CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Today we are going to hear the applications for amnesty of the following people, T Mutle, P Mfusa, N F Ranoto, Nkuna and S P Blose.

My name is Motata chairing the process and on my left I have Judge De Jager and on my right I have Advocate Bosman. I will request the legal representatives involved in this hearing to place their names on record.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Honourable Chairperson and Members of the Committee, my name is Brian Koopedi, I'm appearing for the first applicant today who will be Mr M F Ranoto. Thank you Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I'm Zuko Mapoma, I'm Leader of Evidence for the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anybody who is representing the victims?

MR MAPOMA: Not in this matter Chairperson. In fact the victims themselves have not shown up. The situation, if I may just explain Chairperson, the investigative unit have been trying to locate the victims but without success and to that end the advert was distributed in the newspapers notifying the victims and there has not been a response.

CHAIRPERSON: I have seen the advert. I suppose in one you are referring to notification to victims in terms of Act 34/1995, the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act but it does not say when this advert appeared, it simply says this matter would be heard. Now in this instance 22nd to 26th November 1999 and another one says that of, S J Nkuna says on the 29th November to 3rd December?

MR MAPOMA: No Chairperson, sorry, in regard to this particular application, the one of Mr Ranoto, the potential victims in this matter were members of the South African Defence Force then and we have contacted the ...(indistinct) of the SANDF, they have responded to us by saying, in fact I've got a response in writing, I would want to hand it in.

CHAIRPERSON: You may approach us Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose I've got to give Mr Koopedi a copy?

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma but would you place this facsimile on record?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson. May I ask it to be labelled as Exhibit A?

JUDGE DE JAGER: The applicant has already been granted indemnity?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, he has been.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is there anything - perhaps he should be sworn in.

CHAIRPERSON: When we now look at the situation, Mr Koopedi, that indemnity has been granted, would you let your applicant, your client, confirm the contents of his application form which we have accepted as timeously having been lodged with the Amnesty Committee we accept then, simply just to confirm the affidavit or is there anything that would turn around the application we don't know?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, my intention was simply to do that and lead no further evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, may he be sworn in?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, what language will he speak?

MR KOOPEDI: He prefers to speak Sotho.

MADIMECHA FRANS RANOTO: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Ranoto, is it correct that you are an applicant and that the application form before you which forms part of the bundle of documents before this Honourable Committee is your application form and that it was completed by you?

MR RANOTO: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Now do you confirm the contents of your application form?

MR RANOTO: Yes I do.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that will be the evidence I intend leading at this point, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Mr Mapoma, do you have any questions to ask?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. Judge de Jager, do you have any questions to ask?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is he also confirming the information on page 9?

MR KOOPEDI: That is correct, Chairperson, this information was derived from him and he confirms that.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Koopedi, has your client confirmed that he has indeed been granted indemnity in this matter, I'm not sure?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, he was given indemnity in 1990.

ADV BOSMAN: Has he confirmed that?

MR KOOPEDI: Maybe let me lead him through that?

ADV BOSMAN: Just to confirm.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Just to confirm.

Mr Ranoto, is it correct that you were arrested and sentenced to 12 years for this incident, the subject of this application and that you were subsequently indemnified in 1990?

MADIMECHA FRANS RANOTO: (s.u.o.) That's positive.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ranoto, the Committee will in due course give it's decision in this matter so the decision is reserved. You may stand down.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, may I at this very moment call Mr Nkuna whom I also represent. I believe his application is ready to be heard?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you may do so.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What language will he speak?

MR KOOPEDI: He prefers to speak Swazi, Chairperson.

SIBONGESO JOHN NKUNA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Nkuna, is it correct that you are an applicant in this matter?

MR NKUNA: Yes that is true.

MR KOOPEDI: And that you are applying for an incident involved in the killing of one Samuel Mpapani at Umbuzeni in June 1986?

MR NKUNA: That is true.

MR KOOPEDI: Now during this time were you a member of a political organisation?

MR NKUNA: Yes that is true.

MR KOOPEDI: What organisation was that?

MR NKUNA: African National Congress.

MR KOOPEDI: Were you also a member of the MK, uMkhonto weSizwe?

MR NKUNA: Yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Now could you briefly tell this Committee what happened to Mr Mpapani, why was he killed?

MR NKUNA: Mr Mpapani, it so happened one day my commander by the name of Mike called me together with Temba and asked us if we were aware about the fact that the people of Umbuzeni are complaining about this person that he is harassing the community as well and the community is highly harassed because of that and we responded to him and told him that we are quite aware but not fully so and then he said maybe a plan must be derived that he gets eliminated. As to how to eliminate him, it's up to us and we sat down and thought about this and figured if we could use the firearm, we felt that if we could be using the firearm it may be quite a problem because of the ammunition but then it so happened one day at about half past ten in the morning, we gathered together, myself, Temba, Frans, Kaiser as well as Brix and Nigel. It was around half past nine and we decided to go to his house because he had started running around because he was aware that we were looking for him. We went to his house, we did not find him there and we went to stand by the corner of his house and started to discuss with one another but there and then we saw him, he had sugar cane in his possession coming from the open veld and we were standing there and he went into his house but then I suspected that he did not quite feel at ease because he opened the window and took a look where we were standing and we felt that if we approach him direct he is going to run away and then we decided to divide ourselves into groups of twos and pretend as if we were dispersing or we are leaving but that was not true, we were still having a plan of attacking him and we decided the first two shall march in and in case he wants to run away then we'll all approach at once.

Well, when we were approaching his house he got out and as he was out he went towards the middle of us and he had in his possession a revolver. He tried to escape then we formed a circle surrounding him, in other words he was in the centre of the circle we formed. He first shot, fired the first shot. I don't know whether he was shooting at us or he was shooting in the air and the second time around he shot again but then we were running at the time, now started running and he continued shooting and we discovered that he had run out of ammunition now and we reached towards him and we held him but he was resisting but we captured him finally and we took him with towards the sugar can plantation and we left the three other comrades behind. Now it was myself, Temba and Toby, Frans Makagolo that is, because we had told Frans that he shall go and get tyres and petrol.

The guy we'd captured, we went back to his house where we found his wife and we felt that we were not quite at ease because she might notify the police but then we went to reassure her that we are still having conversation with her husband so that she should not worry, she must just relax, nothing will happen to her husband and then when we went back now to where we had left the other crowd we found that the tyre was already there and the petrol. Now we only had one tyre, then he could only get one. When we asked him why he did not get others then he had to go back now, that is Toby to go get four or five more tyres in addition to the one and indeed they brought five, now we had six in number.

When we got there Temba started putting the tyres around him so that he would not be recognised because all the tyres, we stacked the tyres one on top of the other in other words and doused him with petrol and I wanted to set him alight but my comrade, the other comrade, did before I could do that and he burnt to ashes, he could not be recognised thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is the other comrade who set him alight whilst you were attempting to do so?

MR NKUNA: Frans Makakula is the name.

MR KOOPEDI: Now after burning him did you disperse or did you wait for the fire to burn itself out?

MR NKUNA: We did not leave immediately but we waited for some time to see the end because the way we had packed the tyres, I think we only had three, first and after he was - during the time when the fire was on and he was in flames we added three more.

MR KOOPEDI: Were you arrested for this incident?

MR NKUNA: No.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. What would you say would have been the political motive for attacking and killing Mr Mpapani?

MR NKUNA: You see Umbuzini is the area that brings together Mozambique and Swaziland and in other words it's between the two countries. Now that road was quite often used by the MK when they would want to gain entry to the country and the KwaZulu Natal region as well. Even the MK members who will come as far as Jo'burg will use the same road to gain entry to the country so that that area was quite important to the MK because that was their means of entering the country. Now there will be soldiers placed in Umbuzini in that area to patrol around and harass the comrades and identify the safe houses as well of the MK. That now was eliminating or decreasing the chances of MK to act as fast as they would like to so that was too restricting for the MK route to be left alone and to be open, to be freely used by the MK. It was appropriate that this be done.

MR KOOPEDI: Now did you gain anything personally, that is perhaps financially or materially, were you paid for having taken part in this operation?

MR NKUNA: No, no it was just struggle altogether, pure and pure.

MR KOOPEDI: Now is there anything that you've not told this Honourable Committee, do you believe that you have complied with the requirement of full disclosure?

MR NKUNA: I think I have disclosed everything to this Commission.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, this will be the evidence from this applicant then.

JUDGE DE JAGER: It's not quite clear, what did Mr Mpapani do to obstruct the ANC or the comrades from entering the country?

MR NKUNA: Well Mr Mpapani was an informer and was a link of the Umbuzeni army to identify the comrades as well as their homes or residential places.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And was he staying within the Republic or in Swaziland or in Mozambique?

MR NKUNA: Yes, here in the Republic.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And where you killed him was in the Republic of South Africa?

MR NKUNA: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you yourself investigate whether he in fact was an informer or did you only act on the instructions of your commander?

MR NKUNA: Sometimes that might be difficult to do because that was an instruction we got from our commander.

CHAIRPERSON: What my colleague is trying to find out is that whether you would question that instruction?

MR NKUNA: Well as I have said earlier on that when he asked as to whether we had heard already that he was an informer then we replied or responded by way of saying yes we'd already heard a bit of that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And do you perhaps know what happened to his wife and did he have children? What happened to them?

MR NKUNA: No I have no idea because after that I was not able to operate within, I had left the country for Angola.

JUDGE DE JAGER: On your evidence he had a wife because you spoke to her?

MR NKUNA: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And as far as you know was this family permanently staying in this vicinity?

MR NKUNA: Yes they were residing together there in one house at that place.

CHAIRPERSON: The wife has given a statement to the police. It says amongst the people she could recognise was one Sikukuza Johnson Nkomomo and Nadibani and Lukas Sono. Do you know those people?

MR NKUNA: Yes I know them by sight.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they amongst the group that went to this house?

MR NKUNA: No, they were not present.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mapoma?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Chairperson, may I?

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, before you do, could Advocate Bosman ask something?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Nkuna, your comrades who assisted you that day, do you know what has become of them?

MR NKUNA: As for Frans Makakula, subsequently died in the shootout of the South African Defence Force when he was coming back in 1989. Kaiser Nato, Temba as well as Brix would meet during meetings. Force Mazabuko will send such people if there will be any instruction that he needs for us to receive.

ADV BOSMAN: I don't know whether I quite got that right, are they still alive as far as you know?

MR NKUNA: I think so but I'm not quite sure because I did not know them quite well except knowing them by sight.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, before I ask some questions from the applicant I would like the Committee to - I would request the Committee to grant me an indulgence of adjourning this matter for about 15 minutes because there are a number of issues I want to converse with office in Cape Town and find out especially about the victims and the efforts that have made to trace the victims and there are also other issues I would like to find out.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes I see here a copy of a notice but it seems to be the standard notice, on page 28, I don't know whether that was published?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, that's one of the things that I want to get clarified because this doesn't seem to be proved that this was publicised, perhaps they can give ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: And if perhaps they tell you it was publicised could they fax through the page of the advertisement so that we could see what the date and when it appeared and which newspaper?

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what I need is the whole tear sheet, not just the advert, the whole tear sheet.

MR MAPOMA: Yes. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll grant you that indulgence for 15 minutes. I hope you have no objection to that Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: I don't have, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We shall adjourn for 15 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: We acceded to Mr Mapoma's request for a short adjournment to find some information from our Cape Town office. How far have you got with that Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, thank you for the indulgence. I have communicated with Cape Town, the evidence analyst together with our media officer, Adile Peers. She has confirmed to me that they have advertised in the Sowetan Newspaper. I have got a copy of the advert, the sheet of the advertisement from the Sowetan.

CHAIRPERSON: You may approach so that I may have a look at it. Mr Mapoma, if you have a look at page 28 and the advert faxed to you it doesn't tell us much, we are still in the same position, because what would assist is to give us a tear sheet as I requested because we have no indication on which day this was publicised.

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, I mind find out that so long but they informed me that that advert appeared on the 12th November in the Sowetan and also appeared on the newspaper called Positive Vision on the 26th November and that it was also broadcast in the CDC satellite broadcast which is an SABC community radio on the 17th November and also on the Katlerus Community Radio on the 17th November.

CHAIRPERSON: I must with regard to the Sowetan advert express my displeasure. Only last week we asked for similar information. We were told that the advert appeared on the 19th November and on the 23rd I read the Sowetan, the advert appeared on that day so it's very unsatisfactory. We need a tear sheet of that advert. I am unable to go on the trust I had with those people.

MR MAPOMA: Well I will take the matter up with them.

CHAIRPERSON: The whole tear sheet of that paper, the page number, everything on that. I do not want to rely on verbal communication any more because we get the flack from the victims. This has been our experience, we are not difficult but we want proof, actual proof because this is just a condensed form of what appears on page 28. We will afford you, we'd rather take a tea break now and reconvene at eleven so that we get the full tear sheet. We shall adjourn until eleven.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And you've told us that it was broadcast on the radio Katlerus. Could anybody hear this radio down at Umbuzini?

MR MAPOMA: I don't know Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Because it's right on the border, it would be no use advertising in Cape Town for an incident that happened on the border of Swaziland? I think for future reference at least they should pay attention to the fact that they should try and reach the people in the vicinity of where the incident happened?

MR MAPOMA: Yes I appreciate that as well, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will adjourn until eleven to afford Mr Mapoma further an opportunity to communicate with Cape Town further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we had adjourned to sort out a few problems with Cape Town and apparently they have been sorted out. I wish on behalf of the Committee, the Panel that is sitting hearing these matters, to apologise to everybody that we should have taken, having taken an hour sorting out the problem. Please forgive us, we had to do what we did.

Mr Mapoma, what is the position now?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, there is proof now of an advertisement of a notice to the victims. It appears on the Sowetan dated 10th November 1999, Wednesday is the day and it appears on page 6. I propose, Chairperson, to hand up the copy of the advert.

CHAIRPERSON: You may approach us. Thank you Mr Mapoma, it complies with the rules that sufficient notice has been given in this instance. You were to hereafter cross-examine. Are you in a position to proceed with your cross-examination?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You may do so.

Mr Nkuna, you have said to this Committee that your commander told you that the deceased was harassing the community, do you recall that?

SIBONGESA JOHN NKUNA: (s.u.o.) No, I did not say he was harassing but he was an informer of the soldiers who were in turn harassing the community, that's what I meant to say and that's what I think I said.

MR MAPOMA: Are you saying now it was not the deceased who was actually harassing the community? That's not what you were told by your commander?

MR NKUNA: The commander approached me and asked me as to whether we were aware about the fact that Mr Mpapani is working hand in glove with the boers, the SADF, because it had been so heard by the people that the soldiers come and harass the comrades and harass the community at large so that there will not be any free political activities and I therefore in turn responded and said I have heard a bit of that, that he issued that order. That's exactly what happened.

MR MAPOMA: How did he say he was working hand in glove with the SADF?

MR NKUNA: I think being an informer does explain the whole situation so that I won't indulge into details of how an informer would be working but it's suffice to say that he was an informer.

MR MAPOMA: And you said you were with Temba when the commander gave you the order? Who is Temba, what are his full names?

MR NKUNA: Well I know Temba as Temba but Force will always send Temba to talk to me or will have a meeting with Temba as well as Force those days.

MR MAPOMA: I suppose you were a resident at Umbuzini, weren't you?

MR NKUNA: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: You were born and bred there, is that correct?

MR NKUNA: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: And Temba as well, isn't that so?

MR NKUNA: No.

MR MAPOMA: What was the position with Temba?

MR NKUNA: As I have said we would only get together due to work of the ANC and Force introduced me to him and sometimes Temba will be the one who will come to me together with Kaiser or somebody else but we'll only meet purely on work basis.

MR MAPOMA: Where did Force reside?

MR NKUNA: In 1986 I knew him as Force Mazabuko but in 1996 I discovered that he was residing somewhere in Waterfall Boven.

MR MAPOMA: During the time of this incident where did Force reside?

MR NKUNA: Force was a member of MK as well as a commander so that as a member of MK one will not know specifically your residence, you will not be known as to exactly you reside.

MR MAPOMA: I see. Temba, was he an MK member as well?

MR NKUNA: As I said earlier on that he was introduced by Force to me as Comrade Temba and he would never explain much after that except to say that I will be working with him often times than not.

MR MAPOMA: So you were the MK underground operatives in Umbuzini I suppose, is that correct?

MR NKUNA: Yes that is so.

MR MAPOMA: Were you trained already as a soldier?

MR NKUNA: Yes that is so, we had a few crash courses where it will go and last for as long as three weeks or so and then we'll come back.

MR MAPOMA: Where were you trained?

MR NKUNA: In Maputo.

MR MAPOMA: And I suppose you are not the only one who received that crash course from Umbuzini, am I correct?

MR NKUNA: Well we were two of us when we were taken for a crash course.

MR MAPOMA: And who was the other one?

MR NKUNA: It was Frans Makakula.

MR MAPOMA: What about Kaiser?

MR NKUNA: Well as I had explained earlier on that Kaiser, Brix and Temba and Nato, I knew them by sight when we will be involved in a certain task but not to say that I knew them that much or deeper than that.

MR MAPOMA: So are you saying Kaiser, Brix and Nato and together with Temba and your commander were not Umbuzini residents?

MR NKUNA: Yes I'm agreeing with you.

MR MAPOMA: And where is Frans now?

MR NKUNA: Well as I indicated in my statement he died in a shootout in 1989.

MR MAPOMA: As MK operatives operating inside the country I suppose you had arms, is it not so?

MR NKUNA: Yes we did have Makarovs but Temba and them will always be in the possession of such.

MR MAPOMA: Yes and your commander said you must eliminate the deceased and it was up to you to decide how to eliminate him. That's what you said, correct?

MR NKUNA: Yes that is so.

MR MAPOMA: Now why did you choose to kill him by necklacing him instead of shooting him to death. Why did you have to burn him to ashes?

MR NKUNA: As I had alluded earlier to the fact that we went in hunt or in search of him often times during the night time and we realised that if we had to shoot during daylight then that will alarm and alert people around so if we were able to get hold of him at night we would have been able to shoot him but then since this happened during the day the only way to do it, the only quiet and silent way to do it was to burn him and set him alight.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But he wasn't killed in a silent way, was he?

MR NKUNA: Yes, the way I view it, I think that was more silent as compared to the use of a firearm.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But he himself fired six shots or many shots so the whole vicinity's attention was drawn to this kidnapping of his before he was burnt?

MR NKUNA: Well, when I refer to the silent way of killing him I am referring now to the plan of killing him. We did not know that he had a firearm in his possession, we had no option because this is the way we had decided to adopt and execute ...(inaudible)

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) as a soldier, that was not the method the soldiers used?

MR NKUNA: Well that is true, it's quite brutal but when I look at death, one is not able to tell the difference as to which better way of killing or dying but at the end one dies. As to how you do it that may pose a problem. You can't really stand and say this is man I want to kill but I want to do it in a better way or I want to kill him better, that one cannot get to, that's where one cannot get to because at the end one will die.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Sir.

Now before you put tyres to him to burn did you assault him?

MR NKUNA: No, we just had a minor altercation with him because he was resisting until finally we got hold of him or we captured him to where we wanted him to be.

MR MAPOMA: When you went to attack - I mean to get hold of him?

CHAIRPERSON: Please, please, could everybody switch their cell off and the one who is having the cell phone go out of the room please?

MR MAPOMA: When you went in search of him were you armed?

MR NKUNA: I don't know which time are you referring to, do you mean during the day or at night?

MR MAPOMA: At night when you went to get him, at night?

MR NKUNA: Yes we would be well armed.

MR MAPOMA: With what?

MR NKUNA: With Makarov.

MR MAPOMA: All of you?

MR NKUNA: Not all of us. Sometimes we will find we only have two.

MR MAPOMA: Yes now when he shot at you, you had your firearms as well, am I correct?

MR KOOPEDI: Correction Chairperson, there's no evidence that the victim shot at them. I remember the evidence succinctly to say he was shooting, I don't know where he was shooting.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes that's correct.

MR MAPOMA: When he was shooting were you armed?

MR NKUNA: No we were not.

MR MAPOMA: When you eventually overpowered him why did you not take the firearm from him and silencing him with it rather than burning him?

MR NKUNA: The reason why the shooting ceased is because he only had two bullets so he had already exhausted his stock.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: Now were you not having anything armed with during the time when you captured him?

Well at first we did not know whether he was in the house or not. We were just patrolling, taking a chance to see if he is around or what. It's not that we were now going to execute the plan but once we found out that he was there we decided no that this was the chance to make or utilise, then it was sort of a spontaneous act that we took.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, were you armed?

MR NKUNA: No. No.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But you'd sent I think Frans back home to go and fetch a tyre and petrol, couldn't he bring a gun or a Makarov?

MR NKUNA: May you please repeat the last part of your question?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Couldn't he, being sent home to get tyres, couldn't he pick up a Makarov at home and bring it with him?

MR NKUNA: Well the Makarov was not in the house or at home so we would not send him for a Makarov when we knew very well it wasn't there.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Where was the Makarov or the Makarovs at that stage?

MR NKUNA: As I explained that we would have two Makarovs usually. Temba would be in a possession of one or Kaiser or Brix. Only four of them will exchange with those Makarovs but we did not have, as for us, we did not have the Makarovs that we kept.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But Temba and Brix accompanied you on that day?

MR MAPOMA: Yes they did.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Sir.

So is it your evidence that you killed, you burned him whilst he was alive?

MR NKUNA: Yes.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, before you re-examine I think you should do it holistically. I would allow Members of the Panel to pose questions that when you re-examine you should just have one opportunity to do so, is that okay with you?

MR KOOPEDI: That's okay and at this stage I have nothing for re-examination, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) after the Panel has?

MR KOOPEDI: Most probably so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Nkuna, you say you were born and bred in Umbuzini?

MR NKUNA: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: And the deceased?

MR NKUNA: Well he was already there I don't know whether he was born there but as I was growing up he was already there.

ADV BOSMAN: For how long had he more or less been there can you put an estimate to it? Years?

MR NKUNA: I will say years.

ADV BOSMAN: So you must have known him well?

MR NKUNA: Not well because you will not say you know people well that you see around but the fact still remains that I knew him but I cannot vouch to the fact that I knew him quite well.

CHAIRPERSON: If I may interject before just to follow up on your question?

When you went for the crash course in Maputo, was he already at Umbuzini?

MR NKUNA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And approximately when did you go for this crash course?

MR NKUNA: It was 1983.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may continue Advocate Bosman.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Nkuna, as an MK operative did you not sort of familiarise yourself with the political affiliations of people?

MR NKUNA: In actual fact in 1983 until 1986 all the political parties at the place were not in exile so the soldiers and the ANC were the ones now who rivalled to each other and who were enemies so to speak for the want of a better word.

ADV BOSMAN: But the acts that you're applying for as I have it were committed between August 1991 and 1996? It wasn't committed in the 80's but it was after the ANC had been unbanned that this was committed, is it not?

MR NKUNA: I think that question had been cleared because it was a mistake but if you further page to - or go back to page 12.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Question 9?

ADV BOSMAN: Yes but it says between '86 and 1994, I don't think we have a date of the actual commission of this offence, can you put a date to it?

MR NKUNA: Well I'm not in a position to quite recall the date but if I take a wild guess it will be 17th June 1986.

ADV BOSMAN: '86?

MR NKUNA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Question 2 page 11 you say during 1986?

MR KOOPEDI: It's also evident on page 20 where there is a statement by Mrs Mpapani.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, I missed that. I apologise for that. Then there's one other matter that I would like to clear up is you say you wanted to kill him in a quiet way? Why did you not knock him unconscious first so that he couldn't scream or make a noise?

MR NKUNA: I think if we're in here gathered in this house and one of us is given a choice or all of us rather is given a choice to kill in a silent way I'm sure all of us will come up with different ways. It does not, you know the fact that to me it means it's quiet or silent does not necessarily go the same way for the next person. What is quiet to me may not be necessarily so with another person.

ADV BOSMAN: What I'm getting at Mr Nkuna is I understood you to mean that you did not want to attract attention to this killing, is that correct?

MR NKUNA: Well yes, this is why I'm saying if we were to give those tasks to many people they won't come up with one they'll come up with different ways so that it was our way that we thought or we deemed fit for us to undertake and we thought it was silent, to us.

ADV BOSMAN: Let me just come back to my question, am I understanding correct that you did not want to attract attention to the killing?

MR NKUNA: Well his killing or the fact that we would have killed him it would have been known but what we were trying to avoid here was the noise that may erupt during the act itself, the act of killing so to speak.

ADV BOSMAN: Now didn't he scream out loud when you set him alight because he was alive and conscious?

MR NKUNA: Well he did.

ADV BOSMAN: And then I think if I correctly call that you said that you asked for more tyres, you asked Frans to fetch more, there was only one, is that correct?

MR NKUNA: Yes that was before we started the act of burning him. I figured we had not enough tyres, we needed to augment the tyres.

ADV BOSMAN: Why is this, wouldn't have one tyre had the same effect?

MR NKUNA: Well yes, but sometimes if you want to do something for a long time and you never got that opportunity and once you get that opportunity you really want to utilise that opportunity to it's fullest.

ADV BOSMAN: Now the tyre, when you set the tyre alight it causes a lot of smoke from my knowledge, is that correct?

MR NKUNA: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Now six tyres would have caused - now excuse my language, but a hell of a lot of smoke?

MR NKUNA: Well yes indeed that was the case.

ADV BOSMAN: Did that not attract attention?

MR NKUNA: Well as I said that we took him away from the neighbourhood, we took him outskirts although there was attention but they would not have been able to tell as to what was happening or going on. By the time they get there we will be long done with the task as opposed to the firearm, it would have caught more attention and disturbed us in the act.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes thank you. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you ma'am. Judge de Jager?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Have you seen Force Masabuka since recently or since afterwards, after that incident?

MR NKUNA: Yes we saw each other in 1996, he came in 1996 to the office. In 1996 and 1997. Those were the two times we saw each other.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And was he still working with municipality at Witbank or Middleburg or where was it?

MR NKUNA: In 1996 he was unemployed as well as in 1997 but when we met for the last time I heard that he got a job in that place in the municipality.

JUDGE DE JAGER: A traffic officer at Witbank Municipality?

MR NKUNA: Yes that is the information I gather subsequently.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a follow up on questions asked by my colleagues, you said you took him away from the neighbourhood. Where did you take him to?

MR NKUNA: Before we captured him he had already run for quite a distance approximately two to three kilometres and the direction he was taking it was leading towards the veld. Now there was a fence surrounding some plantation of some kind and we captured him finally in the bushy area.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you originally planned that you would kill him and do so in a quiet way. Did you anticipate that you would meet him during the day?

MR NKUNA: No, that did not cross our minds, we didn't think about that but we wanted to monitor his moves during the day as to how we can be able to get hold of him at night so that the attitude we adopted of killing him in a silent way then happened but when we were there and unarmed then this happened and we decided to take that option.

CHAIRPERSON: Now since you knew where he lived because you encountered him at a house what made you think this is the only opportunity you have or did he know that you were after him?

MR NKUNA: Well the way, by the look of things, it appeared as if he was aware of something because we came three or four times at night and he will not be there and we will wait until he comes back but he will not come back until dawn so that gave us some bit of suspicion that he's quite aware that something is amiss.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Koopedi, any re-examination from questions arising from Members of the Committee?

MR KOOPEDI: No re-examination, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That concludes the evidence of Mr Nkuna.

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, that concludes his evidence and we intend calling no other witness Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Nkuna, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, are you calling anybody?

MR MAPOMA: No further evidence Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You also close your case?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready to argue?

MR KOOPEDI: A brief submission, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed.

MR KOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: Thank you. Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, this applicant who has just appeared before you and who has participated in this killing, has on his own, the correct term would be mero motu, mero motu came before the Amnesty Committee. He was never arrested for this offence, he was never suspected of having committed the offence but on his own made this application. He did not choose to play a minor role for you, that is when he gave evidence, he fully disclosed what his role was and I wish to draw this Honourable Committee's attention to the fact that the deceased, according to the evidence we have, was suspected to have been operating and even assisting the SADF in thwarting political activity in the Umbuzini area. From the evidence given by this applicant this was a very strategic place for his political organisation to use as a route and perhaps to even conduct political activity.

This applicant without really having confirmed whether the deceased was a police collaborator or not, he had an order, he received an order from his commander and this order, him and his co-perpetrators adhered to the order and went ahead to eliminate the deceased. It appears clear from his evidence that firearms were not a luxury if one can say so, were not in abundance in this unit. They just did not freely own or have firearms with which perhaps this mission could have been executed. It is also clear that the commander gave them what one would call a carte blanche, a free will of how to go about killing this person and they went ahead and did that.

It is my submission, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, that the attack was clearly motivated whether or not the deceased was collaborating with the South African Police or the Defence Force but the action was clearly politically motivated.

It's also my submission that from the evidence it is clear that this applicant did not received anything financially or materially for having participated in this operation.

And finally I submit, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, that this applicant has fully disclosed all the relevant facts in this matter and it is on those bases that I would humbly ask you to grant him amnesty. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything arising from the submissions Judge?

JUDGE DE JAGER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything arising out of the submissions made by Koopedi, you may proceed?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Koopedi, what do you say about the issue of proportionality and the manner in which this elimination took place which is particularly gruesome I think you would admit on the facts?

MR KOOPEDI: Well perhaps one did not address the question of proportionality because I thought there wasn't a need to in that there was no real evidence in terms of how and what did the deceased do but if one is to argue on behalf of this applicant, one would say the harm that was caused by informers in the area, the thwarting of the political activity, evidence was given to you that MK cadres who would come to the Transvaal, that is Eastern Transvaal, Central Transvaal, the KwaZulu Natal area, used that place as a route and in my mind that was a very important and strategic place to use and the manner in which MK people were being killed and massacred by the soldiers is common cause and I believe therefore that anyone associated with the SADF personnel, this person would be killed most probably in the most brutal way without anyone considering whether the matter was brutal but to go on further, I think that there was an order that this person be killed and I therefore would have a problem in trying to say there was a proportional way of killing this person, you know, as to whether he is being eliminated by being shot at or by being banned and like I said earlier in the address that the applicant and his co-perpetrators were given a free will as to how to go about it.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mapoma any submissions?

MR MAPOMA: I have no submissions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Koopedi, the Panel reserves it's judgment or decision in this matter and it shall be communicated shortly.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we proceed with the next applicant, Blose, I believe in the first one there are developments that is Mutle and Mfusa. Who is privy to this information?

MR KOOPEDI: Well I believe I am part of those who are privy to the information. Chairperson, I would appear in this matter on behalf of the other applicant, Mutle. My instructions at this stage are to withdraw his application in that he is no longer proceeding with his application.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he present?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes he is present, Chairperson, perhaps I could ask that he be called forward?

CHAIRPERSON: May he please come forward?

MR KOOPEDI: Well at last count he was present, Chairperson, I don't know what has since happened to him but he was present.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Mutle present? We will take your word for it.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: This matter is formally withdrawn and the application as well withdrawn and we shall advise Cape Town accordingly that this matter should be closed. What about Mfusa?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I had an occasion to consult with Mfusa regarding his application and his intention and he has indicated to me that he is withdrawing his application.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he present?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, he is present. I'm not sure now but the last time I spoke to him he was here.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr P Mfusa, are you here? May you come forward please? Could you take a seat over there just next to Mr Koopedi? Put on the mike so that you could hear what we are saying.

The Committee is advised by Mr Mapoma that he consulted with you and at this juncture you wish to withdraw your application. Do you confirm that?

MR MFUSA: Yes that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you leave Mr Motloung, I know you appear on behalf of the victims, you cannot say much about this, can you?

MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, I obviously wouldn't have much to say but for the sake of completeness of the record can I ask that I put my name on record that I was here and I appeared for the victims?

CHAIRPERSON: You may do so.

MR MOTLOUNG: Yes, my name is Ike Motloung and I was appearing for all the victims. That's all.

JUDGE DE JAGER: How many of them? Approximately?

MR MOTLOUNG: It's about 30 of which about 20 I would estimate were present.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I see and you've seen them this morning?

MR MOTLOUNG: Yes I did consult with them.

JUDGE DE JAGER: This morning?

MR MOTLOUNG: That is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mfusa, your application is withdrawn and no further advises would be conducted towards you, it would just be closed. Do you understand us? No, no, it doesn't go on record nodding head, that machine is not that sensitive.

MR MFUSA: Yes I do hear you very well.

CHAIRPERSON: We thank you very much. You may stand down.

Mr Motloung, since we're involved in the matter of Mutle and Mfusa in respect of victims I don't think you have any further business in this hearing.

MR MOTLOUNG: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, I was merely trying to verify with my Evidence Leader here if another matter that according to my information was supposed to be on the roll is in fact on the roll. I have been reliably informed by him this morning that the victim in that particular matter insisted that the TRC has to furnish him with a particular lawyer of his choice and I was saying if the matter was indeed on the roll, could it called so that I could also be excused from that particular matter? It seems to be suggesting the matter is in fact not on the roll?

CHAIRPERSON: Would you confirm that Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: I confirm that Chairperson, the matter has been removed from the roll.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose on the next occasion Mr Motloung you would advised so that we withdraw formally because you have to close your file as well?

MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We shall excuse you from further participation in this hearing. Have a good afternoon.

MR MOTLOUNG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, on the other side we're ready to proceed with the next applicant Mr Sipho Peter Blose.

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst you are organising that Mr Koopedi we'll just adjourn for five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we shall now proceed with the application of Blose.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. My name is Brian Koopedi, I appear for the applicant, Mr Sipho Peter Blose.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, I'm Zuko Mapoma, the Evidence Leader. Chairperson, before we proceed with this matter I would like to bring to the attention of the Committee that the victims have not been located in this matter. The TRC issued a notice by way of an advert in the Sowetan newspaper. I have got with me a copy of the advert.

CHAIRPERSON: When was it advertised?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, from the copy of this advert I am told it's handwritten indicating that it was advertised on the 10th November 1999. I propose to hand up the copy of the advert.

CHAIRPERSON: You may do so Mr Mapoma.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Vuyani Mbekle was the person according to the information before us who actually killed the deceased. Do you know whether he could be traced or given notice of the application?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, according to the information which appears on the application papers Vuyani Mbekle is reported to have himself died.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Oh, I didn't pick that one up.

CHAIRPERSON: It's in the further statement where they are asking for further particulars.

MR MAPOMA: Page 11, paragraph 1.1.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Oh, thank you. Oh I see, ended his life.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma we see that it was indeed advertised in the Sowetan but we must again and now probably vociferously express our displeasure because if we don't get dates appearing on the advert and that being handwritten, does not comply with the Act that has empowered us to hear these applications and specifically Section 19.4 enjoins us to do that because the victims must know and it should be future practise that we had all that and it should be given to the Evidence Leader prior to leaving Cape Town coming to a hearing. We know exactly if there is publication, we must have the whole tear sheet and please convey that to whoever is responsible, either the media office or the evidence analysts because we cannot continue with such unsatisfactory or sloppy work that now emanates from our offices.

MR MAPOMA: As the Chairperson pleases, I appreciate that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi, before you do? What language does Mr Blose speak?

MR KOOPEDI: Zulu.

SIPHO PETER BLOSE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Blose is it correct that you are an applicant in this matter?

MR BLOSE: Yes it's correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Is it also correct that this matter involves the killing of one Thomas Motobi around 1987?

MR BLOSE: Yes that is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now during this time were you a member of any political organisation?

MR BLOSE: Yes indeed I was a member of the ANC and it's armed wing uMkhonto weSizwe.

MR KOOPEDI: And where were you based around 1987?

MR BLOSE: I was based inside the country but on occasion I would go to Botswana, Angola and come back again.

MR KOOPEDI: Were you a member of any unit?

MR BLOSE: Yes I was actually commanding the Hector Pieterse Unit which was operating inside South Africa.

MR KOOPEDI: What would your unit do?

MR BLOSE: We were mainly responsible for gathering intelligence on enemy targets, installation, personnel and apart from that we were also responsible for collecting military information, strategic military information and also some propaganda work was done by the unit.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, now let's go to Mr Thomas Motobi the deceased in this matter. Did you know this person?

MR BLOSE: Well I knew the person because he was actually the bodyguard of the then ANC President, Oliver Tambo, at a certain stage.

MR KOOPEDI: At a certain stage. Now around 1987 do you know where this person was, Mr Motobi and what he was doing if you did know where he was?

MR BLOSE: Around 1987 he had actually defected from the movement. He was then operating inside South Africa working in cahoots with the security forces and therefore that was confirmed by our own investigation underground.

MR KOOPEDI: I've seen your application form or rather the statement you submitted to the Amnesty Committee, you referred to him as an askari?

MR BLOSE: Yes indeed he was.

MR KOOPEDI: Was he carrying out any activities to your knowledge, askari activities inside the country?

MR BLOSE: Yes in terms of our own investigation and our findings, the subject concerned was actually involved in so many activities. One would be that he was normally seen around the borders of South African border between Botswana and South Africa and I think his main role there was to identify MK members who were coming into the country and he was also very active inside South Africa around the Soweto area which made our work quite difficult in a sense that around that time many units which were operating in the country were either arrested or they were actually drawn into a situation whereby there could be crossfire with the police.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay you say in your application form, that is page 2, Chairperson, paragraph 9(a)i, you say that you gave an order that this person Motobi should be killed, Mr Thomas Motobi?

MR BLOSE: Yes I did.

MR KOOPEDI: And you also say you gave the order to Vuyani Mabekli?

MR BLOSE: Yes I did.

MR KOOPEDI: Was there any other person who was with you or did you give this order to any other person?

MR BLOSE: No, not at all. That was mainly to avoid the leakage of information and also to protect the operation so everything was compartmentalised.

MR KOOPEDI: So only you and Vuyani would have been involved in the killing of Thomas Motobi?

MR BLOSE: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay well can you briefly tell this Honourable Committee the precise terms of your order to Vuyani?

MR BLOSE: I received an order from my command which was at that stage based in the front line States, Botswana, that's where I reported on a regular basis on every activity that I was actually involved in the country. I got an order from my commander who is also late now, he passed away in 1991. I then, within the same token, gave an order to Vuyani Mabekli

to eliminate the subject, Mr Matobi, following the proof that we had, I mean that collected around his activities as an askari.

MR KOOPEDI: Now did you tell Vuyani how to kill Mr Matobi?

MR BLOSE: Not at all because at that stage we were armed, I mean we were fully trained and armed so I think it was quite logical that we're going to use firearms to eliminate.

MR KOOPEDI: Now when Mr Matobi was killed were you present?

MR BLOSE: No, no I was not present at that stage, I was outside the country. I only got a briefing as soon as I was inside the country.

MR KOOPEDI: By a briefing you mean you got a report that in fact this killing did take place?

MR BLOSE: Indeed.

MR KOOPEDI: Who gave you that briefing?

MR BLOSE: It's Mr Mabekli, Vuyani Mabekli.

MR KOOPEDI: Vuyani himself. Now from this killing or from the giving of the order that he should be killed, what would have been the political motive and the objective.

MR BLOSE: The objective, I think as the ANC at that stage were actually haunted by the security forces and I think our work was quite - I mean they made our work quite impossible to some degree. As a result we had to put in place some mechanisms of neutralising the enemy's activities against the movement.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, now were you paid, did you receive anything financially or materially for having given this order?

MR BLOSE: No nothing, it was only a commitment, a political commitment.

MR KOOPEDI: Is there anything you have left out?

MR BLOSE: Not at all.

MR KOOPEDI: Now do you think that you have complied with the requirement of full disclosure, that is you have told this Honourable Committee all what is relevant in this matter?

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't it come from you in leading him whether he has complied with full disclosure, are you saying he must understand the legalities?

MR KOOPEDI: I know he does Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BLOSE: Yes I think I have complied.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, that's the evidence.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And you're also confirming what you've said in this letter?

CHAIRPERSON: Would your commander where you'd received orders before you pass them onto Mabekli be Search?

MR BLOSE: Exactly Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Other than Search because I see it's in inverted commas, do you know his full names?

MR BLOSE: I think I know his surname, he was Mr Pasha, but I'm not sure about his first name.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mapoma, any cross-examination?

MR MAPOMA: Nothing Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I would adopt the same procedure, Mr Koopedi, that if there would be any re-examination afford the Panel to ask questions then you would wrap it up.

MR KOOPEDI: I'm happy with that, Chairperson, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: No questions thank you Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose there wouldn't be any re-examination?

MR KOOPEDI: No re-examination thanks Chairperson. I can say now that we're calling no other witness and that will be the case for the applicant, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you feel like addressing us if there's anything?

MR KOOPEDI: Well the address will be brief, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Because we have accepted the application that it was properly lodged and that's why it was set out for today that we need not hear?

MR KOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: That's right Chairperson. My address will be very brief. Chairperson, the applicant before you here came before the Amnesty Committee on his own. He was never arrested or suspected of having had a hand in the killing of this person. I believe that by so doing he has nothing to hide and I also believe that from his evidence he has said that he has fully disclosed all the relevant factors in this matter. Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, it has also been his evidence that he did not receive any financial gain. It has also been part of his evidence that the deceased in this matter was seen as perhaps a stumbling block and towards the progress and the activities of the liberation movement being MK at that stage. I submit therefore that even though this applicant did not physically do the act and even though this applicant was not even in the country

when this person was killed, I submit that he is a proper applicant in that he should be granted amnesty in that he was involved in the planning and the giving of the order towards the execution of the deceased. And that's it, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions Judge de Jager?

JUDGE DE JAGER: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: No questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Thank you Mr Blose. The Committee reserves it's decision, it will be communicated to Mr Koopedi as soon as we have done so. Mr Mapoma, do we have anything on our roll today?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, that ends the roll for today.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. We have come to the end of the hearings of today. We thank everybody for having come and we must express our gratitude towards the legal representatives towards the assistance they have given in this hearing in analysing the issues. It was very fruitful and we shall adjourn for the day and reconvene tomorrow at nine, did we say Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, that's the normal time.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We adjourn for the day.