the possession of the Youth League but was handed to a friend, to his girlfriend?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Honourable Member, the reason for that as I still recall from the evidence is that the weapons were given to people whom the applicant trusted, not only to members of the defence unit but he was the one who was responsible, he was the one who was acting as a commander so he was the one who looked after the weapons and saw it fit he must place a weapon with a particular person whom he trusted at the time.

ADV DE JAGER: If you wanted the weapon to protect yourself wouldn't you give it to somebody who would be able to use the weapon when they're attacked and they wouldn't know when they would be attacked so they give it to their self protection unit so that they could protect the people, they won't store it away in a safe place and it's of no use to the SDU?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Thank you Honourable Member, but I believe that the reason was given by the applicant that he was afraid that these weapons might end up in wrong hands where people might use them for other purposes other than to protect the community as they wanted to, that is the reason.

CHAIRPERSON: So he gave it someone and didn't tell them it was a firearm?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, I think he did tell that someone that it was a firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you read the judgement, page 22?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Your lordship, it was stated in the evidence by the applicant that, in evidence that he gave in court, was a lie.

CHAIRPERSON: This is not the evidence that he gave in court, this is the evidence the recipient of the firearm gave.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, I saw that on page ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: When the accused did not return within a few days he decided to open the parcel. She discovered that it was a firearm.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, in this matter we are talking about a case where a person has been called in front of the court where a conviction is possible therefore a person might not associate himself with that offence knowing that she took the firearm while knowing that it was a firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: She kept it and it was found in her possession so there's no need for her to say "well I didn't know it was a firearm for the first three days but I knew it was for the next six"?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, I stand to be corrected, but a person who is running away from conviction might say that.

CHAIRPERSON: Why? Why not say I didn't know it was a firearm? What's the point of saying "he gave me a parcel, I opened the parcel after a certain amount of days, I discovered it was a firearm so from then on I'm guilty of an offence." Please.

MR MOLOHLANYE: Chairperson, this is a thing that happened in a township, it was time of a civil war in this province, if I may say so, it was a time of struggle among the people in the townships. If a person comes to you and gives you a firearm, they give you a parcel and then you think that you don't know what the parcel is, staying in the same area, knowing the person very well, he may be friend, being a boyfriend to your girlfriend or to your friend, Chairperson I think it is clear from the evidence given by this person that she knew from the first instance that it was a firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MOLOHLANYE: And further, Chairperson, in evidence I think the applicant stated that he gave or he placed different weapons at different persons for safekeeping at the time. I thank you. I hope that answers your question, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, not really, I'll leave it in the hands of the Committee.

ADV DE JAGER: What was the position as far as the victims are concerned? Do they want to oppose the application or what was their attitude?

MR MAPOMA IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Sir. When I consulted with them this morning they said they would leave it to the Committee, in fact they were not eager to testify either but I confirmed that after the evidence was led and there were some areas of concern that I must call one of the witnesses to testify but they said they are going to leave it in the hands of the Committee. Thank you Sir.

Perhaps I may just, Chairperson, for what it's worth I'll just raise some concerns that I've got in the application of the gentlemen? Chairperson, it concerns that at the time the ANC did not have a policy to attack policemen when the applicants indulged in this exercise but if for a moment one may understand the local situation that they were confronted with, that ...(indistinct) at local level.

Perhaps even if one understands that the circumstances necessitated them to disarm the police, the purpose has been made clear by the applicant that his purpose was - their purpose was to disarm the policemen and in fact the applicant has been involved in a number of operations of disarmament where he has made it clear in what circumstances were the police killed and those circumstances where police were killed previously, this particular instant did not feature because he said they would kill a policeman who presents some resistance to the operation and in this particular case, there is not a centile of evidence to suggest resistance on the part of the deceased person. It therefore leaves the applicant with no explanation exactly as to why was the deceased killed. Those are my concerns Chairperson, thank you.

MR SIBANYONI: The witness you called, Mr Mapoma, told this Committee that the deceased tried to reach for the briefcase and it is known that in that briefcase there was a pistol. What is your comment about that? Is it not that that may have influenced them to act in that way?

MR MAPOMA: It may well be, Chair, but the applicant in his own words challenges that evidence. In fact he labels that evidence as incorrect. Under cross-examination his evidence was disputed by the applicant so it makes ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't disputed by him, he certainly didn't say it affected him in any way?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, that's the case.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take time to make a decision, thank you.

Does that conclude today?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes Chairperson, that concludes today, we will deal with two matters tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Two Ngcobos, isn't it?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes, two Ngcobos, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: At 9 o'clock?

MR MOLOHLANYE: Yes Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: And do you think we'll manage one day in the week to start at 9?

MR MOLOHLANYE: I'm still optimistic, Chair, we will achieve that objective of starting at nine.

CHAIRPERSON: 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.