CHAIRPERSON: I refer to amnesty reference AM3887/96. Mr Geldenhuys, do you want to put yourself on record on behalf of the applicant?

MR GELDENHUYS: Advocate Geldenhuys practising at the Johannesburg Bar. I'm appearing on behalf of the applicants in these proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Geldenhuys. Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: My name is Lynn Lockhat and I appear on behalf of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, just for the record there are no victims. We've notified with the general newspaper adverts in relation to this incident and no one has come forward today, Chairperson and so for the record there is no legal representative either for any persons. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes are you happy that we've taken all reasonable steps to notify the interested parties and that under circumstances the matter can proceed?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, Chairperson, we have also tried to contact the IFP in that area and to date they haven't provided us with any victims either, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Lockhat, that is noted and in the circumstances we will proceed to hear the application. Mr Geldenhuys, is there anything that you want to put on record or can we proceed to hear the testimony of your client?

MR GELDENHUYS: We can proceed, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Dlamini, can you hear the translation on the headphones?

VELAPHI MAVELA LOT DLAMINI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Geldenhuys?

MR GELDENHUYS: Mr Chairperson, I've handed in an affidavit which is before you in the bundle and I'm going to proof the affidavit first of all.

Mr Dlamini, do you recognise this document that I've got here before you?

MR DLAMINI: Yes I do.

MR GELDENHUYS: Did you sign this document?

MR DLAMINI: Yes I did.

MR GELDENHUYS: When did you sign this document?

MR DLAMINI: On the 2nd September 1999.

MR GELDENHUYS: And you know about the contents of this affidavit?

MR DLAMINI: That is correct.

MR GELDENHUYS: Did you consider that to be binding on your conscience?

MR DLAMINI: That is correct.

MR GELDENHUYS: I'm going to refer you to paragraph 4, 4.1.1.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes just for the record, Mr Geldenhuys, the affidavit forms part of the bundle of documents before us and it appears on pages 8 to 21?

MR GELDENHUYS: That is correct, Chairperson. Paragraph 4.1.1, that is where you explained about the operations, Mr Dlamini, that you took a part in?

MR DLAMINI: That is so.

MR GELDENHUYS: In paragraph 4.1.1 you refer to the first operation as an attack on one person named Jawa's house. Can you just elaborate to the Committee during the first operation?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Geldenhuys, perhaps for the benefit for the people in the audience you could just first proof Mr Dlamini's political affiliations and the capacity in which he was part of these acts?

MR GELDENHUYS: As the Committee pleases, I will then just give the general background.

Mr Dlamini, were you ever part of any political movement?

MR DLAMINI: That is correct.

MR GELDENHUYS: And what political movement were you part of?

MR DLAMINI: When I was still young I joined the Azanian Student Movement. From there on I joined COSAS. After a while in 1985 I joined Umkhonto we Sizwe, the military wing of the ANC.

MR GELDENHUYS: Were you ever a member of MK?

MR DLAMINI: That is correct.

MR GELDENHUYS: When did you become a member of Umkhonto we Sizwe?

MR DLAMINI: I joined the MK in 1985.

MR GELDENHUYS: Why did you join MK?

MR DLAMINI: As a black South African it was a way of life at the time. Personally I felt that we should attempt to fight the previous government and I joined an organisation that was doing exactly that at the time.

MR GELDENHUYS: What exactly did this organisation intend, what was their objective?

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, Mr Geldenhuys, I think we've had ample evidence about that and we're quite aware of the political objectives of the MK's, I don't think you need to go into detail, you've already mentioned now that being a member and that he associated himself with the struggle, I think everybody would understand that.

MR GELDENHUYS: Advocate Bosman, may I then continue?

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, yes certainly.

MR GELDENHUYS: Okay. The operations then, it is true that you were involved in violent operations, isn't it?

MR DLAMINI: That is correct.

MR GELDENHUYS: And can you tell us about these operations, starting with the operation on one Jawa's house?

MR DLAMINI: This operation was carried by myself. Bhekinyesa, Madota and Madesi, there were four of us. We attacked Jawa's house because he was a councillor and at that time these were regarded as enemies because they cooperated with the then government. Then we had to attack his house because even the police who stayed at Jawa's house used to shoot at school children. Madesi was the commander of our unit and he decided that we should attack Jawa's house. We did this using hand grenades. We attacked the house from the front and from the back. I myself did carry a hand grenade and a firearm and these were thrown into the house. I think there were two hand grenades which were thrown into that house. I am not sure just what damaged was incurred because after the attack we fled.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know whether anybody was killed?

MR DLAMINI: No, I do not have knowledge thereof.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Geldenhuys, did you place a date around about this incident?

MR GELDENHUYS: Mr Dlamini, do you know more or less when this first operation took place? Which year?

MR DLAMINI: If I'm not mistaken it should be 1986.

MR GELDENHUYS: And you said that this operation was politically motivated and you said that was because of the municipal police and the councillors' association with the then government, is that correct?

MR DLAMINI: That is correct.

MR GELDENHUYS: For the normal person on the street, would he be able to see this attack of yours as a political attack?

MR DLAMINI: That is so.

MR GELDENHUYS: Why do you say that?

MR DLAMINI: It is because at that time councillors served the then government. I had nothing to gain from attacking Mr Jawa. The only thing that could be gained was for the struggle, that is to eliminate Mr Jawa.

MR GELDENHUYS: During which time, what time at night did you attack these premises?

MR DLAMINI: Between 8 and 9 in the evening.

ADV BOSMAN: Whereabout did this take place, what was the area?

MR DLAMINI: Killarney in Orlando West.

ADV BOSMAN: I have difficulty with my sound system, I won't switch off. I've tried the ...(indistinct)

MR GELDENHUYS: I'm going to refer you to paragraph 4.2.1 and the heading there is "Subsequent Operations", that is operations after the attack on Jawa's house. You refer in paragraph 4.2.1 to a certain female councillor by the name of Madipedi and she was identified by a person named Bheki Myesa as someone who caused a nuisance. Can you elaborate on this?

MR DLAMINI: She was a councillor in Meadowlands. She was part of the councillors who took part in exploiting the people and they would harass school children. It was then decided at the time that she should be attacked so that her attacks and what she was doing to the people would be weakened.

MR GELDENHUYS: She was a councillor and in your previous testimony, in evidence you said that councillors were seen as enemies, as such. Why did you say that?

MR DLAMINI: They did no co-exist well with the communities in which they lived. That is why they were always under police protection because they were seen to be the peoples' objectives. I would say they served as an extension of apartheid.

MR GELDENHUYS: Why do you say they were seen as an extension of apartheid.

MR DLAMINI: Because when the boers could not exploit us themselves, they would use other black people to do so.

MR GELDENHUYS: Can you describe the attack?

ADV DE JAGER: I think he described it in paragraph 4.2.3, but also there's no time mentioned or period mentioned?

MR GELDENHUYS: Mr Dlamini, this attack on Madipedi's house, can you estimate when this attack occurred and if you can't estimate can you tell the Committee why you cannot estimate? Give a rough estimation of when this happened?

MR DLAMINI: I think it was 1986 or 1987. It was most attacks on councillors happened during 1986 and 1987. I cannot really specify a date but I can explain how the attack took place.

ADV DE JAGER: I see that you mention that some casualties occurred, could you give us more information about that?

MR DLAMINI: We used to mix with different people from other organisations, liberation organisations and they would discuss the attacks subsequent to that and therefore they would tell us that some people did get injured and maybe the police came and helped in ferrying the injured to the hospital and think in this attack it was mostly the police who were injured.

MR GELDENHUYS: Paragraph 4.3.1 mentions the attack on a female councillor's house in Orlando, Orlando West area and you say the attack was unsuccessful. Do you remember this attack?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: What happened there, briefly?

MR DLAMINI: There were a lot of police in the area therefore we could not carry out the attack successfully and we were told that we should just throw a few hand grenades and flee just to harass that councillor so that she gets the message that she is not wanted but we carried the attack hastily and had to retreat quickly. I do not know whether that was the reason why she resigned because she did so at a subsequent stage.

MR GELDENHUYS: Again can you give a rough estimate, you said most of the attacks on community leaders or councillors were during the period 1986 to 1987. Can you maybe give us a more specific date or are you happy with the time 1986 to 1987 with this attack mentioned in 4.3.1?

MR DLAMINI: It is around there '86/'87, I can perhaps say it could be 1987 but it's not something I that I will say with total ...(indistinct)

MR GELDENHUYS: Paragraph 4.4.5 ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Geldenhuys, I see he's referring to Mr Bheki ...(intervention)

MR GELDENHUYS: Miesa.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, who actually acted as commander of this small unit of yours?

MR DLAMINI: It Modisa Matabani.

ADV DE JAGER: And did he give the instructions for all the operations?

MR DLAMINI: He would do so in most cases but sometimes we would also by ourselves identify a troublesome councillor and if we tell him about that person he would authorise that we could attack. There was sometimes it would be just one person amongst us who is aware of such a councillor therefore we would tell him about that person.

MR GELDENHUYS: 4.4.1 you mention an attack on a women's hostel. Yourself, Tumi Padi, Mvesi Matapadi, Bheki Miesa, knew about the fact that the municipal police were guarding a hostel. Can you tell us a little more about this attack?

MR DLAMINI: The police usually guarded that place and during those times they would harass the township residents, for instance assaulting school children at random. Therefore the police were regarded as a problem to the community and we did not know what's the reason for them guarding that hostel. At that time Modise decided that we should attack those policemen to send a message to them that they are not wanted in that community. So we went along and attacked. On that specific day there were only two policemen but the objective was that we were going to attack their truck but unfortunately on that day there was just two of them guarding the hostel so we attacked and threw hand grenades. I think it was just one hand grenade that was thrown at them and a couple of shots were fired from a small firearm.

MR GELDENHUYS: Again a rough estimate as to the time span when that attack occurred?

MR DLAMINI: We would normally attack around 7 or 8 in the evening because if we attacked around those times it would be easy to mix with the crowds and the streets.

MR GELDENHUYS: And in which year was that?

MR DLAMINI: 1987.

MR GELDENHUYS: 4.5.1:

Do you remember this incident?

MR DLAMINI: Yes I do.

MR GELDENHUYS: What happened there?

MR DLAMINI: Butili was a councillor in Orlando East. We attacked his house which was guarded by the police. There were three of us, myself, Bheki and Indumi. We threw hand grenades into the premises because his house was guarded in such a manner that we could not see inside therefore we only threw hand grenades and whilst we were waiting to see if the police who were guarding the house would come out or not, the police approached from the streets so we had to flee.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you throw these hand grenades into the house?

MR DLAMINI: The house had tall walls around and there was a smaller room outside on the premises where the police used to be when they guarded the house so that is where we threw the hand grenades.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, you didn't throw it through the window into the house or through an open door or so, into the councillor's house?

MR DLAMINI: We threw one grenade at the police and another one was thrown either on the roof or at the window but I cannot remember because as we were still standing there, the police approached us and we had to flee quickly.

ADV BOSMAN: But what was your intention, Mr Dlamini, did you intend attacking the police or did you intend attacking the councillor or did you intend attacking the councillor and the police?

MR DLAMINI: It was the councillor and the police because if you are attacking a councillor, the police will also retaliate because they were there to protect that councillor.

MR GELDENHUYS: Paragraph 4.6.1 you refer to operations between 1990 and 1993 and you start that you were involved in a Coin Security vehicle, a truck heist, that you robbed the Coin Security vehicle. Can you explain how it became that you were involved in this robbery?

MR DLAMINI: Around this time, it was either before or just after the unbanning of the ANC but I had just been released from prison and I had a new commander, Kevin Mosebedi. We were involved in many operations for instance training people and sometimes I would transport weapons to different areas and I would be involved in protecting other of our members so we used to do a lot of travelling and we were running short of money. Even Kevin himself could not secure enough money. Our leaders used to question us that we complain for the lack of cash but the present government or the previous government used to use public funds for their own purposes. Then he came up with an idea of organising a unit that would try to fund raise but initially we could not just use MK members for that unit therefore the easier option would be to have one MK member to be involved. That is how it happened that I was involved in that operation to rob the Coin Security vehicle.

MR GELDENHUYS: During this operation, did anyone get hurt?

MR DLAMINI: I was shot at.

MR GELDENHUYS: And did you ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, could you come back? The leader was, who instructed you, was Kevin? What was his surname?

MR DLAMINI: Kevin Mosebedi.

ADV DE JAGER: What was his position in the MK?

MR DLAMINI: He was my MK commander. When I was released from prison I joined his unit.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you know that or do you know that it wasn't ANC policy to rob banks and people?

MR DLAMINI: Yes, that was the policy.

ADV DE JAGER: So why did you act against the policy?

MR DLAMINI: Kevin was my commander and the situation on the ground necessitated that we were in need of resources and it was a pre-negotiation process and most people did not want to be involved in actions that would compromise the movement therefore we as a unit had to take the initiative for the survival of our own unit and because of the situation on the ground that we had to find different safe houses so that our positions are not exposed. In any case no one amongst us had stable employment, no one was employed, therefore the plan that was devised was that we should involve ourselves in robberies.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you report to your political leaders about this?

MR DLAMINI: I personally did not discuss it with political leaders, I am not sure if Kevin did.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't understand what you were saying earlier when you explained that your leaders were saying that you complained about money, that the previous regime did something. Just re-explain that to me?

MR DLAMINI: I was trying to explain that when we discussed the issue of fund-raising, Kevin informed us that the political leaders are saying that we are always complaining about shortage of funds but MK people are the ones who are armed but ordinary criminals who do this for their own personal gain managed to rob such vehicles successfully but we who need the funds for the struggle do not do anything about it.

CHAIRPERSON: So was the attitude of those leaders that you are the cause of your own situation because you don't do anything about getting money, instead you just complained?

MR DLAMINI: Please repeat that?

CHAIRPERSON: How did you understand that, did you understand that to mean that the leaders were saying that instead of complaining you must find a way to get money yourself?

MR DLAMINI: From the discussions that we had in our unit it became obvious that we should take our own initiative to raise funds and sometimes when we did manage to raise funds this money would be used by the unit, for instance to transport weapons because we used to link with other units, some in Natal, so we had to have money for transport to go there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Geldenhuys?

MR GELDENHUYS: Mr Dlamini, you also said that the government took care of their own people and their own cause and that you saw this as an opportunity for you to take care of your own cause?

MR DLAMINI: That is correct.

MR GELDENHUYS: And during this robbery did you in fact take any money from this robbery to your commander or what happened?

MR DLAMINI: We were unsuccessful in obtaining any money because there was an exchange of fire and our vehicle broke down therefore we had to flee and I was also injured and we were arrested therefore we did not manage to get any money from this operation.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Dlamini, you mentioned that just prior to this operation you were released from prison. Was that in connection with a political offence as well?

MR DLAMINI: That is so.

ADV BOSMAN: What did this entail?

MR DLAMINI: It was terrorism and leaving the country illegally as well as sedition.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR GELDENHUYS: Except for yourself, did any one else get injured or was injured in this robbery?

MR DLAMINI: I do not know.

MR GELDENHUYS: And is it correct that this robbery case is still proceeding in the regional court today?

MR DLAMINI: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And were any of the people who accompanied you arrested?

MR DLAMINI: That is so.

ADV DE JAGER: They were not members of MK?

MR DLAMINI: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Were they aware of the purpose of the robbery, that money would not go to them but to MK?

MR DLAMINI: It's not that they were not going to receive any money but we had agreed that we as an MK unit would supply firearms as well one member to cooperate and if the robbery had been successful, we would receive fifty percent of the proceeds. They would keep the rest.

ADV DE JAGER: And what would you keep, yourself?

MR DLAMINI: I was not allowed to keep money that was intended for the unit for myself, it was not policy to do that.

ADV DE JAGER: And your co-accused, none of them applied for amnesty or did they?

MR DLAMINI: I do not know.

ADV BOSMAN: Tell me, Mr Dlamini, have you seen the charge sheet relating to this matter which will now be heard in the regional court?

MR DLAMINI: My advocate did show me.

ADV BOSMAN: The reason why I'm asking this question is it may shed some light as to whether anybody was injured or killed in this robbery. Perhaps Mr Geldenhuys you can enlighten us on that?

MR GELDENHUYS: Yes in fact I am in a position to shed some light on this, I am representing Mr Dlamini in this case as well. According to the State docket which I have got in my possession, copies of, no one was injured in this attack, the only person who was injured was Mr Dlamini who was shot in the foot. The case is proceeding in the regional court in court number 15. The next trial dates is 24 and 25 January, the year 2000. The State's case is not closed as yet and some more evidence must be proven by the State. The exhibits that was found on the scene was inter alia one AK, two Stetchken machine pistols, as Mr Dlamini said he supplied in his affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please carry on?

MR GELDENHUYS: Mr Dlamini, you said when a question asked by a member of the Panel, the Committee, that the top ANC structure was not aware of these robberies going on and they didn't approve it, can you remember that?

ADV DE JAGER: I don't think he actually said that, he conceded that it was the policy of the ANC.

MR GELDENHUYS: And if I can just ask maybe was it the policy that they were not allowing the members on the ground to in fact be part of the robberies? I didn't hear that part clearly?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you enquiring, Mr Geldenhuys?

MR GELDENHUYS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well the position seems to be that in terms of ANC submissions to the TRC it wasn't their policy to rob banks or whatever. Whatever that is worth.

MR GELDENHUYS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: Mr Dlamini, apparently there is someone that says the top ANC structure didn't approve robberies but according to your testimony the members from the ground thought that they should take part in robberies to be involved in this political struggle and that the robberies was a cause or part of a cause for the political struggle?

MR DLAMINI: That is correct.

MR GELDENHUYS: So was there in fact a conflict between top ANC policy and members on the ground and the commander's policy?

MR DLAMINI: There is nothing mentioned, there is no policy regarding robbery in the ANC but with regards to the needs of the units on the ground you would try to raise funds in any way. Even then the leaders would not expressly give you authority to involve yourself in robberies but would only say that whatever you do you should not compromise the movement to such an extent that if you got involved you would not involve the entire unit so that if anything happens you do not compromise the entire unit.

MR GELDENHUYS: Paragraph 4.7.1, this is now a subsequent operation, you said that you committed murder when you shot and killed an IFP leader in the Msimshlope Township, he was shot in the head and chest during the fighting between Msimshlope residents and IFP hostel dwellers in Harley Street Orlando West. Do you remember this incident?

MR DLAMINI: Yes I do.

MR GELDENHUYS: When more or less did this incident take place?

MR DLAMINI: The violence started in 1991 up to 1993.

MR GELDENHUYS: Can you just elaborate on this incident?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, do we have an indication as to when this happened about? Are you saying it's between 1991 and 1993 that this incident happened?

MR DLAMINI: Between 1991 and 1992.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Geldenhuys.

MR GELDENHUYS: You said the surrounding circumstances were that there was a lot of conflict between the ANC and IFP. What actually happened during this time?

MR DLAMINI: It was around the time when the Boipatong incident occurred. There was rife violence in the Vaal Triangle area, that was the violence between hostel dwellers who were mainly IFP people and the township residents who were ANC members. In Msimshlope the residents were mainly ANC and the hostel dwellers were mainly IFP members therefore the violence at the time was rife and we as MK members were called upon to defend the community at all costs because even the people themselves did know who were the members of MK and therefore we had responsibility to protect them because they were being attacked for their ANC membership, attacked by IFP people from the hostel.

MR GELDENHUYS: Paragraph 4.8.1 ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Geldenhuys, I know it's difficult but one should try and get some details so that - we can't give general amnesty for attacks on IFP members for instance but if we could restrict it to a period or a place at least we could identify the incidents so that we give sufficient particulars about it. I see you've described in general the area but if you could try and get dates or more specific locations?

MR GELDENHUYS: Mr Dlamini, paragraph 4.7.1, this killing of the IFP leader, Msimshlope Township, you said that was in Harley Street, Orlando West. Do you know more or less which year that was? You said between 1991 and 1992, do you remember that?

MR DLAMINI: I have difficulties because the violence went on for a long period but with regard to this incident it happened either in 1991 or 1992. At that time there was fighting going on and I did not know or foresee that I would have to appear before such a commission in the future. Therefore I did not really keep these dates in mind.

MR GELDENHUYS: At some stage ...(intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask, I'm sorry I must come in here. You speak of an IFP leader, why do you say the person unknown to you was a leader of the IFP, how did you identify him as a leader?

MR DLAMINI: The IFP would normally attend rallies and they would pass through that township, the Msimshlope area. This person was the one who was always in front and he was the one who instructed the rest of the group when for instance they insulted us and when there was an attack launched, on enquiring from the residents, you would find that he's the one person who came prior to the attack to perhaps conduct surveillance. That is how we came to the assumption that he must be the leader because at rallies or on attacks he is the one person who was always in front. That is how we came to the assumption that he must be the leader.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, you may proceed.

MR GELDENHUYS: And in paragraph 4.7.1 you also said something about the training of IFP members in the Caprivi area of South West Africa. How did you become to know about this?

MR DLAMINI: As a trained MK member I do have a good knowledge of firearms. The IFP would launch attacks on the township and there were rumours circulating that these people came from Kwamadala Hostel and there were some who were trained from the Caprivi and even during the attacks the sound that you would hear would be the sound of machine guns and an ordinary person who has not received training would not be able to use such military weapons.

MR GELDENHUYS: Paragraph 4.8.1, you say in this paragraph that Meadowlands was attacked by IFP members, backed by White police and you fought back and you shot randomly into the mass of IFP supporters. You say you do not know how many people died as a result of the shots fired by you. Do you remember this incident where IFP members attacked residents of Meadowlands and where they were in fact backed by White police?

MR DLAMINI: Yes I do.

MR GELDENHUYS: What happened there?

MR DLAMINI: The residents of Meadowlands, Zone 1, would normally call Msimshlope if there was an attack launched because if the attackers came they would attack the houses that are immediately next to the hostel. On this day they launched an attack and the people had to flee from Zone 1. We entered Zone 1 and tried to block the IFP on their way and as we approached we saw that there were a lot of them and there were houses that were already on fire and we started firing and as they were fleeing we realised that there were SACP members behind them and as we realised that the police were also present we tried to retreat but there were many IFP people who were injured in that attack because we discovered from the newspaper reports on the following day that a lot of IFP people had been killed and injured. We discovered from the newspaper reports on the following day that a lot of IFP had been killed and injured.

MR GELDENHUYS: When more or less did this attack take place?

MR DLAMINI: Either 1991 or 1992. As I mentioned before I have difficulty in recalling the dates because I did not foresee the possibility of appearing before this Commission. The TRC investigator did try to get hold of newspaper clippings to confirm the incident.

MR GELDENHUYS: And did you see the bundle that is accompanying this investigation?

MR DLAMINI: Which bundle are you referring to?

MR GELDENHUYS: The bundle accompanying this investigation into your matter which consists of some newspaper clippings as well?

MS LOCKHAT: Page 116 and 117.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that relate to this incident?

MS LOCKHAT: It just gives a broad, it's just says April 1991 to May 1992 that 106 people lost their lives in Meadowlands in attacks there, it just gives a broad overview that it did happen between that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Report about the violence, okay. Yes Mr Geldenhuys, I don't think there's dispute about that.

MR GELDENHUYS: Now paragraph 4.9.1 you said in your statement that there was nothing but a full scaled war going on and the newspaper clipping also makes mention of something like that and we are aware of the conditions and the circumstances in the townships and then you continue:

Do you recall this incident?

MR DLAMINI: Yes I do.

MR GELDENHUYS: And you say this was in fact an IFP controlled hostel. How did you know that?

MR DLAMINI: You would not even be able to set foot in that hostel if you were from the township because they knew that township resident's were ANC members and in the township people who resided at the hostel were regarded as IFP members because even on this particular day there had been an attack in the morning from the hostel dwellers and we had managed to fight back and they retreated back to the hostel. A certain lady sustained injuries during that day. After that attack there was quietness and then there were a lot of soldiers who came to patrol around the area and as the day progressed we saw this one person coming out of the hostel and he was sort of going around the township and we crept up behind him and we captured him. After capturing him we realised that this must be an IFP member because he was very arrogant. We had intended to take him back to the township to interrogate him fully but then the SADF approached and then I shot at him and we fled.

MR GELDENHUYS: You said in paragraph 4.9.1 you shot an IFP supporter and you got shot in the chest and you are not sure if he survived the incident or not?

MR DLAMINI: That is correct.

MR GELDENHUYS: And again more or less you say between 1991 and 1992 in that time span concerning this incident?

MR DLAMINI: That is correct.

MR GELDENHUYS: Paragraph 4.10.1, that is now a different incident, you also remember an incident when you attacked a mob of IFP members with two hand grenades and pistols from which you fired a couple of shots. Can you tell the Committee more about this incident?

MR DLAMINI: It was on a Sunday. It's one of those incidents that would happen in the township and the police will do nothing. I think on that day people of Mabedla were attacked and the people from - there had been an attack around Marafi Hostel on the morning of that date. I think these people were from Marafi and they came to Msimshlope station and when they arrived we did not want them to pass through our township because if they do so they normally attack people in the township so we did not allow them to cross through the township. There were a lot of police in the area and they had to go beyond the borders of the township and we wanted them to use the freeway roads which was a bit further away from the township but the police insisted that these people should use that route that passes through the township. These people then used AK-47s to shoot at the township residents who were now looking at them. They shot at a young boy who died and a lot of people were injured. At that time we were not armed, we had to flee from them and then regroup and block them somewhere along the way and that is when these hand grenades were thrown at them. I myself had a pistol in my possession which is what I used to fire at them.

MR GELDENHUYS: Do you know if anyone was killed by you during this attack?

MR DLAMINI: I do not know but there were police and ambulances that arrived after the incident.

MR GELDENHUYS: Paragraph 4.11.1 you gave orders that someone should be shot, that was someone that was known to you. Can you remember this incident?

MR DLAMINI: Yes I remember that clearly.

MR GELDENHUYS: What happened?

MR DLAMINI: At that time there were a lot of attacks on trains. We received an order to find out exactly what was going on with regards to these attacks. Our unit managed to get hold of some IFP people who had knowledge. It seemed as if there was an office in Jeppe Street whereby people would go and seek employment and they would be then hired to launch attacks on trains. I was sent to investigate this matter because I'm the one person who could speak Zulu clearly and after a while I was instructed that I should not go there any more because a certain neighbour had already informed those IFP people that I was not one of them, I was just an ANC member in fact who was spying on them and on discussing the matter with Kevin and Chris Hani I was told not to return to that place and when I enquired as to who had informed on me I was told that this person is my neighbour and this matter was discussed at a certain police station and this neighbour was now regarded as a danger. I also realised this neighbour was a danger because one day there was a Chevrolet, a brown Chevrolet that was used to keep me under surveillance and other IFP members were now aware of my movements. I was aware that I was now being kept under surveillance and I had to stop going home because I was putting my family in danger. We then decided, myself, Kevin and Chris Hani that we should eliminate this person because he had now become a danger to me. I am not sure whether he also realised that we were now looking for him because he fled but unfortunately I saw him coming out of his house one day and I showed one of our members that here was this person and one of our members then followed him and shot at him and as he was being shot he did not die instantly and he was captured by township residents but then there was a debate on whether he was an IFP member because he did not reside at the hostel and then the people decided to bring him back to our streets for us to say whether he was indeed an IFP member or not and when they brought this person his children came out of his house and they were begging for mercy and the people enquired why he was shot at by one of our unit members and when I realised that the situation had become tense I requested from the community that maybe we should just let go of him because he was a township resident and I said I do not know how he came about to be shot but at a later stage he threatened me that he would get me.

ADV DE JAGER: What was his name?

MR DLAMINI: I do not know his real name but I knew him as Biza Mjali.

ADV DE JAGER: And where did he stay, you knew him as Biza?

Only as Biza?

MR DLAMINI: I do not know whether that was his surname because the house at which he stays was Mjali household but he did not grow up there.

ADV DE JAGER: But could you give us an address there of the house? He was your neighbour?

MR DLAMINI: 10431A.

ADV DE JAGER: And the street?

MR DLAMINI: Hadebe Street, H-a-d-e-b-e. That is Msimshlope, Orlando West.

CHAIRPERSON: And when did this happen?

MR DLAMINI: Either in 1992 or 1993.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes are you going to lead any further evidence on this incident or are you done with it?

MR GELDENHUYS: I'm done with it.

CHAIRPERSON: You've done with this incident?

MR GELDENHUYS: Yes Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well then we're going to adjourn and reconvene at 11.30.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you lost your client or what?

MR GELDENHUYS: No actually Mr Chairperson, he went to the toilet, he'll be back in a second.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Geldenhuys, if you could just have a look at the various other aspects and could you perhaps gives dates and localities if he cannot give any names then we could perhaps get a bit further?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes in other words just the additional information.

MR GELDENHUYS: ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what would be the following incident? Paragraph 4.12.1?

MR GELDENHUYS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Dlamini, you are reminded that you are still under oath, do you understand?

VELAPHI MAVELA LOT DLAMINI: (s.u.o.) Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, Mr Geldenhuys?

MR GELDENHUYS: (continues) 4.12.1, you said it was about 4 a.m. one morning, you attacked the guards at the guarded main gate at the Msimshlope Hostel. This incident can you remember more or less the time span?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: When was that?

MR DLAMINI: I think it was in 1992.

MR GELDENHUYS: And you said Msimshlope Hostel, was this the IFP controlled hostel?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: Was there only one hostel in Msimshlope?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: 4.13.1, you state in your affidavit that you made an attack in the early hours of the morning when there would have been a funeral of an IFP member. This was a pre-emptive attack. Can you remember this attack?

MR DLAMINI: Yes I do remember.

MR GELDENHUYS: This attack, when more or less in 1992/'93 when was this attack carried out?

MR DLAMINI: This happened in the morning at about four exactly. There was going to be a funeral of the IFP member who had died in the township, was shot during the violence amongst the residents and the members in the hostel. Now it was common practise that each time prior to the funeral people will go out and attack in the early hours of the morning. It was common practise as I already made mention of the fact, they will go out in the township and shoot randomly and the police would come and just right at the time when we were supposed to defend ourselves and maybe shoot back and they would stop us and they would proceed to the graveyard and at that time you'll realise so many people have sustained injuries and it was then since decided that previously or the previous day or two, three days before they were attacking the township they'd use one massive gun. It was not a normal run or AK sound of a gun, one could tell it was a massive weapon and we then discovered we shall also gather or obtain also a massive weapon R7 for them to realise and discover the fact that they're not the only ones who can gain access such weapons.

ADV DE JAGER: We've read that but can you tell us why did you attack the shops and not the hostel itself? Why the shops, wouldn't members of the public visit the shops?

MR DLAMINI: Well as for these shops they were located right in the hostel. Now the people of IFP will go and get their transport around that area where the shop or shops were located. Now it was usual practise that they will be attacked around there, attacked around that place and locate them at that particular spot, not necessarily that the shops were serving the community as such but the IFP members as well. Now people coming from the township will not gain access or entry to such shops, they were not at all, because they also made mention of the fact that these were owned by Inkatha and they belonged to them solely.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Dlamini, I'm a little confused about the hostel. You speak of the Msimshlope's women's hostel in paragraph 4.4.1 and a little while ago you said there was only one hostel. Can you just clarify that for us, were there women in this hostel or was it a mixed hostel or was there a different men's hostel?

MR DLAMINI: Oh, I think that has been my mistake because there was one women hostel and one men hostel but then these are different, the one is located a distance from the other.

ADV BOSMAN: And this attack that you are giving evidence now was at the men's hostel then I take it?

MR DLAMINI: Yes at the men's hostel, the stronghold of IFP that is.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR GELDENHUYS: And you said this attack, 4.13.1, this attack occurred 4 o'clock in the morning, did you say that?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: And can you say when more or less, which year did this attack take place?

MR DLAMINI: 1992 I think. If not 1992 it will then be 1993 logically. I think my problem here, you see these things happened a long time ago and I've already said prior to the this that I did not know that one day I'll be called upon or I'll appear voluntarily to the Commission and relate the incidents as they happened.

ADV DE JAGER: We've heard that so you need not repeat it, we've heard that and we understand that you can't remember the exact dates.

MR GELDENHUYS: 4.14.1, you said you were arrested during the struggle for possession of firearms and ammunition and you say you were arrested in Basita Street in Msimshlope township and taken to Meadowlands Police Station, charged with possession of firearms and ammunition. Can you remember when this arrest took place?

ADV DE JAGER: Can't we get perhaps a list of previous convictions or whatever he was convicted and could you give us a date or referral?

MR GELDENHUYS: This specific incident further on in the paragraph was made mention that this docket was lost so I believe that would not be reflected on SAP69.

This paragraph 4.14.1 basically gives background as to you normally carrying ammunition and a firearm during the course of the struggle. Was it in fact so?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: Good and nothing happened of this case since it was organised that the docket got lost?

MR DLAMINI: You see here what happened, I don't really know if that docket indeed got lost or was lost. You see that particular policeman felt it was unfair for us, the community, that were always arrested for possession of such weapons. Each time there will an attack the police will come confiscate our firearms or weapons and we'll be easy targets now and then what was placed before the court of law was that the docket has been misplaced and they dropped the case but I've been living under the light that it's been opened ever since, not that it has been attended to, the case that is at the court of law.

MR GELDENHUYS: 4.15.1, it came to your knowledge that the IFP members at the Msimshlope township were about to launch an attack in the early hours of a Tuesday morning. You responded and you arrived at the main gate of the Msimshlope Hostel ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker is moving so fast we can't keep up with the pace.

MR GELDENHUYS: It came to your knowledge that the IFP members in the Msimshlope township were about to launch an attack in the early hours of a Tuesday morning. You responded and you arrived at the main gate of the Msimshlope Hostel where severe fighting broke out. You killed and injured a very large number of the fighting IFP members and you later received information that more than 20 people died and even more sustained injuries.

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: When exactly did this incident take place more or less if you can?

MR DLAMINI: 1992, yes this happened in 1992 I think. I see in the very morning that's when the IFP men attacked the township and we'd use radios and gather the fact that there's an attack. Two way radios were used to gather such information and they would shoot and I would join in the shooting so we got into this and it went for quite some time, shooting, but we were fortunate that not too many of us were injured but on the other opposing side there were quite many of them who sustained injuries and the ambulance had to come get and ferry them to hospital and we were being - the township will be benefited by police to secure the township people.

MR GELDENHUYS: And you say this was at the main gate at the Msimshlope Hostel?

MR DLAMINI: Yes this took place or happened at the main gate of Msimshlope Hostel. I think they had planned to attack from that area, attack the nearby houses and they were in a very massive group and they filled the streets. This is why it was easy for them to - it was easier for us to get a lot of them because they were quite many.

MR GELDENHUYS: The incident that occurred close to the Anchor High School and you described this incident in paragraph 4.16.1. Can you just briefly elaborate on the incident and tell us more or less when this incident took place?

MR DLAMINI: Well this one I think happened in 1993. Why I say so is there was a massive attack and shoot out between the residents and members of IFP that occupied the Msimshlope Hostel. It so happened that one of the people called Nyawane died, very notorious man who would attack the people of the community, part of the community, so this man was of danger to the community so that in this particular day in question there was going to be a funeral. In fact a funeral was at Msimshlope Hostel. Before the funeral procession there was an attack and Mr Gwala died in that attack. This Mr Gwala was an old respected man and got killed in this incident. They were shooting from the hostel, shooting at random at passersby at the hostel and we were coming from the funeral on this particular day in question and the funeral of the person whose funeral we had gone to was killed by the same people and we decided to have a plan or a problem that we always conduct our funerals earlier than them but then they were labouring obviously from the other side that ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Yes could you, we've got your affidavit and we know the background fully. Could you just tell us when it happened? This was near the Anchor School, what your role was in the actual fight that morning?

MR DLAMINI: I beg your pardon. I don't have the date as I've already explained. As to my role I was shooting using a Stenchem mission pistol, that is a kind of a weapon or some kind of firearm that I used on that particular day. The main role I played that I'm sure of is when Nyawane was killed because upon appearance, when he appeared, the people from the township pointed at him and said this is the one and I knew very well that he was a danger to the township and the hostel people as well were saying the same thing. Now I shot at him and he shot back at me. Unfortunately he died.

ADV BOSMAN: It would assist us if you could give us the name of the victim, Mr Dlamini. You did mention a name Nyawane, I've got it, can you just clarify that? Is that the victim who was killed by you?

MR DLAMINI: Well I don't know his real name but he was known as Nyawane. He was one leader, prominent leader of IFP. Each time when we were being attacked it would be ...(intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: I don't want to interrupt you but it's not really necessary to elaborate on that but it would assist us. If you were granted amnesty, we have to circumscribe the incident as best as possible from the evidence. So was this man Nyawane, that's all we need to know, that was my question?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: Mr Dlamini, how do you spell that name?

MR DLAMINI: Well let me write first. N-y-a-w-a-n-e.

MR GELDENHUYS: Paragraph 4.17.1, you make mention of at least two incidents where you were arrested for the possession of firearms and ammunition and you also mentioned the case numbers. Were you ever convicted and found guilty of those two cases?

MR DLAMINI: The one in Langlaagte I was not convicted for, I think that the case will still be conducted or heard. In the Sebokeng one I was never convicted and I think it's still coming but in 1993 there was a case that I was arrested for the murder and now I'm applying for amnesty for that because these three ones I usually would be found in possession of firearms because all the time I had firearms in my possession because I lived under the fear that I will be attacked anyhow, anywhere, any time so it was picked up that all the time that I always in my possession had a firearm simply because I lived under the fear.

MR GELDENHUYS: This murder case you are ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: I take it that's only in respect of being in possession of firearms before the 10th May 1994, not thereafter?

MR DLAMINI: 19?

ADV DE JAGER: Till up to the election?

MR DLAMINI: Even afterwards, after the election I was also found in possession of firearms.

ADV DE JAGER: Well that's the legal cut-off date so we'll have to deal with it.

MR GELDENHUYS: But Mr Dlamini, you were advised that you should make full disclosure and is this the reason why you also make mention of these two cases?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: To go back to the Orlando case number 49 of 8/93 which occurred during 1993 where you were found in possession of a firearm and one round of ammunition and in which case you were also charged and convicted for murder. What is your feelings about this case and how it relates to your application for amnesty.

MR DLAMINI: Well this is how it relates to my amnesty application. I have often times before found myself amongst the community members as a person who was helpful to them.

ADV DE JAGER: He's described that, he is not applying, he's given us the reason why he applied and he explained what his role was and what his motive was so we've got it in our affidavit, we need not repeat what's already stated in his affidavit.

MR GELDENHUYS: Then I'll move on to 4.17.2. You were found guilty, given seven years imprisonment, that is now common cause. It is in your affidavit, you made mention of the date in which the sentence was passed and you say that you expect to be released on parole only next year in 2000 and you say here in your affidavit that you're applying for amnesty in regards to the possession of the firearm and ammunition on that case? Do you confirm that?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: 4.17.3, you make mention of the continuous struggle resulting in you beginning to have psychological problems and is this still the case today? Would you appreciate it if someone could help you with treatment for all the violence and post-traumatic stress that you suffer from?

MR DLAMINI: Yes I would appreciate that.

MR GELDENHUYS: 4.18.1 you make mention of your involvement in community affairs and you were continuously involved in sorting out community problems and that even led to using violence, physical violence, is that correct?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: And that relates, goes on to 4.18.2 where you make mention of the incident of Bongani who killed his entire family and you say that ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Geldenhuys, we've got that, he's confirmed it, it won't make it stronger repeating it even if you give the evidence it won't make it stronger.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he applying for his role in the incident concerning Bongani 4.18.3, is that the next one?

MR GELDENHUYS: No indeed Mr Chairperson, 4.18.3 he says that he took a part in torturing Bongani but Bongani was shot and killed by someone else.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: So I just wanted to get maybe the date of this incident on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but is that part of his application or what?

MR GELDENHUYS: Not his initial application as far as I could establish Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But is he applying for amnesty in respect of that incident?

MR GELDENHUYS: Maybe I should put the question then to the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but just see what remains, what else he's ...(intervention)

MR GELDENHUYS: Then it's only 4.19.1 this incident of Motiani. The problem is this affidavit is actually further particulars to the initial application form that was obtained from the applicant whilst he was in prison. I think a day or two before the close off, the cut-off date and that is where the confusion between for what he is actually applying with what he is not applying maybe.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: I don't know what the Committee's attitude is but according to my instructions he is applying for this as mentioned in 4.19.1 as well.

CHAIRPERSON: And what about 4.18.3?

MR GELDENHUYS: That is my instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: He is applying for that as well?

MR GELDENHUYS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: 4.18.3 and 4.19.1.

MR DLAMINI: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright if you just then ...(intervention)

MR GELDENHUYS: Just the dates then.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: 4.18.3, Bongani the incident, Mr Dlamini can you roughly indicate during what time this incident took place?

MR DLAMINI: This took place late 1992.

MR GELDENHUYS: 4.19.1, Motiani, the incident pertaining to Motiani, when more or less did this incident take place?

MR DLAMINI: This happened in 1992.

MR GELDENHUYS: Then paragraph 5, you make a submission, you say that you submit that you are entitled to amnesty, you pray that the Amnesty Commission may find, that discovered all relevant information, is this indeed your submission today?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

MR GELDENHUYS: Just quickly before we close the evidence, you said that you find it difficult to remember dates and you also said that you didn't foresee testifying before the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Is there any reason why your memory, especially in regards to time is a bit vague?

MR DLAMINI: It is because most of these incidents I have tried to erase them from my mind because I no longer lead my life the normal way as I used to because there is quite a great disturbance to me. I once requested the ANC to enlist some help to me insofar as it relates to all these things that I have done. Often times I find myself not in a position to clearly and crystally so recall all the incidents and relay them as they had happened also the dates respectively but I will find I will fail in some other instances, I recall a few.

MR GELDENHUYS: That is then all the questions for the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Geldenhuys. Ms Lockhat have you any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, I've just got one question because these newspaper clipping could help us a bit just in relation to the one incident. On page 122 of the bundle, that is just the incident at the cemetery where these people were killed, I just want to check with the applicant because there's a date there on the 1st June 1992, that was when it appeared in the paper and it says the hostel residents were on their way to the funeral at Avalon Cemetery of two youths that died last week during a hand grenade attack. I just want to ask the applicant whether he can just jog his memory a bit whether we could maybe - was that the time that where just before the cemetery where everybody was going to the cemetery that that incident might have occurred where you shot at people and that happened on the 1st June 1992 and just two weeks prior to that two youths were killed, so maybe that would just help him a bit in relation to time?

MR DLAMINI: As I've said, I would be involved in so many things that some of them I don't recall but I may agree or admit that I was part of this. I see here as it reads there was never time when we will get opportunity to get inside the hostels so I really bear no knowledge of this particular one.

ADV DE JAGER: I just want to clear up something? Paragraph 4.11.1:

Who was this member?

MR DLAMINI: You mean my unit? He was not a member of my unit but a member of the residents.

ADV DE JAGER: No but "this person was subsequently shot and severely wounded by a member of my unit following my orders."

MR DLAMINI: Oh, that is when I was referring to my neighbour by the name of Biza, that's the one I'm referring to, I'm talking about.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, now but who shot him? You ordered somebody to go and shoot him. Who did you order and who was this man? He was a member of your unit and your unit was a small unit.

MR DLAMINI: Godfrey is the name or is his name.

ADV DE JAGER: Godfrey who?

MR DLAMINI: I don't have the surname, I don't know it.

ADV DE JAGER: And then as far as paragraph 4.18.2, Bongani, to which party did he belong?

MR DLAMINI: Well I don't know which political organisation he was affiliated with but as for this incident it happened in the township by the civic and some ANC members as well were involved.

ADV DE JAGER: But he was killed because he was mentally ill, not for political reasons?

MR DLAMINI: No he wasn't necessarily mentally sick but he had killed some of his family members then he was not taken to the police station. The township people decided in fact there was some kind of record that was conducted with regards to this matter.

ADV DE JAGER: So they killed him because he killed his own family, he was a criminal and they decided to kill him?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And Motsiani, 4.19.1, he was a hijacker by profession, he was a friend of yours and you shot him in the foot?

MR DLAMINI: No, no, no, he was just an ordinary person who was a criminal at the same time. The reason that led to me shooting him was that part of my unit members had planned that they will kill him but then I was in good communication and in terms with his family then I did not deem it fit but when he was discovered or found I shot him in the foot so to disturb.

ADV DE JAGER: But he wasn't a political opponent of yourself? The motive in shooting him wasn't political?

MR DLAMINI: Well the motive for this was that all the things at the time were done in the name of the political organisation at the time and a person like this one was quite a disturbance to political activities carried in the township.

CHAIRPERSON: Did it apply to Bongani as well?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I assume you are done, Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Has the Panel got any other questions? Not? Have you got re-examination?

MR GELDENHUYS: No re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you Mr Dlamini, you're excused.

Is that the case for the applicant, have you got any other evidence?

MR GELDENHUYS: That is the case for the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Chairperson, may I just put a question to Mr Dlamini which has nothing to do with the merits of the matter?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Dlamini, are you receiving any assistance or treatment at the moment in the prison, anybody dealing with your mental attitude? You have told us that you always react with violence, your response is with violence.

MR DLAMINI: Not at all.

ADV BOSMAN: Have you requested the prison authorities perhaps to assist you? You say you requested the ANC?

MR DLAMINI: I've done that so many times every since but they take time before they respond to the pleas.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to be released from prison next year?

MR DLAMINI: Well according to my sentence I think so.

CHAIRPERSON: It's that seven year sentence, that's the one that you're in prison for now is that right?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, alright thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Lockhat have you got anything, any evidence that you intend to present?

MS LOCKHAT: No thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Geldenhuys, have you got any submissions on the merits of this case?

MR GELDENHUYS IN ARGUMENT: Indeed Chairperson, my submissions is broadly stated in paragraph 5 and I can relate to those submissions. The test being was the acts politically motivated yes or no? Was there full disclosure made as to the political motivation? I will submit that if not all, most of the acts were indeed politically motivated. It is clear that there was a war going on between the ANC and the IFP and the old government regime and in which Mr Dlamini the applicant took an active part in. He associated himself with this cause, he took up arms, he believed in this cause. Some of the acts might at first glance seem not to be politically motivated but as I understand Mr Dlamini's evidence, incidents like the Motiani incident, 4.19.1 and the Bongani incident, 4.18.3, if one takes account of the circumstances in the township at that stage when there was a total collapse of law and order in which the leader figures in the community were looked at to maybe substitute themselves for this

lack of law and order, one can actually draw it back to the political struggle. So political motivated in maybe not the correct word but in the same political circumstances then that everything else creating, yes. Indeed there was not efficient courts, there was not efficient schooling, there was not efficient police, the evidence that was led makes mention of the fact that the police actually at some stages collaborated with the IFP supporters. So for the ANC's supporters there was no one really to go to in most of the incidents.

Full disclosure, my submission is that there was a full disclosure. If one looks subjectively at the applicant and at his mind and what he can tell us, he made a detailed statement, there is detail missing like exact dates which could have helped the Committee. It is my submission that the fact that there is not enough dates or specific dates is due to the fact that Mr Dlamini is suffering from some kind of mental block out. It is common knowledge that people that took a part in for instance the bush war took some of these incidents out of their minds and they can't remember this and it is my submission that Mr Dlamini, if one has seen so much violence in your life that this is a probability or a possibility that this can indeed be the truth.

Furthermore, it is stated by Mr Dlamini that he didn't keep a diary as such or foresee the possibility that one day he would have to testify before the Truth and Reconciliation Committee and if one looks at the circumstances, this was an ongoing battle war, each and every day there would have been an incident. There's so many incidents in which he came and told the Committee "I was involved in". My submission is that it is not then bad for his case that he can't remember exact dates. Where he could have established dates he did so in fact, for instance the case numbers that we could manage to find in the police computer, the dates thereof but must of these other dates were not reported, all incidents were not reported at the police. That will also go along with the core of my submission that the community didn't trust the police so a lot of these incidents were not reported at the police station as such.

The bundle contains newspaper clippings of the circumstances, not necessarily of the acts Mr Dlamini was involved in but my submission is that there were so many of these incidents and if one looks at the clippings one can actually see that there was an ongoing war and it was not like for instance if something happened in Britain today, in London, the whole world will know about it because normally you don't find violence there but if one looks at Msimshlope in the early 1990s, in the late 1980s, this was a war zone. So as to full disclosure my submission is to the best of his ability he made a full disclosure and it is clear that the other act or the acts, most of them if not all of them, was politically motivated. As Mr Dlamini said there was no reason for himself to go and attack a councillor's house, he did this because he was under the belief that this would strengthen the cause for which he stood and I will then go along with Mr Dlamini and humbly pray that the Committee might grant him amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Geldenhuys. Ms Lockhat, submissions?

MS LOCKHAT IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson. I agree with my learned colleague that lots of instances and uprisings occurred during that period in that specific area and the newspaper clippings are there also to assist us and give us the general background and especially the incidents that occurred that it was so random and that no one could really have been charged for any of these acts and it is very nice that Mr Dlamini came forward to the Commission and informing us that he was one of the active members in that period.

Just in relation to the instance relating to Bongani and Motiani, he says he played a role as a community leader in a sense and people would come to them where they needed his help and assistance but if we look at the flip side of the coin where the instance relating to the matter that he's currently serving his sentence with and that's where he doesn't apply for amnesty for that specific act and he says it wasn't politically motivated but yet he also in the same breath says I did this because I saw myself as a protector of the community. So it's - even if you look at that he's telling us that although he assisted another member in the community which is the female that was going to be raped, he stepped in and shot this person that was with him at that instance but he says it wasn't politically motivated and yet he also says that he was - he also him as a protector of the community. Then in the other instances, you know, he applies for amnesty for the Bongani instance as well as the Motiani instance where he also plays more a role of someone as the leader of the community but he sees this as political.

CHAIRPERSON: That was a community action?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: When he shot the rapist it was obviously on the spur of the moment. He says there was a peoples' court for example held in respect of Bongani, but with the other person there, the community was looking for him to deal with him and so on and so on, so it seems to be the difference between the rape incident and the other two.

MS LOCKHAT: Yes Chairperson and indeed I'm just looking just bearing in mind Section 20, sub-section 3, be just the context of everything in that time. So we have to bear that in mind in relation to those instances as well, the context of the community and without the police being there to assist the community and that's my submissions. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Lockhat. Have you anything else you want to add Mr Geldenhuys?

MR GELDENHUYS: Nothing at all, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much. Yes, that concludes this application. It concerns a number of incidents and the Committee will have a look at this and will formulate a decision once we are in a position to do so and we will notify the parties as soon as the decision in this matter is available. We would then in the circumstances reserve the decision in the matter.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Geldenhuys, we express our gratitude to you for your assistance in this matter and would excuse you if you wish to be excused.

MR GELDENHUYS: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat there remains the matters of Mr ...(intervention)

MS LOCKHAT: Advocate Leopeng.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Shall we stand down just for a moment for you to rearrange the situation here and get whichever is going to be the first one of his applications ready for us?

MS LOCKHAT: Mr Bengu, yes. I appreciate it Chairperson just to five minutes adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will then stand down just for a brief moment to allow the other matters to be prepared.

CHAIRPERSON: The application of Joseph Mdumiseni Bengu, Amnesty Reference AM3113/96. The Panel is constituted as already been indicated on the record. Advocate Leopeng, would you put yourself on record for the applicant?

MR LEOPENG: Chairperson, my name is Leopeng P M, I am appearing on behalf of the applicant herein.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: My name is Lynn Lockhat and I appear on behalf of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Chairperson, there are no victims here today.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Leopeng?

MR LEOPENG: Chairperson, the applicant applies for amnesty in respect of all the offences committed and the convictions made as appearing on page 303 of the record. That is all the convictions on two counts of murder, for attempted murder and unlawful possession of arms and ammunition.

ADV DE JAGER: That's counts 5 and 6 of page 35 of the bundle, count 10 on page 36, counts 11, 12 and 13 on page 37 and counts 17 and 18 on page 39.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's in accordance with the judgment. Is there anything else that you want to put on record or do you want to proceed to present evidence?

MR LEOPENG: Chairperson, I want to proceed to lead the applicant here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Bengu will you please stand and switch on your microphone? Just help him to switch it on Mr Leopeng?

JOSEPH MDUMISENI BENGU: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Mr Bengu, you are the applicant herein and you are now serving a term of imprisonment at Leeukop Prison, is that correct?

MR BENGU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What term of imprisonment are you serving, how many years?

MR LEOPENG: 27 years.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Leopeng?

MR LEOPENG: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Bengu, briefly all the acts that you committed of which you are being convicted were committed during what has been the Haggie Rand shooting incident, is that correct?

MR BENGU: Yes that is correct.

MR LEOPENG: Very briefly, explain to this Committee what caused the commission of those offences, what necessitated the commission of those offences?

MR BENGU: Those were the objectives of the upper ...(indistinct) like there were in process at the time, that led to the commission of those offences.

MR LEOPENG: Will you please explain the objectives that you sought to achieve in committing the said offences?

MR BENGU: The one thing why we were doing that is to fight the government of the day or was to fight the government of the day.

MR LEOPENG: As you said before in your evidence-in-chief and as I led you on this point, the commission of the offences were specifically labelled as the Haggie Rand shooting incidents. Could you please explain how you were involved in the Haggie Rand shooting incidents?

MR BENGU: My involvement insofar as Haggie Rand is concerned is about the strike that erupted.

MR LEOPENG: What kind of a strike was it at the Haggie Rand?

MR BENGU: There was an overtime ban that took place in this particular place.

ADV DE JAGER: But you worked at that Haggie Rand?

MR BENGU: I wasn't working there myself, I was working for a different company.

ADV DE JAGER: Now how did you get involved? Why did you concern yourself with that strike while you were not a worker at that place?

MR BENGU: Well, I was one of the comrades and working with other comrades. This is how I got involved in this strike.

MR LEOPENG: If I can take the question which was raised by the Panel further, how were you involved as a comrade, why particularly you took part in the Haggie Rand strike as you were not working there? Can you please explain and how did it happen that you became involved?

MR BENGU: I was told by other comrades that there was this situation at Haggie Rand and we went to the meeting where we concluded and took decisions, major ones.

MR LEOPENG: How was your relationship with these comrades, where did you meet them and how was your relationship with them specifically in relation to your invitation to attend the Haggie Rand strike?

MR BENGU: The relationship was quite a good one and the way we worked with one another was fine. Another thing it was not only me who wasn't working for that particular company who had been attendance of this meeting, there were some as well.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps you could start telling us, why did you shoot at Mr Abel Mabsabu? That was on the 24th November 1989 and near the Haggie Rand Hostel. What was the reason for you going there and shooting at a person?

MR BENGU: Well it is because I had already heard from the meeting that we had prior to that, that those ones were informers.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Continue to lead your client Mr Leopeng.

MR LEOPENG: What - let me rephrase my question, you said you were called with other people to attend a meeting where it was decided that there are some acts that you must do. Briefly explain what meeting did you attend and who specifically came with the idea that some people were informers and that they must be eliminated?

MR BENGU: This is how I will put it, there was a committee of ten of the members who were elected and who had met with and in the company of others as well, we were quite many, trying and soliciting options and ways surrounding this strike and we therefore decided finally that this is the way to go, that is to eliminate them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on?

MR LEOPENG: How were these plans to eliminate them made? Please explain the efforts that you made before eliminating these people and where did you eliminate all these people as you alleged?

MR BENGU: We planned and we also assigned people there and how to go and also carried a small investigation regarding their moves, these people, that is as to where they will be found at certain times and how, that is what we went through prior to the committing of this act.

MR LEOPENG: Now in relation to the two murders that you committed, how were the plans made and where were the murders committed? Briefly explain?

MR BENGU: The one was in Tembisa, the other in Natalspruit.

MR LEOPENG: How were the plans made to eliminate them?

MR BENGU: There were people who were sort of guiding us as to how to go around these acts who will only get the instructions and execute the plan.

MR LEOPENG: Did you personally take part in planning to eliminate these people and as it appears here as you are applying for amnesty on these murders, you personally shot the two persons named here in Natalspruit and Tembisa, is that correct?

MR BENGU: Yes that is correct.

MR LEOPENG: Briefly explain the plans that you made before shooting them and what was the capacity of these people and why you specifically targeted to eliminate them?

MR BENGU: When there was a strike they ...(indistinct), some people were dismissed and some were employed. Now those were the ones we were after because they were ...(indistinct) or informers.

MR LEOPENG: If I understand you correctly, you say you eliminated them because they were informers?

MR BENGU: Yes.

MR LEOPENG: Is there any other reason that pushed you to eliminate them other than that they were informers?

MR BENGU: No, there are no other reasons except for the ones I have advanced to this Commission.

ADV BOSMAN: What did they inform on and who did they inform?

MR BENGU: From what I'd heard they were informal comrades.

ADV BOSMAN: To who, to who did they pass on the information?

MR BENGU: They will furnish the information to the management. Taking all the talks emanating or standing from the side of the comrades to the management.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, you may continue.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, did the comrades belong to any union?

MR BENGU: The one that I know is some of the comrades belonged to was NUMSA.

CHAIRPERSON: And these people who were not dismissed or were being employed, were they members of NUMSA or not?

MR BENGU: I have no information thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Leopeng?

MR LEOPENG: Did you know all the people that you killed before the killing?

MR BENGU: No.

MR LEOPENG: How was the information that they were informers conveyed to you? Who conveyed the said information that the two people were informers?

MR BENGU: I gathered that from the meeting that we had had and where the decision was taken.

MR LEOPENG: Were the two people that you shot identified to you prior to the shooting incident?

MR BENGU: Well, I was in the company of other people who had escorted us, then they were the ones who identified them positively to us.

ADV DE JAGER: And could you assist me please? This meeting you've been referring now to, I gather this from the meeting, was it a general meeting or a meeting of the committee of ten or another sort of meeting?

MR BENGU: That was the meeting of the Committee of Ten, they were the ones who would take decisions.

MR LEOPENG: And this meeting of Committee of Ten, was it specifically scheduled to discussed the Haggie Rand strike, is that correct?

MR BENGU: Yes, that was the item on the agenda.

MR LEOPENG: After shooting the said deceased, did you benefit anything financially or otherwise?

MR BENGU: No I got nothing, not even one cent.

MR LEOPENG: Was there a mission of the Committee of Ten accomplished thereof?

MR BENGU: Well I will not say if the mission was accomplished or not because I think it went on still, I'm not sure simply because I was arrested subsequent to this. I will not know further developments.

MR LEOPENG: I have no further evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the attempted murders? What about the four attempted murders? When did that happen? I think you must lead some evidence on that.

MR LEOPENG: I'm indebted to the Committee.

Mr Bengu, in relation to all the other attempted murders committed, where were they committed and to what necessitated the commission thereof?

MR BENGU: Well, that was the furtherance of the mission we were up to.

MR LEOPENG: And in relation to the firearms that were used, who gave the firearms that were used in committing the said offences?

MR BENGU: I obtained the firearms from the very Committee of Ten.

ADV BOSMAN: Who trained you how to use firearms?

MR BENGU: Well I acquired no training.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but would you know how to handle the firearms?

MR BENGU: Well I managed because evidently I have used it, who will be shown there who to do this and that, I mean the others with whom I was, they will show, demonstrate, just a crash course orientation as such as to how to handle the firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes so your other comrades who were with you, they knew how to handle a firearm and show you how to do it?

MR BENGU: Well I really don't know whether they were fully conversant in the use of firearms but they surely did demonstrate something as to how to handle the firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what did you do in respect of these four attempted murders, what role did you play?

MR BENGU: Well I shot, many times I just shot. Well, two murders I committed and four attempted murders if I'm not mistaken.

CHAIRPERSON: So were you shooting, were you responsible for shooting at these people on all those occasions?

MR BENGU: Well there is one where I was present but did not shoot.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you have a firearm?

MR BENGU: No, I did not own one or I did not have mine.

ADV BOSMAN: At this particular incident where you did not shoot, I just want to make quite clear, did you not have a firearm in your possession?

MR BENGU: Well I had one on that particular day.

ADV BOSMAN: Why didn't you shoot, why didn't you use it?

MR BENGU: Well it had a problem because sometimes it will jam, so that day it was not working at all, it was not functioning, the firearm that is.

ADV BOSMAN: But if it had been functioning would you have shot?

MR BENGU: Yes I would have.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Now so on these occasions there were other people who were also - who were shooting. In other words was there more than one firearm?

MR BENGU: Well on that day I was only aware of two firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the day that your one didn't function?

MR BENGU: Yes, it was my one and the one belonging to the other person.

CHAIRPERSON: And on the other occasions? Were you the only one who had a firearm when you were shooting or were there others with firearms and who were shooting as well?

MR BENGU: Sometimes there will be two.

ADV DE JAGER: You were charged with five other co-accused?

MR BENGU: Yes that is true.

ADV DE JAGER: Were they all convicted on different charges?

MR BENGU: Oh yes, they were convicted based on all these incidents.

ADV DE JAGER: Are they still in jail?

MR BENGU: Well they have been dismissed.

ADV DE JAGER: Were they dismissed because they've been granted indemnity?

MR BENGU: Yes I think so.

ADV DE JAGER: You also applied for indemnity but you didn't receive indemnity?

MR BENGU: Yes, I applied for one.

ADV DE JAGER: And the reason why you didn't get indemnity is because there was an allegation that you'd been paid for committing these crimes?

MR BENGU: Well I don't know that because I never got any response.

ADV DE JAGER: But you've already stated that you didn't receive anything, not a cent even?

MR BENGU: I still reiterate that fact even now.

ADV DE JAGER: And you're aware that at your trial one of the witnesses said you received money?

MR BENGU: Well yes I heard that in the court of law and I also disagreed with that as I will still repudiate the fact even now.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, that's as far as you're concerned that was false evidence and you didn't receive anything?

MR BENGU: Yes, that person who was just backed by the police and they wanted him to speak or talk in favour of them and was a blatant lie.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Leopeng?

MR LEOPENG: Finally Mr Bengu, what objective you sought to achieve in committing all these offences that you have been charged and convicted of? That is all the five attempted murders and the two murders you have confessed to have committed. What did you want to achieve as in relation to the Haggi Rent strike?

MR BENGU: Well the one objective I sought was to bring to an end the apartheid that was in practice especially in the companies or in the firms, that was one main objective I sought in so doing.

MR LEOPENG: Mr Bengu, there was an overtime ban strike in Haggie Rand, is that correct?

MR BENGU: Yes.

MR LEOPENG: And you further testify that there were some informers within the employees of Haggie Rand who used to take what has been discussed and decided in meetings, take it to the management, is that correct?

MR BENGU: Yes.

MR LEOPENG: Would I be correct to say that you were not happy as that was the ...(indistinct) of the group of ten that there were members who used to take information that has been decided by the comrades and take it to the management committee, is that correct?

MR BENGU: Yes, that was unpleasant to hear.

MR LEOPENG: Would I be correct that the objective that you sought to achieve was to discourage or rather to put it was to eliminate the informers who used to take information from the comrades to the management, is that correct?

MR BENGU: Yes that is so.

MR LEOPENG: That's the evidence of the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Leopeng. Ms Lockhat, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Bengu, you said you were a member of the ANC, is that correct?

MR BENGU: Yes that is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: You also said at page 5 of the bundle that at that meeting there was underground ANC activists with you. Can you comment on that for us?

MR BENGU: Could you please repeat this question?

MS LOCKHAT: In your statement that you submitted to the Committee your political motivation, you said at page 5 of the bundle, you said:

So how many of you - what underground ANC activists were with you?

MR BENGU: Well I don't know clearly about that, I don't know.

MS LOCKHAT: So why did you state that in your further submissions to the Commission?

MR BENGU: It could be that because I am not well educated. We normally request people to do the writing for us. That may be one of the mistakes that they made.

MS LOCKHAT: And how many meetings did you attend with the committee before these acts took place?

MR BENGU: There were several meetings. I cannot remember the exact number.

MS LOCKHAT: You also said that you received instructions who to eliminate. Who did you receive these instructions from?

MR BENGU: It was the members of the Committee of Ten, one of whom was Richard Ngubeni and Malam Khumalo.

MS LOCKHAT: How many of you attended these meetings, can you say besides the Committee of Ten? About how many people were there?

MR BENGU: I'm not in a position to estimate.

MS LOCKHAT: Mr Cele said in the criminal trial that Mr Khumalo, the person that gave you the instructions, actually told him that you were a hired assassin, that they procured your services?

MR BENGU: I cannot comment on that because I do not know what that was about.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Lockhat. Has the Panel got any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Chairperson.

At the meetings of the Committee of Ten, you say you cannot estimate how many people were there. Were there many others who were not part of the committee?

MR BENGU: There were many others who were not part of the committee.

ADV BOSMAN: Where were the meetings held?

MR BENGU: At number 51 Commissioner Street.

ADV BOSMAN: And was that held in the evenings or during the day?

MR BENGU: It would be in the afternoons around five or six.

ADV BOSMAN: Was that after you had knocked off from work?

MR BENGU: That is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, any re-examination Mr Leopeng?

MR LEOPENG: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR LEOPENG: I beg your pardon, I think it will be covered by argument. That's in relation to the statement made by the applicant, the fact that Mr Ngubani also took part in taking decisions in a Committee of Ten, who was a co-accused. I just wanted to ask the applicant as to whether Mr Ngubani that he referred to was also his co-accused in the criminal trial.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it common cause?

MR LEOPENG: It's common cause.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it common cause?

MR LEOPENG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, otherwise you could have just asked him. It doesn't matter.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Mr Bengu, Mr Ngubani and the lady that you referred to, were they also your co-accused in the criminal trial?

MR BENGU: That is correct.

MR LEOPENG: Were they also convicted of the relevant - I mean the several counts and commissions?

MR BENGU: Yes he was.

MR LEOPENG: Is it further correct that they are out and have been released from prison in terms of the Indemnity Act?

MR BENGU: That is correct.

MR LEOPENG: With the permission of the Committee, there are two affidavits been deposed to by Ngubani as to the effect that the applicant was not an assassin, Mr Kevin lied in the criminal trial so I just want also to present that.

Is it correct that Ngubani deposed to an affidavit to the effect that you were not a hired assassin and paid for the commission of these offences?

MR BENGU: Yes, they did this when they were released.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything else? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you Mr Leopeng. You are excused. We'll take the luncheon adjournment and reconvene at 2 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Leopeng, I think the evidence is concluded in the Bengu matter, isn't it?

MR LEOPENG: Indeed Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Are you ready to address us?

MR LEOPENG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright you can go ahead.

MR LEOPENG IN ARGUMENT: Very briefly, Chairperson, it is common cause that the applicant herein was invited by the Committee of Ten about the crisis in Haggie Rand strike. The applicant testified that the said Committee of Ten decided to take a drastic step against the informers at Haggie Rand factory. I respectfully submit to this Committee that the motives sought to be achieved by the actions of the applicant as he indicated in his evidence-in-chief was to send a clear message to the informers to refrain from taking the discussions of the union members or the workers of Haggie Rand factory to the management. I will submit that in actual fact even though the applicant was not an employee at Haggi factory he sympathised with the strikers or attempted to with the dismissed employees at Haggie Rand factory.

I further submit that I find that the applicant made a full disclosure of all his actions that he did to this Committee. He confessed having committed two counts of murder and five attempted murders and also the position of the offences given by the group of ten.

I further submit that his denial of him being labelled as an assassin, head assassin by one ...(indistinct) during the trial was corroborated by his co-accused, Mr Ngubene and Mr Ngubani in their affidavits attached to the record on pages 8 and 9 - I beg your pardon ...(intervention)

MS LOCKHAT: 19 to 20.

MR LEOPENG: On page 19. On the basis of the aforesaid, I humbly submit that the motive of the applicant in commission of this offence was political and therefore he be granted amnesty. As it pleases the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Leopeng. Ms Lockhat, any submissions?

MS LOCKHAT IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, I fully concur with my colleague. It is true that the applicant did attend numerous meetings with his co-accused and with the Committee and the fact that - the important fact is that he associated himself with his aims and objectives, it wasn't really material that he didn't work at the same place as they did and neither did he belong to the unions that they did and also the fact that his evidence that he was an assassin, he did not receive any remuneration for this act is corroborated by the very person that he received instructions from, which is Mr Richard Ngubani. So in terms of the applicant and on the evidence before us, that we have no other corroboration besides that.

ADV DE JAGER: May I pose a question that comes to my mind now? The people giving instructions to him, why - he didn't belong to the group of ten or the workers at that particular business. Why should he obey or be in a position where he should take orders from them?

MS LOCKHAT: I think that once he associated himself with the committee and once he decided to join them, there was people that were involved in organising the group in guiding them, which was Mr Ngubani as well - Ngubeni as well as ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Khumalo, yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Ngubani, so in that sense they also had to take leadership and instructions from them if they wanted to carry out this effectively. So in that instance it would make sense for there to be leaders and to instruct the relevant parties that's going to be involved or else he would just then act on his own accord and I don't see why the applicant would then join the group if he didn't associate himself with their aims and objectives because then he should have just then not carried out any acts then and left it because what was he going to achieve personally? Absolutely nothing and there was no remuneration given to him either that Mr Ngubeni also in his affidavit states that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, have you got any other submissions?

MS LOCKHAT: No Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got anything to add Mr Leopeng?

MR LEOPENG: No other submissions to add.

CHAIRPERSON: No other submissions?

MR LEOPENG: No other submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Yes, that concludes the formal side of this application. We will consider the matter and we will endeavour to formulate a decision as quickly as circumstances permit whereupon we will inform the parties of that decision. So in the circumstances the decision in this matter would be reserved.

______________________________________________________CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng, you've got some other business? Which is the next matter?

MR LEOPENG: Chairperson, the next matter in terms of the roll is Chidi.

CHAIRPERSON: Chidi?

MR LEOPENG: Yes. However I've already had the difficulty in - well I've discussed this with my learned colleague and I've decided to call the applicant and to put it on record his difficulty and whether on questions from the Panel to proceed with the hearing despite the unavailability of the record, of the criminal record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so are you in a position to proceed? You've consulted with Mr Chidi?

MR LEOPENG: Yes I've thoroughly consulted with the applicant except for the difficulties as I've explained to the Panel in chambers and I was suggesting that the applicant be called on to take the stand and be asked by the Panel whether he wants to proceed despite the unavailable court record because that will come from the applicant himself. He will have to disclose to the Panel. He actually denies having taken part in the commission of the offence as referred to in the charge sheets or the trial at the court and further that he's going to testify to the effect that the information that he has been provided in the application for amnesty has been done by one of the ANC officials in prison so he doesn't completely align himself with what has been stated in the application forms for the amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: So what is he applying for in respect of what incident?

MR LEOPENG: That is my difficulty that I had with him that's why I wanted him to come and take a stand because I have difficulty explaining to him that if he wants a postponement so that he can have it put on record and because he - during consultation he told me that there was a retrial after he was sentenced to life term and to death, there was a retrial on instructions from the court of appeal, then the 18th there was a retrial and it was found that the key state witness testified ...(indistinct) that he has been bought by the State, he has been paid by the State to implicate him. In actual fact the commissions that he has been sentenced to death he denies having committed it.

CHAIRPERSON: So, yes well let him come and explain, I don't know what is the difficulty.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Leopeng, the difficulty I have got, if he's - I don't know whether it's been explained to him.

MR LEOPENG: ...(indistinct)

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, perhaps if he could listen before he starts giving evidence. I don't know whether it's been explained to him, if he didn't commit any offence and if he wouldn't admit that he associated himself with the commission of an offence, he can't get amnesty because we can only give amnesty to guilty persons, we can't give amnesty to people who have been wrongly convicted and who are in fact not guilty, they've got to go back to the courts and I know the concept of common purpose, it's difficult for a layman to understand, but before - I think before he should start giving evidence, perhaps you could be assisted, or the two of you could explain to him what's the concept of common purpose if he was convicted on the concept of common purpose, so that he may at least understand because if he's not guilty of any offence but he's been wrongly convicted, then we can't help him at all.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you, I for a long time explained the same problem to him, that's why I wanted him to come and testify because apparently there's this misunderstanding between me and himself to the effect that you can't apply for amnesty for a thing that you never committed. Either you must say I committed this and I'm sorry. I explained that to him and I've advised also him to the effect that the only option that he has is to appeal or to launch an application for ...(indistinct) an appeal or to open the matter for a retrial. So I wanted the Panel, the Committee, to explain again so that he must not think that I'm not taking proper instructions from him. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Chidi, did you hear me over the headphone? Can you hear?

MR CHIDI: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Now Mr Leopeng has explained a number of things to us which we have listened to but what I'm not sure about is firstly, are you applying for amnesty for anything?

MR CHIDI: Yes I am.

CHAIRPERSON: You are applying for amnesty?

MR CHIDI: I filled application forms for indemnity and last year I was approached by TRC staff in prison to say that my case will rather be dealt with by the TRC and I agreed with them, but I was convicted and sentenced to death for something I did not do.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now what - you applied for indemnity you say now. For what? What for, for what incident or for what act?

MR CHIDI: I filled in the form because other people who had committed political crimes did the same.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you say in your form, what do you want indemnity for?

MR CHIDI: The murder and arson case.

CHAIRPERSON: So you applied for indemnity for the murder and arson?

MR CHIDI: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: So may I perhaps first explain to you what happened with the indemnity applications. When the Truth Commission was formed, then the indemnity office stopped working and it sent all of the applications that they still had for indemnity to the Truth Commission to deal with those things and that is how it came to the TRC and that is how the TRC staff eventually got in touch with you. That's just to explain the connection. Now for us to be able to know what we should be doing with this matter because these things are now before us, we must be clear whether you are in fact asking for amnesty for anything that you have done. Now that is what I am trying to find out, are you asking for amnesty for anything that you have done?

MR CHIDI: I lodged an application because whilst I was arrested for a certain crime in Benoni, police approached me and enquired if I knew somebody called Mabiza and when I said yes I did, they informed me that he says I was involved when the councillor was murdered and I denied that, but I was nevertheless charged for that incident and when we got to court, Mapedla informed the magistrate that he did not make the statement, it was just the police who wanted to implicate me. The case went up to the Supreme Court and he even mentioned that in that court, that I was not involved in that incident but the judge intimidated Mapedla to the effect that if he does not speak the truth, he is the one who is going to end up in prison. In so doing Mapedla then insisted that I was present and I was later sentenced to death. But thereafter, Mapedla contacted my advocate and informed him that he had falsely implicated me in court and that was when my advocate came to me and informed me that I was falsely implicated. I was granted a retrial and at that retrial Mapedla explained that he is one person who had been involved, but I was not and at that point he was sentenced to six months for perjury. My co-accused had admitted that he had committed a crime and he himself also explained that I was not present when this crime was committed. So when forms were filled in for indemnity I also filled one so that the truth could come out that I did not commit that murder, that I was not involved in that crime.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so that is your position, you don't know anything about this crime that you were convicted of? Yes, now Mr Leopeng has indicated to us that he's explained to you what the legal position is and also that as my colleague has discussed with Mr Leopeng just now that this Committee can only consider cases where people had been involved in doing something so if you've been involved in some or other crime then of course it's a matter that we can deal with but if you haven't been involved in anything, you've done nothing, there's nothing that we can give amnesty for because you haven't done anything wrong. Now Leopeng says he has explained everything to you, is that correct?

MR CHIDI: Yes he did explain.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and you understood it?

MR CHIDI: Yes I do. I do not know where to take my grievance then. Maybe you could advise me on how to proceed because I have spent 12 years and 14 days in prison for a crime I did not commit.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your present sentence? Is it 20 years?

MR CHIDI: 20 years.

CHAIRPERSON: And what portion of that sentence have you served?

MR CHIDI: 12 years, 14 days today.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so you do understand that if you haven't done anything, if you haven't been involved in any way in committing a crime then there is no basms on which we can consider your case? In other words if you haven't been involved in planning the thing, having knowledge of it or helping the people who committed the crime, being present at the scene yourself or participating in the crime, if you haven't done anything of that, then there is no basis upon which this Committee can consider your case? Do you understand that?

MR CHIDI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes now I think you and Mr Leopeng should perhaps have another discussion and you could perhaps just give him a clear indication as to what you want him to do because there's no sense in keeping this case in front of us because there is little that we can do with it, so Mr Leopeng would obviously want to take instructions from you whether, how we should deal with this thing, whether it should be withdrawn or whatever, but he can explain that to you, what the options are. So perhaps it's a good thing that you should be granted an opportunity to do that, to have that discussion before we finally deal with the matter, dispose of the matter. Will that be in order?

MR CHIDI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng, you've still got the other matter on the roll, but would you like to just take the opportunity to speak to your client again and then for us to finalise this matter?

MR LEOPENG: Yes I will do so on instructions from the Panel.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps we should then just stand down, there's no sense in starting with your other matter now, we'll stand down and give you an opportunity to speak to your client, then we can reconvene and then finally deal with this matter and then we can go to the next one. We'll adjourn for a short while.

ADV DE JAGER: Ms Lockhat, page 4 of his confession or whatever it might have been before the magistrate, there's a page missing between the numbered 5's and 6.

MS LOCKHAT: I see that this is all we received, so I've got nothing else that could have been left out.

ADV DE JAGER: Because that page would deal with the incident itself?

MR LEOPENG: To add upon that if one tried to make sense out of, even despite the missing page, this was a confession or it was a statement made ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, under duress, so we understand.

MR LEOPENG: Yes but one can ..(indistinct) also in this statement, he denied having taken part in the commission of this offence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but we'll stand down and you will indicate to us when you have had an opportunity to discuss things with your client, then we can reconvene.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) of this application?

MR LEOPENG: Yes I've explained Mr Chairperson, my attitude towards the whole matter, I've advised Mr Chidi that I will humbly ask for your postponement for a reasonable period of time so that the record can be found and if it's found that will be considered together with the Committee and necessary steps will be taken to assist him in his matter. He agrees to the postponement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so you're asking for the matter to be postponed?

MR LEOPENG: Indeed Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Have you got any objection Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: No objections, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well under the circumstances it appears to be in the interest of justice that an opportunity should be allowed for the court records to be obtained in this matter which is the amnesty application of Maphuti Joseph Chidi, reference number AM0708/96 and in the circumstances the matter will then be postponed sine die and a suitable date arranged as soon as the outstanding documentation has been obtained. So the matter will be postponed.

MR CHIDI: I'm indebted to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Chidi, you followed that? Have you heard? You understand?

MR CHIDI: Yes. Johannes Mema from the TRC has been visiting me in prison. I would request that you contact him because he is the one who informed me of what my co-accused said in court.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the steps will be taken. In fact we are going to prevail upon both your lawyer and our staff to get the court records as urgently as possible because there is a possibility that at lease two members of this particular Panel would be back in Johannesburg in the next few weeks when it would be possibly in a position to deal with your matter. So we are going to prevail upon the parties to make sure that these things are obtained very quickly, so you can accept that.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, just in the bundle relating to the notices, there's a report by our Investigative Unit where they attempted to get the co-accused in this matter and one of the co-accused was granted indemnity as well. So just a note, we have that attached.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Yes, so your matter will then be postponed in the meantime, Mr Chidi.

MR CHIDI: Thank you, I will be very grateful.

CHAIRPERSON: So we will excuse you.

APPLICATION NO: AM3445/96

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Leopeng, the remaining matter, is that of Mr Ghotse, are you in a position to proceed with that one?

MR LEOPENG: Indeed I'm ready to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Will Mr Ghotse then come forward? Yes the next matter is that of Sebo Nicodemus Ghotse, the amnesty application of Mr Ghotse. Perhaps you can help us Ms Lockhat, what is the amnesty reference number of this case?

MS LOCKHAT: It is AM3445/96.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Lockhat.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes the Panel is constituted as already indicated on the record. The appearances are similar to the previous matter, that is Mr Leopeng appearing for the applicant and Ms Lockhat acting as the leader of evidence. Mr Leopeng, is there anything else that you want to draw to our attention or that you want to put on record before we hear the testimony of your client?

MR LEOPENG: Nothing except to put my name on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we have noted that already. Mr Ghotse, can you hear the translation? Very well, won't you switch on your microphone and then stand?

SEBO NICODEMUS GHOTSE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Ghotse, you are the applicant herein, you are applying for the amnesty for the murder that you committed on the 25th December 1990, is that correct?

MR GHOTSE: That is correct.

MR LEOPENG: Is it further correct that during, before and during the time of the incident you were an ANC member and you were also the chairman of the street committee in Everton, Sebokeng, that is in Vereeniging?

MR GHOTSE: That is correct.

MR LEOPENG: Can you briefly explain to this Committee functions of the street committee, as you ...(indistinct)?

MR GHOTSE: At that time I was the chairman of the Street Committee handling people's complaints and the fighting amongst them and a member of the SDU, protecting the community against attackers who were against the ANC members especially the vigilante groups like the IFP.

MR LEOPENG: So if I understand you correctly you were also an SDU member?

MR GHOTSE: That is correct.

MR LEOPENG: Now just briefly turn to the incident which occurred on the 25th December, the same year. Can you remember what happened which resulted in the death of one Alfred Wielo?

MR GHOTSE: Alfred Wielo, having harassed ANC members on that day he killed Mr Shoping, a member of the ANC. From there I found that some supporters of the ANC have got to him and after arriving there where they had him Daniel Goale stated that Lester who was stabbed by Mr Wielo had died. From there including myself the community got very angry. As he had killed a person he must also be killed. Then I took a knopkierie and then I hit him very hard on the head. He therefore died. That also showed my disagreement with he did. He must not kill ANC members and the ANC members must be aware that we don't like this incident happening against ANC members. Thereafter, when he had died, I made statements that aggravated people to set Mr Wielo alight. There was a large crowd that set Mr Wielo alight but I was not involved. However I carry the blame of this incident that took place.

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, can we ask Mr Ghotse not to fiddle with the microphone as he gives us a feedback?

MR LEOPENG: You said that Mr Wielo the deceased killed one Lester Shoping. Did you know Lester Shoping before he met his death?

MR GHOTSE: He is well known to me, he was a member of the youth league, ANC Youth League. He took part in the ANC but he belonged to the ANC Youth League.

MR LEOPENG: Prior to the death of Alfred Wielo, did you know him?

MR GHOTSE: Are you referring to Mr Wielo?

MR LEOPENG: Yes, Mr Wielo.

MR GHOTSE: I knew him because he harassed members of the ANC and the ANC.

MR LEOPENG: Did you know to which political organisation did he belong or whether he belonged to any political organisation or he was just a member of a gangster or a vigilante group?

MR GHOTSE: The way he harassed members of the ANC I thought he was a member or he belonged to the IFP because he continuously or usually harassed members of the ANC.

ADV BOSMAN: How did he harass them?

MR GHOTSE: Usually when things happened, they would come to me, members of the ANC, and report that he would come to their houses and trouble them. They told me that he was against the ANC and it's membership.

MR LEOPENG: Other than the killing of Lester Shoping, do you know of any specific act that he committed in saying that he used to harass the ANC supporters or members?

MR GHOTSE: The last thing he did before killing Lester was to attack a member of the ANC into the member's house, trying to kill this person. However, a owner of the house, a lady, managed to escape.

MR LEOPENG: Is it your testimony before this Committee that you participated in killing Mr Wielo by assaulting him with a knopkierie on his head solely because he killed your ANC Youth League member by the name of Lester Shoping and also that he harassed some other members of the ANC?

MR GHOTSE: I started talking about this here at the Amnesty Committee but during the trials I did not disclose of this fact, I was very afraid to disclose that fact, I was afraid of going to jail.

MR LEOPENG: My question was did you kill him because he was harassing you, members of the ANC and also that he killed Lester Shoping?

MR GHOTSE: Yes that is the reason that caused me to kill him.

MR LEOPENG: Did you have any other objective that you sought to achieve in killing him? Other than that you were mentioning having killed a member of the ANC, a member of the ANC Youth League?

MR GHOTSE: I was sending out a message for those who wanted to kill ANC members so that they can see that we dislike or rather that I dislike what they are doing.

MR LEOPENG: After killing him or after having learnt that he has died and he has been burnt down to ashes, did you benefit anything either financially or having any benefit from any other person?

MR GHOTSE: There was nothing that I benefited out of that.

MR LEOPENG: After him being killed did you continue to serve - let me rephrase my question, I beg your pardon. After him having died and before your arrest, did you continue to serve as a member of the SDU and also as the Chairman of the street committee in Everton?

MR GHOTSE: Yes that is correct.

MR LEOPENG: Prior to your arrest did the attacks on the members of the ANC Youth League or members of the ANC stopped at Everton?

MR GHOTSE: In the area where I resided as far as my knowledge can take me, they stopped.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Leopeng. Ms Lockhat have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Yes thank you, Chairperson.

How long were you the chairperson of the street committee?

MR GHOTSE: It was for about a month but I could not extend it to a year.

MS LOCKHAT: You said you previously received a complaint by a certain lady regarding Mr Wielo. Can you tell the Committee how you dealt with that complaint? That was when he broke down the door of a certain house?

MR GHOTSE: This one regarding the lady, I addressed it in the morning when everybody woke up because he attacked her in the evening. I went there to talk to Mr Wielo and make him aware that what he is doing I dislike and his attack upon this lady I disliked. I tried to avoid a fight with him. It seemed as if he understood regarding the female lady and the attack that he carried upon her expect this one that he did of killing Lester Shoping.

MS LOCKHAT: Didn't you just reprimand him after you had a talk with him, is that correct?

MR GHOTSE: After having talked to him I never heard a thing concerning him than after having killed Lester.

MS LOCKHAT: Tell me, was there a relationship between the comrades and the street committee?

MR GHOTSE: Yes indeed because we are all ANCs. As comrades we ranked a bit higher than them.

MS LOCKHAT: Do you know about the altercation with certain accused two, three and four and five with Mr Wielo on the 25th December, that is the day that he died? Do you know about that altercation?

MR GHOTSE: I heard about that afterwards. I never noticed it.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you know what the altercation was about?

MR GHOTSE: I thought since Mr Wielo was against the community where I resided, I think that was the reason why he had that altercation with those people.

MS LOCKHAT: Didn't you hear after his death what the altercation was about?

MR GHOTSE: I did not follow it that much because I knew already that Mr Wielo was against the community amongst which I reside because I will hear that he is used to attacking these people.

MS LOCKHAT: I believe that on that specific day he did have an altercation with comrades, with accused two, three, four and five and then they pursued Mr Wielo to his house. Do you know about that?

MR GHOTSE: Those are things that I've heard but I did not see them personally.

MS LOCKHAT: And that Mr Lester who was thirteen years old at the time was with that group, do you know about that?

MR GHOTSE: Yes I heard he was there during the altercation.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you say 13 or 30?

MS LOGKHAT: 13. Was Lester a comrade?

MR GHOTSE: Lester was a comrade of the ANC Youth League.

MS LOCKHAT: Was he also a brother of accused number four, Radebe?

MR GHOTSE: He's a brother to Peter Shoping.

MS LOCKHAT: What do you think the comrades went to go and do and Mr Wielo's house?

MR GHOTSE: I believe if there's a conflict in a community, people would go to each other's houses and talk things over.

MS LOCKHAT: Did the comrades attempt to talk things over with Mr Wielo?

MR GHOTSE: The comrades would not talk to a person if there were conflicts but rather they would come to me as a chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: And did they come to you in this instance?

MR GHOTSE: Actually there was no meeting held over this after we had heard about Lester's death.

MS LOCKHAT: Isn't it true that there was a period when Lester was taken to hospital and Mr Wielo was taken in by the comrades and it was told to Mr Wielo that he would die if Lester died and that Mr Wielo was held captive for a while until the news came that Lester did in fact die, isn't that correct?

MR GHOTSE: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Were you with this group that held Mr Wielo?

MR GHOTSE: I was not in that group that held him captive.

MS LOCKHAT: Where were you at the time?

MR GHOTSE: There is somewhere where I had visited at the time when this thing started.

MS LOCKHAT: So when did you become involved with the killing of Mr Wielo?

MR GHOTSE: When I arrived after they have kept him captive at that place. I heard that he had stabbed Lester and they've since kept him captive there.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you attempt at any stage to talk to the comrades knowing that they had the deceased?

MR GHOTSE: Yes indeed I enquired what actually happened.

MS LOCKHAT: And then?

MR GHOTSE: They told me that this man has already started a gang and he has stabbed Lester with a knife.

MS LOCKHAT: And what was your response?

MR GHOTSE: I was deeply hurt and of course later on we heard that Lester passed away.

MS LOCKHAT: Why didn't you report the fact that Mr Wielo had killed Lester, why didn't you report it to the police rather?

MR GHOTSE: We did not have cooperation at all with the police. In fact the police disliked us as members of the ANC at that time.

MS LOCKHAT: But surely if you identified Mr Wielo and seeing that there were a number of the scene of this incident, it was easy to identify Mr Wielo as the person who had killed Lester and surely that shouldn't have been a problem to have him charged?

MR GHOTSE: You see, the situation at that time is not like the situation we have today. The violence at that time had actually confused us.

MS LOCKHAT: I believe the comrades, was it correct that it was about 30 persons that was involved with this?

MR GHOTSE: Yes although I did not read the number of the people there but it was a large community.

MS LOCKHAT: Was it only yourself and the other persons accused one, two, three, four and five that was involved in the killing of Mr Wielo?

MR GHOTSE: The community that was present that supported the ANC was there in large numbers. Everybody was angry and the community took part in that.

MS LOCKHAT: Why did you come onto the scene of the incident with a knopkierie?

MR GHOTSE: You must understand that I did not come there with this knopkierie. When I arrived there I did not have that but I found it amongst the crowd there.

MS LOCKHAT: So by this time the deceased was in a wheelbarrow, is that correct? The crowd had carted him in a wheelbarrow?

MR GHOTSE: After I have hit him with a knopkierie, the deceased was then thrown into the wheelbarrow.

MS LOCKHAT: And how many times did you hit him with a knopkierie?

MR GHOTSE: I only hit him once but it was a hard blow.

MS LOCKHAT: Was he assaulted at a stage by the other comrades already?

MR GHOTSE: Yes.

MS LOCKHAT: So your blow was the fatal blow, is that correct?

MR GHOTSE: Yes that is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Do you think it was possible for you as a chairperson of the Street Committee to let the crowd actually release Mr Wielo and then you follow your own procedures that you had as a Street Committee by reprimanding him or reporting him to the police? Would you think that you had the capabilities of stopping the crowd?

MR GHOTSE: It was already late at that time, Mr Wielo not have a good timing, he did a wrong thing at the wrong time.

MS LOCKHAT: How did you know that Mr Wielo was an IFP supporter or are you just surmising?

MR GHOTSE: I suspected him through his actions. His actions told me that he might be an enemy to the ANC the way he troubled the community.

MS LOCKHAT: Do you think that Mr Wielo was acting in self-defence when the comrades stormed his house after he had the altercation with the comrade members?

MR GHOTSE: I will not be able to answer on that one because I did not see what happened there.

MS LOCKHAT: I have no further questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Has anybody got any questions?

ADV DE JAGER: The first complaint about the harassing of the woman, you testified yourself that the deceased was drunk at that stage, that he opened the door but there was nothing serious, isn't that so?

MR GHOTSE: I do not understand your question, may you please repeat it?

ADV DE JAGER: At the first matter when Wielo kicked open a lady's door, can you remember that? You've told us about that one?

MR GHOTSE: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: There was no threat to kill this woman?

MR GHOTSE: The report that I received, the very woman came to my house, inside my house, told me the manner in which Mr Wielo attacked her in her house.

ADV DE JAGER: And you in fact gave him nails and told him to repair the house, the door, before the lady's husband could return, isn't that so?

MR GHOTSE: After having tried to show him to live in harmony with everybody.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes but he didn't threaten anybody, he was drunk and kicked open the door. Wasn't that the position?

MR GHOTSE: The woman, when she came to me in my house, she told me how Mr Wielo attacked her. That came from her mouth.

ADV DE JAGER: And the other thing, Wielo was staying with about I don't know how many shacks, all staying together on one erf, squatters staying together there. There was no division between political parties at all there?

MR GHOTSE: I'm the one knows what happened there. Mr Wielo was not in good cooperation with the community there.

ADV DE JAGER: That was Christmas day and people had been drinking, is that correct? Wielo himself had been drinking?

MR GHOTSE: Yes on Christmas day people would do as they wish.

ADV DE JAGER: And he had a confrontation with people at the porn shop, wasn't that so?

MR GHOTSE: I was not present at that time, I had visited a certain place.

ADV DE JAGER: And they chased him and he fled into shack number 11 and closed the door?

MR GHOTSE: That is the very thing that I've been saying that he did not live in cooperation with people in that community.

ADV DE JAGER: And what about, I think it was Mr Shabalala, wasn't he Mr Shabalala with him in that shack? No, Johannes Mkonye was with him in that shack? Is that right?

MR GHOTSE: I heard such matters but I was not present then.

ADV DE JAGER: Did Johannes live in peace with the other people there in the vicinity? Johannes Mkonye?

MR GHOTSE: Mkonye did not trouble people.

ADV DE JAGER: Why was he also dragged out of this hut and taken away?

MR GHOTSE: I believe when people are already fighting, when emotions are high, people would do things that are out of hand.

ADV DE JAGER: And is it correct that the people chasing the deceased kicked open this door of the shack number 11?

MR GHOTSE: I was not present at that time.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes but have you ascertained whether that's correct or not before you hit him with a knopkierie?

MR GHOTSE: What made me very angry of most of the things that he did is killing this comrade and the troubling ANC members. Lester Shoping was one of the important members in the ANC Youth League.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes but wasn't Lester at the forefront after this door was kicked open and were rushed into this house?

MR GHOTSE: When a fight ensues everybody would take any position. You might be in front and you do what's necessary.

ADV DE JAGER: And he had a knife too? Lester, in rushing into that house?

MR GHOTSE: I knew Lester not to be a knife carrier.

ADV DE JAGER: And why did they kick open this door and attack this man in this house, while he closed the door, he fled from them? He was not attacking anybody at that time?

MR GHOTSE: I do not believe that people just chase a person without having done anything, that is unfounded.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, no, but he fled, he didn't attack anybody at that time? He was fleeing and he was pursued?

MR GHOTSE: May as he fled it was because he could see there were a lot of comrades, I don't know.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes but he fled because his life was in danger?

MR GHOTSE: Yes but when a fight has already started people are fighting. They were fighting.

ADV DE JAGER: And you don't know whether they fought about something that's been pawned at the pawnshop or about money or about liquor?

MR GHOTSE: If there were such things they would have reported to the Street Committee that he owed them money but what I mean, Mr Wielo troubled us and all ANC members, he had turned himself into an enemy.

ADV DE JAGER: What did they report to you, what had you done wrong that morning?

MR GHOTSE: On that day when this started I was not present than previously when things were reported to me.

ADV DE JAGER: There was only one report before that to you, isn't that so? One complaint?

MR GHOTSE: I received a lot of complaints about Mr Wielo. About this woman that he attacked was the last before he killed Lester.

ADV DE JAGER: So before he attacked this woman you had a lot of complaints about him?

MR GHOTSE: That is correct and his actions showed that he dislikes members of the ANC. You could tell that also in what he says.

ADV DE JAGER: But at that stage after this last complaint you thought it fit to give him nails to repair the door and do nothing to him?

MR GHOTSE: On the day I said to him he must fix that door, I was attempting to show him we dislike this thing, I thought he would see that he was committing a mistake in what he was doing.

ADV DE JAGER: Had you ever confronted him before that day?

MR GHOTSE: On the very day that I gave him nails I warned him again.

ADV DE JAGER: And before that, was there ever a meeting with him, ever a hearing?

MR GHOTSE: Before that I would tell his sister, Mavis, because his actions told me that he might cause me harm.

ADV DE JAGER: So you never spoke to him before that?

MR GHOTSE: Before this woman attacked through him, we had never talked eye to eye.

ADV DE JAGER: And you spoke to Mavis?

MR GHOTSE: That is correct, where he resided at his sister's place, the owner of the house.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mavis also on that day, the 25th, Christmas day, escaped through the window of that shack to get out of the house when the house was attacked by the other people?

MR GHOTSE: That may be the case because the situation was bad.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't he killed only because he was a bad bloke and he had nothing to do with politics?

MR GHOTSE: What I know is that he was against members of the ANC and the ANC.

ADV DE JAGER: But you're only speculating whether he was a member of the IFP. There's no evidence at all that he was a member?

MR GHOTSE: I think actions speaks louder than words. What he did showed us that he is against us. He can be a member of the IFP.

ADV DE JAGER: But he could have been an ordinary criminal harassing people too?

MR GHOTSE: You must understand that we were not free at all times, we were afraid that the IFP usually attacks ANC members. If a person shows dislike of ANC members we sometimes think that he might be a member of ANC but mostly his actions put a lot of people's lives in danger.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Leopeng?

MR LEOPENG: No re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Ghotse, you are excused, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any other evidence Mr Leopeng?

MR LEOPENG: No other evidence to be called.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the applicant's case?

MR LEOPENG: That is the applicant's case.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Lockhat, have you got any evidence?

MS LOCKHAT: No, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Leopeng have you got any submissions on the merits of this case?

MR LEOPENG: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, go ahead.

MR LEOPENG IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, it is not in dispute that the applicant before and as at the time of the commission of the offence he was a member of the Street Committee and a chairman thereof and also an SDU member. The applicant during his evidence-in-chief tewtified that one of the functions are to put it the other way around, functions of the SDUs among others was to protect the community of Everton against the attacks by the vigilante group inclusive of attacks by the opposite parties, that is the IFP.

It is submitted that it is true that during 1990 the situation in the Vaal Triangle was such that there was a very stressful tension which resulted in a lot of killings in the Vaal. It is further submitted that during the same period most people were influenced by the mob psychology. Some people even act Chairperson without verifying whether the victim was actually opposed to the change or opposed to any progress within a particular political organisation. In this case before this Committee it is also clear from the testimony of the applicant that he strongly believed that the deceased, Mr Wielo, could have belonged to the IFP because of his talks in the ANC and the attacks that he made specifically to the ANC members in Everton. During the cross-examination by my learned colleague on the applicant, he said that when he arrived on the day in question, the deceased Mr Wielo was already assaulted by the community and the community or the members as he called the comrades were so angry that there was nothing you could have done to save the life of Mr Wielo. He testified that and that was a full disclosure submitted. His blow to the head of Mr Wielo, that could have caused the death of Mr Wielo. However, it ...(indistinct) again that the learned Mr Justice Stegman also found that even if that blow could have not been inflicted on the deceased, the assault by the community could have also caused the death of the deceased. But before this Committee here there's evidence that the blow that he inflicted is believed to be the one which caused the death of the deceased. I submit that the offence was committed with the main objective to send a clear message to the attackers of the members of the ANC Youth League that they must stop harassing the ANC members and I also submit that that was committed as a result of the revenge of the killing of Lester Shoping.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Leopeng, was there any other evidence of attacks in that area where the applicant lived, by the IFP? I don't recall any.

MR LEOPENG: Well before the evidence - I'm sorry, the applicant's testimony referred that there was attacks but never specific mention that there was attacks by the IFP. He just mentioned that the deceased, Mr Wielo, used to attack the members of the ANC.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes but you were referring now to attacks by - he was sending a clear message to the attackers of the ANC. From the evidence I gathered that the only attacks were attacks by Mr Wielo individual?

MR LEOPENG: Well my submission on that basis that for a possible - the way I understand this, that possible attacks that might come was sending a clear message that attacks on the ANC members never done, not allowed.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR LEOPENG: I submit Chairperson that the offence was committed with a political motive and that he strongly believed that as Mr Wielo attacked the ANC Youth League he was supposed to also suffered the same consequences and in the circumstances I beg the Committee to grant the applicant amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you Mr Leopeng. Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson.

The applicant states that the functions of the SDU and the Street Committee was to protect the community against attacks by vigilante groups. Now clearly Mr Wielo did not form any part of vigilante group, there's no evidence before us either that he was part of a vigilante group and also part of their function was to protect the community against the opposing party which was the IFP and on the evidence before us, there's no evidence before us that Mr Wielo was a member of the IFP and it seems that they lived in the same area and the applicant as the chairperson had dealings with Mr Wielo previously and it seemed that it was sorted out quite amicably but in this instance it seems as if it was the 25th December and it seems that it is probably that lots of people were celebrating, probably had too much to drink and the applicant did say that on that particular day emotions are generally very high and they do act out of normal behaviour and it seems as if the deceased was just in an unfortunate position that he had the altercation with the ANC members and it is not as if the deceased pursued them in a fight but it was the other way around where the ANC comrades actually pursued him and tried to attack him and also probably people that were in the house, also innocent people that they were willing to drag out of the house as well and it is just unfortunate that this 13 year old was in the mix with these people and he was the forefront just going in and everybody had knives and so forth and it was clear that Mr Wielo thought that his life was in danger and it is my submission that Mr Wielo was actually acting in self-defence there when he did grab and stab - I just can't get to the name of the deceased - yes that is correct, Lester.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but isn't that pure speculation.

MS LOCKHAT: Well, to deter the attackers from coming to attack his house further he had to do something. That was one way of probably procuring that he wouldn't get hurt and that people would just probably run away.

CHAIRPERSON: So you kill a 13 year old in self-defence?

MS LOCKHAT: I think it was just - it wasn't a matter of killing a 13 year old, I think it was just that - Lester was at the forefront, he was the person in front of the whole group approaching the deceased.

ADV DE JAGER: He entered the door first?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, so it could have been anybody, it was just unfortunate that this person was a 13 year old.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but now how do you justify your submission that it was in self-defence? No matter where a thirteen year old is, whether he's in the middle, in the front or the back? How do you justify that submission? That's what I'm asking you, I mean it's possible?

MS LOCKHAT: Ja, just that - it's possible.

CHAIRPERSON: It's as speculative as anything else, it's as speculative as the suggestion that people drink on Christmas day? I don't know if the suggestion is that people in the townships drink on a Christmas day or what the basis of the suggestion is but I know a lot of people who don't drink on a Christmas day.

ADV DE JAGER: But there's evidence on record that he was drunk, Wielo, on Christmas day.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that might be but your submission that it was Christmas day and the sudden suggestion that on Christmas day people could have been drinking is speculative as the self-defence as I say, unless it is one's view that people in the townships drink on a Christmas day, that's what they do?

MS LOCKHAT: It has been noted, Chairperson, I take the point. I don't know whether the applicant was in a position to actually stop the crowd at the point where he got to the incident because by then they had the deceased in a wheelbarrow and carted him and they had attacked him by then already so whether the deceased, whether the applicant had delivered the final blow or not is really - the comrades would have probably killed him anyway.

The only other submission that I'd like to just present is that I don't know whether the applicant was in a position to actually stop the proceedings being the chairperson of the Street Committee but as there was a crowd already and attacking these persons, but the only other issue is that the applicant wasn't sure what the altercation was all about, he wasn't sure, they didn't come and report this incident to him as the chairperson but they just got him there anyway. But whether he was able to stop it, I doubt whether he would have been in that position and whether he would have been able to report this matter to higher authorities, to the police for instance, but as he said they didn't get much cooperation from the police anyway.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and besides on his version this thing had a long history?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, Chairperson. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Lockhat. Have you got any response Mr Leopeng?

MR LEOPENG IN REPLY: Yes, in response to my learned colleague's last issue on whether to be able to stop the group which attacked the deceased, Mr Wielo, I respectfully submit that it is the evidence, the testimony of the applicant that when he arrived he was only told that Mr Wielo killed an ANC Youth League member and then he then took a knopkierie from one of the members and hit the deceased. He only learnt about the interaction between accused numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the deceased afterwards so he strongly believed that he is acting on the basis that Mr Wielo killed and ANC Youth League member and that's all.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Leopeng, if I may just ask, if you look at page 2 paragraph 10(b) in the application, the applicant states there:

Now if he simply lost his temper does that not effect the whole concept or idea of a political objective? There in the middle of the paragraph.

MR LEOPENG: I will argue Mr Chairperson on the basis that he lost temper after hearing that - I mean Mr Wielo killed Lester, he was so angry that after learning of the death of Mr Lester, that's how I understand it. He got angry after learning the death of Mr Lester Shoping, that's how I understand the context of this.

ADV BOSMAN: But I'm trying to convey to you is in those circumstances would a person not say he had once again as an IFP member, as a political opponent, he had killed one of our members and I killed him because of that and not because I lost my temper?

MR LEOPENG: Well he most probably will say I killed him because he killed a member of our youth league, not because he lost his temper.

ADV BOSMAN: Lost his temper, that this is what is the question in my mind is that his primary motivation here is "I lost my temper."

MR LEOPENG: Yes but I submit and humbly submit and strongly believe that the motive of the killing was as a result of the killing of Mr Lester Shoping after learning about the death of Mr Lester Shoping.

ADV BOSMAN: No, no, no, that I accept but the driving force was that he lost his temper?

MR LEOPENG: Yes I see it, I agree with the understanding of the context herein, I'm just trying to explain that maybe the wording of the statement here, you know, but the context I understand it is because of the result of learning of the death of Mr Shoping, then I lost my temper and then I killed him.

CHAIRPERSON: Are those your further submissions?

MR LEOPENG: No further submissions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Yes that takes care of the evidence for all the aspects of this application. The matter will be considered and a decision formulated and the parties notified as soon as that decision is available. So we will reserve the decision in this matter.

MR LEOPENG: I'm indebted to the Committee.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. I think that concludes our roll Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: It does indeed conclude our roll, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you very much. Then we must thank you, Mr Leopeng, for your assistance and Ms Lockhat as well for your assistance in these matters that we've heard. We also wish to thank all those people that exerted themselves to make it possible for us have this hearing. We are always aware of these efforts and grateful for them and also to the members of the public who have taken the trouble to attend the proceedings. We're adjourned.