--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. For the record, today is Wednesday the 2nd of August 2000. We are continuing with the sitting of the Amnesty Committee at the JISS Centre in Johannesburg. The Panel is constituted as it appears on the record. The first matter to be heard this morning is the amnesty application of Frans Nyoni Mandlazi, amnesty reference number AM5027/97. For the record I am going to ask the legal representatives to put themselves on record. We'll start on behalf of the applicant.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Commissioner. My name is ...(indistinct) Ngobe, the legal representative for the applicant, Mr Frans Mandlazi.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Ngobe. On behalf of the victims?

MR MNISI: On behalf of the victims, they are represented by Mr P C Mnisi of Mnisi Attorneys Incorporated, in Nelspruit.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mnisi. And then Mr Jordaan.

MR JORDAAN: Thank you Chairperson, Koert Jordaan from Groenewald and Jordaan Incorporated, Nelspruit, on behalf of Capt. Shongwe.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: I am Lulama Mtanga, the Evidence Leader for the Commission. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Mtanga. Mr Ngobe, is there anything that you want to put on record, or do you want to proceed to present the evidence of your client because ...

MR NGOBE: Mr Chairman, I want to place on record that the original affidavit that we received and the one that was signed by the applicant, we had to make a supplementary affidavit just to add some information that she's going to lead.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that has been placed before us and I assume that the other parties would have copies of it. It's signed on the 26th of July 2000 and for purposes of the record, we'll mark that as Exhibit A. Do you want your client to be sworn in?

MR NGOBE: Yes, he may be sworn in.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Mandlazi just indicate to us if your headset is working, whether you can hear the interpreters.

MR NGOBE: Yes, I can hear.

FRANS NYONI MANDLAZI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Ngobe.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Commissioner.

EXAMINATION BY MR NGOBE: Mr Mandlazi, do you confirm that you are the applicant in this matter?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR NGOBE: Can you tell the Honourable Commission where do you stay?

MR MANDLAZI: I reside at stand 1493 at Matsolosi.

MR NGOBE: Are you presently working?

MR MANDLAZI: No.

MR NGOBE: Where have you been working before?

MR MANDLAZI: I was working at the Military Intelligence in Nelspruit.

MR NGOBE: In which year did you start working for the Military Intelligence?

MR MANDLAZI: I started in 1985. I joined the SADF in 1985 and in 1986 I went to study at the Military Intelligence School in Kimberley.

MR NGOBE: Are you still in the employment of the military?

MR MANDLAZI: No.

MR NGOBE: When did you last work there?

MR MANDLAZI: In July 1994.

MR NGOBE: The affidavit that is before you, which is paginated from page 8 to page number 23. Is this an affidavit that was made and signed by you?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR NGOBE: Do you confirm the contents of this affidavit?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes it is the truth but there are parts that are not completely correct, that is with regards to the death of Portia and Alfred Ndawu, that is on page 12.

MR NGOBE: Well you say there's a problem in the section which refers to Alfred Ndawu and Portia Shabangu, is that right?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR NGOBE: Can you tell the Honourable Commission, clarify what is it that is supposed to be the correct facts in this affidavit, referring to Portia Shabangu and Alfred Ndawu?

MR MANDLAZI: With regards to Portia, we searched for her in 1988 and we received information from the source that she would cross the border into South Africa. We then lay in ambush for her but she was not found on that particular day.

MR NGOBE: You are saying she was supposed to cross the border to South Africa from where?

MR MANDLAZI: From Mozambique. That was the information we received from the source.

MR NGOBE: Who was your source by that time?

MR MANDLAZI: It was Steve Mbuyisa.

MR NGOBE: Did you happen to see Portia on that day on which you were waiting for her?

MR MANDLAZI: No, we did not find her on that particular day.

MR NGOBE: What happened thereafter?

MR MANDLAZI: We remained there until the following morning, upon which time we returned to our base in Komatipoort.

MR NGOBE: Is there something more which you need to clarify for the Commission with reference to Portia Shabangu? Were you involved in any action against, or commission against Portia Shabangu?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I was not involved.

ADV SANDI: For the sake of clarity, then what happened to Portia Shabangu in the end?

MR MANDLAZI: She was on the list of people who were to be killed. I later received information after I had been transferred to another camp, that she had been found and killed.

ADV SANDI: Who gave you that information?

MR MANDLAZI: Captain Lily.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR NGOBE: With regard to Alfred Ndawu, can you clarify for the Commission?

MR MANDLAZI: Mr Ndawu was on the list of the people who were to be killed. We then received information that he had been killed. In fact Capt Lily informed me that he was killed by hanging in Nelspruit.

MR NGOBE: Are you aware that Alfred Ndawu died in 1983. Were you working, or were you engaged with any activities with the Military Intelligence or SADF at that time?

MR MANDLAZI: No, at that time I had not yet joined, but I had information to the effect that such a person had to be killed.

ADV SANDI: Just explain this. You see in 1982 you were told by Capt Lily that Ndawu had been killed. Is that correct?

MR MANDLAZI: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: You were not formally part of the SADF?

MR MANDLAZI: I was informed about him when I was already working at the Military Intelligence in Nelspruit.

ADV SANDI: Okay, thank you.

MR NGOBE: In the affidavit, Mr Mandlazi it appears that you placed yourself on the scene. You mentioned that:

Do you know anything about this? It's page number 22.

MR MANDLAZI: As I've already mentioned that Capt Lily explained to me, what I can say to the Committee is that we were taught at Military Intelligence School on how to conduct a torture session, so then Capt Lily explained to us that if somebody is not forthcoming with the truth, he must be tortured.

MR NGOBE: Mr Mandlazi you have not yet answered my question. My question was, you placed yourself on the scene. Were you involved, or you were not involved?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I did not take part. I think the person who wrote the statement did not write what I had told him.

MR NGOBE: Thank you. Another clarification, may I refer the Honourable Committee on the supplementary affidavit which I need Mr Mandlazi to clarify to the Commission, paragraph 5 ...(intervention)

JUDGE MOTATA: Before you go to number 5, what about this clarification, because you have just said to him he placed himself on the scene, but it goes further that: "We arrested Alfred just a day before I bombed his brother's house. It clearly places you on the scene, that you were involved with Alfred Ndawu.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Commissioner. Can you just clarify on that for the Commission?

MR MANDLAZI: As I've just explained, at that time I was not involved with the SADF, I was not involved with his death and what I know is what I learned from Capt Lily about Alfred's death. It was at his brother's home at which I threw a bomb, but I was not involved with his death.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you bomb the brother's house? Did you do it personally?

MR MANDLAZI: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Mr Ngobe.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just on that. Give us the name of the person who was taking this statement from you.

MR MANDLAZI: It was taken by the secretary of Mr Mabone, who is the Minister of Safety and Security in Nelspruit.

ADV SANDI: In the course of that interview, in what language were you communicating?

MR MANDLAZI: In Zulu.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Chairman. May we proceed to the supplementary affidavit paragraph 5, where I need the applicant to clarify on the question of a reward of R50 000 that was mentioned about a mission to kill Mr ...(indistinct) Modipane. Were you promised a financial award to do anything that you ...(indistinct- background noise)?

MR MANDLAZI: What I can explain, I will say that was classified as a bonus merit, or a merit bonus, not that you'll be paid for carrying out the action.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Commissioner. The points that I wanted to clarify have been clarified and now I'll request the applicant to take the Commission step by step on all activities that he took part while he was in the employment of his former employer. Mr Frans Mandlazi, can you in your own words, take the Commission step by step and reveal everything that you know about your activities?

MR MANDLAZI: I joined the SADF in 1985 at Amsterdam. I did my training, after which I went to the Intelligence School in Kimberley in 1986. After that I returned to Amsterdam at our base. After my return from the Intelligence School in 1986, Brig Otto and Lieut Lily from Nelspruit, Eastern Transvaal Command, arrived at Amsterdam and they took us, there were 26 of us, and we were taken to Nelspruit. On our arrival there, we were informed about our enemies who were ANC, SACP, UDF and APLA as well as Umkhonto weSizwe. It was explained that these were our enemies and as the Military and the Police, we should fight against these. At Nelspruit we were also shown into a board room where there was a list of people who were supposedly our enemies and we were supposed to kill these people. This was said by Capt Lily. The first one was ...(indistinct) Mabusa, who's now and MEC at Nelspruit. The second was Jack Modipane, who is the MEC for Finance in Nelspruit. Parks Mankahlane, the Presidential Spokesman. Joey Nkoena, a member of the UDM, Matthews Phosa, the former Premier of Mpumalanga, Alfred Ndawu, who is now deceased, Steve Mbuyisa, who is an MP in Cape Town, Teddy Culmen, who is a Senior Intelligence Officer in Nelspruit, Willie Siagopela who works with Culmen, Skumbuso Nkosi who is a teacher, Teaspoon Nkosi, who's deceased, Lawrence Moyi, who is working for COSATU in Nelspruit, Sam Sambo, also in COSATU, Sibongile Mabusa who is on Local Government in Nelspruit, Doreen Mafiega, who's also in Local Government in Nelspruit, Violet Moyi who's working at the Women's League office in Nelspruit, Boikana Phiri, Lucky Lobisi, Patrick Mlazi, Luvuno Mlazi, ...(indistinct) Masisela, Jackson Mthembo and Michael Ndawu.

MR NGOBE: You may proceed.

MR MANDLAZI: From that time, there was a hit squad that was formed, the Eastern Transvaal Top 20 Hit Squad. The person in command was Brig Otto, then there was Commandant Ramsley, who was second in command, then there was Col Taljaard, Lieut van Staden, Major Lynn, Adj Walters, SAP, Sgt Venter SAP Nelspruit, von Dama, SAP Nelspruit, Shongwe, SAP Nelspruit, Sgt Shongwe SAP Komatipoort, Patrick Mathebula, SADF, Rifle Mbatha, SADF, Const Vilakazi, CIS Secretary Branch, Nelspruit, Jerry Dlamini, SADF, Alfeus Mondlane, SADF Nelspruit, ...(indistinct) Masego an askari, Sgt Lynn, SAP, CIS Nelspruit, Const Hlope, SAP, CIS Komatipoort, Lucky Sambo, SADF, Major van Jaarsveld, SAP CIS, Nelspruit, Col van Zyl, SAP, Nelspruit, Capt Botha, SAP CIS Nelspruit, de Costa, SAP CIS Nelspruit, Sgt Nyatigazi, SAP CIS Nelspruit, askari Johnny, askari Spencer, myself, Frans Nyoni Mandlazi, SADF Corporal, Corp Steyn, Nelspruit, Corp Alberts, SAP, Corp Potgieter.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Mandlazi. On page number 11 of this affidavit you referred to names of three people as recruited as sources. What do you mean by that? The names of the people appears - Steve Mbuyisa, Josias Maisela and Jongo. What do you mean by the word sources?

MR MANDLAZI: These are the people who supplied us with information and they would be paid for that.

MR NGOBE: What kind of information did you elicit from these people or did they give?

MR MANDLAZI: For example, information regarding Jacks Modipane, as to what portfolio he holds in the ANC.

MR NGOBE: Okay. Can you proceed on page number 13 as it appears here, the question on Jacks Modipane.

ADV SANDI: Just before you proceed, on page 13, did you personally deal with these so-called sources?

MR MANDLAZI: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR MANDLAZI: Our first operation was to kill Mr Jacks Modipane. We received information that Mr Modipane handled funds for people who went into exile to join MK and he was then supposed to be killed. It was the source who supplied that information, that was Steve Mbuyisa. After supplying the information, I and my colleagues went to attack Mr Modipane's home. What I recall is that I threw a hand grenade into the house and the others surrounded the house and they fired shots from AK47 rifles. I still remember vehicles that were used in that attack, their registration numbers were MWD776T, that car was used by Adj Walters from the Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute Mr Mandlazi. In the MWD 776T...

MR NGOBE: It was a Toyota bakkie whose colour was green and stripe blue.

CHAIRPERSON: And what? What did you say?

MR NGOBE: The car was a green colour and it had a blue stripe.

CHAIRPERSON: A blue stripe and who - you said that vehicle was used by who?

MR MANDLAZI: Adj Walters, he was the driver.

CHAIRPERSON: And who did that vehicle belong to? Was it an South African Defence Force vehicle, or what?

MR MANDLAZI: It belonged to the Security Branch in Nelspruit.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, the next vehicle?

MR MANDLAZI: KWJ982T, it was used by myself, it was a 4 x 4 Toyota Hi-Lux, brown in colour.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute. This vehicle, the 4 x 4 brown Toyota Hi-Lux, who did that vehicle belong to?

MR MANDLAZI: It was myself who used it.

CHAIRPERSON: But who did it belong to?

MR MANDLAZI: It belonged to the Military Intelligence.

CHAIRPERSON: Did it belong to the South African Defence Force then, or what?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, the next vehicle?

MR MANDLAZI: It was registration number KWJ981T, it was also a 4 x 4, similar to KWJ982T, it was also brown in colour and that was used by Capt Lily.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it also a Toyota Hi-Lux?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, it was.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry and it was used by?

MR MANDLAZI: It was used by Capt Lily.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that also the property of the South African Defence Force?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The next vehicle?

MR MANDLAZI: The next one was registration number PND305T. It was a Toyota bakkie, a long base. It was green in colour.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose property was it?

MR MANDLAZI: It also belonged to the SADF.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when did this attack on Mr Modipane happen?

MR MANDLAZI: I cannot recall the date.

CHAIRPERSON: Just give us an indication, if you can't remember the exact date.

MR MANDLAZI: Around 1987, or 1988.

CHAIRPERSON: 1987 or 1988.

MR MANDLAZI: If I'm not wrong, it must be 1988.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, were these vehicles in use by your colleagues and yourself for some time prior to this attack on Mr Modipane?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, those were the vehicles that were used by the hit squad.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but for some time prior to 1987/1988?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, we would use those vehicles when carrying out certain attacks, depending on the area that we were going to attack. For instance if the terrain was not good, we would use Casspirs.

CHAIRPERSON: You joined this hit squat in 1986. Were these vehicles then already in use?

MR MANDLAZI: When I arrived, they were there, they were already in the Force in Nelspruit. I would just like the Committee to know that I'm not certain whether these registration numbers really belong to those vehicles, whether those were the correct registration numbers, but those numbers were on those vehicles.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, just one other aspect, whilst we are at this, that I might as well just clarify now. You say on page 13 in your statement that you were going to be given, you were going to be paid a reward of R50 000 for this operation, is that correct?

MR MANDLAZI: The R50 000 that is referred to in the statement was the amount that we would be given as a group if the mission was successfully, sort of a merit bonus.

CHAIRPERSON: But this was decided beforehand? You were told before you embarked on this mission that provided you were successful, you will be paid R50 000 as a group, as a hit squad, would that be correct?

MR MANDLAZI: We were informed that if the mission is successful, we would be given an amount of R50 000.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew when you embarked on this enterprise that if you can kill Mr Modipane, you will get R50 000?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you did it on that basis, on that understanding?

MR MANDLAZI: We did not carry it out for the sake of the R50 000, it was just money that was supposed to be a merit bonus.

CHAIRPERSON: But you knew, before you embarked on this enterprise, you knew you were going to get paid R50 000 if Mr Modipane is killed and you executed this operation on that understanding, or do I misunderstand you?

MR MANDLAZI: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Ngobe, sorry.

ADV SANDI: Just on that aspect, sorry Mr Ngobe. This R50 000, was it to be given to you personally, or were you to share it as a group amongst yourselves?

CHAIRPERSON: It was supposed to be shared as a group.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Commissioner. Mr Mandlazi, can you take us further and tell this Commission what did you do exactly at Mr Modipane's house? Tell us everything that happened there. On your arrival, what did you do and what happened? Who did what?

MR MANDLAZI: I remember that I personally threw a hand grenade into the house. That is what I remember doing.

MR NGOBE: What did the other people who were with you do?

MR MANDLAZI: I recall that the others were shooting at the house from outside, because we carried out the attack at night.

MR NGOBE: Mr Mandlazi, can you be free? Just tell us what happened, we were all not there, take us into the picture, tell us how did you arrive there, what happened, who did what? Not in one line, tell us everything that happened there.

MR MANDLAZI: Mr Steve Mbuyisa who was our source, accompanied us on this mission and when we arrived at Mr Modipane's home, Mr Mbuyisa remained in the vehicle and he confirmed that this was the house. We alighted from the vehicle. When I threw the hand grenade the others started shooting and thereafter we returned to the vehicle and went back.

MR NGOBE: Tell us everything that happened there.

JUDGE MOTATA: Mr Mandlazi, for instance, where did you leave from?

MR MANDLAZI: We were at our base in Bongweni, that was a Military Intelligence Camp and we left with Mr Mbuyisa from there, proceeded to Bosbokrand.

JUDGE MOTATA: Was Mr Mbuyisa always with you at that camp?

MR MANDLAZI: Mr Mbuyisa arrived the day before and informed us that Mr Modipane would be at home because on previous occasions Mr Modipane had not been found at his home. Therefore on that particular day, Mr Mbuyisa came and informed us that Mr Modipane was indeed at home because he used to flee his home and could not be found there.

JUDGE MOTATA: How far is the camp from Modipane's place?

MR MANDLAZI: I would say it's about 60 to 70 kilometres away.

JUDGE MOTATA: You may proceed Mr Ngobe, we are making progress.

MR NGOBE: Thank you very much. Is that all that you want to tell the Commission as far as Mr Modipane is concerned? Did you go there only once or return on another date?

MR MANDLAZI: We did not return at a later date. That was the last time. I will just beg your pardon, we did go there on another date, but we did not find Mr Modipane, we were informed that he's at Matsulu. On that occasions we were with Mr Mbuyisa, who went into the house alone and he returned to inform us that Mr Modipane was not at home but at Matsulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute. Where did this - was there an order to kill Mr Modipane, or where did this idea originate from?

MR MANDLAZI: He was to be killed, as per instruction of Gen Otto and Capt Lily, who were our Commanders, because he was allegedly the person who handled funds for the ANC and was responsible for sending people, or assisting people to go into exile.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you plan this operation at all before hand?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: At your base?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say that on a previous occasion, Mr Modipane was not at his home. Did I understand you correctly?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And this time round, Mbuyisa came and he said look that man is going to be at home now.

MR MANDLAZI: He said he was present at home. That was on the night when I threw a bomb and his house was shot at.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now why did Mr Mbuyisa go with you?

MR MANDLAZI: We thought that it would be a good idea to take Mr Mbuyisa because he was known to Modipane, so we thought it was better for Mbuyisa to go there so that if he finds him, he would pretend that he was just visiting and then he would return and inform us if he indeed was at home.

CHAIRPERSON: That's precisely why I'm asking you, you told us that when you got to the house, Mbuyisa was - he remained in the vehicle.

MR MANDLAZI: When we arrived, yes he remained in the car and by that time it was already at night and we could not carry out the attack with him present because as we carry out the attack we did not want Mr Modipane to see him or somebody to recognise him amongst us, so that for instance if Mr Modipane survived, he should not be in a position to recognise Mbuyisa.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Ngobe.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Commissioner. Can you proceed on the aspect on Michael Ndawu from Matsulu?

MR MANDLAZI: We left from our base and proceeded to Michael Ndawu's house. On our arrival, Sgt Shongwe tied the doors from outside. No one fired any shots there, but we threw bombs into the house. I personally threw a bomb. It was during the night. The reason to kill Michael Ndawu was also similar to that with regards to Modipane, that is he was also responsible for handling ANC funds. Our information was received from Albertina Mtunya who was our source.

CHAIRPERSON: What information did you get from the source?

MR MANDLAZI: The information regarding Michael Ndawu. She informed us that Michael Ndawu assists people to go into exile and he also handles ANC funds.

ADV SANDI: Where were you when this information was conveyed to you by Albertina Mtunya?

MR MANDLAZI: Albertina Mtunya was recruited and she was a person whom we told that we needed information about political activists and she knew that we had to get such information and she will be paid for it. I would go to her regularly for that information as to the identity of the people who were working to overthrow the government.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that she gave this information to you personally?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, she would give information to me and I would pass it on to my superior Capt Lily.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No I'm just talking about the information in regard to Mr Michael Ndawu, did she give that information to you personally?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, she gave it to me personally.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you going to get paid for this operation?

MR MANDLAZI: Well I was employed and paid every month, so I do not know what I would have been paid, but the R50 000 bonus was mentioned in all the operations that were carried out.

CHAIRPERSON: So was there talk again of what you refer to as a merit bonus of R50 000, should your hit squad succeed in killing Mr Michael Ndawu?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Ngobe.

JUDGE MOTATA: Before you do, was Michael Ndawu not on the list which you were shown on the board when you first arrived in Nelspruit, in other words that there was already information about Michael Ndawu? Page 10, Michael Ndawu is already there.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, Ndawu was on the list in Nelspruit. What I can say is that we wanted to know what all these people were involved in and also to know their addresses, therefore we tried to recruit sources from, who came from the same areas as the people who were on the hit list, so we could get information about them because when we were informed about these people, we were just told that they should be killed and there were also people who were supposed to be killed, but who would be turned into sources, for example Mr Mbuyisa was on the list, but he was recruited and turned into a source and thereafter he was removed from the list.

JUDGE MOTATA: Why were they supposed to be killed, because now you obtained information subsequently when you were handling or receiving information from Albertina Mtunya, because if I understand you correctly it's that she told you that he's the one who assists people to go into exile and also handle ANC monies.

MR MANDLAZI: Michael Ndawu was supposed to be killed, just as Mr Modipane. The intention for attacking Ndawu's house was for him to be killed.

JUDGE MOTATA: Are you saying to us, at first when you arrived and you were shown the list of 23, that they had to be killed, you were not told why they should be killed?

MR MANDLAZI: At that time there was a source who worked with Capt Lily. Unfortunately the source died. This I had not explained to my attorney. When that source died ...

JUDGE MOTATA: Whatever you haven't explained to your attorney, explain to us.

MR MANDLAZI: Please repeat.

JUDGE MOTATA: I say whatever you have not explained to your attorney in consultation, you now have the opportunity to explain it to us.

MR MANDLAZI: I was explaining that Michael Ndawu was supposed to be killed for the reason that he handled ANC funds.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, my question was, I understood that. I said, when I look at page 10 I see Michael Ndawu is number 23 and on your arrival at Nelspruit after you had been trained in Military Intelligence in Kimberley, you were told that these people, the 23 people, had to be killed. Did I understand you correctly thus far?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And in your oral evidence you subsequently said that Albertina Mtunya told you that Michael Ndawu assisted people to go into exile and further, Michael Ndawu handled ANC funds.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now, my question was, when you were given the 23 names written on the board, were you told why they were to be killed?

MR MANDLAZI: We were just informed that these people wanted to overthrow the Government.

JUDGE MOTATA: And Albertina Mtunya merely provided further information after you turned her to be your source?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, she provided additional information that Mr Ndawu handled funds and also assisted people to go into exile.

JUDGE MOTATA: When you say we, who was she telling this to?

MR MANDLAZI: She informed me.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Mr Ngobe.

ADV SANDI: Were you not known in the area to be a member of the SADF?

MR MANDLAZI: ...(not translated)

ADV SANDI: Did people know in your area that you were working as a member of the SADF?

MR MANDLAZI: They did know that I was a member of the SADF but were not aware of what activities I was up to. We carried out Hit Squad activities at night, but during the day they would just see me as a soldier.

ADV SANDI: What time exactly would you normally go and see Albertina Mtunya? Would it be at night, during the day, or when?

MR MANDLAZI: I would go there just as it was getting dark, or just after dark.

ADV SANDI: And during the time you were going about doing your businesses, members of the SADF, were you wearing any uniforms?

MR MANDLAZI: No, we used civilian clothes.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Commissioner. Mr Mandlazi, you made mention of the name of Capt Shongwe and Sgt Shongwe here, where did you meet them and where did you go to with them and how did you deal with them at that particular stage with regard to Michael Ndawu?

MR MANDLAZI: They had arrived at our base.

MR NGOBE: Take us through what happened after you met them until you came to the place where you were supposed to go. Tell us everything.

MR MANDLAZI: What I recall is that Capt Shongwe tied the doors, the front door from the outside, so that no one could be able to escape from the inside and several grenades were thrown into the house. It was at night and because there were several grenades that were thrown there, there was a lot of smoke and I threw one hand grenade.

MR NGOBE: How were the doors tied?

MR MANDLAZI: They used wires, they had these wires with which they tied the door. We were told to fire a warning shot, which was done by Capt Lily, after which hand grenades were thrown into the house. The gates of the premises were locked but they threw...

MR NGOBE: What was the purpose for tying the doors?

MR MANDLAZI: The reason was that no one should be able to escape from the inside so that everyone is killed.

MR NGOBE: By tying the doors, your aim and purpose was that when you through in grenades there, no one should escape from the bombs that were being hurled into that house.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that part of your orders?

MR MANDLAZI: It was part of the orders by Capt Lily that the door should be tied after which hand grenades should be thrown.

INTERPRETER: The Speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the order that you must just kill anybody that was inside the house?

MR MANDLAZI: We were told that everybody who is inside there should be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: And if Michael Ndawu is not in the house, what should happen?

MR MANDLAZI: From the information received from Albertina, it was known that he was there.

CHAIRPERSON: So you had information from an informer that he was in the house. Now how long before your attack, did you receive that information?

MR MANDLAZI: I went to Albertina's home on the same day. We arrived at Matsulu Satellite Police Station and thereafter I went to Albertina who informed me that Michael Ndawu was present at home. From there, from the police station we then went to Michael Ndawu's home, which was about a kilometre away from the police station.

CHAIRPERSON: And did she tell you who else was present at home?

MR MANDLAZI: She just mentioned that Michael Ndawu was at that house.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't ask who else was in the house?

MR MANDLAZI: No, she just informed us that Michael was there. We did not inquire about who else was there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, Mr Ngobe.

MR NGOBE: Thank you. You made mention again of the name of Parks Mankahlane. Can you tell the Commission in your own words what happened and what he did?

MR MANDLAZI: That that operation was to kill Parks Mankahlane. We received information from our sources, Steve Mbuyisa and Joey Nkoena. Steve Mbuyisa took us to show Mankahlane's house. If I recall, I was with Jerry Dlamini, Capt Lily, Potgieter and Adj Walters.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Mandlazi, before you proceed, tell us what information were you given concerning Mr Parks Mankahlane.

MR MANDLAZI: We received information to the effect that he was also one of the people who wanted to overthrow the Government. He called on people to stay away from work and other such things and he was supposed to be killed for that reason.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Proceed.

MR MANDLAZI: We proceeded to Mr Mankahlane's house. On our arrival, I asked for Parks Mankahlane and he said that Parks had just left. When I returned to the vehicle to inform them of what I'd been told, Steve Mbuyisa said it was Mankahlane himself who had been telling me, because Mr Mbuyisa had binoculars. When I mentioned that I could not find Parks, Mr Mbuyisa told me that it had been Parks himself who had told me that that person was not there and when we returned to the house, he had already left.

MR NGOBE: To attack or to do whatever you wanted to do on Parks Mankahlane was not successful, is that so?

MR MANDLAZI: It was not successful.

ADV SANDI: Can you tell us, when was this attempt on Mankahlane? Do you remember the date?

MR MANDLAZI: I cannot recall the month and the year, because there were many incidents that took place. For instance on one night we could partake in different actions. We then went back and arrested Adam Mianga, took him to Kabokweni Camp, Capt van Zyl who was the head of Security Branch took him away to Nelspruit. We then returned Mr Mbuyisa to his home. However Mr Mbuyisa was in a different vehicle so that Adam did not see him.

MR NGOBE: You may proceed.

MR MANDLAZI: Another operation was to kill Mr Wallace Mkabela. A bomb was thrown into his house. I was with Adj Walters and Sgt Venter. Information regarding Mr Mkabela was received from our source, Albertina Mtunya. A bomb was thrown into the house, but he survived.

MR NGOBE: What was the information that you received about Wallace Mkabela?

MR MANDLAZI: He was allegedly the Chair of the ANC/UDF in the area. He held the top position in the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: What year was this?

MR MANDLAZI: I cannot clearly recall, but I think it was around 1987.

CHAIRPERSON: But you know that the ANC was banned then. He could not be the Chair of the ANC because it was banned.

MR MANDLAZI: I cannot recall the year clearly, but I do recall that Mr Wallace Mkabela was the person responsible for holding meetings at his home, calling on people to stay away from work and he held a top position in the ANC. He also travelled overseas to ANC camps in Swaziland, Mozambique, reporting to them on the state of affairs in South Africa.

MR NGOBE: Who instructed you specifically to throw a bomb to Wallace's house?

MR MANDLAZI: It was Adj Walters.

MR NGOBE: Yes, you may proceed.

MR MANDLAZI: Another operation was to abduct Teaspoon Nkosi. We assaulted him and dumped him next to the railway station, that is the Kaapmuiden/Bushbuckridge station. He was unconscious when we left him there. After that he laid a charge with the police against me. I went to an identity parade and he identified me. He knew me from our township.

MR NGOBE: Were you prosecuted on that case that was opened by Teaspoon Nkosi?

ADV BOSMAN: Capt Lily informed me that he had given Sgt Mabusa, who was the Station Commander, to withdraw the case, so I was never prosecuted for it.

MR NGOBE: Who else was with you when you took Teaspoon Nkosi to Kaapmuiden/Bushbuckridge Railway Station, as you said? The names of those people who were with you.

MR MANDLAZI: I recall Capt Lily, Corp Potgieter, Corp Steyn and Sgt Hlope from the CIS in Komatipoort. I cannot recall the others, those are the only ones I can recall.

MR NGOBE: Why was Teaspoon Nkosi to be abducted and tortured, as you have testified?

MR MANDLAZI: Teaspoon Nkosi was one of the persons involved in staging stay-aways, stopping people from going to work and also organising boycotts. He was one of the prominent people who organised such events.

MR NGOBE: Will you proceed to Richard ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Sorry, before that, whose order was it that he should be abducted and beaten up?

MR MANDLAZI: It was from Capt Lily and Col van Zyl, who was the head of the Security Branch.

ADV SANDI: Just tell us more about how he was tortured.

MR MANDLAZI: His hands were tied and he was also - his head was - he had a black sack thrown over his head and he was assaulted with a pick handle.

ADV SANDI: Did you also take, I'm talking about you personally, did you take part in that assault and how, if so?

MR MANDLAZI: I also used that handle to assault him. I cannot recall how many times. What I do recall is that he eventually became unconscious and we thought he was dead.

ADV SANDI: What was the purpose of torturing him as you have explained?

MR MANDLAZI: It was for the reason that he called boycotts, prevented people from going to work and children from going to school. That information was received from Albertina Mtunya, our source. She informed me that Teaspoon Nkosi is responsible for people staying away from work and children also not attending school.

ADV SANDI: I understand that was the reason why you were torturing him, but what is it that you wanted to achieve by embarking on this exercise?

MR MANDLAZI: At that time, if people didn't want to go to work, it affected the economic situation.

ADV SANDI: Anyway, thank you.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Commissioner. May you proceed to Richard Sono?

MR MANDLAZI: Richard Sono was also abducted from his home. We arrested him and went to assault him at a bush near Tonga. He also became unconscious and we thought that he was dead. We left him there. I was arrested for that incident and was fined R300.

MR NGOBE: Before you go to that Mr Mandlazi, can you just tell us what part did you take in this aspect on Richard Sono and what happened? What did you do? Before you go on to the matter where you were arrested.

MR MANDLAZI: I arrested him at his home and I hand cuffed him. On our arrival at the forest I covered his head with a bag, I assaulted him with a pick handle and spread tear gas on him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ngobe, what are you listening to on the head set? Did you hear the interpreters or are you listening directly to your client? Because you see what happens, you obviously understand what he's saying. We are still listening to the interpretation then you already go to your next point, so you're going to have to unfortunately synchronise what you're doing with the interpreters, otherwise you're speaking over one another, you see.

MR NGOBE: Thank you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR NGOBE: May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MANDLAZI: When we left Richard Sono, we thought he was dead. I was the Section Leader on that operation. After that, he laid a charge because he was apparently found by Head boys the following day. Richard Sono from the information that we received from the source, Mahlahla Nthombi Mhlongo, it was alleged that he assisted people to go into exile and receive MK training.

ADV SANDI: What did you say was the name, the name of your source?

MR MANDLAZI: Mahlahla Nthombi Mhlongo.

ADV SANDI: Was that information conveyed to you personally?

MR MANDLAZI: That lady was recruited by myself.

MR NGOBE: Thank you. May you proceed to Lucky Lobisi.

ADV SANDI: Just before you proceed to that incident, let me ask one thing, in both the incidents of Teaspoon Nkosi and Richard Sono, was it your intention to kill these people? Were you wanting to kill these people?

MR NGOBE: Yes, they were supposed to be killed because they were trying to overthrow the then government. We were informed at that time that such people should not be tolerated.

ADV SANDI: So when you left them at those places which you indicated, was it your belief that you had achieved your objective of killing them?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. You may now proceed to the next incident. What incident was it?

MR NGOBE: It's Lucky Lobisi. Lucky Lobisi was abducted from his home in Matsulu. He was tortured and thrown into an old swimming pool. After being dumped in the swimming pool Capt Lily said that if he does not want to become our source, we would continue assaulting him and dumping him into the pool. He eventually agreed to become a source. I have never seen Lucky since that time. In 1989 we arrested Patrick Mlazi who was a teacher at Sibosili Primary School in Matsulu. He was taken to our base. He was also recruited after being tortured at the base in Kabokweni. However, he never brought any information and I never saw him again. He was just tortured and freed thereafter.

Gift Khosa was arrested at his home in ...(indistinct) near Komatipoort. He was taken to our base at Saskomans. He was tortured near our camp and we left him there unconscious. I never saw him thereafter. I do not know what happened to him.

MR NGOBE: On Gift Khosa, could you say maybe you left him to die or he did die?

MR MANDLAZI: We left him there. He was assaulted and tortured and assumed to be dead.

ADV SANDI: Did you subsequently talk amongst yourselves about Gift Khosa?

MR MANDLAZI: Gift Khosa was a woman. We were informed by our source, Malahlela Ntombi that she was responsible for assisting other women to escape into exile.

ADV SANDI: No, I'm trying to make a follow-up on your evidence. You say you left her at this place and you believed that he was dead? You never saw Gift again?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct. No I never saw her again.

ADV SANDI: Did you later have any conversation amongst yourselves about Gift Khosa after that incident?

MR MANDLAZI: I beg your pardon. I received information the week after that that Gift had died and such information I received from the source.

ADV SANDI: What source was that?

MR MANDLAZI: Mankahlane Ntombi Hlongo.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR NGOBE: You may proceed on Sam Sambo.

MR MANDLAZI: We abducted Sam Sambo from Matsulu and he was taken to a base near Barberton. He was also tortured and he was left at a forest. We assumed that he was dead, but he was not, he still lives up to this day. When we left him we thought he was dead but he was just unconscious.

MR NGOBE: Can you mention the names of the people who were with you on the operation on Sam Sambo?

MR MANDLAZI: It was Capt Lily, Corp Potgieter, Lucky Lobisi, Patrick Mathebula, Corp Steyn.

MR NGOBE: You may proceed to Lawrence Moyi.

CHAIRPERSON: And why - sorry Mr Ngobe, why did you act against Mr Sambo?

MR MANDLAZI: We were informed that Sam Sambo went to different companies enquiring about how much the workers were being paid and he was also responsible for encouraging people to stay away from work, which affected the economy badly. It then became necessary to torture and kill him.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now Lucky Lobisi, because I think I heard you say that he was to gather information with you, was he now and operative with you people?

MR MANDLAZI: Lucky disappeared around that time in 1994.

JUDGE MOTATA: I think the question from my colleague was that, with whom were you in this operation and you counted Lucky Lobisi as well, of Sam Sambo.

MR MANDLAZI: No, Lucky was not present. I would ask the Commission to pardon me about Lawrence Moyi. I am the person who issued an order to the unit members that he should be abducted, tortured and left there. Mr Moyi was not arrested.

MR NGOBE: Mr Mandlazi, I can't understand what you're saying about Lawrence Moyi. Can you explain what really happened to him, what happened?

MR MANDLAZI: Lawrence Moyi was on the list. When he was arrested I was not present but he was taken to our base and he was tortured at the base.

MR NGOBE: Were you there when he was tortured, did you say?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I was present.

ADV SANDI: Just explain yourself, I don't follow you. What order exactly did you give in relation to Lawrence Moyi? What was this order that you say you issued?

MR MANDLAZI: It was for him to be arrested at his home and be brought to the base.

ADV SANDI: Was that your order?

MR MANDLAZI: I had received the order from Capt Lily, but since I was the section head I passed it on.

ADV SANDI: Just explain, was he being tortured simply for the reason that he was a friend to Sambo?

MR MANDLAZI: It was alleged that they would be together when they went around encouraging people to stay away from work.

MR NGOBE: Can you tell us what exactly happened to Lawrence? How was he tortured? What did you do to him?

MR MANDLAZI: He was brought to the base, but I did not take part in his torture. He was tortured by Adj Walters.

MR NGOBE: Did you see the people that you are mentioning torturing Lawrence Moyi?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

MR NGOBE: How was he tortured?

MR MANDLAZI: They assaulted him, kicking him, that's what I recall.

MR NGOBE: Is he still alive?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes and he is present in this hall.

MR NGOBE: Thank you. You can proceed to Life Ngwenya

MR MANDLAZI: Life and Keith Ngwenya came from one home. We received information to the effect that they assisted people to go into exile to receive MK training. We abducted them and tortured them in a forest near Komatipoort. They were twin brothers so I cannot recall who died between them. After torturing them they were dumped at the forest.

MR NGOBE: Tell us, why did you have to do this to these two people?

MR MANDLAZI: Our sources Mankahlane Ntombi informed us that they assisted people in crossing the border to receive MK training.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, where did you get this information that one of them had died?

MR MANDLAZI: Capt Lily.

ADV SANDI: Capt Lily told you that one of them had died?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

MR NGOBE: You may proceed.

MR MANDLAZI: Another operation relates to people who were from Mozambique whom we arrested at the border gates. They were brought to our camp. They were then given money to purchase firearms in Mozambique. There was a base in Magadamas and on their return, they were taken there, whereupon they were shot at and they were thrown into a dam which was infested by crocodiles and they were eaten up by those crocodiles. They were put into a container, shot and thereafter they were transported by lorries and thrown into that crocodile dame. Those dams are still in existence up to this day.

MR NGOBE: You mentioned names here on page number 20, Honourable Commission, Col van Zyl, A/O Walters, Sgt Drag, Gen Otto, Sgt Mandlazi and Col Alberts, you said they used to take - arrested illegal immigrants from Komatipoort police station and train them Schoemans base on how to get into South Africa with illegal firearms. Can you take us through all this?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I did not explain fully. These people were illegal immigrants and they were arrested and kept at the police station. They would then be removed from the police station to the base. From the base, they would be trained in obtaining illegal firearms from Mozambique. On their return from Mozambique with these firearms, these firearms would then be taken and stored in the forest as if they were hidden. Then one illegal immigrant will be placed or made to stand near those firearms. A photo will be taken of that person as if he had been caught with these illegal firearms. The police would then claim that they had found so many firearms and money would be claimed from these firearms. I was also given some of that money.

MR NGOBE: How much were you given?

MR MANDLAZI: I think it was about R48 000 and I bought a house or I deposited a house in Matsulu.

ADV SANDI: Who gave the money to you?

MR MANDLAZI: Capt Lily.

ADV SANDI: Did he say why he was giving you this money? what was it for? Did he explain?

MR MANDLAZI: I was money received because of the firearms that had been found, the illegal firearms that had been found.

ADV SANDI: What was your role in that process you've just described?

MR MANDLAZI: I used to train those illegal immigrants at the base.

ADV SANDI: Was that all you had to do?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

ADV SANDI: Did I understand you to say that you're applying for amnesty in respect of that operation of taking illegal immigrants and training them and they get killed in the end? You're applying for amnesty for that?

MR MANDLAZI: I applied for amnesty because those immigrants would be trained and thereafter killed and their bodies thrown into the crocodiles, because I also personally shot at some of them.

ADV SANDI: What is political about that?

MR MANDLAZI: ...(not translated)

ADV SANDI: Did these immigrants have anything to do with one of the liberation movements?

MR MANDLAZI: No. Capt Lily informed us that Renamo was responsible for fighting against Frelimo.

ADV SANDI: And these so-called illegal immigrants, did they have anything to do with Renamo and Frelimo?

MR MANDLAZI: On arrival, they asked which side they supported and because of their ignorance, they would say whether they supported Renamo or Frelimo. Frelimo was engaged in a battle against apartheid.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but were these people really political enemies of the SADF and the government of the day? Illegal immigrants, people who just come to this country looking for opportunities, looking for jobs, people who just wanted to be able to survive. Why would such people be political enemies?

MR MANDLAZI: At that time, we were fighting against Samora, that is in apartheid times.

ADV SANDI: Why would Frelimo members or supporters come to this country at that time, if at that time, as we all know, the government of the day was supporting Frelimo, that was supporting Renamo in that country against Frelimo? Why would those people come to a hostile country, if I may say so?

MR MANDLAZI: I'm not in a position to explain that.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't it just a fraudulent scheme to make money?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Are there any other incidents, Mr Ngobe, you're going to lead on, because I want to take the short adjournment once you've done all the incidents.

MR NGOBE: There's only one.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. I think just deal with it quickly before we take the short adjournment.

MR NGOBE: Mr Mandlazi, can you tell us, on your verbal suspension from the SADF, can you tell us more? How you were intimidated?

MR MANDLAZI: I met Lawrence Moyi and we would see each other time and again. Some people from the SADF saw me doing this and they assumed that perhaps I was giving Moyi information. What actually happened was that Moyi came to my place ...

MR NGOBE: Can you proceed?

MR MANDLAZI: Thereafter Mr Moyi recruited me. He explained to me that he needed information and I informed him of everything that we had been involved in. At that time he was working in the ANC office. He then took me to his superiors in the ANC.

ADV SANDI: What happened when you got there?

MR MANDLAZI: Before meeting Mr Moyi, I was detained by the ANC when I went to their offices to place a bomb, which had been given to me by Capt Lily. They found the bomb in my possession. Somebody then suspected that I had gone there to place that bomb, because he knew that I worked for the military intelligence. They questioned me on where I was from, but I lied and said I was coming from some place else, looking for Doreen Mashiela. They searched me, found that hand grenade, a Magnate HE. I recall Craig Padayachee who is an MEC for Education in Mpumalanga and Solly Zwane as well as Teddy Culmen. I cannot recall the rest of the people who detained me.

MR NGOBE: Did you always believe that all actions and omissions that you took part, were politically motivated?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct. Yes, they were politically motivated. At that time, I was fighting for the apartheid State.

MR NGOBE: Did you at all material times, act on orders from your superiors?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct. At that time, if you were given an order which you refused, you would also be killed.

MR NGOBE: Did you at all material times, believe that the orders were correct by the time?

MR MANDLAZI: I believed them to be correct at the time.

MR NGOBE: Did you believe that they were legal orders?

MR MANDLAZI: I believed so, because even with regards to the people we tortured, we were never arrested for such incidents.

MR NGOBE: Did you disclose everything that you wanted to disclose to the Commission for the purposes of your application for amnesty? If there's anything left out, this is your opportunity to tell the Commission.

MR MANDLAZI: I am here to seek amnesty before the Committee and I would also like to apologise to the people that I harmed. I realise only now that what I did was wrong. I also request the people whose houses I bombed, to forgive me.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take the short adjournment for exactly 15 minutes and we shall reconvene just after 11.45.

ON RESUMPTION:

FRANS NYONI MANDLAZI: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Mnisi, questions? Mr Mnisi, do we have a list of your clients? Perhaps you can just put it on the record.

MR MNISI: Okay. Chairperson, I represent all the victims in this matter. I don't know whether I should mention all their names.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it the victims in respect of the incidents that Mr Mandlazi testified about this morning? I assume that except for so-called illegal immigrants. Yes. Very well.

MR MNISI: Okay, that's my brief.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MNISI: Mr Mandlazi, could you tell us firstly about your activities before you joined the then South African Defence Force, period prior 1985, because I understand that you joined the South African Defence Force in 1985, what were you doing prior the year of 1985?

MR MANDLAZI: Before 1985 I was still in school.

MR MNISI: You attended a school until which level?

MR MANDLAZI: Until 1984.

MR MNISI: Is it until Standard 10?

MR MANDLAZI: Standard 8.

MR MNISI: So I assume that you could read and write and understand English, am I correct?

MR MANDLAZI: No, you're not correct.

MR MNISI: During the proceedings I've seen you referring to some documents. Are these documents written in seSwati or in Zulu, which I presume is your language?

MR MANDLAZI: They are written in English, that is why my lawyer was trying to clarify some of the aspects which are in my statement and that is why it was also interpreted to me.

MR MNISI: So when you were reading or presenting your evidence-in-chief, naturally you are referring to the documents which are written in English, am I correct?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, that's correct.

MR MNISI: So I'll be correct to say that you do, you are able to read and understand English?

MR MANDLAZI: I am not well eloquent in English because at work we used to use Afrikaans, even in the Military we were using Afrikaans mostly as a media language, not English.

MR MNISI: Mr Mandlazi, can you answer my question? I'm saying, you were referring to those documents, your application. That application is written in English and during the proceedings I have observed that you were looking at that document and referring to it, so my question is, you can read and understand English, am I correct?

MR MANDLAZI: Correct.

MR MNISI: Thank you. So coming to the affidavit which you filed with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, this affidavit you indicated that in actual fact it was written by the secretary to one Mr Mabone, who is an MEC for Security, for Safety and Security, is that correct?

MR MANDLAZI: I was relating everything to her and I was relating in Swazi and she was writing down in English.

MR MNISI: Can you tell us, did he file these affidavits

himself, after you have presented the incidents and the events in which you participated? Did you present the evidence - I mean did you present the story to him and thereafter he decided to write that in English without showing you this affidavit, is that what you are telling the Commission?

MR MANDLAZI: I was relating to her in Swazi and she was writing in English. I don't know who typed the statement. She was writing, using her handwriting.

MR MNISI: You say that you never saw this affidavit until you actually maybe consulted with your attorney? You never saw this affidavit which was typed, after you have discussed with the secretary to Mr Mabone?

MR MANDLAZI: After it has been typed, I received it the following day. The secretary of the Minister Mabone said I must go to Adv Sogo to sign, that is what I've done.

MR MNISI: When you went to Adv Sogo, you saw this affidavit. Was this affidavit read to you or did you read this affidavit yourself before you signed for it?

MR MANDLAZI: I only read it from the first page, the front page. I looked at it and I just believed that it was right because I could see from the top page my name and I thought everything was right.

MR MNISI: Is it in the affidavit?

MR MANDLAZI: The first page, the front page where it says: "I Frans Mandlazi ..."

MR MNISI: So you looked at page number 8 of your affidavit and you felt that this affidavit is the one that you - actually contains what you presented to the secretary to Mr Mabone, is what you are telling the Commission?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

MR MNISI: Mr Mandlazi, you have testified that you were trained in Kimberley Intelligence School, am I correct?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: And I believe that at the Military Intelligence School they taught you that you can't sign for a document which you don't know the contents thereof, is it not so?

MR MANDLAZI: Military Intelligence does not teach one those things, but they teach one about politics, not about affidavits.

MR MNISI: Aright. They didn't teach you that before maybe you sign a document, you should look at the contents thereof and then sign after being satisfied that maybe you acknowledge the contents, you know what is contained in those contents?

MR MANDLAZI: No, they never taught us that.

MR MNISI: Now this document has been signed and initialled, who initialled on each and every page of this affidavit? Is it yourself?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, that's correct.

MR MNISI: So in actual fact, you didn't sign only after seeing the first page, which you allege you did, page number 8, you signed each and every page of this affidavit. How then do you explain that you only signed after seeing the first page?

MR MANDLAZI: I just looked at the front page and I read where it says that: "I Frans..." and also my I.D. number was there and I just assumed that everything was correct.

MR MNISI: Then you signed each and every page without looking what is contained in each and every page, is what you are telling the Commission?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

MR MNISI: Alright, let's come to the question of the incidents. You indicated to the Commission that each and every operation which you were supposed to carry, or which you carried, you were promised the sum of R50 000. Was that applicable in all these incidents on all operations? Was that sort of a merit bonus, as you call it, which was allocated for each and every operation which was supposed to be carried out by yourselves and your colleagues?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, we were told that if we participated and succeeded in the operation, we were going to receive R50 000 to divide among the members of the unit, even though I never saw the R50 000 myself.

MR MNISI: In actual fact the amount of R50 000 you were told that that amount is available should you carry out any operation, like eliminating people as you mentioned, who were the main targets, under page numbers 9 to 10?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: If I can understand you, this R50 000 was to be given to yourself in person?

MR MANDLAZI: No, it was not going to be given to me, but it was going to be given to the unit, the entire unit, if they succeeded in the operation or in their operations, not just myself, I was one of the members of the unit.

MR MNISI: How then do you explain, on page number 14, you indicated that although the operation was successful, the incident, Chairperson, which relates the assassination of Jacks Modipane, you indicated although the operation was successful, Gen Otto refused to give me the R50 000 as promised, claiming that however, claiming that because Jacks Modipane was not killed I would get half of the amount.

MR MNISI: So how do you reconcile your testimony that it was given to the unit because if the unit, as you claimed, has about 7 members, your unit, am I correct, it has 7 members? Now if the amount has to be shared, therefore the R50 000 has to be divided, I suppose, or shared among the 7 members, but here in your affidavit you indicate that: "He said to me I will get half of the amount"?

MR MANDLAZI: That is so, but I never received even half of that amount because we then quarrelled about the money.

MR MNISI: In actual fact the R50 000 was supposed to be given to you, that's why you put it in your affidavit that you would get half of that amount. We are not talking about whether you did receive that money or not, but we are talking about the R50 000 prize on the head of Mr Modipane. It was the amount which you were supposed to get if you carried out that instruction successfully, am I correct, Mr Mandlazi?

MR MANDLAZI: No, it is not so. That is why I'm saying the lady who wrote my statement, didn't write the exact way I related the incident to her, because I did tell her about the R50 000, but I only told her that we were promised as a unit that the head quarters in Pretoria were going to send R50 000 so that we divide it among the unit members.

MR MNISI: How was the amount shared among yourselves, if you can tell us? They told you that okay you'll get R50 000, how was the money divided amongst yourselves?

MR MANDLAZI: We never received the R50 000.

MR MNISI: How were you told then that amount would be divided amongst yourselves? Were you told how would the amount be divided amongst yourselves?

MR MANDLAZI: I just thought that they were going to calculate the number of the members of the unit and then it was going to be put in our salaries on that particular month.

MR MNISI: The question is, out of R50 000, you were 7 members, was there any discussion or did you think that it would be divided amongst yourselves being 7 and of which, if you divide it roughly, maybe you'll get R7 000 each? Is that what you had in mind at the time?

ADV SANDI: Mr Mandlazi, before you answer. Mr Mnisi isn't that really a mathematical question? If there's seven of you and I say I'm going to give you R50 000 for doing x,y,z? It's simply a matter of calculating how much each one of you is going to get, if you divide that 50 000 by 7. Do you want him to testify to that?

MR MNISI: Okay, I will withdraw that question.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV SANDI: Mike please, Mr Mnisi.

MR MNISI: On page number 15 about the incident of Michael Ndawu, whereby you indicated that your involvement was you threw a hand grenade, you also on page 15 that: "I was not given the R50 000 reward because Michael was not killed."

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: So even in this instance are you telling the Commission that you were not supposed to get the R50 000 yourself? Was that - that statement was also incorrectly captured?

MR MANDLAZI: As I've already mentioned that I explained to the lady who took my statement and I don't think she wrote the facts as I had related them to her.

MR MNISI: So what you are saying to the Commission is that you never said that the R50 000 would be received by yourself? You never mentioned that to the person who was taking your statement?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I never said so, I explained to her that there was money which was promised to us for all the incidents, that is why she had written the R50 000 and if I had received the R50 000, I would have told the Committee that I received R50 000, but I didn't.

MR MNISI: So how much did you receive for your participation in all these operations, except the amount that you mentioned, the R40 000?

MR MANDLAZI: I only received money for the operation of the immigrants in Komatipoort, that's the money I used to deposit my house.

MR MNISI: So you never received any funds?

MR MANDLAZI: No, other than that one, I never received any other money. He also explained to me that it was for the operation of Komatipoort of the immigrants.

ADV SANDI: May I just come in here Mr Mnisi? The person who prepared this affidavit for you on which you are being questioned by Mr Mnisi, do you know that person's level of proficiency in the English language?

MR MANDLAZI: I think she is quite eloquent because she is the secretary of the Minister or of the MEC. I don't think they can hire someone in that position who doesn't have good enough English.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but do you know if she's a native speaker of the English language?

MR MANDLAZI: She's a Coloured woman, and also she does speak Zulu, but she is a Coloured woman.

ADV SANDI: Were you not speaking to her in Swati?

MR MANDLAZI: I was speaking in Swati.

ADV SANDI: Do you know how much Swati she can understand?

MR MANDLAZI: I think Zulu and Swazi are almost the same, she could understand me.

ADV SANDI: Isn't Swati, I must confess that I'm no linguist, but isn't Swati closer to Xhosa - sorry, I beg your pardon. Isn't Zulu closer to Xhosa than Swati?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, it is so.

ADV SANDI: Would you say that in that interview you were able to communicate and understand each other without any difficulty?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I'll say so.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Mr Mnisi.

CHAIRPERSON: So the secretary's Seswati was better than her English, because she seemed to have made all the mistakes in English.

MR MANDLAZI: I think her English is better than her Seswati.

CHAIRPERSON: But the mistakes that she made were all in English.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But she understood you perfectly in Seswati.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, it is not the spelling which is wrong, I think it is the facts. Some facts are correct and some of them aren't.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I mean she got this story, she understood you well in Seswati, you were communicating quite easily in Seswati, but she reproduced that conversation in English, making a number of errors, not so?

MR MANDLAZI: I didn't realise this problem here for the first time. When Mr Dumisa brought the affidavit from Cape Town to me, or when I went to Cape Town I explained to him that there were facts which aren't correct in the affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Mnisi.

MR MNISI: Are you also telling the Commission that Adv Sogo did not actually read this affidavit to you when you went to sign in his office the following day?

MR MANDLAZI: No, he didn't. What he said he asked me if this was my affidavit and I said yes, it was my affidavit and he said to me, he wanted to know if it was correct and I said yes and then he signed, I also signed.

MR MNISI: Now Mr Mandlazi, you told the Commission that you were given a list of people to be eliminated, or to be killed, which list you actually mentioned. It's contained 9 to 10. Now these were the only people which you were supposed to kill in those operations, am I correct?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, that's correct.

MR MNISI: And those are the people - these are the people who are identified as enemies, except for Joey Nkoena and Steve Mbuyisa who turned to be your sources later on.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: These are the people which you got instructions that these are the people who must be eliminated.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: Why I'm asking this question is because when you went to attack the house of Michael Ndawu, I mean you claimed that you got it from your source Mtunya. You attacked the house of Michael Ndawu and I would say that you knew very well that in that house there would be people, because Michael Ndawu is a person who is actually married, is it not so? You knew very well that he is actually staying with his family, not so?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: So would I be correct to put it to you that in actual fact, you were not actually going to kill Mr Ndawu, you wanted to kill his entire family and those people who are not involved in any political organisation?

MR MANDLAZI: I would agree, but the instruction came from my seniors and I wasn't in a position to question those instructions. I couldn't ask my seniors or tell them that we were going to kill innocent people. I just took the instruction as it was.

MR MNISI: Mr Mandlazi, I'm talking to you, not your bosses, in your mind did it occur to you that anyway you were given instructions to kill this Michael Ndawu who is listed there, but now why are we killing even maybe the children and the persons that are not in the least, if your act really was politically motivated, did it occur in your mind, in your mind as a person, or you were just doing it actually for actually getting money or the promises that you were given, because if you are a human being, you are given an instruction, this is what we should do, we should kill Michael Ndawu. That is an instruction. It is a clear instruction, Michael Ndawu should be eliminated and now you went there in your operation and you knew that there were people in the house and even closed the doors and you actually continued your operation.

MR MANDLAZI: I would explain it this way. We operated according to the instruction and we couldn't question the instruction even if they were killed, but if the instruction said you must just go and attack.

JUDGE MOTATA: Didn't you say in your evidence-in-chief for instance that before then you had Albertina Mtunya who was your source? Do you recall that?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I do.

JUDGE MOTATA: And information you personally got from Albertina Mtunya, was that she was assisting people to go to exile.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And thereafter he was also handling monies which belonged to the ANC.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And this information you carried forward to Capt Lily.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Over and above what I've just enumerated what you said in your evidence-in-chief, what else did Albertina Mtunya tell you about Michael Ndawu?

MR MANDLAZI: Albertina told us that Michael Ndawu was in his house. We went back to the police station where Capt Lily and others were and I informed them that the source had just explained to us that Michael Ndawu was present in his house and we then left to go to Michael Ndawu's house.

JUDGE MOTATA: Your response to Mr Mnisi was that you knew that he was married. Did Albertina tell you that?

MR MANDLAZI: I knew that he was married and he had children. I knew that he had family, but the intention was actually to eliminate him.

JUDGE MOTATA: How would you, by bombing the house, eliminate him only because you knew he had a wife?

MR MANDLAZI: The instruction was to kill everyone who was in the house and if he was in the house, he would have been killed.

JUDGE MOTATA: What I want to know from you is that you had a list and Michael was amongst, Michael Ndawu was amongst the people who, you were initially told, before you even handled or using Albertina Mtunya as your source, Michael was already there, that he had to be killed. That is the list when you arrived from Kimberley.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, but in that list it was not mentioned about his job, or his activities and also his address, I didn't even know that.

JUDGE MOTATA: When they said those people mentioned in the list had to be killed, were you told where all these people live?

MR MANDLAZI: No, we didn't know, but Capt Lily knew as to where they were residing, but we didn't know that.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did he accompany you, this Capt Lily, when you executed the mission?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, he was present.

JUDGE MOTATA: What I want to know from you, why was it then necessary that you had to have somebody like Albertina to even give you information that he was assisting people to go to exile, because all that information was known apparently. Why was it now necessary?

MR MANDLAZI: We required a lot of information about Michael Ndawu, that is why we saw a need to find a source, because all things were reported in Pretoria. Pretoria had information that in such an area there is someone who is doing this and that, that is why even the order, sometimes came from Pretoria direct to Capt Lily and down the line to us, the operatives.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now when you were told on your arrival that these are the 23 people you've got to eliminate, what other orders were you given, other than the elimination of the 23 people?

MR MANDLAZI: We were also told that we should recruit among the 23 people who were on the list, we should try and recruit them. We should try and recruit them and tell them that if they were to give us information, we were going to give them so much money and people who were hungry they will give us the information and we will give them the money.

JUDGE MOTATA: Was that all?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, that's all.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you. You may proceed Mr Mnisi, I'm sorry for having taken so long.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just a minute, just - I'm just trying to understand your orders. You say the orders, or the order was to kill everybody in the house. Now for what purpose would the other people accept Mr Michael Ndawu, ...(indistinct) to be killed?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I was trying to explain the instruction or the order didn't say go and kill everyone, it said we must go and kill him but since he was in the house and they knew that he was in the house and we were going to use bombs to kill him, therefore it was clear to all of us that others would have died as well. I also knew that he might not die alone.

CHAIRPERSON: So you never had an order to kill anybody else, except Michael Ndawu in that house?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, it is so, we were not given an order to kill his children or his wife, we were given an order to kill him.

CHAIRPERSON: So the attack upon the children and the wife is unauthorised, will I be correct?

MR MANDLAZI: When we left the office, everyone knew that we were going to bomb his house. They didn't say we must first remove the children or the wife, but we left the office knowing that we were going to bomb his house.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the point is and I'm asking you to answer that question, the attack upon anybody else in the house except Mr Michael Ndawu was unauthorised.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mnisi.

ADV SANDI: If I can just ask one question on this. Ja, but surely if you people were a group of intelligent army officers, you must have known who he stayed with in that house, not so?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

ADV SANDI: What information did you have in that regard? Who did you know him to be sharing the house with?

MR MANDLAZI: The source informed us that he was present and he was in his house, but the source didn't tell us as to who else was in the house with him.

ADV SANDI: No I'm asking, did you know who he was staying with in that house before this source comes to you to say he is there today, you can go and attack him? Did you know before who he stayed with?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I didn't.

ADV SANDI: Were you interested to know?

MR MANDLAZI: No, it wasn't important as to who else was staying with him.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Mr Mnisi.

MR MNISI: Mr Mandlazi, did they actually train you who is an enemy in your intelligence school in Kimberley or during, when you were part of that hit squad operation?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, we were told that ANC, Umkhonto weSizwe, UDF, APLA, these were the people who were in arms with us, they were our enemies.

MR MNISI: Alright. So you understood correctly, ... (indistinct), it's the person like member of the ANC or furthering the aims of the ANC, like Michael Ndawu. Am I correct?

MR MANDLAZI: Correct.

MR MNISI: And you also indicated to this Commission that you were selected amongst the best probably because you were plus or minus 26 in that school who passed the examinations for your military intelligence course.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: So which means you are not just an average person, or a person who doesn't understand intelligence as such. You understand correctly, you are not like an ordinary soldier, so to put it.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: Alright. Now my question is, how then given your background, how then do you accept it that it's correct to eliminate everybody, even if it's not a member o - if we assume that okay Mr Michael Ndawu was, as you allege, he was involved in giving people monies from the ANC but how then do you justify in your conscience or even in your mind about the children because they are not connected in any way and as an intelligent man from intelligence school, military intelligence for that matter, you would know the children are not involved in any way. How do you then accept it in your conscience to say that this operation is politically motivated, let me carry it, it's in accordance with the instruction?

MR MANDLAZI: I didn't know whether there were kids in that house. The source didn't explain as to whether there were kids and his wife, he just told - she just told us that he was in the house.

MR MNISI: So you didn't care, if you eliminate Michael, that's enough. Whoever is injured in the process, it doesn't matter to you?

MR MANDLAZI: When there's war innocent people get injured as well.

MR MNISI: The fact of the matter is, you are from the military intelligence school and you are not just an average soldier, you were taught very well who's your enemy and you've just described the enemy, a person who is furthering the aims of the ANC or APLA or UDF, whatever the case it is, but now given that understanding by yourself, and then you allow yourself to continue knowingly that if I carry this operation, there might be casualties. I might accept there might be casualties and shoot-outs, but in this operation you were supposed to kill Mr Ndawu, that is an instruction. You were supposed to kill Mr Ndawu, it was not Mr Ndawu trying to fire against yourselves, so you were protecting yourselves. So if you say in the military situation, it's not in a military situation you were in, am I correct? It's not a military operation whereby you are trying to protect yourself and then civilians are caught in the cross-fire, this is what you were saying. The fact of the matter is, you knew correctly that there are children who are not associated with any political organisation and there are other people who are not associated with any political organisation, but you continued and then you carried out that mission.

MR MANDLAZI: I do agree with you, that's true.

MR MNISI: Okay. Let's come to the bombing of the house of Mr Jacks Modipane. In your evidence-in-chief you indicated to the Commission that you took Steve Mbuyisa, so that Steve Mbuyisa should be able to talk to Jacks Modipane and thereafter you move out of the house and then you carry the mission, am I correct? That's what you said in your evidence-in-chief, you said you took Steve Mbuyisa, so that Steve Mbuyisa, because he's a friend to Jacks Modipane, Mr Steve Mbuyisa would be able to go to the house of Mr Modipane and talked to Mr Modipane, then he'll move and he'll give information and therefore you carry your mission.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he not initially say that Steve Mbuyisa was going to point out the house and then subsequently when I asked him about that he then added the bit about Mr Mbuyisa being able to call Mr Modipane out of the house and things like that. I might be speaking under correction, but that seems to be my recollection, that he started off on that basis.

MR MNISI; Yes, ...(indistinct - mike not on) they went to the house and Mr Mbuyisa was to point the house, but when the Commission asked questions, then he indicated that Steve Mbuyisa was to go inside the house and talk to Mr Modipane and thereafter Mr Steve Mbuyisa will move out and then they will carry their operation, is that the position?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I didn't say so. This is the second time, when it was not bombed, we took him, he was going to look as to Mr Modipane was present and he will come back and tell us if he was present, second occasion, not the first one.

MR MNISI: So the bombing of the house of Mr Modipane, in actual fact, you didn't care whether Mr Modipane stays with people in there, because my understanding was that Steve Mbuyisa would advise you whether Mr Modipane is there and he's maybe alone or what is the status in the house, so you also didn't care whether, if you bombed that house, whether Mr Modipane is staying with a friend or a brother or a third party, who's not associated with the ANC activities.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: So would I be correct therefore to put it to you that the fact that you didn't identify the enemies which you were instructed to eliminate and the fact that you were promised some money, in actual fact you can be classified as a mercenary, a person who just kills for the sake of killing and maybe he's killing to be paid. It was not something which is inside you, it was not something about a conviction that you had, but it is something which I mean you didn't have any conviction to kill those people, because before you act, I assume, if you're working for the State and you feel that you State was at - I mean the State would be actually overthrown by another political organisation, that is a conviction. You want to protect the State, you want to protect the status quo, but in your admissions that you didn't care whom you eliminate in the process, killing that, actually I'll be correct if I classify you as a mercenary, not that you were acting under instructions or there was an order?

MR MANDLAZI: I did mention the word hit squad and hit squad means killing everyone.

ADV SANDI: Mr Mnisi, maybe you should try and keep it short and simple here, not put too many things to him at one going. If a proposition is made to you that you were just a mercenary who was getting paid for killing people, would you agree with that?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I was not employed to kill people but we were selected and a hit squad was formed in order to eliminate people who were trying to overthrow the Government.

ADV SANDI; In your functions as a member of the SADF, what else did you do besides going around attacking people? Did you do anything else?

MR MANDLAZI: We were only responsible for the attacks, not that the entire Defence Force was responsible for that. There were other people who were doing other activities, but our group or our unit was a hit squad unit and there were people who were also responsible for medical attention and also for road blocks and other things.

ADV SANDI: I understood you to say that if one refuses to carry out orders as a soldier, he can be killed by his superiors. Did I understand you correctly?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I did say so and it is true. At that time we were just told to do something and we do exactly as we were told according to the instruction, otherwise you were going to be killed.

ADV SANDI: Is it then the position that you carried out all these attacks and operations because you were scared of your superiors, they would have killed you for refusing to carry out orders? You had to carry them out to save your own life?

MR MANDLAZI: No, besides being scared, but it was our job as well and we were getting paid every month.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Mnisi.

CHAIRPERSON: But the question is, Mr Mandlazi, did you agree personally did you agree with any of these orders that you're referring to?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You agreed with them, is that what you're saying?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I agreed with them because I didn't see them as wrong at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you politically motivated in anything that you did, that you told us about here?

MR MANDLAZI: I only realised later that what we were doing was actually wrong, but at the time I didn't see it as being wrong, that is why I'm here to apply for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that might be so, we might speak about that a bit later on, but what I'm asking you now is whether you personally were politically motivated in doing any of these things that you were ordered to do?

MR MANDLAZI: No.

JUDGE MOTATA: That is the job you did as a member of the South African Defence Force, that you were now put in this hit squad and you did nothing else other than to eliminate the 23 which have been, you were told about and nothing else?

MR MANDLAZI: After the hit squad was formed I did just this. Before the hit squad was formed I was in uniform and I was doing something different and that's when I left the uniform.

JUDGE MOTATA: I seem to recall, please correct me if I'm mistaken, in your evidence-in-chief you said during the day you wore uniforms and in the evenings you performed these duties of elimination. Did I hear you correctly?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I didn't say that. We moved from uniform to private clothes. When we were hit squad members we never wore uniforms at all.

JUDGE MOTATA: What did you do before you joined this hit squad, before you were selected into this hit squad? Because I'll tell you what I understood you to say in your evidence before you respond, you said you joined in 1985.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: You were trained as a soldier, is that not correct?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thereafter you were taken to Kimberley to be trained in the intelligence of the military.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: You returned in 1986.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And you were taken to the East Rand Transvaal Command in Nelspruit.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Where you were shown all the enemies and these enemies were contained in a list in the intelligence room and that is the 23 you referred to.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now I hear you to say you performed other duties prior to belonging to the hit squad. When did you perform such duties?

MR MANDLAZI: I'm referring to my training to Kimberley. I was in uniform and after training I went to Nelspruit. When I arrived in Nelspruit, that's when I stopped wearing uniform. This is after the list had been shown to us and after we had been selected as hit squad members and that's after we were told that we were not going to continue with the jobs which we had been trained for. After the training as a soldier we were told that we can still continue specialising in other fields as soldiers and we were just selected and sent to Nelspruit as hit squad members.

JUDGE MOTATA: So in short you never did any other duties but you specialised in the hit squad, you never did any other duties when you came back from Kimberley?

MR MANDLAZI: We used to accompany uniformed soldiers when they had road blocks. Sometimes we would participate and also in the borders we will go and work with them, so that we make sure that there were no guns entering the country.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you. You may proceed Mr Mnisi.

MR MNISI: Thank you very much. ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

MR MNISI: Thank you. I want to take the witness back to - Mr Mandlazi back to the issue of the R50 000 if I may be allowed. I just realised something here. Mr Mandlazi is it correct that you filed with your attorney, Mr Ngobe, a supplementary affidavit which was presented before this Commission this morning? I want us to refer to paragraph number 5 of that affidavit. You indicated that: "As far as the reward that has been mentioned in my application, I want to state that I was promised a merit bonus of R50 000 if the mission to kill Jacks Modipane was accomplished." Earlier on I asked you a question about whether the amount of R50 000 was actually promised to you in person and you indicated that it was promised to the group, then my question is: What do you mean when you say: "I was promised a merit bonus of R50 000"?

MR MANDLAZI: I did explain that it was promised if the operation were to be successful. Capt Lily told me that there was an amount of about R50 000 if Mr Modipane were to be eliminated. I'm not running away from the fact that R50 000 was mentioned, this is the information I received. I do agree that I was told about the R50 000.

MR MNISI: Ja but earlier on, if I can recall very well, you indicated that the R50 000 which was mentioned, was for a group. It was not for you personally and I'm trying to ask you in terms of - also with regard to Mr Michael Ndawu, you also denied that it was for a group, but here in this affidavit, I understand in "I was" not "we were". "I was promised a merit bonus". Whether it is a merit bonus, whether it's a reward, but: "I was", as an individual, "I was promised a merit bonus of R50 000."

MR MANDLAZI: If the Committee can forgive me, the reason I'm referring to "I" it's because I'm alone here and I'm applying for amnesty alone. The unit members aren't here and I'm just ...

JUDGE MOTATA: No, no, this was to correct what you said and if you were, you'd have regard to pages 13, 14, 15, you speak of R50 000 reward and again you say, when you have regard to the top of page 15, just the last sentence:

and you did not get the reward again because Jacks Modipane was not killed and what Mr Mnisi is asking you is that in your evidence you said this R50 000 was for the group and you went into some mathematical calculations, which my colleague was averse to and you said that did not belong to you as an individual and this supplementary affidavit was to cure some of the defects which did not come clearly in your affidavit, whilst you were conversing with the lady in Seswati and she was writing in English, so you are putting the position clear here, but what he's asking you, you refer to the merit bonus that it was promised to you as an individual, personally, not as a group. That's what Mr Mnisi wants to know from you.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I do agree.

JUDGE MOTATA: What do you agree to, because he wants to know from you that you are no longer speaking of the group in the supplementary affidavit, or I didn't hear you?

MR MNISI: Ja, that's correct Mr Commission, that's correct because initially Mr Mandlazi indicated that the amount would be paid for the group and now when asked, he said they didn't get that amount and now in this affidavit he is saying:

so what I want to know is which one is correct, was the money allocated as a group or now the money was allocated to you as an individual because both, if we assume that the person made a mistake and if we assume that the secretary made a mistake in capturing what you said, because you were talking in a different language, you're talking in Zulu and he wrote your affidavit in English, your initial affidavit and you claim that you didn't actually read the affidavit, so now you want to attend and your attorney finds, or we depose to an affidavit, that affidavit confirms the initial affidavit, so we want to know which one, was the amount allocated to you as an individual, or was the amount allocated to you as a group. Can you clarify us there?

MR MANDLAZI: There's a problem there because I'm being asked two questions. I don't know whether for Jacks Modipane or Michael Ndawu.

MR MNISI: I think what I'm trying to say is that it relates to the R50 000. Was the R50 000 promised to you as an individual or as a unit of the hit squad?

MR MANDLAZI: It was promised to me.

ADV SANDI: Are you going to ask him a question on something else, because I have a question on this particular aspect of his evidence.

MR MNISI: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

ADV SANDI: Can I proceed and ask him? Was anyone present during the time this promise was being conveyed to you?

MR MANDLAZI: I wasn't alone in the office, we were together with my colleagues.

ADV SANDI: Are you referring to the same colleagues who were involved in the activities of the hit squad?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but if you were not alone in that particular room or wherever the promise may have been made to you. That makes it even more compelling for you to say: "We were promised R50 000" and not to say: "I was promised."

MR MANDLAZI: My apology there.

JUDGE MOTATA: It's not as simple as that. You have just concede that this promise of R50 000 was made to you, you personally, that you were going - that's my understanding, that you were going to get R50 000 and when they further probe, you say you were with your colleagues in that office. Was each and every member of the 7 hit squad promised R50 000 each as a merit bonus?

MR MANDLAZI: I only know of one R50 000, even though I don't know how many R50 000 were going to be issued, but it was just mentioned R50 000.

JUDGE MOTATA: Understand me correctly. I just want an explanation, I want to understand what you are saying. You were asked about paragraph 5 of your supplementary affidavit. Do you follow the questioning thus far?

MR MANDLAZI: I did mention that it was promised to me R50 000.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now I understood you to say this happened in the office whilst your colleagues were with you, do I understand you correctly?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And were you the only person when they said: "Look, Rifleman Mandlazi, you successfully killed Jacks Modipane, you will get R50 000" and not to the others?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You indicated that you were going to deal with something else, that you're done with the R50 000 issue.

MR MNISI: Ja, I'm done.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well then you can deal with whatever remains when we reconvene. We'll take the luncheon adjournment now and we will reconvene at 2 o'clock. We are working under some time constraints here. We've got another matter on the roll and a lot of people who are interested in this one, so we're hoping that we can perform one of the miracles that are expected of us. We'll reconvene at 2 o'clock.

FRANS NYONI MANDLAZI: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mnisi.

MR MNISI: Thank you Commissioners.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MNISI: (Cont)

On page number 5 of your form from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, you indicated that, under C on top there ...(indistinct)

You indicated yes from your application, so Mr Mandlazi, to move away from this issues, will I be correct to assume that in actual fact the primary objective for you was not politically motivated but it was financial, because you were getting money if you executed an instruction which you were given, would I be correct to assume that?

MR MANDLAZI: That is not correct.

MR MNISI: Alright. That aspect is on persons who are not mentioned in the list, but were eventually tortured by yourself. If I may, Life Ngwenya was not mentioned, he's not on your list. Is that correct? And there are other people who were tortured like, he's not alone there.

JUDGE MOTATA: Life Ngwenya is on page 2, right at the bottom, 3. Tortured - Life Ngwenya, of the application, the actual application, he does mention Life Ngwenya.

MR MNISI: The question is ...(indistinct - mike not on)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

JUDGE MOTATA: Your speaker is not on Sir.

MR MNISI: You were given a list of the enemies who were, I mean the enemies which were identified by your superiors, that they would overthrow the then Government and the list, it's a list of 23 persons and now in your affidavit you include Life I think and Alfred, who is not actually included like Wallace Mkabela and Clive Mokoena and Life Ngwenya, is not on that list, so we want to know whether, at what stage did you get information that those people were enemies?

MR MANDLAZI: I received information later. They were not on that original list, that is Life, Gift, Khosa, but they were discovered later.

JUDGE MOTATA: Nor did you include Portia in your list.

MR MANDLAZI: Because they were discovered later.

JUDGE MOTATA: Who found them later?

MR MANDLAZI: It was the source, Mankahlane Ntombi Hlongo.

MR MNISI: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

JUDGE MOTATA: Your mike once more.

MR MNISI: Do I understand you that you have withdrawn your application in respect of Portia Shabangu, you didn't participate in any way?

MR MANDLAZI: That is correct.

MR MNISI: And also Mr Simon Ndawu.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: Okay, coming to the sources now, sources which you in your evidence-in-chief you indicated that you were dealing with the sources like Steve Mbuyisa, Joey Nkoena and also the lady of Matsulu, I don't remember the name, Albertina Mtunya and Mankahlane Ntombi that you mentioned, were these sources paid any amount or were they compelled for their safety to exchange information?

MR MANDLAZI: They were paid.

MR MNISI: Who was paying them, is it yourself?

MR MANDLAZI: It was Capt Lily.

ADV SANDI: How were they getting paid?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question.

ADV SANDI: How and where were they getting paid?

MR MANDLAZI: Capt Lily would give me the money in envelopes which I would pass on to them.

ADV SANDI: Would the envelope indicate as to how much was contained inside?

MR MANDLAZI: No.

ADV SANDI: Where would you go and pay them once given the envelopes by Capt Lily?

MR MANDLAZI: I would go to their residences.

ADV SANDI: When would you go there?

MR MANDLAZI: For instance if a source had brought information on a Monday they will be paid on a Wednesday or Thursday.

ADV SANDI: Would you go there in the morning? What time during the day, midnight, what time?

MR MANDLAZI: In most instances we would go there in the evening when it's already dark.

ADV SANDI: How would you make them know that you are coming?

MR MANDLAZI: We had the telephone numbers kept in our offices, therefore we would phone them to inform them of the fact that we were coming.

ADV SANDI: Would you identify yourself, who you are, on the telephone?

MR MANDLAZI: I would inform them that I work with Capt Lily and because he was white, he could not go into the township, that is why he sent me.

ADV SANDI: Were there instances when these sources would also call you telephonically?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

ADV SANDI: Would they identify themselves who they are?

MR MANDLAZI: Sources were identifiable by their codes.

ADV SANDI: That's not answering the question. How did they identify themselves? If a source telephones you, what would this person say? Would he say: "I'm so and so" or would this person use a code name? Just answer that one.

MR MANDLAZI: We would give them pseudonyms. One was John Swipe, so we would know who that refers to.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Would you ever know how much money was in the envelope?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I cannot tell, but I'm assuming it could have been around R1 000.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the envelope sealed?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, they used those brown envelopes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you would take it to the house of the source and you'd simply just hand over the sealed envelope to the source?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I would hand over the envelope and they were supposed to sign a form to indicate that they had received the money.

CHAIRPERSON: What would they sign?

MR MANDLAZI: They would just append their signature to indicate that they received the money. It was on a piece of paper.

CHAIRPERSON: What paper is it?

MR MANDLAZI: It was a form.

CHAIRPERSON: And what information was on the form?

MR MANDLAZI: It was the person's name and surname as well as the person's address.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it all that was on the form, the only information that was on the form?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no amounts on the form?

MR MANDLAZI: No, it was just the name and surname and they would be required to sign.

CHAIRPERSON: So you never got a receipt signed by the source for the amount of money that was allegedly paid to the source?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I was never given a receipt.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mnisi.

ADV SANDI: Just one question on this aspect. How did you go to these people's houses? How did you get there when you had to go and pay them?

MR MANDLAZI: I would use the vehicle with the registration KWJ 981T which I would park a distance away and I would proceed on foot to the house.

ADV SANDI: But were you not - okay I suppose - was that the vehicle you said was allocated to you as a member of the SADF?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

ADV SANDI: But were you not concerned that someone could arrive there unexpectedly to visit your source whilst you were busy handing over the money in an envelope? Wasn't that a matter of concern to you as a possibility?

MR MANDLAZI: Well, we were taught for instance if I find him or her in the company of other people, I will pretend to ask for directions or something like that.

ADV SANDI: Did it ever happen that you would visit a source for the purpose of handing over payment and find this source with some stranger, or a visitor?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, it used to occur.

ADV SANDI: Thanks, Mr Mnisi, you may proceed.

MR MNISI: Thank you Commissioners. Now with regard to the sources, they didn't inquire about how much was in the envelope? They didn't inquire from you, or they just accepted the envelope?

MR MANDLAZI: They did not inquire. I would just hand over the envelope.

MR MNISI: Okay. Now in your evidence you indicated that you were dealing with the sources, were you also recruiting them to join the hit squad, or to be sources of the hit squad? Were you recruiting them yourself, personally, or you were not?

MR MANDLAZI: I recruited them to supply information. After recruiting a source, I would inform Capt Lily as my superior, I would give him the personal details of the person and his or her address.

MR MNISI: Right. You never discussed with the source any amount? Look let's assume you want to recruit me as a source for your hit squad, obviously I would love to know how much will I get, so you'd never discuss any amount with the source, that he'd be paid so much in exchange of the information of the ANC activities, or for UDF, or COSATU?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, when I recruit a person, I would give such information and would estimate the amount to be more or less a R1 000.

MR MNISI: One information is R1 000, that's what you are telling us? It's R1 000 for an information which a source would give to you?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I would estimate more or less R1 000.

MR MNISI: Alright.

ADV SANDI: I'm sure Mr Mnisi, you are not suggesting that you are recruitable, you're just making an example here. Sorry can I just - just on this aspect again. Are you able to recall any code names that you could link to any persons?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Don't give all the code names, just make two or three examples, so and so's code name was this, so and so's code name was this.

MR MANDLAZI: Joey Nkoena was Nemazana, Steve Mbuyisa his code name was Paulus Magam, Albertina Mtunya was Shirley.

ADV SANDI: Proceed Mr Mnisi. I was just asking.

MR MNISI: I've got just a few questions about the, not necessarily the incident, about the matter which you mentioned in passing, which you are not applying amnesty for. You said you were in a four-wheeled ambush of some kind. I just want to know the persons who were with you when you went to wait for Portia Shabangu. Portia Shabangu in Komatipoort, that you'll be crossing from Komatipoort to Mozambique, was it the unit of the seven people or can you mention the names of those people whom you were with?

MR MANDLAZI: I recall Jerry Dlamini, Lucky Sambo, Corp Potgieter and Corp Steyn, Happy Hlope, Patrick Mathebula, those are the names I recall.

MR MNISI: Okay. Another issue - on the issue of Mr Parks Mankahlane, you also mentioned that there was in your company a Mr Walters, am I correct, during the night when you were supposed to execute or kill Mr Parks Mankahlane?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: So are you saying that Mr Walters was aware of this mission and he was to participate in that mission, is this what you are telling the Commission?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: And coming to the matter of Michael Ndawu, are you sure, I just want to make sure, are you sure that Capt Shongwe and Sgt Shongwe were part of the operation of the bombing?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I'm certain.

MR MNISI: And do you still stand by your testimony that they are the people who locked - tied the doors so that the people - with wires, so that the people inside should not escape?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR MNISI: No further questions from me.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mnisi. Mr Jordaan, any questions?

MR JORDAAN: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi, this statement that you submitted this morning, that is the three page statement that is dated the 26th of July 2000, that which is said in that statement is the truth, is that correct, everything that appears in there?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MR JORDAAN: Where there are differences between that statement and the statement that is contained in the application, that is the short statement that you submitted, that statement is the truth, is that correct?

MR MANDLAZI: The statement that was submitted this morning is correct.

MR JORDAAN: And where it differs from the other statement, is the one that you submitted this morning the correct one?

MR MANDLAZI: The statement that is in front of me, to which I attested, is the truth.

MR JORDAAN: I understand the answer, but the question goes further. I say to you that where there are differences between the short statement and the long statement that accompanied your application, that the short statement is correct and the longer statement is wrong, is that correct?

MR MANDLAZI: I'm not sure which one you are referring to.

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi, you made two statements. The first statement is the short statement that you submitted this morning that I referred you to, the other statement to which I referred you is page 8 in your application, up until page 24.

MR MANDLAZI: The part of - in fact it is one statement, that is the statement that is three pages long and the other one.

MR JORDAAN: That is exactly what I would like to know. Where there are differences between the long and short statement, is it that the short statement is the correct one?

MR MANDLAZI: They are both correct.

MR JORDAAN: I am asking you that where there are differences, which one is the correct one? I will name an example. In the long statement where you said that it is wrong in terms of the R50 000 issue, you later changed it and in the short statement you said that the R50 000 was given to you, so there's a difference and there you said that the short statement is the correct one. Where there are further differences, which one is the correct one?

MR MANDLAZI: The statements are both correct. The statement dated the 26th is correct and the other one is also correct.

ADV SANDI: Mr Mandlazi, the question is very simple. Counsel is saying to you, where there are differences between the true statements, which one should be accepted as the final word on the issue? Is it the first one or the second one? He's not talking about the differences at this stage, but he just wants to know from you which one should be accepted in the event of conflicts and contradictions between the two.

MR MANDLAZI: I regard both the statements as the truth. That is what I know.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Jordaan, maybe you must be specific if you want to carry on with this point.

MR JORDAAN: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I will specifically refer you to an example to demonstrate this to you. In the long statement you say that you were part of a group of people who killed Mr Ndawu in the police cells in Nelspruit. In the short statement you said it is not true. Now I would like to ask you which one is the truth, which one is correct?

MR MANDLAZI: I explained that I was informed by Capt Lily that somebody had been murdered in the cells.

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi will you please answer the question?

MR MANDLAZI: I was informed by Capt Lily that Sgt Shongwe and others had received some money for murdering Mr Ndawu. That information I received from Capt Lily.

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi, that is not the question that I put to you. The question that I'm asking you is that in the long statement you say that you were present and at the scene where a person was killed. In the short statement you deny that. Which one is the correct one?

MR MANDLAZI: I explained that the person who wrote the statement made a mistake. This statement I saw previously when I was with Mr Nzemena in Cape Town, that it contained some inaccuracies.

JUDGE MOTATA: Do you follow what you are being asked? I would say to you, if you don't understand the question, please ask the interpreters to repeat the question and we would take shorter time doing that because even up to now you haven't answered the question. You may repeat your question, Mr Jordaan.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Jordaan, maybe I misunderstood the applicant. I thought this was an issue the applicant had attempted to put the record straight right from the word go, that was before his evidence-in-chief. Well I think whether we accept his explanation so far as that issue is concerned, is another question, but I thought he tried to put the record straight to say that was wrong and he gave evidence as to what the true position is in so far as that incident is concerned.

MR JORDAAN: Commissioner I do agree with that aspect but the reason why I am specifically referring to it is that one of the examples that I'm quoting is, I'd like to know from him if there's a difference between the statements that he submitted and the one that he made later. Which one is the truth, that's what I'd like to know and that is one of the examples that I presented to him and I am asking which one should we accept.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that would appear that it would be the later statement and the explanation that he gave this morning is that the original statement is the incorrect one.

MR JORDAAN: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Mandlazi, a further aspect that I'd like to clarify, you mentioned Mr Shongwe and you also mentioned three ranks, the first is a Sgt Shongwe, the other one is a Warrant Officer or Insp Shongwe, then you also mention a Capt Shongwe, are they three different people or is it the same person?

MR MANDLAZI: The Shongwe present today was at that time a Warrant Officer. The Sgt Shongwe worked in the Security Branch, he was a different person. I am not sure whether they are brothers. The person who is present today was a Warrant Officer at the time, but he is now a Captain.

ADV SANDI: Do you know his first name? Sorry.

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question.

ADV SANDI: Do you know the first name, or let's say full names of the Shongwe who is present here today?

MR MANDLAZI: I do not know his full names. He was referred to as Adj Shongwe, but I could differentiate the two of them.

MR JORDAAN: I would like to know from you what the name was of the hit squad of which you were a member.

MR MANDLAZI: It was called Top Twenty.

MR JORDAAN: Why did you call this, or name it Top Twenty?

MR MANDLAZI: It was a name that originated from Capt Lily.

MR JORDAAN: I accept it, but why did you call it Top Twenty, to what does this refer?

MR MANDLAZI: I do not know the reason why, I just knew it as Top Twenty.

ADV SANDI: Doesn't he refer to this unit as a hit squad. Did he specifically say Top Twenty hit squad?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, that's what it was called and that's how it was referred to in documents and it was named so and that was what was written on official documents.

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi I would like to refer you to a very interesting aspect in your short statement in paragraph 6. You there discuss the matter concerning Michael Ndawu's house. You say here that:

You never mention W/O Shongwe. There is a big difference in what you mentioned in your long statement that accompanied your application. Can you explain this discrepancy?

MR MANDLAZI: I beg your pardon there, perhaps there was a mistake when the attorney wrote the statement because when the statement was written W/O Shongwe had been referred to. Perhaps when he wrote W/O Walters, he meant to write Shongwe.

MR JORDAAN: It is very interesting. It is once again your attorney that set up this new statement that you said is correct, who made this mistake. Do you not find it strange that such a mistake appears in your statement?

MR MANDLAZI: Perhaps there was a mistake that was made by the typist.

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi in your long statement you said it was also correct there, you never made mention of any of these people. You said that the people who did the locking up of the house were only Shongwe and W/O Shongwe, Sgt Shongwe and W/O Shongwe.

MR MANDLAZI: I do not regard my not mentioning them as a problem. What I felt was important was to explain about the typing up of the door and who had done that.

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi, you specifically say in your long statement:

That is with reference to Sgt Shongwe and W/O Shongwe. In your statement that is now the truth, you say and you furthermore refer to, apart from Shongwe and W/O Walters, you also refer to the people who closed it, that is Sgt Venter, Capt Lily, Lucky Sambo, Sgt Mashego and Jerry Dlamini, Corp Steyn, Commandant Marais and Maj van Zyl.

MR MANDLAZI: I will ask the Commission to pardon me from not mentioning those people in the long statement, but the short statement in which they are mentioned is correct and so I would request the Commission to pardon me for not mentioning them earlier.

MR JORDAAN: Why didn't you mention it before?

MR MANDLAZI: They are mentioned in a separate list which is contained in the long statement.

MR JORDAAN: I'm talking about this specific incident, why didn't you mention them there?

MR MANDLAZI: I do not understand who you are referring to, it has not been mentioned. Who do you say is missing?

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi, I'd like to know from you why you didn't mention the rest of the people in your long statement.

MR MANDLAZI: When I made the statement, the short statement to my attorney, it was when I had recalled some of the details that happened and for the reason that these incidents happened a long while ago as well as for the reason that this statement which was submitted earlier, has been in Cape Town for a long time. I only saw it quite recently.

MR JORDAAN: Your answer is very interesting in the light of the fact that the statement that was taken from you in 1996, was - what happened then was more vague in your memory and the memory that you have now four years later. Do you not find this strange?

MR MANDLAZI: As I explained to my attorney, I made the statement and forwarded it to the Secretary-General of the ANC and at that time I did mention them.

ADV SANDI: What was your purpose when you sent a copy of this statement to the Secretary-General of the ANC?

MR MANDLAZI: When the ANC detained me as I went to bomb their offices, Mr Moyi told me that I should explain all my activities to the ANC and he thereafter took me to the Secretary-General of the ANC and that is where I made this statement. That is, I explained all of my activities to them after my suspension.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR JORDAAN: The incident at the house of Michael Ndawu, can you tell the Committee if you were accompanied on that day by Sgt Walters?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes he was present, driving a car, registration number MWD 776T, which was a 4 x 4, blue in colour.

MR JORDAAN: Then that does not fit in with the explanation that you gave earlier on with the mistake that you made in paragraph 6. You specifically said that it must not be W/O Walters, but it should be W/O Shongwe.

MR MANDLAZI: I explained that at that time both of these people were Warrant Officers, therefore the mistake may have been made because there was a Sgt and a W/O Shongwe in the Security Branch at the time.

MR JORDAAN: Mr Mandlazi, I have got three statements to make to you. The first is that the person sitting next to me, Mvele Robert Shongwe denies that he was with you at an alleged incident at the house of Michael Ndawu.

MR MANDLAZI: That is not correct.

MR JORDAAN: Secondly, Mr Shongwe will put it to you that he became aware of your existence for the first time in 1993. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR MANDLAZI: Where did he know me from?

MR JORDAAN: The statement that I'm putting to you is that he will say that he only became aware of your existence, or he only heard of you for the first time in 1993 as an informer of the Murder and Robbery unit in Nelspruit. (transcriber's interpretation)

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I hear that, but I would like to know where did he get to know of me?

MR JORDAAN: Would you like to react on the statement or not?

MR MANDLAZI: I would also like to be given an opportunity to ask as to where he knew me from. If, as he claims, he started knowing me in 1993, for example I know my lawyer from his office, I would just like to know, if he started knowing me in 1993, where exactly was that?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree or disagree?

MR MANDLAZI: He knows me.

CHAIRPERSON: So you disagree with the statement that he's made to you?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I disagree with the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jordaan.

MR JORDAAN: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson, I think I've got one or two questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Mr Mandlazi, in your testimony you indicated that at some point you tortured Life and Cliff Mokoena. Is that correct?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MS MTANGA: And you also testified that you were informed by Capt Lily that one of the two Mokoenas died, is that correct?

MR MANDLAZI: Capt Lily informed me that one of them had died and that information had been gained from the source. We dumped his body about 500 metres from a cemetery.

MS MTANGA: Did he die as a result of your assaults on him?

MR MANDLAZI: I assume it was from his injuries sustained during his torture.

MS MTANGA: In your application you refer to Capt Lily as a person who was your Commander. Was he your Commander?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

MS MTANGA: And then there is also a term used that he was your handler, what does that mean, that he was your handler? What is a handler, Mr Mandlazi, in your understanding, in the military environment? When a person is called a handler what does it mean?

MR MANDLAZI: He's also the person who has contacts with sources.

MS MTANGA: Because in a letter that's confirming your membership to the SADF at that time, if you check on page 105 of the bundle, paragraph 4, it is said there:

What is the difference between the Commander and the handler, Mr Mandlazi, if there is one? What is the difference between a Commander and a handler?

MR MANDLAZI: This Wayne Lily refers to Capt Lily, therefore he was my Commander at the time.

MS MTANGA: The reason that I'm asking you this is that I have heard of the word handler being used in situations where a person is an askari or is an informer, so I'm trying to understand, in your situation if you are indeed a member of the SANDF, as you say you were and you trained personnel, why would you be referred to be having a handler instead of a Commander?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, my attorney did point this out to me. It means that these people who wrote the letter, were trying to distance themselves from me because originally they denied that I was in the force, but when my force numbers were discovered, they had to admit that I was a member of SADF.

MS MTANGA: Okay. In the incident of Parks Mankahlane, you mention that you abducted a certain Adam Mianga. What happened to this Adam? Was he tortured and then after he was tortured, what happened to him, the Adam that you found in the house of Parks Mankahlane, when he had fled?

MR MANDLAZI: Adam was tortured at the base. From there Adj Walters detained him at Nelspruit prison.

MS MTANGA: And do you know what happened to the people who were your informers, Steve Mbuyisa, Albert Mtunya and Mhlongo, what happened to them or where are they now?

MR MANDLAZI: From what I heard, or from what I read in the papers, Steve Mbuyisa was arrested for stealing a cell phone and Albertina I last saw at that time. Joe Mkoena is a member of UDM in Mpumalanga.

MS MTANGA: And Mhlongo? Mahlahla Ntombi?

MR MANDLAZI: I last saw her at that time. I have not seen her since.

MS MTANGA: What about Albertina Mtunya?

MR MANDLAZI: I sometimes see her in Matsulu.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Mtanga. It's been brought to my attention that Mr Walters and Venter are here as well. Who is Mr Walters?

MR WALTERS: I am, John Anthony Walters.

CHAIRPERSON: And I assume that seated next to you is Mr Venter. You are both implicated parties in this matter. Was there any submission that you wanted to make or any question that you wanted to ask of the applicant at this stage?

MR WALTERS: If I can from my side just ask a few questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Just for the record it is Mr Walters. Yes, proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WALTERS: According to the applicant - Mr Mandlazi, you were in the SANDF in 1985, but according to the papers on page 104, the SANDF says you only joined the SANDF 1986. Can I get some clarity on that please?

MR MANDLAZI: You first do orientation training for six months in the Force. After that you do your basic training for a year. That is when you receive a Force number, that is why my Force number goes back to 1986 and not 1985, because I had to do orientation prior to basic training.

MR WALTERS: You received military training, do you know the difference between an HE hand grenade and a petrol bomb?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I used an HE grenade quite often. I was trained in its use.

MR WALTERS: So what you are stating is that you know the difference?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I do.

MR WALTERS: According to Mr Ndawu's statement, which is also in this bundle, we see that his house was petrol bombed and he recovered eight broken bottles. How can you relate the difference between the HE hand grenades and the petrol bombs that were thrown into his house?

MR MANDLAZI: What I recall are the grenades that I used. I do not know about other people, whether they used petrol bombs or not. I do not know anything about petrol bombs. What I do know and recall is that at that time we would perhaps use AK47's to mislead people to think that a person had been murdered by the ANC, that is an example I can make. So it is possible that one of use did have this to use for that reason.

MR WALTERS: I put it to you Mr Mandlazi that the blue 4 x 4 double cab bakkie that you make so much reference to, I admit that I used it, it was only taken into use in 1989, so that fact is irrelevant in this statement of yours.

MR MANDLAZI: I will say that is not true, because I recall the vehicle you used with the registration MWD, it was a car that was in existence at the time, but I am not sure of the model, but the registration number MWD776T is a number I recall that belonged to a vehicle that you used at the time.

MR WALTERS: I'd like to put it further to you Mr Mandlazi, that I, John Anthony Walters, was never with you in any Top Twenty hit squad and I never participated in any of these allegations that you are standing here before the Truth Commission for. Thank you Mr Commissioner.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Walters. Mr Venter?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VENTER: Chairperson. Mr Mandlazi, do you know me personally?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I do know you. Don't you know me?

MR VENTER: Which year onwards would you have worked with me allegedly?

MR MANDLAZI: If I recall correctly, if I remember correctly, I think you were from the Railway to CIS - when ...(indistinct) police station when you came to join the Security Branch. Were you not a member of the Railway police station before you went to join the CIS?

MR VENTER: I'm referring to your dates in the statement of 1986 and 1985 when this so-called hit squad was established and I want to know whether you knew me from that time.

MR MANDLAZI: I will ask for the Commission's indulgence. My question has not been answered. When you came to join the CIS, were you not from Railway Police Station? Will you please respond to my question?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mandlazi, we have a lot of work to do. There are people sitting there whose case we must hear tonight still, they're not available tomorrow, so we don't have much time. Please respond to that question. Did you know Mr Venter in 85/86 and try and do that when you are being asked questions. Just respond directly to the question then we'll get some progress.

MR MANDLAZI: I beg your pardon. I have a problem with dates. I just know and recall that he was involved in those incidents, particularly when we abducted and detained Michael Ndawu in prison, he was present, so I do not understand his question.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand? Did you follow?

MR VENTER: I will keep it very brief. I will just make a statement, a sort of an affidavit. I was employed by the South African Railway Police in 1985 and I was transferred to the South African Police in October 1986 and in that period I was a member doing my service in South West Africa, I was not present in Nelspruit. In April of 89 only I joined South African Security Police and in 93 I was injured and I was medically disabled for a year and in 94 I was discharged from the service and in my period in the South African Security Police I never had any contact with Frans Mandlazi. He was never an informer in my office and I did not operate and take part in any action with him. That's all I have to state.

CHAIRPERSON: The effect of that statement is that Mr Venter there denies that he was involved in any of these things with you. Well you can either say you agree with him or you disagree, if you want to say anything.

MR MANDLAZI: Please repeat that statement.

CHAIRPERSON: He says that, he's given us his history. The effect of that is that he was never involved in any incident with you at all, in other words he denies what you said. Now you can respond if you want to. You can either agree with that or you can disagree with that, or you don't need to say anything if you don't want to. Do you follow?

MR MANDLAZI: I maintain that when we went to Michael Ndawu's home, he was present. He was in a panel van whose registration number I cannot recall now.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. So you don't agree with this? Mr Venter is that all you wanted to say? I beg your pardon?

MR VENTER: That is all. That's all I want to state yes, thank you.

JUDGE MOTATA: Just one Chairperson. Mr Mandlazi, paragraph 7 of your supplementary affidavit says the reward was secondary to the primary object, so when you refer to reward, what other rewards did you get other than the deposit of R40 000 to your house?

MR MANDLAZI: Nothing.

JUDGE MOTATA: So when you make mention of the reward here, are you mentioning the R40 000?

MR MANDLAZI: I explained to my attorney that I did receive R40 000 and I used it to deposit the house and later the police or my colleagues, the white colleagues wanted to kill me and ANC took me and found a safe house for me. When I came back I discovered that my house had been bombed.

JUDGE MOTATA: No my question is simple, it's that when you're referring to the reward here are you referring to the

R40 000, or were there other rewards, that's all I'm asking you? I just want to know about the reward, I've heard you on the other aspects.

MR MANDLAZI: No I didn't receive anything other than the R40 000.

JUDGE MOTATA: And you say you believed that, on 8, that your actions had some political connotations? Do you see that?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you believe that the 23 personally, the 33 people mentioned as the enemies of the then government were also your enemies because they were mentioned to you?

MR MANDLAZI: The way I was trained, I did believe at the time that they were my enemies as well.

JUDGE MOTATA: Are you suggesting that when you are told that is the enemy of the government, you were taught also to say if that is said to you, you should also believe that?

MR MANDLAZI: At that time, I did believe that. That is how I was told, that a person or people who are referred to as terrorists, they were my enemies because I was also taught that if they were to overthrow the government, I was to be eliminated as well.

JUDGE MOTATA: When you left school in 1984, what made you join the South African Defence Force?

MR MANDLAZI: There were papers which were distributed by the whites who were soldiers and they were written, join the army and see the world.

JUDGE MOTATA: And why did you join? Did you want a job?

MR MANDLAZI: Since there was no one who was going to pay for my education, I decided to join the Force because my father had just passed away those years.

JUDGE MOTATA: So you needed a job to sustain the family?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Not because of your political convictions.

Never shake your head, these things are - what you are saying here is recorded and we have our technician there who's recording that and it won't take anything by shaking your head. Would you do that, that whatever you are asked and you give a reply, don't nod or shake your head, okay? So my question was, when you joined the army, you wanted money to sustain your family.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: You mentioned when you were asked, that you would for instance phone Steve Mbuyisa, Joe Nkoena, Miss Mtongo, Albertina Mtunya and say: "I am working for Wayne Lily", do you recall saying so?

MR MANDLAZI: I didn't say I was working for him, I said I was working under him, he was my Commander.

JUDGE MOTATA: Ja. I want you to explain this to me, that the impression I got from your testimony was that for instance Albertina, Miss Mtongo, were your sources, you got information from them, now what I don't understand, why should you say: "I work under Capt Lily", why would you say that? Were you not known to these people because they gave you information?

MR MANDLAZI: I was told to recruit people.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, no, no, you'll take a long time. What I want to know from you, from what I say I want you to clarify that to me. I'm not cross-examining you or anything, I want to clarify things which are not clear to me. What I understand from you for instance from these people is that at least Albertina Mtunya and Ms Mhlongo were people who gave you information and if you were to speak to them to arrange for their payment, why would you say: "I work under Capt Lily", why should you say that? Why can't you say, even if you were using a code name that: "I'm so and so, I want to see you", or give you what is due to you. Why wouldn't you say that and instead now phone them and say: "I work under so and so"?

MR MANDLAZI: I was explaining to them because one source did ask me as to how I was going to pay them, where I was going to obtain the money to pay, therefore I did explain to that one that there was my boss and I was going to go back to my boss.

JUDGE MOTATA: Do you follow what I want you to explain to me Mr Mandlazi? I'll repeat myself. I say, I asked you about these sources and I say, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I understood from you was that for instance Albertina and Mhlongo gave you certain information because they were your sources, didn't I understand you to say that?

MR MANDLAZI: Correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now I say, now you've got to give them what is due to them, pay them in other words, now you've got to say: "I am working under Capt Lily", why is that necessary? Why can't you say to them: "Look, now I've got your money, I want to pay you", why couldn't you say that? Because you know these people, I assume, because they gave you information.

MR MANDLAZI: I do not quite understand your question.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you know Albertina Mtunya?

MR MANDLAZI: I didn't know her.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you know Ms Mhlongo?

MR MANDLAZI: I didn't know her.

JUDGE MOTATA: Which people told you that certain people whom you attacked, gave you information about them assisting people to go in exile and others handling monies for ANC? Where did you get that information from?

MR MANDLAZI: These people were actually Patrick Mathebula's sources. I took over Patrick Mathebula's job.

JUDGE MOTATA: What do you mean by that now, that you took Mathebula's job over, what do you mean by that? I'll tell you why I'm asking you this, when you testified this is my note, it may be wrong, you correct me. For instance when you testified about Michael Ndawu, you said: "Our source was Albertina Mtunya. Michael Ndawu used to assist people to go to exile and he handled monies on behalf of the ANC. She told me personally and I told Capt Lily", that's what I've written down, so the way I've taken my notes, unless I've been wrong, I didn't hear you correctly, is that you knew for instance Albertina Mtunya personally, because if you say she told you personally and you carried the information forward, it means you got the information first hand, that's how I understood you.

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I did say so. Albertina was Patrick Mathebula's source. Patrick Mathebula told Albertina that she was no longer going to work with him but with me.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did she work with you?

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now why can't you answer my question that why couldn't you say: "Hey, Albertina it's me, I want to bring your money"? Why do you say to her: "Look, I work under Capt Lily, I want to pay you", why do you say that? Why don't you say: "It's me"?

MR MANDLAZI: I made a mistake there.

JUDGE MOTATA: You made an example for instance that a source would give you information say on a Monday and that source would be paid either on a Wednesday or on a Thursday, do you recall that?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I did say so, this is how we handled.

JUDGE MOTATA: Would you first verify such information before you pay, or you would simply pay because information was given to you? By you I mean the Top Twenty.

MR MANDLAZI: That's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: When you say correct, what do you mean? Because I want to know whether you verified the information or you simply paid without verifying the information.

MR MANDLAZI: We would verify as to whether the information was correct, or not correct and then we will only make the payment after we've verified if the information was correct. We didn't pay for every information which came from the source, we only paid for the information which was more likely to be true.

JUDGE MOTATA: Why I'm asking you it's because - and why I want to understand is because Michael Ndawu for instance had been identified as the enemy. Now why should you be told about Michael Ndawu again when he is already identified, first day Top Twenty, or during the period the Top Twenty was formed, he was already an enemy, why should you need information about him again? And further, you said Capt Lily knew where Ndawu lived.

MR MANDLAZI: It was difficult for us to know or to find Michael Ndawu at home. It was really difficult to find him at his home because he knew that we were after him and he knew that whoever was after him wanted him dead, that is why we needed someone to assure or to let us know whenever he was present so that when we go there we know we will find him.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now lastly, Patrick Mlazi, after torturing him, he agreed to work for you people. Do you recall saying so, even though he did not deliver any goods in terms of information?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I do remember.

JUDGE MOTATA: What I want to ask you is actually what he has said? There's a statement you'll find on page 35 and 36 to 37 rather and I want clarity in this respect because you said when you recruited sources you would promise payment of

R1 000 for information delivered, do you recall saying so?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I do remember.

JUDGE MOTATA: And he says there, you will find it in paragraph 10, that he was told by this man he didn't know, whom he couldn't have defence against these blows after being assaulted, that if he gives information about Matsulu Civic Association, he would get R5 000 and about the ANC, R10 000. Were sources paid the same amounts?

MR MANDLAZI: This is what he said.

JUDGE MOTATA: Ja, no, no, this is what he says. That's why I said in all fairness to you, I'm telling you what he says, that's his statement, that's why I said where you could even find it, page 35 to 37, that's Patrick's statement. Now what I want to know from you were all sources getting the same remuneration or rather, when he agreed to be a source to the Top Twenty, what remuneration, what package was he offered?

MR MANDLAZI: I think it was minus R1 000, less than

R1 000, that's what I said to the Committee.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, no, no, I'm now talking about Patrick Mlazi. Okay, look at the statement there and now after looking at the statement, concentrate on my question. You see Patrick was an enemy and what you said to us, the 23, you either had to win them over, or eliminate them, do you recall your evidence in that respect?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I do.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now what you must have in your mind which I want you to explain to me, Patrick was, unlike Albertina, unlike Mhlongo, unlike Steven Mbuyisa, unlike Joe Nkoena, this was an enemy and this was a big catch, whom you turned over, even though he did not deliver. How much was he promised?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I do not know how much he was promised.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did he not agree after you tortured him and with a few kicks and fists, that he would work for you? Were you not present?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, I was present.

JUDGE MOTATA: Rather, let's us you, where did you take him to after that, when he agreed that he would work for the Top Twenty as a source?

MR MANDLAZI: Capt Lily took him, I don't know where he took him.

JUDGE MOTATA: When he says in paragraph 4: "They took me to their camp somewhere in Ngodini", did you have a camp at Ngodini?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, we did.

JUDGE MOTATA; When they took him there were you there?

MR MANDLAZI: When they arrived at Ngodini in that camp, I was there.

JUDGE MOTATA: Where was he tortured?

MR MANDLAZI: There was a certain house and it was a little, dark house.

JUDGE MOTATA: Was it at Ngodini?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, at the camp.

JUDGE MOTATA: And that's where he agreed to be turned around?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

JUDGE MOTATA: And when he agreed, you were present?

MR MANDLAZI: I heard him agreeing to Capt Lily that he will be a source and he will deliver information to us.

JUDGE MOTATA: No promise was made to him, whilst you were present, how much you would receive?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I didn't hear.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you walk out after he agreed with the torture, after being tortured rather?

MR MANDLAZI: After I tortured him, I left them and he was still being tortured when I left.

JUDGE MOTATA; Thank you. Thank you Mr Mandlazi. Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

ADV SANDI: Very briefly, Mr Mandlazi, is there any particular reason why you've got no difficulty at all to mention names of people who worked with you as informers?

MR MANDLAZI: I decided that since I was requesting for amnesty, it was better for me to tell the truth and I mustn't hide anything or leave anything behind.

ADV SANDI: I'm asking the question because I find this very - I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but I find it very unusual. We're usually confronted here with the applicants who were members of the Security Forces in the past, who simply refuse to give names of the people who were working with them as informers. But okay, let's go on to another issue. The R50 000 story, were you able to find out from your colleagues who had also been promised that they would be given money for carrying out these operations, were you able to find out as to whether they did in fact receive these monies?

MR MANDLAZI: I wouldn't be able to say whether they received the money or not, I don't have information on this because the ANC took me after this, so I don't know whether they eventually did receive the money or not.

ADV SANDI: Whilst you were working with them in the SADF, I'm talking about your colleagues, did you take any steps to find out as to whether they had in fact received such monies, say by way of asking them questions, you know?

MR MANDLAZI: I discovered later in about 1997 or 98 that my colleagues did receive money, but I don't know as to how much because I only discovered this by hearsay when I came back from where I had hidden.

ADV SANDI: Who specifically are you talking about when you say "my colleagues"?

MR MANDLAZI: One of them I can mention his name because he told me he received the money and he did buy a car with that money, his name is Rifleman Mathebula.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. One other question I thought I would ask you. Tell me, during the time you were being trained, the time you were being prepared to be an intelligence officer, were you taught anything on propaganda tactics and strategies against the perceived enemy?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, we were taught.

ADV SANDI: When you started working in the field, did you implement any of those propaganda tactics against the enemy?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, for instance we were using weapons which were not South African weapons, but were of foreign.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, that is all from me Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ngobe, any re-examination?

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NGOBE: Mr Mandlazi, can you just clarify the question of you getting employed in the SADF?

Was it for the purpose of getting a job to support you and your family?

MR MANDLAZI: I wanted a job to support my family.

MR NGOBE: So at what stage did it come to you to become politically involved?

MR MANDLAZI: When Lawrence Moyi came to me, who was from the ANC, he actually showed me that my job was not right.

MR NGOBE: Did you feel that you were politically involved in the job that you were doing, which you were hired as a soldier, at what stage? After going through military training or after intelligence school?

MR MANDLAZI: After my training.

MR NGOBE: Did you at all material times, believe that your activities were politically motivated?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

MR NGOBE: You were asked a question by Mr Jordaan that you mention a number of Shongwes and on your last affidavit, the one dated 26 July, you didn't mention Capt Shongwe. Except for calling people with their ranks, can you identify the Shongwe that you are talking about?

MR MANDLAZI: The one who is seated next to Mr Jordaan.

JUDGE MOTATA: Who would he be, Captain or Sergeant as at that time?

MR MANDLAZI: At that time he was a Warrant Officer.

MR NGOBE: As you are applying for amnesty today, did you approach the victims to ask for forgiveness?

MR MANDLAZI: I went to Mr Mike Ndawu and I explained to him about the incident of the bombing of his house and also told him that I was one of those people, I was present.

MR NGOBE: Did you only go to one victim only, or you approached all of them?

MR MANDLAZI: I also went to see Mr Sam Sambo and I also requested forgiveness and I told him what I've done to him and I apologised for that.

MR NGOBE: Do you have more to say?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes. I would like to request for forgiveness, especially to the victims.

MR NGOBE: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Can I just clarify something, Mr Mandlazi? At the time when you were involved in these activities that you spoke about here, did you hold any political views?

MR MANDLAZI: I was residing in a rural area where I grew up and we never had any political conflict when I grew up. I didn't know anything.

JUDGE MOTATA: What did you think the South Defence Force was doing when you got a job with them? Did you know what they were doing, what their job entailed?

MR MANDLAZI: I would see them in roadblocks, searching cars and I thought it was a good job.

ADV MOTATA: I was not taking that down ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's fine. I'm just not sure how I should understand you and respond. It looks like you're saying that you were not exposed to any political conflict where you grew up, but I was more interested to hear whether you held any political views at all when you were involved in all these incidents you spoke about.

MR MANDLAZI: That I only discovered after I've spoken to Mr Moyi from ANC and he told me that my job was not the right job and I realised that it was wrong to just go around torturing people and dumping them anyway.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the first time that you started developing political views, that you were exposed to politics, when you had contact with Mr Lawrence Moyi?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, it was the first time.

CHAIRPERSON: And then did you then start developing political views after that contact with Mr Moyi?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And on which side of the political spectrum did your support then lie?

MR MANDLAZI: I don't quite understand which political organise, I would like you to repeat our question.

CHAIRPERSON: After you have now been exposed to politics through the contact with Mr Moyi, did you then form your own sort of views? Were you supporting any political organisation, any political point of view from that point onwards, or not? That's what I'm trying to ascertain and if you did, which political point of view did you then support?

MR MANDLAZI: ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: So your - would it be correct to say that the first time in your life that you really became involved in or developed a political conscience, you were supporting the ANC?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes, before I wasn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you.

JUDGE MOTATA: No but you're now confusing me. Emanating from what my brother has just asked you, it makes me thoroughly confused because I'll take you back to your supplementary affidavit. You say in paragraph 7:

Could you explain that because what you just told my brother here, I thought I understood your supplementary affidavit, but from the questions of my brother, now I do not understand you, that you were merely attempting to eliminate these people without any political objective, or motivation, what are you saying to us?

MR MANDLAZI: No, I'm not saying that. I probably didn't understand.

JUDGE MOTATA: Who did you not understand? Judge Potgieter, did you not understand him?

MR MANDLAZI: No, we were fighting against our political enemies, we were not just fighting anyone on the street. We were fighting the people whom we perceived as people who were going to overthrow our government of the day.

JUDGE MOTATA: But you, on the way, said you had no sense of politics then till Mr Moyi came into the picture, Lawrence Moyi when he told you that what you are doing is wrong and you then subsequently joined the ANC because in the homelands or wherever you were, politics was something unheard of. I thought I understood you that way, or was I not listening properly?

MR MANDLAZI: What is written in paragraph number 7, it's correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Mr Mandlazi. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, thank you Mr Mandlazi, you're excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you presenting any other evidence Mr Ngobe?

MR NGOBE: Mr Chairman, that's the applicant's case.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mnisi, are you presenting any evidence?

MR MNISI: No ...(indistinct)

MR JORDAAN: I will not lead any evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: I will also not lead any evidence Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Walters, were you going to present anything?

MR WALTERS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Venter? Thank you. Mr Venter, I think Adv Sandi just wants to clarify something with you, or Mr Walters, I'm sorry.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Mr Walters, I understood you to say, now this concerns the vehicle which the applicant says you were using during the time in question. Now I understood you to say that: "I used that vehicle only in 1989", but now before 1989 where was this vehicle? Was it one of the motor vehicles that were being used in the SADF?

MR WALTERS: Mr Chairman, that vehicle was a new issue to the South African Police Force in 1989.

ADV SANDI: I also understood you to say you have never been with the applicant before. Now do you mean to say that you only met him, you saw him for the first time here today?

MR WALTERS: I do recognise this man as somebody who I saw at the police station, but I never worked with him.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. If I can ask Mr Venter the same question, did you see the applicant for the first time here today?

MR VENTER: The applicant is well-known at Nelspruit Police Station as a person who gave information to various divisions, murder and robbery, ...(indistinct), it's not the first time that I see him, I do know him because he visited the police station in Nelspruit many times, but I and the Security Police in Nelspruit, never ever worked with the army in our time.

ADV SANDI: Did you ever have any direct dealings with the applicant?

MR VENTER: None whatsoever.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Ngobe, have you got any ...(indistinct)

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR NGOBE IN ARGUMENT: I'd like just to address the Commission in support of the application for the applicant for amnesty. This is an application in terms of section 20 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995. It's my submission that the applicant complies with the requirements of Section 20(a) and further complies with Section 20(1)(c) in that he has made full disclosure of all relevant facts, perhaps that will help the Commission to take a proper decision.

Mr Chairman, I would like to humbly submit again that the applicant also complies with Section 20(2)(b), where it indicates that the acts committed by a former State employee were bona fide acts, or for the object of countering or otherwise resisting the said struggle at the time.

Mr Chairman I would like to mention further that it is common cause that there was unrest in the country for the past years, until when we came to 1994 elections for the new democracy and people who have been employed in the Security Forces, it's only a few who are coming in to apply for amnesty. Some of them are hiding the truth, some of them have disappeared and died with the truth, so only a few people are coming forward revealing the truth and any person who's trying to say - an applicant who is trying to reveal the truth, to tell everyone what happened in the past, to say he's a liar will be hindering the purposes of this Act.

It is further common cause that people who have been trained in Military Intelligence or military training in the past, they were told about potential enemies, or those who were regarded as enemies. I can safely submit, Mr Commissioner, that the Intelligence School that the applicant attended, he was politically indoctrinated, all that he was doing, he was doing to appease or to obey all the orders that were given by his masters by then, though the applicant is an unsophisticated person in the sense that he cannot understand the technical words that we are using here, but the fact of the matter is that what he was doing, he was carrying out orders that were given to him by a Commander.

There's no dispute today here that the man was not even a member of the SADF by that time. The force number that is appearing here clearly shows that he was, no one from the Military today is coming to deny him, though they tried by writing letters saying that he was employed as a cleaner.

JUDGE MOTATA: But there is, 104 (a):

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

To reply on that, it is my submission, according to my instructions, that the document appearing as page 104 of the compiled list, it was just a ploy for them to deny him that he was a member of the hit squad as he alleged here. The further notion that he was discharged, if we are talking about the same document, page 104, on paragraph (e). They refer here that he was discharged on the 31st of July 1987 from the military, which is not true according to my instructions that I have. By 1987 he was still an operative, he went on until 1994. So it is my submission that this was a letter from the SADF by that time, trying to deny a person that they knew.

It is my further submission that the applicant tried by all means to bring all the information that he knows and to admit where he did wrong, as I've mentioned that he is so unsophisticated, he cannot understand when you talk about a reward and other things. Where that has been mentioned, he tried to outline and bring to light everything that used to happen by that time, though those things might have happened, his was just to highlight for the Commission, to apply for this amnesty. He went to an extent of revealing names of other people who were injured, maimed, others alleged to have been thrown into a pool which is full of crocodiles. All this information up to today and up to this stage has not been disputed, so this shows how the applicant is so remorseful on what he did. We are talking about one applicant here. He mentions so many people. We are not sure if those people that he mentions have ever tried to apply for amnesty. We don't know whether they are keeping the truth because they want to apply for at a later stage, we are not sure, but for his own purpose he's applying for amnesty, as he has just mentioned that he approached some of the victims trying to ask for forgiveness, as much as he brought all these applications today before the Commission so that he can be considered for an amnesty.

I therefore Mr Chairman, request on behalf of Mr Frans Mandlazi, that he be granted amnesty in terms of Section 20 of Act 34 of 1995. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ngobe. Mr Mnisi, any submissions?

MR MNISI: Thank you Chairperson, I do have.

MR MNISI IN ARGUMENT: I need to mention from the onset that my instructions from the victims mentioned in the applicant's application, it's not necessary to oppose the granting of amnesty, but that is conditional. The applicants appreciate the provisions of the Act which my colleague actually did refer to, that is the Promotion for National Unity and Reconciliation, Act 34 of 1995, provided the applicant ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Did you say the applicant? The victims.

MR MNISI: In principle they don't oppose amnesty, but provided that the requirements which are laid in the Act are complied with and I therefore want to make the following submissions to the Commission that I don't believe that applicant has taken the Commission into confidence in trying to disclose all the relevant facts. I would say - I say this because of the following:

Firstly, with regard to the motive, why the applicant personally executed - okay we understand there was a list provided of people to be eliminated, but also the innocent people who were involved, the children at Ndawu's bombing, I mean Ndawu's house, no consideration, even on his part when he was cross-examined whether really were those people identified as enemies.

So therefore if we look at Section 20(1)(b), the question of an act or an omission or an offence should be - the Act says that it should be associated with a political objective. I would argue therefore that there must be a conviction in mind. You must have sort of a conviction to believe that you know, if I do this I will live with my conscience, so the applicant ...(intervention)

JUDGE MOTATA: No, but what would you say if a counter argument is given to you that people were conscripted, it was law, age 17 you go to the army? Would you say ...(no sound) executed such deeds, those people should also have had the belief, because they were simply conscripted and said: "No we're not going" and those who refused to go were prosecuted. ...(no sound) there's the enemy, should you have that belief?

MR MNISI: I think it depends on an individual, but in this instance, the question which I asked earlier on was whether, I think which was also asked by the Commissioners whether did he believe that what he was doing, I mean the fact that Mr Ndawu was on the list, if we assume that that was correct he had to be eliminated, but did he believe in his mind that when those children were inside the house, was that in actual fact, did it occur in his mind that was that correct? Then the answer was to the Commission, it was correct for him to execute because those people were casualties of war. I think that was the line of his answer. So I don't believe therefore ...

JUDGE MOTATA: But what would you say to the evidence that is before us that Capt Lily said we should go to Michael Ndawu. When we got there the two Shongwes rushed and bolted the doors with wires and I was told to hurl the petrol, the bomb, the hand grenade. Is that classified as an order?

MR MNISI: It's not classified as an order because I mean the applicant indicated that he was ordered to kill Michael Ndawu and when they arrived at the scene he was ordered to throw the hand grenade, but my question is actually, in the mind of the applicant, was he doing that act, was that actually in pursuance of his political objective to believe that also the children were enemies? And then as far as he's concerned, it's that everybody has to be eliminated, which to me, it brings to a conclusion therefore that the applicant did not have a political objective because if you are a human being, even if you are an askari, I mean if you attack an enemy you will feel that okay, right, these children are not supposed to be part and parcel of the process because our enemy, if you have a political objective, that's my argument, so therefore I don't believe that his acts per se were associated with the political belief or omissions.

JUDGE MOTATA: You're arguing that the 23 were not per se his enemies because they were identified by somebody else and he was merely told to eliminate them or torture them where they were not his enemies.

MR MNISI: I do believe that if he has been advised that the 23 were his enemies, he might believe that okay, these are the enemies that I must execute, but I have a problem with his assertion to say that whatever he did was for political objective, because the other thing which has cropped up in these hearings is that Mr Ndawu was not candid now, or very clear on the issue of the amount which was awarded to themselves, I mean awarded to himself.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, no, I want you to finish the enemy part first because this is the question I have to you. Soldiers within South Africa, that is prior to 1994, was the ANC, the PAC, the SACP, not enemies of the State of the Republic of South Africa, were they not viewed as such?

MR MNISI: Do you mean the soldiers Commissioner?

JUDGE MOTATA: Hence the Act refers to them.

MR MNISI: The soldiers and the police were perceived during that period to be furthering the aims of the State then, which people perceived to be illegitimate and they were used as instruments.

JUDGE MOTATA: And if they are viewed as such, wouldn't they vis a vis APLA, MK, also have the same view that we eliminate these people because they are enemies as well?

MR MNISI: You mean the members of the SADF would view APLA and the ANC as enemies?

JUDGE MOTATA: Why I'm asking you this, Mr Mnisi, when I was prodding Mr Mandlazi about other duties he performed, he said he was patrolling the borders before he got into this Top Twenty hit squad. Patrolling the borders for what? Insurgents. And who were the insurgents then? The present ANC, MK, APLA members who were infiltrating the country according to the then system that they must be warded off. Wouldn't that be right?

MR MNISI: Yes, that would be correct. You'll perceive them as enemies. Okay, my next point is that the primary objective, I would associate with the acts of the applicant, I think the applicant indicated that the main aim was to get a job and he also conceded earlier on that he was promised money if he executes those acts and he never considered whether somebody who is not an enemy would be injured in the process. To him actually was that he would follow an order and execute it, irrespective, so I don't believe Commissioners that a person who went to a military school, a School of Intelligence for that matter, would not have consideration to other people who are not his enemies, if we assume that the list which came from the sources and other who were mentioned like, who are not mentioned in the list, are his enemies.

JUDGE MOTATA; You're saying that he could have disobeyed orders from superiors, wouldn't such a person be hauled before the martial court for disobeying orders, wouldn't he?

MR MNISI; Ja, as far as the orders are concerned, in terms of him going to execute somebody, because my understanding of the order was that Capt Lily would say to him: "You must go and kill so and so" and he would then, there would be then that mission where you would go there and even throw the hand grenade at the place concerned. That is an order, that is, I think it's a lawful order, which must be executed by a soldier.

CHAIRPERSON: He seemed to have testified that he never really held an independent political view and he seemed to be saying, if I understand him correctly, that he was following these orders and he accepted at that stage that well, if this is what the superiors say, then these people are probably then enemies or opponents and he only really formed an independent political view after he had been exposed to Mr Moyi and that his independent political view was an pro ANC point of view, so he seems to have simply been doing what his colleagues were doing. He might have even executed a criminal, if it came to that, or anybody else that superiors said that well you know, these people are averse ...(indistinct - static interference) you must eliminate them.

MR MNISI: Let me therefore go to the other question, the question of rewards. The question of the amounts. I think the applicant was not, did not take the Commission into confidence in describing exactly how he was actually paid. In his statement he indicated that R50 000 was promised to a group, later on he changed that it was promised to himself as an individual and I believe therefore that if he assumed that he had no political convictions or objectives at the time, I will therefore submit that his actions were merely actually to get money in the whole process and also that the applicant has refused to disclose that the affidavit which he had, which he actually signed, was made by himself to people that took the affidavit and in signed form. I don't believe for a moment that the applicant could have signed an affidavit, especially a guy from Military, an affidavit, page by page, up until to the end, under oath and claim that no, certain things are not correct, because they might not be correct today. So what I'm trying to say is that in the applicant's attempt to disclose, there are certain things that he's hiding before the Commission the truth and also that he cannot be considered to be an ordinary soldier who was executing lawful orders. He's a military man from the Intelligence School, as he claimed, trained accordingly. God knows whether he is still using the same teachings and skills which he acquired in that particular school today, because the question of the amount is not whether, if you were given R50 000 and therefore you can't get amnesty, it might be a sort of motivation, but Mr Mandlazi did not take the Commission into confidence in explaining clearly. We don't know, as the victims, whether he was promised R50 000 as an individual, whether at the end of the day he did receive that money.

In closing, I would therefore state that as I have indicated, the applicants will leave to the Commission's capable hands to decide - the victims will leave to the Commission to decide whether he does actually qualify in terms of the provision, but our submission is that there was no full disclosure as far as these events are concerned and the fact that the applicant denies the original affidavit, is just to cover up his evil deeds, some of his evil deeds.

ADV SANDI: ...(indistinct) can I ask was the applicant in danger of being prosecuted in respect of these incidents in which he now confesses that he was involved? Was there such a danger?

MR MNISI: ... (indistinct - mike not on) whether he was actually going to be prosecuted.

ADV SANDI: Now why does he talk about full disclosure, but doesn't the Act say it has got to be material, full disclosure on material issues?

MR MNISI: I'm indebted to you Commission, I'm not aware of that provision that it must be material. Section 20(1)(c) indicates that applicant has made a full disclosure of the facts, that's what it says.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you reading the record?

MR MNISI: ...(indistinct)

ADV SANDI: Having regard to the evidence before us, is there anything one can say, anything material and relevant one can say the applicant has failed to disclose?

Considering also that we've only received evidence here from the applicant, there's been no ...(indistinct) evidence to refute what the applicant has to say on these things. Of course, it does not mean that we have to accept anything the witness says, because there's no evidence from the opposing side. In other words, we can't accept obvious affronts to common sense.

MR MNISI: No, I rest my submission on that evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean my colleague has argued both sides.

ADV SANDI: Can I just ask one thing, is there anything - don't you think perhaps the evidence in this case is such that it calls for a closer examination of the provisions of the Act? Is there anything in the Act which indicates that a member of the Security Forces, an applicant who acted as a member of the Security Forces must have held a subjective belief by way of political convictions, in order to classify what he did as an act associated with a political objective? Is there anything in that direction in the Act?

...(indistinct)

MR MNISI: ... view or he must hold a subjective view, as the Commissioner is trying to suggest. But what the Act stipulates clearly ...(indistinct - static interference) is associated with a political objective.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean if the superior officer says to you: "Go kill Mr X, this is political" and you know for a fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with politics, that man is a drug dealer, he's never been involved in politics ever and you go and kill the person, are you then covered in terms of this Act in spite of your own clear belief that this had absolutely nothing to do with politics, would you then still qualify for amnesty? In other words, is your subjective belief absolutely irrelevant, or is it required of you to be bona fide, because that's the wording that is used in the section, and in order to be bona fide, you must at least have a reasonable belief in what you are doing, is in furtherance of a political struggle and you can't be bona fide if you know for a fact that that's not a political enemy.

ADV SANDI: In the hypothetical example the Chairperson has given, wouldn't the political context in which that particular order is given, wouldn't that be the first stage of the inquiry in attempting to arrive as a conclusion as to whether this is an act associated with a political objective? Where do you start? Don't you look at the - wouldn't you have to look at the context?

MR MNISI: I think you have to look at the context and also you must have your personal, that's my own view, that you must have an individual conviction more than, it's not only the context which applies or the political climate ...(indistinct) at the time, but at some point you must have political individual conviction that this is what must actually happen, this I think is wrong.

ADV SANDI: I'm not expressing an opinion, I'm just asking, I'm just thinking aloud.

CHAIRPERSON: The test seems to have both objective and subjective elements to it.

MR MNISI: ...the objective part of it. That's all, I think.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jordaan.

MR JORDAAN: Thank you Chairperson.

MR JORDAAN IN ARGUMENT: Although today I came to assist Capt Shongwe who was part of the implicated persons, I wish to, in brief, make a few submissions to you. Although there are various aspects which have to be taken into consideration with the application of the applicant, firstly here it is about the truth. The banner hanging behind you, the first word says truth and that is what it is about.

CHAIRPERSON: Full disclosure. Indeed it's the truth, in other words.

MR JORDAAN: In other words that's the truth. I submit to you and my learned friend Mr Mnisi also told you this, that this did not take place here. It appears quite clear according to the evidence of the applicant that the things as he had described it that happened with regard to specifically Michael Ndawu's house and the attack there, does not concur with what was found there, except Ndawu's evidence which he offered at the Provisional Inquest. If you study page 77 of the record, it says there clearly:

It appears from this that only the front door had been barred, the other doors and windows are not mentioned and the applicant tells you in his long statement that the two Shongwes barred the doors with wires and this he changes in his newest statement which has been handed up today and in his newest statement he does not mention the one Shongwe, but he involves various other persons who would have allegedly perpetrated these acts. In other words it cannot be said that, with regard to that, there was a full disclosure and from this, that legal argument is being heard by you and considered by you.

It is further very interesting that if one has regard for his long statement, with the exception of the attack on Mr Modipane and Mr Ndawu's houses, if one reads it further as to what had happened there, the applicant nowhere says in the statement that he did this or he did that, it is only "we did this, we did that". His own part he tries to cover up here and tries to hide it.

ADV SANDI: But is he not clearly placing himself in the scene?

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Commissioner yes, he does place himself at the scene, but full disclosure goes further than just placing yourself at the scene. It goes further. There are various other persons who also could have been at the scene, but did not do anything physically there and where it goes, with regard to full disclosure, one has to describe one's own role in detail also in the statement that accompanies the application.

JUDGE MOTATA: Why would we then hear somebody if everything is on paper because then we would decide on paper? Why should we have a hearing?

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Commissioner, the hearing of the evidence is indeed to test it, that is why it is heard, indeed, under cross-examination and questions that are asked. Papers cannot be tested, but when one wants to make a full disclosure, one will tell the whole story right from the start and one will tell it in detail.

It appears quite clearly that an affidavit was taken here, an affidavit which was signed on each and every page by the applicant and he does not hesitate to describe on pages 22 and 23 that he participated in the horrible murder of a person in the police cells. He does not hesitate there to involve other persons in this and mention their names. He does not hesitate to say there that persons used socks to make a long rope.

JUDGE MOTATA: Mr Jordaan, that is withdrawn. Alfred Ndawu, he was not involved, that was the purpose of the supplementary affidavit, so that is ...(no sound) because this happened in 1983 ...(indistinct - mike not on)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

JUDGE MOTATA: That he made a mistake in that respect, Alfred Ndawu is withdrawn.

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Commissioner, that may be so, but it forms part of the affidavit. It is not only a story being told. This is evidence under oath. An oath was taken here and an affidavit was taken there in which this information is entailed and the reason why this is mentioned is quite clear today, it would have jeopardised the application because this act or the death of Alfred Ndawu is clearly described by Adv Bizos in his book and from that book it would appear that the incident had taken place in 1983 and there are some of my colleagues here who have the book here and who would have confronted the applicant with it, but the applicant realised and that is why he withdrew that part and tried to extract it because he knew that this would influence the rest of his application here today, indeed because of the fact that he did not hesitate to lie about this under oath in detail and that is indicative of the fact that there was no full disclosure here. That is briefly my argument in that regard and if there's anything else, I shall address you about that. Thank you.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, what I want to know is that you argue that for instance he doesn't, in the supplementary affidavit make mention of the other Shongwe, but in his evidence viva voce he mentioned it and we get it in the first statement as well, that the two Shongwes are the ones who bolted the two doors, that's why nobody could get out and hence Ndawu, before the Human Rights violations Committee, he says the doors were locked, that's why they had to go out through windows when the house was burning. Would you say that with that kind of evidence before us, wouldn't we say there was material disclosure here?

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Commissioner, indeed there was no full disclosure with regard to that aspect. The applicant still owes you an answer which I asked him in cross-examination, I asked him why did he not in his initial application speak the truth with regard to the issue of the closing of the doors and the windows. If we have regard specifically with reference to the attack of Ndawu's house, page 14, he pertinently refers that there were only two persons who had executed that task and that was the two Shongwes and in the amended affidavit he contradicts himself by saying that all these persons were involved in this and he mentions them by name. I repeatedly asked him why did he not mention their names in his initial application and he still owes you an answer. He tried to use every kind of counter question there, but he undoubtedly did not give you and answer and that is also indicative of the non full disclosure.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, but what should we understand? In his initial affidavit he mentions several names and then he says: "We were divided into units of seven which carried out these operations". What should we understand by him saying so? And he mentions the people who fell under his unit, whom he had to execute with the eliminations. Should he again, referring to an incident and say: "X, Y, Z"? Hence my understanding with Ndawu, he says over and above the unit of seven, there are the two Shongwes, wouldn't that be material disclosure.

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Commissioner I would have agreed with you if it was that he described it as such in that statement, but that is not how he described it. He chooses to make specific mention in his statement of:

He goes out and he mentions the two Shongwes. He distinguishes the two Shongwes as the two persons and then in the further affidavit which was handed up today, he says all the persons did this. So with regard to that aspect, I would have agreed with you if it was not for the fact that in his initial application he delineated that aspect and only said that it was those two persons who did it.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, no, let's read the sentence in its perspective. He starts and says we were a unit of seven. Out of the Top Twenty, we were divided into seven, then he comes with the Michael Ndawu. He says:

wouldn't you read that,

The only two persons added because we have his affidavit, he says they were a unit of seven and he told us who were the members of the unit of seven, then he says in respect to the elimination of Ndawu, two persons were added and it's the two Shongwes.

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Commissioner I agree with you that he indeed had said that it was the seven persons and the two persons who were added, the two Shongwes, but my argument here is that it goes further. In the following paragraph he refers once again to two persons and it is there where he does this delineation by saying that the persons who did the closing work, who wrapped the wire around the handles, door handles, was the two Shongwes and this differs from the affidavit that he had handed up today and it still goes even further.

CHAIRPERSON: But you are saying that he contradicts himself because in the original application the blame is put on the two Shongwes and in the later one he says there were a whole lot of people. That is the point you are making.

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Chairperson, that is the point I want to make, but it goes further than that. Indeed on the argument that the Honourable Commissioner put forward to me about the seven persons, if we study page 13, who are these seven persons? Gen Otto, A/O Walters, Capt Lily and Venter, Steyn, Frans Mandlazi and A/O de Costa and to that he adds the two Shongwes and now we compare the names that he gives in paragraph 6 today, he says it is Sgt Shongwe, Walters, which is indeed so, Sgt Venter, Capt Lily, Lucky Sambo who is not mentioned in his original statement that he is added, Sgt Mashego, who is not mentioned in his previous statement, he is also added, Jerry Dlamini, who is also not mentioned in the previous statement, he is also added and interesting that de Costa was one of the persons who according to the original statement was there, was no longer there. That specifically tells you furthermore that there was no full disclosure because in his original affidavit he says that these seven persons, plus the two Shongwes and now according to the statement today that there were various other persons whom he omitted and new persons that he adds and that fortifies the argument that there was no full disclosure.

CHAIRPERSON: So there's approximately three versions then? So there are three different versions with regard to this aspect?

MR JORDAAN: Indeed Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any other submissions you wish to make?

MR JORDAAN: Honourable Chairperson, there are no further submissions, thank you very much.

MS MTANGA; Chairperson, I do not intend to make any submissions in this matter, I leave this matter in your hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Walters, was there anything that you wanted to say? We've noted what you said to the applicant already, but is there anything else that you wanted to add?

MR WALTERS: No, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Venter ...

MR VENTER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay thank you. Any reply?

MR NGOBE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I'd like just to say one thing.

MR NGOBE IN REPLY: My colleagues here are referring to full disclosure. It's surprising today that the man who's applying for amnesty brought all these facts, which I submit that

these are material facts. If he did not apply for amnesty today, he could not have been sitting here today, so it is my submission that he disclosed all material facts as required by the Act and my colleagues, they should tell us what is it that he did not disclose? Maybe they know but they didn't put it to him, but they say he did not disclose. What is it, we don't know, but as far as we know he has disclosed everything that is supposed to be disclosed. Thank you Mr Commissioner.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Ngobe. Yes, well that concludes the evidence and the hearing in regard to this application. As you would have gathered from what has happened here, there are a number of matters that we have to look into, that we will have to consider in order to come to a decision in this matter. The Panel would take time to consider the case and will formulate a decision on this application as soon as we can in the circumstances that we are operating under, so in the circumstances the decision will be reserved. We take the opportunity to thank the legal representatives for your assistance in this matter and if you so wish you are excused. We have a further matter that we will be dealing with. Thank you.

Ms Mtanga, shall we give you a moment just to rearrange things?

MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we carry on?

MS MTANGA: We would like to get ten minutes to organise ourselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We will just stand down briefly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: The next matter on the roll is the application of Johan Hendrik Roelofse, Amnesty Reference AM 7955/97. The Panel is constituted as would be apparent from the record. The legal representatives will be given an opportunity to put themselves on record. On behalf of the applicant.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson, I am Adv C J Swiegelaar. I practise as Advocate at the Johannesburg Bar. I was given instructions by Mr Jonathan Marais of Tim du Toit and Company, that is a Johannesburg firm.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. And then on behalf of the victims.

MR SIBEKO: Mr Chairman on behalf of the victim I am E V Sibeko from Themba, Sibeko, Nkosi and Associates in Alberton.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Sibeko. The Leader of Evidence?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson I am Lulama Mtanga the Evidence Leader, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ma'am. Ms Swiegelaar, is there anything that you would like to place on the record, or can we allow the client to take the oath?

MS SWIEGELAAR: He's got no objection to taking the oath.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

JOHAN HENDRIK ROELOFSE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Swiegelaar.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

EXAMINATION BY MS SWIEGELAAR: Is it correct that your application for amnesty is concerning murder? You were charged with this in the Section of the Circuit District Court, (Circuit local division of the Western Circuit division, Klerksdorp, before His Lordship the late Mr Justice M J Strydom - transcriber’s translation) and where you were found guilty on the 19th of November 1993 and you were then sentenced on the 23rd of November 1993 for twenty years prison sentence.

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You are currently serving the sentence?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Where are you detained at this stage?

MR ROELOFSE: The Krugersdorp Prison.

MS SWIEGELAAR; And where were you initially held?

MR ROELOFSE: The Klerksdorp Prison.

MS SWIEGELAAR: When were you transferred to the Krugersdorp prison?

MR ROELOFSE: That was approximate the end of 1995.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The term that you have served so far, how long has it been?

MR ROELOFSE: It's now approximately seven years Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Can we then deal with the murder itself? is it correct that the crime that you were found guilty of and you are serving the sentence of, it was committed on the 21st of March in Stilfontein, in the district of Klerksdorp? Is it correct that the name of the deceased is Mr Victor?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Apart from the charge of murder, you were also found guilty of the act of - the Ammunition Act and also illegal possession of a shotgun and ammunition, is that correct?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What is the sentence that you were given for that?

MR ROELOFSE: It was 22 years and 6 months.

MS SWIEGELAAR: But it was also decided that you have to serve both these sentences as the same time. You've already indicated to the Committee that you pleaded guilty.

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did the Court or in the hearing you pleaded not guilty according to Section 113, because the Court was not satisfied that you pleaded guilty because you did not indicate in the Section 112 declaration that you did not know how the shot went off?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: For the purposes of the hearings today, I want us to concentrate on that for a moment. It may be outside of the parameters of what happened, but you would like to make a full disclosure and a truthful disclosure, so I would like us to go to the critical moment and what I'm meaning is that at that point in time, or that specific time when you shot the deceased, the firing of the shot and what happened afterwards. Can I ask you to in short tell us if you were in your vehicle at that stage?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I was in the vehicle, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And at that stage you already brought the vehicle to a stop.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, that is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Why did you stop at that stage? Why did you bring the vehicle to a stop?

MR ROELOFSE: I brought the vehicle to a stop to fire the shot that resulted in the death of the deceased.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you at that stage recognise or see the victim at that stage?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Very well. Where was the shotgun at that stage?

MR ROELOFSE: The shotgun was next to me in the vehicle.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And what did you do then?

MR ROELOFSE: I called the deceased to the vehicle. I took the shotgun next to me and fired a shot.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The deceased, did he react to you calling him? Did he walk towards you?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, that is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And were you still seated in the vehicle?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And while you were in this seated position, did you then fire the shot towards the deceased?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you see if it hit him?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I did see that it hit him.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Why do you say so?

MR ROELOFSE: The deceased fell backwards.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Could you see where you hit him on his body?

MR ROELOFSE: No, I couldn't.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You do know now that it hit him in his chest, the left side of his chest?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you do know this now because of evidence that was led and the positions and the post mortem inquest that followed and can you concur with it in terms of how you aimed the weapon and when you fired it?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What did you do then?

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just before that, can you tell us which part of the body of the deceased did you aim this shot at?

MR ROELOFSE: The upper part of the person's body.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Very well. After you fired the shot and you saw that the deceased fell, how did he fall, did he fall forwards or backwards, meaning did he fall forward onto his stomach, onto his back or on his side?

MR ROELOFSE: He fell over backwards onto his back.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What did you do then?

MR ROELOFSE: I drove back in the direction of my house.

MS SWIEGELAAR: That is now away from the mine where you were on your way to go and work?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Why did you drive back to your house or in that direction?

MR ROELOFSE: I got rid of the weapon that I had. I threw it off the train bridge.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And afterwards?

MR ROELOFSE: Afterwards I returned to my work.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And it was when you started with your work, you told Mr Duvenhage what happened, the Shift Manager.

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words there was no struggle between you and the deceased before you fired the shot?

MR ROELOFSE: No, there was no struggle.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And your evidence is thus in effect, or that was led after you pleaded not guilty, is therefore not true?

MR ROELOFSE: No, it was not the truth.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Roelofse, why are you now telling the truth?

MR ROELOFSE: In the Court, the fact that the weapon was never found, I thought that I may be found not guilty. I am however here today to tell the whole truth and that is why I mentioned in Court that there could have been a possible struggle and that I couldn't remember really what happened.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Can you just explain to us, why did you think that the fact that the weapon was not found, that that could assist you concerning the shooting incident and specifically the charge of murder?

MR ROELOFSE: Well the fact that they couldn't find the weapon because I did not show the investigative officer exactly where I threw the weapon or the firearm.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words that the evidence or the available evidence was of such a nature that there was still room for you to give a version or to give evidence of self defence?

MR ROELOFSE; That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Concerning the conviction, you were found guilty of murder and you were also found guilty on the basis of the fact that you had the direct intention to kill the deceased, did you accept the verdict?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I accepted it.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You did not appeal?

MR ROELOFSE: No, I did not at all.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The sentence of 20 years and that is the conviction for murder, did you accept that?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I accepted it because I made a very big mistake, I wanted to serve the sentence that was given to me.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And that you accepted that you had to be sentenced or punished for what you did?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You also did not appeal against sentence?

MR ROELOFSE: No, I did not.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You submitted in your application that it was a politically motivated murder, is that correct?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Can you just explain to us, why is that your motivation?

MR ROELOFSE: At that stage I was a supporter, a big supporter of the AWB and I admired Mr Terblanche. I attended meetings where people were incited and we were told that anarchy and war will break out after the election, that white people will be killed and in this shooting incident I wanted to bring the resistance of the white people to the front and I wanted a state of emergency to be declared and also because of what happened at Eikenhof, that led to the death of innocent people.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Very well. Can you indicate to us that the meetings that you attended, were they political meetings?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What political party or organisation was this?

MR ROELOFSE: It was the AWB.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you said there that you were incited. Who incited you? Who were the people who made the speeches?

MR ROELOFSE: Most of the time it was Mr Terblanche, Gen Fourie, Gen van Vuuren. There were other Generals who also incited us, I cannot remember all their names. Gen van Rensburg was also there.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Very well. You were not a member of the AWB, you were only a supporter?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I was only a supporter, that is correct.

MR SWIEGELAAR: And your application is not saying that you acted on an instruction or order that you received, am I correct if I say that you base your application on the fact that you acted alone?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And your motivation for your action was that you wanted to make a contribution?

MR ROELOFSE; That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR; What kind of contribution did you have in mind?

MR ROELOFSE: Because of what happened at the Eikenhof slaughter, I acted and that is to bring white resistance to the front to force them to declare a state of emergency, in other words to prevent them from continuing with the elections.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Can we then for a moment deal with the Eikenhof incident? Did that make you react to act on that?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: How did it happen that you decided that you are now going to act in the way in which you did because of the Eikenhof incident?

MR ROELOFSE: The Saturday morning I came back from work, I found the Rapport on the table where they published the whole story around the Eikenhof incident. It made me feel anxious and confused and at that stage there were a lot of farm murders, murder of policemen, revenge statements were made from the left and the right side of the political spectrum.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Can I just interrupt you there for a while Mr Roelofse? That Sunday, is that the Sunday when you committed this crime?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words that is the 21st of March 1993?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You said that you came back from work. At that stage you worked at the mine. Did you work the night shift?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And what time did you get back to your house?

MR ROELOFSE: It was approximately 8 or 9 o'clock.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You found the Rapport there, did you read the articles in the Rapport concerning the Eikenhof incident?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: How did it make you feel?

MR ROELOFSE: I became anxious. I had two children and a wife and I thought that it could have been children.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you then take the decision to go and commit a murder?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, through the course of the day I decided to act on my own conviction and out of revenge because of the Eikenhof slaughter that had taken place.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Evidence is on record that in that day, that specific Sunday, you consumed a lot of alcohol over a period of 12 hours.

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you also took medication or together with the alcohol you also took medication, is that correct?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I had a nervous problem. I took Tryptolene tablets and I took that with the alcohol.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Do you confirm that the evidence that you gave in the hearing or during the hearing in mitigating circumstances that in the 12 hours before you committed this murder, that you took 6 Lion Lagers as well as a bottle of brandy, a 750 ml that you mixed with Coke, that you consumed all of this together?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You also then consumed these tablets. You took 125 mg.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, every day I drank 5 of them.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Was that also the same on that specific Sunday?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Your actions on that specific day and your decision to commit this murder, was that influenced by the alcohol intake of that day?

MR ROELOFSE: I believe that it gave me more courage to do what I planned to do.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words it gave you the courage?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What was the main motivation in committing this murder?

MR ROELOFSE: I would say it was the Eikenhof slaughter that took place.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And as you already indicated, you thought that your actions will have certain repercussions and will result in certain reactions in the country among the right wing.

MR ROELOFSE: I thought it would be a chain reaction that would follow.

MS SWIEGELAAR: At the stage when you went to work, you took the shotgun with you?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Was that customary, did you always take a shotgun with you to work, or was that for the specific reason that you took the shotgun with you on that evening?

MR ROELOFSE: I took the shotgun with me most of the time, but that specific evening I took it with the purpose of committing this crime.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What was the purpose? What did you want to go and do?

MR ROELOFSE: I wanted to act in revenge because of the Eikenhof slaughter.

MS SWIEGELAAR: At whom did you want to direct this revenge?

MR ROELOFSE: Against the ANC, SACP, APLA people, black people and a smaller amount of white people.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Why did you choose the deceased as your target?

MR ROELOFSE: The deceased was the first person that I found along the road and in the South African Police and the AWB we were told that all black people were ANC or SACP or APLA members and that they were the enemy.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The deceased, or was the deceased the first black person that you met on that specific evening?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Was he walking at that stage?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Was he moving in the same direction as what you were, or was he walking in the opposite direction from where you came? You were on your way to the mine.

MR ROELOFSE: I drove past him and I turned the vehicle around.

MS SWIEGELAAR: But did he approach you from the front?

MR ROELOFSE: He approached me from the front.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words you drove past him and then turned back?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And when he came close to you, you called him towards you?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, that is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: As you already explained now, you then shot him. Was that the only person that you targeted that evening, or that you shot that evening?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you at any stage, we know now and you've already said and we know what appears in the Court proceedings or the records of it concerning the merits and the sentence, and you admitted to the shift boss or manager Mr Duvenhage what happened, but you also - did you tell him that you shot more than one person that evening?

MR ROELOFSE: That is not true, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You did tell Mr Duvenhage that you fired a shot and that you were motivated because of the Eikenhof event, or incident?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Roelofse, how did you feel immediately after you shot the deceased?

MR ROELOFSE: At that stage I was confused, shocked. It's very difficult to explain it, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Were there any feelings of satisfaction that you now have reached this goal or achieved it?

MR ROELOFSE: At that specific moment yes, but immediately afterwards I was very confused and very shocked and I realised that I made a very big mistake.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Do you agree that when Mr Duvenhage confronted you with the fact that he saw that you brought your vehicle to a stop alongside the road, that you basically immediately told him everything, or not quite, but that at least to an extent told him what the circumstances were at that stage, that you allowed ...

MR ROELOFSE: I first denied it but after we argued a bit I admitted that I did do it.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And were you willing to give yourself over to the police?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I was.

MS SWIEGELAAR: But you didn't?

MR ROELOFSE: No.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You were later arrested the next day?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Why didn't you go to the police to hand yourself over?

MR ROELOFSE: After I spoke to the shift manager underground, we decided to go outside and to then give myself over to the police. We couldn't find the person along the road that was shot. I then made a phone call from a public phone and I made certain inquiries to find out if anybody was shot on this road where they told me that there was no such incident. We then returned and went to go and look again to see if there was somebody that was shot. The shift manager then told me that I must go and sleep in the rest rooms where I went to go and sleep and he gave me the assurance that we must just leave this whole thing and then the Sunday morning I went back home.

MS SWIEGELAAR: After, what appears from the records, he found out that there was an incident and that he saw the police there, did he then notify you about this?

MR ROELOFSE: No, he didn't.

MR SWIEGELAAR: But he did tell the police, according to the records and afterwards you were then arrested.

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you give yourself over without any resistance, that was when you were arrested?

MR ROELOFSE: No, I immediately gave myself over, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: At that stage, how did you feel about this crime that you committed, especially when you now realised that there was indeed a person that was killed and that you were responsible for it?

MR ROELOFSE: It is very difficult today to explain this feeling. I was very shocked, confused, very sorry, I couldn't believe that I did something like this. I was in a very emotional state, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: After your arrest, you made a statement in front of a Magistrate where you basically admitted that you were responsible for the death, or the murder.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You also indicated where it happened, but there was a problem with it because you did not take them to the right place or the correct place. Why didn't you do this?

MR ROELOFSE; Because I tried to basically swing the situation and the gun was never found.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you tell them where you got rid of the weapon or the firearm?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I showed them where but they could not find them.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you also tell them that in your affidavit or statement?

MR ROELOFSE: Well after the statement we went to go and look for the firearm.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Very well. That was then at that stage that you were detained and you were released on bail?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The decision to plead guilty, what made you do that? Why did you decide to plead guilty on the charge of murder?

MR ROELOFSE: Because at one stage they arrested my wife under the Security Act and I then decided to plead guilty so that they will not arrest her.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Why would they arrest your wife? What would be the motivation for it?

MR ROELOFSE: Because one of the investigative officers thought that she had to know about what happened, or that she knew about what happened.

MS SWIEGELAAR: But at that stage, you already made your statement.

MR ROELOFSE; No that was before I did it.

MS SWIEGELAAR: So the confession was because there were certain threats that they will arrest your wife and that led to the confession that you made. We are now at a further step, that is now the hearing itself and the fact that you then pleaded guilty, you were not found guilty on it, but you did tender a guilty plea. Why did you decide to plead guilty in the Court?

MR ROELOFSE: I realised that I did something wrong and that I had to be punished for it and had to serve a sentence for it because of this crime that I committed.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And is that why you tendered a guilty plea?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The statement that contains the facts on which you were found guilty and which you admitted to appears in the merits of the Honourable Judge Strydom. Was that done on your instruction and was compiled by your legal representative?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: We have basically dealt with paragraph 9 where you said that:

Where you now told the Commission that you do know what happened and that you can remember that you called the deceased closer and when he came closer you aimed the rifle at him and that you fired a shot, you can also remember that he fell backwards, he moved backwards and fell on his back. Apart from that, is there anything else in the section 112 statement that is not correct?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I said that I couldn't remember exactly what happened and that I had a vague memory and that there could have been a struggle.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And that is not correct, we already know this?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: But you are satisfied with the contents of the rest of this?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, that is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you also get advice from your legal representative concerning this vague memory that you had?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words, it was on your instruction that this was compiled and it was on the advice that he gave you?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Very well. You were then found guilty and you were sentenced to 20 years of prison?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You immediately started serving the sentence?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: At that stage Mr Roelofse, did you accept that you had to serve this sentence?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, definitely.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Why?

MR ROELOFSE: I felt that I deserved it because of this horrible act that I committed and that I acted wrongly, I was completely in the wrong by killing a husband with a wife and a child and committing murder.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Today it is now a few years later, how do you feel today about this crime that you committed, this murder?

MR ROELOFSE: I feel very bad about it and I feel sorry that I did it and up to today I cannot believe what I did.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Well let me put it this way, your case today hinges on the fact that it was politically motivated. What is your political objective today?

MR ROELOFSE: I have distanced myself from any right wing political party. After I got to prison, I have reconciled myself with the Freedom Front. Afterwards I went over to the DP and currently I am a supporter of the DA.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And your thoughts concerning, or at this stage, do you have any political enemies?

MR ROELOFSE: No, not at all. I think we evolved a lot on a political level and I think that if we all take hands and look towards the future, we can make a success of this country and in this country.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you yourself, do you feel that you are threatened by any group of people?

MR ROELOFSE: No, not at all.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Roelofse, in this time that you've spent in prison, we know that you are a family man, you've got a wife and two children. How old are they?

MR ROELOFSE: My son is 10 years old and my daughter is 16 years old.

MS SWIEGELAAR: During the hearings, or more specifically the sentence phase of this, the deceased's wife testified.

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you are aware of the fact that there was also a child, a daughter that was at that stage 5 years old.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, she was very young.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you see her at that stage?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I think I did see her.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you are also aware, or you've heard the evidence and you heard what was said about what happened after you killed this man.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, that is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Do you concur or reconcile yourself with the fact that all these disadvantages that they experienced was because of what you did?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, many nights I lie awake thinking about what I did and how I disadvantaged them by taking away the father, somebody whom they loved and because of my actions, I took him away from them. It bothers me every night.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Have you thought of considered maybe that there's some way that you can assist them to rectify where you have disadvantaged them and what you've done to them?

MR ROELOFSE: Many nights I have thought what to do and currently I've got a wife and children that's struggling. My wife is earning R130 a week, but after I gave my heart to God in prison, I decided too that if I get out of prison and it's God's will if it happens, to make a plan and if I'm allowed to support them financially, depending on what job I've got and what my salary will be.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Your wife did not work while you were not in prison, is that correct?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: She also has got health problems that resulted in her not being able to work?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, she's also got nervous problems.

MS SWIEGELAAR: But currently she is working?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Your wife and children are in Oudtshoorn at this stage?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And her parents are also there.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And the work that she's doing is, she works from home?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes. She lives in a type of flat at the people where she works.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What type of work does she do?

MR ROELOFSE: It is hand work, they make little statues.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Commercial statues?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you said that she receives R140 or R130 per week. And here accommodation, is it free, or must she pay rent?

MR ROELOFSE: No it is free, she must just give money for the electricity.

MS SWIEGELAAR: When last did you see your wife and children?

MR ROELOFSE: In the seven years I saw them four times. The last time was New Years.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Of this year?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Your wife is not present today?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, she hasn't got the financial ability to get here.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Is your relationship with your wife and family relationship still in tact?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words if you get out will you go back to your family?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, definitely.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You said that you would like to make a financial contribution in order to assist the deceased's family. Have you received any work offers?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, twice I've received work offers.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words that there's a possibility that if you were freed, that you will be able to earn a living?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And that you then can make a contribution from your income to the deceased's wife and child.

MR ROELOFSE: I would very much like to do this.

MS SWIEGELAAR: With the mediation of the wife and legal representative, I spoke to her earlier on and it seemed out of the discussion that the daughter is now 12 years old, that she is in Standard 6 and that she is currently not in school, because there's lack of funds, but that she would like to continue with her school career, will you be willing then, if you can afford it, to make a contribution to her school fees?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, definitely. I also would have like to have done more if I'm financially capable of doing it.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Have you spoke to the deceased's wife?

MR ROELOFSE: No, not today, but I asked her, or I apologised in Court, but I haven't spoken to her today, but I would like to talk to her today if the Commission will allow me to do it.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And what will you tell her today, if you had the opportunity?

MR ROELOFSE: Can I talk to her now, Chairperson?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Yes, you can, through the Commission you can address her.

MR ROELOFSE: Can I stand, Mr Chairperson? Mrs Motswa, words I do not have to describe, I do not know if you will be able to forgive me because I do not know what I would have done if I were in your position, if something like this happened to me. I am sorry and please forgive me, it sounds so small and insignificant because I took your husband away, a breadwinner, but please believe me today at nights, in the evenings I pray for you and your child. All that I can ask you is please forgive me because what I did was horribly wrong. If you are able to forgive me, my life will be better in the future as a human being and I would truly appreciate it and I humbly apologise also to your daughter, I am very sorry.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Is there anything else Mr Roelofse?

MR ROELOFSE: If possible that in the future I would like to assist and support yourself and your daughter. Thank you very much.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Roelofse now concerning the prison sentence to date, you say that you have adjusted to life in prison.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And is your behaviour up to such a level that you will be considered for parole?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, definitely.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You have provided me with written documents and letters that are written or addressed to the Commission and the Chairperson of the parole council from the Krugersdorp prison, or the Correctional Services in Krugersdorp. Broadly speaking, what are these documents about?

MR ROELOFSE: They are all the people that I'm working for. Mr Langa is one of the officers I have been working with for five years. Mr Maharaj our security officer, I work as a waiter where I serve people coffee and sweets, that is from our Golden and Recreation Club, Mr Rasepai.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Rasepai, is he working for Correctional Services?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Is he one of the staff members?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And then a Mr de Bruin.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, that is our section head and that is one of the members, Mr Makgotla, he's also working with us.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Is he one of the wardens?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Molefe.

MR ROELOFSE: Mr Molefe is the assistant section head.

MS SWIEGELAAR: ...(indistinct)

MR ROELOFSE; He is the head of the hospital.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson, with your permission I'd like to submit these letters. I must apologise that I did not make copies but I've only got the originals because it only became available this morning. Can I then ask if I can give it to the Committee? I'll ask the staff to get it for me.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we will receive the letters as soon as they have been copied.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Roelofse...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Are you able to continue? Are you calm enough to continue?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, I'm comfortable.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Would you have been allowed to get out of prison, or would you have received parole if or rather do you feel at this stage comfortable within yourself that you will not commit a similar crime?

MR ROELOFSE: Definitely, Mr Chairperson, I have got no such thoughts in my head.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The Judge that heard you, or heard your case and then sentenced you, was of the opinion that there's not a big chance that you will do this again. Why would you, if you can say you will not commit such an act again?

MR ROELOFSE: I think as white people we were under the impression, the wrong impression by SAP officers and right wing political leaders, amongst others Terblanche, who brought us under this wrong impression that there will be a war that will break out on the election day and that the whites will be killed and I heard or I learned in prison to respect people, to respect other people's cultures and that war will not solve problems, but to talk to each other and to assist each other and to take hands and to build together this country that was - and that there's for every single person in this country a future.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You in passing made a comment and that stayed with me that you're addicted to newspapers. Do you have access to newspapers in prison?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, we do have access to newspapers.

MS SWIEGELAAR: So are you, or would you say that you are up to date with the current political happenings for example what's going on in Zimbabwe?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, definitely.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And how do you feel about this, the future of South Africa?

MR ROELOFSE: I feel that this country has got a very good future ahead, if it was not for the high crime rate and if we can all work together against crime, then I think that this country can continue and progress on a political level. We've already got strong ties with other countries, countries with which we could not have tied with in the apartheid ear and I do feel positive.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And now if for example you read in the newspapers what happened in Zimbabwe concerning the farms and concerning what's happening around that, how do you feel about that?

MR ROELOFSE: I feel that the problem will not be solved on such a military level, but that people must be brought together and that they should talk about the problems and that if one looks at the problems, there are problems, there's people who have been disadvantaged, land that's theirs and that after 20 years they haven't received what is theirs, but I do not think to solve it on a military level or in such a way would be the solution.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Well if you hear this now and to put it blatantly, do you not feel that you want to take up a weapon and revenge?

MR ROELOFSE: No, definitely not. That will not solve the problem, it will just make it worse.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The meetings that you attended before you committed this crime, did they ever suggest such action as a possible solution for the purposes or furthering of the purposes or goals of these organisations?

MR ROELOFSE: Well they told us to mobilise, stand together and prevent an election from taking place. To gather weapons and ammunition, food and certain slogans were shouted.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Did you gain any personal or financial - did you receive any financial gain from this crime?

MR ROELOFSE: No, not at all.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And when you chose the deceased as your target, it was just by coincidence that you chose him, or did you specifically choose him?

MR ROELOFSE: By coincidence he was at the scene.

MS SWIEGELAAR: You did not know him?

MR ROELOFSE: No, I did not know him at all.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words you did not have any specific feelings towards him as a person?

MR ROELOFSE: No, not at all.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words or although you did not choose him specifically, you did decide to target somebody that was representative of the enemy as you saw it then?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Roelofse is there anything that you would like to add or bring under the attention of the Committee? I'm sorry, there's one last aspect. A few times you have referred to the South African Police Service that after you left school you joined the South African Police.

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: How long were you a member of the then South African Police Force?

MR ROELOFSE: It was approximately 5 years.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Where did you serve?

MR ROELOFSE: ...(indistinct) and Uitenhage and the Eastern Cape.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What was your rank when you left the police?

MR ROELOFSE: I was a constable.

MS SWIEGELAAR: What was the highest standard that you passed?

MR ROELOFSE: I did not complete standard 9 at school.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In other words you've got standard 8?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And afterwards you went to go and work on the mine where you worked during or when you committed this crime. Just for completion, what mine was it?

MR ROELOFSE: It was the Hartbees Gold Mine.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The time that you served in the South African Police, do you think that it played a role in the committing of this murder?

MR ROELOFSE: We were indoctrinated by officers, they eve told us that we must not trust the black members, that they are ANC, that they will side with the ANC and SACP and that we must see them as terrorists and we mustn't trust them and that the black members were also treated in a very bad way while they served in the South African Police.

MS SWIEGELAAR: When you started working on the mines, did you join a Union?

MR ROELOFSE: All the mines belonged to the Mine Workers Union.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And the members, were they representatives, or what is the position?

MR ROELOFSE: They are there to protect those who've got problems and it was basically a right wing organisation.

MS SWIEGELAAR: At that stage it was a white organisation and only for white mine workers.

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Would you say that on the political spectrum it was more on the right hand side?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, definitely.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And were you actively involved in the Union?

MR ROELOFSE: I won't say that I was very actively involved, but I did attend the meetings, but I was not a regular, or somebody who would go to all the meetings.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In your application you indicated that your background or family background was very conservative and that everything was for the Afrikaners and if we can get to the crux of it it was for whites?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And is that how you were brought up in your parents' home?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: And you were then exposed to this from a very early age.

MR ROELOFSE: That is also correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Do you still share those opinions, or views?

MR ROELOFSE: No, not at all.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Very well. I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. The correspondence will be accepted as Exhibit A 1 to 8. 1 is a letter dated 10th July 2000 from the Head Medical Care, 2 date 27th July 2000 from R F Molefe, 3 30th May 2000 from C M Mokgolua, 4 is headed "Vorderingsverslag" from a Mr de Bruin, Hoof B Blok, 5 is a letter from D S D Rasepai, Recreation Facilitator, Krugersdorp Correctional Services. 6 is a letter from Mr M Maharaj, the Head Operations and Security, Correctional Services Krugersdorp, dated 23rd March 2000, 7 is a letter from B Jaka Head Containment Krugersdorp Correctional Services and 8 is a hand-written note from the applicant address to the "Prinsipaal, Andrew Murray Bybelskool," Benoni, dated 14 June 2000. Mr Sibeko, any questions?

MR SIBEKO: Thanks Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SIBEKO: Mr Roelofse, my instructions here are not to oppose this application on the basis of the fact that, as you have already stated, that you are aware of the hardship that you have caused to the family and more especially to my client and on the understanding again that if possible, if this Committee decides to grant you amnesty you'd be in a position to assist her in as far as her child's education is concerned. However, I've got only a few aspects to take up with you. Firstly, I've been going through the bundle and I observed that you say that on the day of the incident or immediately before that, you got to know about this Eikenhof incident, is that so?

MR ROELOFSE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR SIBEKO: Now had it not been for this incident, or had it not been for this Eikenhof incident, would you have committed the said act that we are talking about today?

MR ROELOFSE: No, definitely not, Chairperson.

MR SIBEKO: Before you committed this incident, did you discuss this or did you share this idea with any other person?

MR ROELOFSE: No not at all, it was only myself that knew about it Chairperson.

MR SIBEKO: In other words will I be correct if I say that nobody else even from your own then organisation, knew about what you planned or what you had in mind at the time?

MR ROELOFSE: No, not at all Chairperson.

MR SIBEKO: Will I further be correct if I say it was your own decision without having consulted with anybody from your party?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SIBEKO: Alright.

ADV SANDI: And after you had killed the deceased, did you make any report to any person in the AWB?

MR ROELOFSE: No, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Did you have any reason for not doing so?

MR ROELOFSE: I was not such an active member of the AWB. I however was a great supporter Chairperson and immediately the next morning I was arrested.

MR SIBEKO: One last aspect, Mr Roelofse. In your plea which has formed part of the Court record, more especially paragraph 9 on page 28, amongst other things that you see, you refer to there intoxicating liquor and some tablets that you had taken that particular day, is that so?

MR ROELOFSE: Correct, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Was it your habit to take liquor together with tablets?

MR ROELOFSE: I had suffered with my nerves from an early age Chairperson and my days in the SAP I developed a drinking problem because of the tremendous stress under which we worked, so if I consumed liquor, I still took my tablets and if I did not consume liquor, I still took my tablets, so everyday I did drink my tablets.

MR SIBEKO: Now surely you will agree with me that the combination of the two, the tablets and this alcohol, could create a very dangerous situation in any person?

MR ROELOFSE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR SIBEKO: To an extent that even if it hadn't been for this Eikenhof incident, a similar situation could have arisen?

MR ROELOFSE: I was just about an alcoholic and for many years I consumed a bottle of brandy with a few beers. The tablets which I consumed with it, did not have such an effect on me that I did not know what was going on around me and for me to finish a bottle of brandy at that stage that was not much for me.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you drink it alone, a bottle?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: A whole bottle?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, a bottle.

CHAIRPERSON: 750 ml?

MR ROELOFSE: 750 ml Chairperson.

MR SIBEKO: Thanks Mr Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Sibeko. Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: I have no questions Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Has the Panel got any questions?

ADV SANDI: You were in the SAP from which year to which year?

MR ROELOFSE: It was approximately from 1981 or 82 to 85 or 86 Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: And you were based in the Eastern Cape?

MR ROELOFSE: That's correct, Sir.

ADV SANDI: What was your reason for leaving the Police Force?

MR ROELOFSE: The Police service placed a lot of stress on me and I was already there on sedatives. The money was very little. I then went to the mines. I retired and I went to the mines for a better salary. At that stage I earned R400 per month, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: No further questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any re-examination?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Only one aspect Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Roelofse something that I had omitted, your liquor problem, what is the position with regards to that currently?

MR ROELOFSE: If I can state it as such, I hate liquor. I think liquor leads to much crime in the country and it encourages people to do things that they would not otherwise do if they were not inebriated. Liquor made me realise that what I did to other people and also to my own people - and I despise liquor, I do not want to have any contact with any liquor at any ...

MS SWIEGELAAR: In prison, do you have access to liquor?

MR ROELOFSE: It is available, that's correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: It's available at a price?

MR ROELOFSE: Yes, that's correct.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Do you consume liquor currently?

MR ROELOFSE: No, I do not.

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

CHAIRPERSON: If you did not drink so much that day, would you have still committed this murder?

MR ROELOFSE: Chairperson, I was sober when I planned to do what I wanted to do, but I was somewhat hesitant and that is why I started drinking, to build up some courage to do what I did.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you decide that you would commit this murder?

MR ROELOFSE: This was approximately the morning, it's quite some time back, but I would say approximately 10, 11, 12 o'clock maybe.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you not then go immediately and commit the murder?

MR ROELOFSE: Because it was during the day, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you on your way to work that evening?

MR ROELOFSE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But did you mean that you would just commit this murder on your way to work?

MR ROELOFSE: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And in the condition that you were, could you work?

MR ROELOFSE: Everybody knew me as such at work. I asked the mine to send me away. I went to a doctor. There were only two doctors in Klerksdorp, I went to the one, he put me on anti-booze for my drinking problem, this also did not help. I many a times went to the mine captain to ask him to send me away, but everybody thought that I was doing my work even though I came to work inebriated.

CHAIRPERSON: But the Shift Boss, did he give you work?

MR ROELOFSE: We first went underground and after I discussed the problem with him and I said that it is better, it should be better if I go and hand myself over to the SAP, then he took me out.

CHAIRPERSON: But he did not make you work that evening, he made you go and sleep.

MR ROELOFSE: Only when we came back from the scene, he then took me back and made me sleep in the change room.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this to sleep off your liquor? So you were in no condition to work?

MR ROELOFSE: I many a time came to work in a similar condition and he left me. It is common under miners that they work when they are drunk.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were sober, would you have still committed this murder?

MR ROELOFSE: I believe so, but it would have been very difficult Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any further questions Madam?

MS SWIEGELAAR: No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well Mr Roelofse thank you, you are excused. Is there any other evidence you wish to lead?

MS SWIEGELAAR: None, Chairperson. That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibeko, are you presenting any evidence?

MR SIBEKO: No evidence Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Would you like to address us on the merits of the application?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Thank you Chairperson.

MS SWIEGELAAR IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, it is my respectful submission on behalf of the applicant that the application of the applicant should be granted. In motivation of this I shall argue that the requirements have been fulfilled as it is stated in Section 20 of the Act of National Reconciliation of 1995 Act number 34 and it is my respectful submission that the applicant's incident falls under Section 20(2)(a) of the particular Act in the sense that he was a supporter of a well-known political organisation at that stage, the Afrikaner Weerstands Beweging and that in support of this organisation he bona fide acted on behalf of such an organisation in the political struggle which was against another well-known political organisation, and committed this act within the time period as is stated by the Act.

CHAIRPERSON: This was in support of the AWB, was this part of their policy to murder persons under these circumstances.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MS SWIEGELAAR: That it would not directly - this policy was not conveyed to them directly but it was told to them at political organisations and more specifically by the speakers, that it would appear that this would be Mr Eugene Terblanche, that they said that they had to mobilise themselves and ready themselves and they had to be ready to avoid a blood bath and his version boils down to the fact that he believed that this would be part of their policy. In other words, he believed that what he did would be in the furtherance of the political struggle of the AWB and that through this he would have motivated and mobilised the far right to take similar action to, as he has testified, to jeopardise or have the national elections which were planned at that stage, to have it postponed or to have it stopped or just to get a postponement of it and it is on that basis that I make this submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he act against a political opponent?

MS SWIEGELAAR: His evidence was that what he regarded at that stage, what he regarded the enemy at that stage, it was the ANC, the PAC and they were embodied in the black person, that is why he decided to go out and shoot a black person and that his choice was coincidentally the deceased here, who was - who unfortunately crossed his path on that evening and it is on that basis that we cannot say and he also says it, that the deceased was not a political organisation, but the deceased for him embodied such an organisation or the enemy of the State.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that a bona fide conviction? What of a black police officer? Would he have gone out and shot a black police officer?

MS SWIEGELAAR: A black police officer in uniform?

CHAIRPERSON: Let us say the deceased was a black police officer.

MS SWIEGELAAR: In uniform?

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't matter.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Chairperson, on his version and I can only work on his version, it was not put to him as such, but his version was that this political enemy, political organisation, as he admitted to you that he saw who was responsible for example the massacre on the farms, the political slogans which were expressed and this was embodied in the black person and if he expressed his sympathy with regard to the killing of police officers, black police officers at that stage, so if the officer was visibly a police officer, in other words was dressed in a police uniform, he would not have seen him as the embodiment of the enemy and he would not have directed himself at a police officer, but if the police officer was the deceased and he was dressed under the circumstances that he met with the deceased that evening and that he was not in uniform and he was not in a marked police vehicle but he was a pedestrian walking past and there were no characteristics showing that he was a police officer, then he probably would have directed himself to the deceased in the execution of this objective that he had of that evening, but without him being aware of the fact that this was a police officer and it is my respectful submission that this was a bona fide condition at that stage in the mind of the applicant, that he saw this as a political enemy of people as himself and the far right organisations. He saw this embodied in a black person and that is why he decided that he will direct himself at a black person, he will kill a black person, never mind who that person was.

CHAIRPERSON: Does the Act not require more of an applicant? Does an applicant not have to indicate that he had a reasonable conviction? Many times we get a case where, objectively speaking, innocent persons are killed. A bus load of women may be killed, but what the applicant does then, he lays a basis, he says: "Listen, these buses come from a direction where there was for an example a political gathering", therefore he places something else before this Commission as something that obviously just looking at it it looks like racism, he just shoots the first black person he meets, he doesn't ask any questions, he doesn't take any steps to have something to go on to say that: "Look, this in my opinion is part of my enemy". Does the Act not require more than just the type of action that your applicant embarked upon?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Chairperson that is indeed so that he did not, for example, there is no such talk of such an incident as the example you gave now, or he did not draw any similar lines, but if one has regard for the requirements of 20 (3) and paragraph (b) thereof that says the context in which the act, omission or offence took place and more specifically whether the act, omission or offence was committed in unrest or in the reaction thereof and in the applicant's case, he acted upon reaction of the Eikenhof incident within the time context which prevailed and at that time you will recall we did not offer it as such or submit it as such, but there are definite connotations or allegations made that the political enemy that the applicant had in his mind or which he regarded as his political enemy and the political enemy of the party whose political sentiments he shared, was responsible for that shooting incident and in that shooting incident he says, what he says, that it was his people and more his people's children who were killed and he decided to act in reaction to that against the political enemy whom, to him at that stage as he said, were the political parties but to him was embodied in the black person, because at that stage he, for the persons who were members of those political parties and who supported their principles and supported their sentiments, were usually black persons and that is why he chose a black person as his target, not necessarily the deceased, but a black person and then the deceased crossed his path and that is why he directed himself to the deceased, but it is my respectful submission that what is of interest here is that you have to consider the requirement, whether he has made out a case specifically of the criteria that has to be looked at within the context within the Act was committed and that he said that he acted upon reaction of these events, and he also tells you that if Eikenhof was not there: "I would not have committed this offence", but there was no reason to do it immediately, there was no emergency to go out and kill the first person he met along the road.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not a made out case. There were no grounds upon which we can ...(indistinct) that the applicant could not think for himself, if it was a black woman with a baby on her back, how can this reasonably be regarded as justified that the first black person ...

MS SWIEGELAAR: Then it is my further respectful submission Chairperson that one has to have regard for his motivation. He wanted to react but he also wanted to start a reaction and his motivation was basically forge the iron while it is still hot.

CHAIRPERSON: But this was in March month and the election was on the 27th of April, so there was a lot of time still, he was under no pressure to immediately cause a reaction. His conviction said that he wanted to act out of revenge, that was one of the legs of his motivation, but he also wanted to cause an uprising that there would be an entire disruption with regard to the election.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Chairperson, I shall concede that there was indeed more time, but we have to keep in mind that we have an applicant who, except for his political motivations, there were emotions and there were uncertainties involved here and he reacted emotionally and there was also the fact that he had consumed liquor. He tells you today that the liquor did play a role but not in the sense that - if he was sober he would have done it as well, but it would have been more difficult.

CHAIRPERSON: I think more important than this, Madam, a bottle of brandy and six beers the applicant consumed, was this not a great factor? Except for the Eikenhof incident where black people killed white people, was the brandy not one of the bigger factors?

MS SWIEGELAAR: It is large volumes of liquor, but one has to keep in mind that he says he was an alcoholic at that stage and he did consume large amounts of liquor and he could still function to such an extent that he was usually allowed to work and you will also recall that when we studied the Judgment of Honourable Justice Strydom, that Duvenhage the Mine Shift Boss gave evidence and said that his impression was that briefly after this incident when he had dealings with the applicant, that he could maintain himself, that he knew what it was about and what he did and that he was not so inebriated that he did not know what was going on and that he had insight.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but he didn't let him work. In a mine, if I understand correctly, it's a dangerous place so one can only infer that he made the applicant go to sleep and that the applicant could not work at all because of his consumption of liquor.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Chairperson, if we keep in mind that Duvenhage is not here to tell us why he made the applicant go to sleep, then we move on the train of speculation and if one says that the inference that could be drawn, and it is my respectful submission that there is another reasonable inference that could be drawn and that is that you have to keep in mind that when did he make the applicant sleep, the applicant came on duty and I refer here specifically to what we see from the record, to make the submission to you, what Duvenhage says, that the applicant came on duty, he confronted him with the fact that his vehicle had stopped there and the applicant confesses to him, because he thought that Duvenhage saw and in any case saw the shooting incident. They could not speak then because there were other people present there and then they went down and then the applicant spoke to Duvenhage and they went back to the top and they went to the scene to see if there were any signs or if there was a body which would indicate that the deceased - that the applicant's story was true that he had shot the deceased, but he also further says that although, or it would appear from his evidence, the summary thereof, that he was shocked, that the applicant was shocked and if we have to move on the terrain of speculation then it is my respectful submission that the possibility is there that he thought that the person was so incapable because of his inebriated state, that he could not run the risk of letting him work. But yes, the other motivation could have been that in this condition that the man was, he could not risk taking him underground.

CHAIRPERSON: So why did he not get any medical attention for the applicant if he believed that the applicant was in a state where medical assistance or something similar would assist him. After they went underground they went to the body and then after that they tried to find out from the police where it was quite clear that there was no reason at that stage to go and hand over the applicant to the police and when it appeared at this stage that this was the stage when he would usually go and work and then the foreman let him go and sleep. So what other reasonable inference could one draw? He doesn't get a doctor to treat the applicant, he makes him go to sleep after he had, on his own version, consumed liquor.

MS SWIEGELAAR: May I just refer you to page 31, from line 18, where Honourable Justice Strydom gives his summary of a part of Duvenhage's evidence where he says:

And his evidence, Mr Chairperson, was accepted. If one has regard for page 32, from line 10, where Honourable Judge Strydom says that Duvenhage was a good and credible witness, he made a good impression in the witness box, he gave his evidence quickly and without any hesitation. There's no reason whatsoever why his evidence should be suspected, from his evidence, and the admissions of the accused, it could be indicated and his pointing out to the police, only one inference can be drawn, that the deceased on the way to the mine, had taken his father's shotgun in the vehicle, saw the deceased along the road and decided to shoot him, turned his car around and when the Judge refers to his Judgment ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson, we shall find this on page 31, he deals here with what had happened.

and then on line 11, or I beg your pardon, line 11 he says that:

Now it would appear to me - and then he says:

But he says - it is quite clear that they did not deal with the question as to why Duvenhage made the applicant sleep. Was it because he thought that because of his - it could not have been that he thought, Chairperson, that he was so drunk because then his evidence would not have been as I have read it to you now at the bottom of page 31, top of page 32.

CHAIRPERSON: But in the Judgment here where the State want to accuse the accountability and the State makes it as light as possible and the Advocate wants to make him as drunk as possible, so the Court decides in between, so this summary looks to me like it is typical of a case where it is with regard to the accountability of the accused, where he was not so drunk that there was not the necessary mens rea to form.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Yes, Chairperson, I am prepared to accept it but what I would like to submit to you is that for example, to use the example of the black woman with the child on her back, the accused on a question from you, said that if he was sober he believes that he would have still committed the murder but it would have been much more difficult and I think there we can use the example, I think if he was sober, I think he would probably not have directed himself at a black woman with a child on her back, because then he may have still had the insight to realise that this is a bit far fetched to realise that this is the enemy but his drunken state could have played a role, if it was coincidentally a black woman with a child on her back, because at that stage - at no stage am I going to try to say that his consumption of liquor did not play any role, he does not say that, he says yes, his consumption of liquor did play a role even if it's to the extent that it gave him the courage to go and commit this act, this did play a role but what his major motivation is and if I understand his evidence correctly, that morning 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, after he read these reports, he already formed the idea of going to commit a murder with the objective as he has explained it to you and then he started drinking and he kept on drinking. You see from the record that this was over a period of 12 hours that he consumed all this liquor and most certainly his consumption of liquor would have played a role, but it is not - I have to reconcile myself, the procedure, not to make him so that he could not, would not have done so, but this gave him the courage to do it, but he knew what he was doing.

ADV SANDI: He makes it very clear in his evidence that it would have been very impossible, he said: "Dit kon baie onmoontlik gewees, baie moeilik" to carry out this act without the liquor he had consumed.

MS SWIEGELAAR: But he said he still believe ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

MS SWIEGELAAR: The applicant testified and that specific portion of his evidence is to the effect that: "I believe it would have been difficult".

ADV SANDI: What does that mean? Liquor had a major role to result in this incident.

MS SWIEGELAAR: He then continued and he added: "I believe I still would have done it."

ADV SANDI: Still, it would have been difficult for him to do it without liquor. I think he also makes it very clear that he had no order from the AWB and there's no indication in his evidence that he believed that this is something that could have been approved of by the AWB. He does not discuss it with anyone in the AWB, not even an ordinary member of the AWB, what he intends to do.

MS SWIEGELAAR; It was never his case and his application is not based, and he said it quite clearly and honestly in the beginning of his evidence today, that he was acting on one or other instruction of the AWB or another political organisation and it is so that he hasn't reported it to anybody or he hasn't discussed it with anybody, but his case is that he bona fide believed that he was acting in accordance with what they were expecting from him at that stage.

ADV SANDI: He was asked a very specific question as to who in the AWB had given him such an order, then he says: "Well, we were told to mobilise, to stand together, a lot of slogans were chanted". He doesn't say: "We were told by our leaders to go and kill people in the street", he doesn't say that.

MS SWIEGELAAR; Mr Commissioner, it is indeed so, he doesn't say so, but if one has regard to what he said, one has regard to what he believed what they would have expected or what they would have thought was part of their actions, then it is my respectful submission that that is a bona fide belief, taking into account what he said was conveyed to them at the meetings, he could have believed that that forms part of the mobilisation which they were urged to do at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Madam that is the point of my colleague. How do you reach that objective of mobilising and causing all this disruption if one, on your way to work in a very drunk state, with respect given the amount of liquor that he consumed, now you shoot someone and you dispose of the firearm, in other words immediately you are hiding all evidence that you are involved in this incident, you go and hide - you throw away the firearm, you go to work, you're confronted by the foreman and you deny it firstly, and you say: "I do not know what you are talking about" You do not consult anyone in the organisation, as my colleague has pointed out, you go to Court and you try to initially get away from it, as your client had said. He first tried to get out of the case. How do you mobilise on those grounds? How do you reach your objective of disrupting the elections and all those other objectives? Is this not just a case of revenge and liquor and racism and things like that?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Chairperson, it is so that this offence was motivated by the Eikenhof slaughter and it is also so that alcohol did play a role. As I have said earlier, we will not deny that alcohol did play a role and it is so that he disposed of the firearm afterwards, but you will also recall that he said that initially he had feelings of satisfaction that he did what he had planned to do but then there was some shock which entered and that is when he went and disposed of the weapon and if you look at Duvenhage's evidence and once again we only have the summary of the Honourable Justice Strydom and you will find that on page 30 from line 9 where Duvenhage asked the accused what he was busy with, referring to the fact that the deceased had turned round his vehicle on his way to work and had stopped and Duvenhage could for example, it would appear that the only thing Duvenhage and I speculate now, the only thing that Duvenhage saw this was that the accused turned his vehicle around. Duvenhage did not know that the shooting incident had taken place, for example at that stage he could have suspected the accused of dealing in - illegal dealing in gold and let's just have regard for the background that they worked in and from time to time miners do play around with gold and then the accused immediately reacted on it and said: "Oh my God, oh my God, you saw me shooting the kaffir" and then Duvenhage saw that he did not speak to the accused again and you will see from the previous paragraph, the reason for this would be apparently because there were other persons present and then later they spoke about it and then already the accused told him that he read in the newspaper, the Sunday newspaper of the two children that had been killed.

ADV SANDI: Let's talk about the Eikenhof incident. Concerning the newspaper reports, I suppose at that stage there would have been speculation as to who had done it. The applicant personally didn't know who had killed these people at Eikenhof, he didn't know who those people were, the victims, he didn't know them. He didn't know what their political sympathies were. He didn't know what the political motives, if any, of the attackers could have been at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: It could have been a jealous lover that attacked the ...(no sound)

MS SWIEGELAAR: There is no evidence before you of what the newspaper report was about and unfortunately we do not have it here to read it to you, but if I go according to my own recollection of the events there, immediately there was a political party that admitted that it was responsible for it and it was quite clear that at least the race of the persons who committed the acts at that stage was known. So this is something that we have to keep in mind. With regard to him, he accepted that this was the political enemy, he said it was the ANC, they listed the political parties, he said that they were embodied in black persons and he believed that these were the political enemies and he decided to go and shoot a black person.

CHAIRPERSON: But why did he not go and speak to somebody? Why did he not go to the AWB? Why did he not go to the leaders of the organisations which he supported and other persons who were involved in the leadership of these organisations? Why did he not go and consult them and say: "Listen here, Look here, they're shooting these people here. Is it not time that we do something? Can't we rise up? Can't we set in motion our plans of mobilisation?" He goes home the early morning and he's busy consuming liquor the whole day and then he goes out that evening, on his way to work, he kills someone.

MS SWIEGELAAR: That is indeed how you put it to me. He told you that: "I was a supporter of the AWB. I attended their political meetings. I heard and listened and I wanted to listen at that stage, to what was being said at political meetings." He also said that he was not an active member. He, for example, did not have membership of the AWB, therefore he did not have such close contact with the leaders. Chairperson, what is not evident from his evidence here today and what is not evident from the record here, but I know he gave evidence about this, this is now the applicant, that indeed that Sunday he discussed it with a family member of his, but the family member did not agree with him. So he did indeed discuss it with someone, but the family member did not agree with him. His decision, and this was his own decision, the applicant's case is not that he told you initially he did not act upon any instruction from anyone, this was a singular decision and this was a decision which he based upon what he bona fide believed that he could do in the promotion of the objectives of the far right political parties.

CHAIRPERSON: That's indeed the problem, Madam. To comply with the requirements of the Act, he has to attach his case to some or other publicly known organisation and if you say that he decided on his own and it has absolutely nothing to do with the organisation, he did not have an instruction, then you have to convince us that his application indeed falls within the ambit of the Act and while I am on this point, earlier I asked you the combination of aspects that have nothing to do with politics, the racism of this attack, does it not appear from page 30, line 12 quite clear from the utterance of the applicant to Duvenhage, he does not refer to his political opponents here, he refers here in a racist manner, to black persons. He does not refer to politics, the racism in that sentence is tremendous.

ADV SANDI: Sorry - read that together with what appears at page 54, right on top, a statement that was taken from him by Barend Johannes de Villiers, immediately after the incident, where he says:

Hatred, that's what it shows. Does this thing go anywhere beyond that? Just shooting anyone in the street just because this person bears a certain colour on his face.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Chairperson, once again the statement of Barend Johannes de Villiers, I do not know how much value could be attached to it. This was not tested. He did not come and give evidence. My instructions are that the applicant did not tell him according to these words that he hated black persons and that was the reason why he had shot the deceased. The accused also mentioned that he was an AWB supporter. It is indeed so that the accused told him that he was an AWB supporter, but this what he says here, as I said, this was not tested here today. For example there was a confession that was made there which is not before you, and it is my respectful submission that which would be more of importance of what he said to the Magistrate after his arrest, with regard to what his motivation was of his offence and then to return to page 30 where he uses racist terms, it is indeed so that the term itself is racist, the use of the word there, but it is my respectful submission that this alone, it could not be said that this was racially motivated murder that he had committed, because if we have a further look, it is quite clear that he also told Duvenhage, he mentioned the Eikenhof incident and at this stage it was just shortly after he committed the incident, or he committed the offence.

Chairperson, if one has to consider whether his motivation was a bona fide motivation, then one has to have regard for the applicant as he was at that stage and that is why I readily conceded that we cannot try to get away from his liquor consumption. His conviction was influenced by his consumption of liquor that evening. At that instance the liquor consumption must have played a role in the sense that in that inebriated state of his, he believed that he was busy promoting the objectives of the AWB by going to shoot a black person and in that sense he could make contribution as he had testified here. The disposal of the firearm, the destruction of the evidence, has to be seen. Yes, initially I was satisfied, I was satisfied that I acted correctly and I reached my objective, but when shock entered and it is my respectful submission, if we have regard of the summary of Duvenhage's evidence it is quite clear that the applicant was shot and he had insight to what he had done and that is why I cannot tell you that his liquor intake did not play a role, his liquor intake must have played a role, but the role that it played was that in the furtherance of his conviction that he had acted and that he had influenced him there, that he was promoting the objectives of a party.

ADV SANDI: May I just ask a question? Is there any indication, I mean looking at the evidence before the Committee, is there any evidence or indication that it is known, as of now, as of today in the AWB circles that this attack was carried out on their behalf? Is there any indication in that direction before us?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson, if you can just give me a moment. No, there's no indication of that.

ADV SANDI: Anyone can go around doing things and say: "I was doing it for, or on behalf of X, Y, Z political organisation." We have many people who come and say that from time to time.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson, the applicant has got appreciation for this and that is why from start he openly and truthfully told you that he cannot base his application on the fact that he did it on the instruction or on the planning of, or the advice of somebody or some organisation.

ADV SANDI: The question is, is there any indication that the AWB, as an organisation, or anyone in the echelons of the AWB, knows that this attack was carried out by someone who believed at the time in question that he was doing so in the interests of the AWB? Is there any such indication?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Commissioner, do you refer to at the stage after the event? Afterwards or before?

ADV SANDI: Both before and after.

CHAIRPERSON: At any stage.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Before there is none, after - can I just take instruction please?

ADV SANDI: Sorry, I was just about to say maybe the answer to that question wouldn't make any difference at this stage, because evidence has been led and it was clear from the questions that had been put to the applicant that the whole question of and order and approval by the AWB was in issue.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, it is so that the attitude of the client is very encouraging, but the fact of the matter is that the application in front of us, we must judge it according to the act and what the situation was when this incident occurred. It could be that later on certain things had a positive influence on the client, but for purposes of this hearing, we have to look at the aspects as they were at that stage, that one has to tie this attack to a position of a known organisation, then at least you fall on that one leg within the ambit of the Act.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson but what he did tell you is that he was an AWB supporter and that he attended the meetings, he listened to the speeches made which encouraged them and if I can use his term, that they were incited and that is on what he based his bona fide belief and on his version that he presented you today and on which he acted for the promotion of their goals, in other words he wanted to join the AWB and he wanted to assist them and wanted to act against their enemy that he also saw as his own enemy, as an AWB supporter.

CHAIRPERSON: I do understand that submission, yes.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson and then if I may, maybe I'll repeat this but I can go on to 2 (a) the bona fide promotion of a political struggle that by such a political organisation against the State or any former State or well-known political organisation or freedom organisation or liberation organisation, I would like to deal with the bona fide aspect and that is the alcohol intake of that night and where that played a role. He executed this act while he was under the influence of alcohol or while he had more, a lot of alcohol in his body at that stage and it is my submission that that alcohol intake could have played a role in his planning of that day and that could have been dealt in another way, if he wasn't drunk and that he wouldn't have shot somebody, but that is where the alcohol intake played a role, but what I'm going to do now is politically motivated and I'm doing this for the AWB and I'm going to, or I will be able to achieve the following goals.

ADV SANDI: That is not the end of the problem. We are not being told here that there was an attempt by the applicant to inform the AWB that he had carried out this attack in furtherance of the interests of the organisation and that he desired that they assist his application. We're not being informed of such attempts whatsoever.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Mr Chairperson, that is correct. We cannot ignore this, he did not report back to them, he did not go and get their support for this application of his, but it is a few years later after this incident and he's telling you now what his political motives are now, that he's not part of the right wing, but that he's on the other side of the political spectrum and you must remember that he was confronted by an arrest, a criminal prosecution and where the normal reaction would be from somebody that's accused, that would be to get away from this and that the AWB, we all know, did not get a lot of support from the organisation if they are charged. He's now fighting a prosecution. Instead of reporting it after the fact to the AWB, these should not be factors that count against him, they are facts which should be viewed in the light of the events directly after the incident and how the applicant experienced these events. "Now I'm on my own", is what he thought.

ADV SANDI: You see there's not even evidence that such a step of contacting the AWB was ever given a thought and eventually decided against, there's not even such evidence before us, which would at least go somehow towards linking the incident with the AWB. You see when you say we have to look at the political context in which the incident occurred, you are quite correct that the applicant has a duty in any one of these applications which we hear from time to time, to justify his actions within that context. There's no argument here about the political situation in the country, it's quite clear what the situation was in the country at that time. No one can dispute that the applicant has to justify his actions in the context of that political atmosphere which prevailed at the time.

MS SWIEGELAAR: Chairperson it is as the Commissioner has indicated, there was no prior or subsequent and no support was sought from the ANC with regard to the application of the applicant. Once again I could reiterate my submissions to you and I must concede that it is one of the criteria that you must consider. I would argue that it would be 3 (f), the connection between the act, omission or offence and the political objective which was sought, then the time of the context and the proportionality between the objective and the action. He had a certain objective to be achieved. It is not that it is so direct or near to what the AWB probably wanted to achieve. We have no evidence that this was the AWB's objectives at that point, but once again I must come to what he believed bona fide at that stage and he thought that what he was doing was in promotion of the AWB and other far right wing political groups and most certainly it is one of the criteria that you must consider in order to determine whether or not it is a deed which can be associated with a political objective, but it is my submission with respect, that it is not as far removed or indirect, that it cannot qualify as a deed which can be associated with a political objective.

Once again in consideration of, and I apologise if I keep on reiterating to this, but this is why I have conceded that his alcohol intake definitely played a role, although it may only be to the extent of determining what his perception of bona fide was on the day that he chose to execute his actions. Furthermore it is my respectful submission and I have made this submission to you, that the applicant's case belongs to 20 (2) (a), that these criteria in (3) be incorporated specifically the motive of the person who committed the offence. He has explained his motive to you. (b) the context within which the deed was committed or within which the offence took place and the fact that it was a reaction to the Eikenhof incident, according to his submission and then the legal aspects pertaining to the act, omission or offence regarding the act, omission or offence and this is a serious offence. It is a serious omission and this is also supported or substantiated by the sentence that he received. The Magistrate, or the Judge at that stage, told him that he was lucky not to be sentenced to death. And then the objective or the purpose behind the offence which then counts against the applicant was that it was aimed against a private individual, but once again I would request you that when you consider that criterion, to consider as well that that private individual was to the applicant the enemy, that he personified the enemy for the applicant and that is why his actions were aimed against this person. This will also be viewed in conjunction with the aspect of personal malice or vengeance towards the victim of the offence which was committed. That is why I have presented his evidence regarding whether or not he knew the victim or whether he coincidentally ran into him that evening, therefore it cannot be a question of personal malice or vengeance.

Furthermore one of the criteria is (e), but it is only one of the criteria, that being whether the act, offence or omission was committed on behalf of or with the approval of an organisation, institution, body or liberation movement of which the person committing the offence was a member or a supporter or a collaborator and then also furthermore, the connection between the offence and the proximity of the context and the proportionality between the offence and the objective which was to be achieved.

It is my respectful submission that there was no order, there was no approval, there was also no request for approval after the fact, but this is only one of the criteria set down by the Act and the mere absence thereof, in my respectful submission, disqualifies and cannot singularly disqualify the applicant from amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are correct, it is a measure and everything must be viewed holistically, the one supplements the other, if there's more of one and less of the other, then everything balances out according to the scale. It is not a mechanical process as such, it is not a question of crossing things off. Everything must be viewed holistically.

MS SWIEGELAAR; Thank you Chairperson. And then in the final instance, the applicant's version states that it was not for personal gain and there is no indication that he drew any personal gain from the incident. Therefore Chairperson, in it's final analysis, it is my respectful submission that despite the so-called lacks which appear in the applicant's application with regard to criteria, a clear case has been stated for him to be granted amnesty as it has been requested from you. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Sibeko, have you got any submissions?

MR SIBEKO: Mr Chairman, I leave everything in the hands of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that there is nothing further that you wish to submit?

MS SWIEGELAAR IN FURTHER ARGUMENT: Chairperson, there is only one aspect. I don't know to what extent it is relevant but my instruction and I am in possession of the amnesty application according to Section 18 of the Act, of Mr James Wheeler, who, if I study the application itself, the facts are, or at least not the facts of the offence itself, but the motivation are very similar. There was also not a direct order, there was also not any direct approval, what the applicant did there was that on the 27th of April 1994, which was on the day of the election, he drove a vehicle from Westonaria to Randfontein.

In other words it was murder and an attempted murder and his political objective which was sought to be achieved was that he wanted to upset the elections of 1994 by acts of violence committed against black people which would lead to the announcement of a state of emergency and derail the election process, therefore the ANC/SACP Alliance government would be flaunted and if the elections were not postponed, the ANC/SACP Alliance would take not of resistance offered by the AWB and other affiliated parties. In this case the application was indeed successful.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Madam, we have noted that. Is that the only further aspect that you wanted to table?

MS SWIEGELAAR: Thank you Chairperson, indeed that is the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, thank you very much and we apologise for having kept you way beyond the conventional hours out there, but we live in a different world unfortunately. We will have to consider the matter. There are many aspects of this that will need our attention. We will consider the evidence and the submissions and all of the other material that has been placed before us and we'll endeavour to formulate a decision in this matter as soon as the circumstances permit us to do so at which stage we will notify all of the parties with an interest as soon as the decision is available. We will under those circumstances, reserve the decision in the matter.

That takes care of the roll for the day, we hope, Ms Mtanga. I see the relief of my colleagues, but we just want to take the opportunity to thank you, Adv Swiegelaar for your assistance, thank you, we appreciate it and Mr Sibeko and Ms Mtanga. It is always of assistance to debate matters when you have questions in your mind. It is not justified for us to suffer alone, we might as well pull you in, but thank you very much, we appreciate it.

On that note we'll adjourn the proceedings and we'll reconvene tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.