--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: The Panel this morning is constituted as before. For the purpose of the record, I am going to ask the representatives of the various interested parties, in this application, to announce themselves for that purpose, of the record.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman. My name is Miss Mohamed, from the firm Dehal Inc, on record for the applicant.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair, I am Miss Thabethe for the TRC, the Evidence Leader.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Mohamed?

MS MOHAMED: Mr Chairman, I call the applicant, Mr Lucky Sithole.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sithole, what language would you like to use in the first place?

MR SITHOLE: I would like to use Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

LUCKY SITHOLE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Sithole, you have before you a bundle of documents.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you carry on, Ms Mohamed. Ms Thabethe, I see there is no representation for victims, what is the position about victims?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, the position is that there was an advert in the newspapers for victims, but nobody came forward.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, proceed.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Sorry, just before you go on, Ms Thabethe, Mr Breed made a statement, did he not, that was at page 23 of the bundle, he was the owner of the Toyota Hi-Lux and it seems clear from his statement there, that he does not oppose the application. Is that not correct?

MS THABETHE: That is correct, thank you, I am indebted to you, Mr Lax. May I just add on, the advert appears on page 24 of the bundle.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Sithole, do you confirm your amnesty application, which is on pages 1 to 7 of this bundle?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I do.

MS MOHAMED: Do you also confirm the supporting statement which is found on pages 8 to 11?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I do.

MS MOHAMED: Now, on your instructions, Mr Sithole, I have drafted a four page statement, which you have earlier this morning signed, the statement has been made available. Do you confirm the contents of it?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I do confirm it.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we carry on. You are confirming the contents of the statement and you have signed it, are you aware of its contents?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I am aware of it, because I read it.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are quite satisfied with the contents?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I am satisfied.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything that you would like to amend in the statement?

MR SITHOLE: There is nothing that I would like to change now, because there was a slight inaccuracy which we corrected with my Attorney.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, so all the others that have not been deleted or corrected, you are satisfied as being accurate and the truth as far as you are concerned?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I am satisfied.

CHAIRPERSON: The statement on page 8 of the bundle, you are aware of the contents thereof?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I am aware.

CHAIRPERSON: I see you signed it as well? Is that correct, or would you like time to read it? Would you like time to read it? It seems to me that you are not quite sure of the contents?

MR SITHOLE: I have read it already.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you satisfied that it properly reflects what you intended to say in that document, or do you want to amend something in that?

MR SITHOLE: No, I do not think there is any mistake or anything that needs to be corrected.

CHAIRPERSON: Your application that appears from pages 1 to page 7, I assume that you are aware of the contents thereof?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I am aware.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything that you would like to amend in that document?

MR SITHOLE: No. There is nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: You are satisfied with the contents thereof?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I am satisfied.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, proceed Ms Mohamed.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Sithole, do you also confirm that a copy of this bundle was made available to you at Westville prison, last Friday, and you have had that copy with you, since that day?

MR SITHOLE: That is correct.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you. Mr Sithole, I am now going to take you to the statement that I have prepared and which you have signed.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you make that Exhibit A?

MS MOHAMED: Yes, Mr Chairperson. Isn't it correct that paragraphs 3 to 8, confirm your training and your involvement with the ANC as an MK operative?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

MS MOHAMED: Sorry, before we go on, can you tell us whether you are still a member of the ANC?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I am a full member of the ANC.

MS MOHAMED: Okay. Do you occupy any position within the ANC structures at Westville prison?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I am an organiser within the Executive Committee of the ANC at Westville prison.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you. I am going to take you to paragraph 9 of your statement which says -

MR SITHOLE: That is correct.

MS MOHAMED: Shortly after your arrival at Umhlazi, there was a particular incident, can you just elaborate on that?

MR SITHOLE: The incident that I recall was one told to me by my Commanders of comrades, who had been attacked at Section Z in Umhlazi by the police. That attack, their firearms had been lost and those comrades have not been killed, that is the incident that I recall.

MS MOHAMED: Now, who were the Commanders that related this incident to you?

MR SITHOLE: The people who came to me were stalwarts in the ANC, Mr Mapomule as well as Commander Freza Shangasi, who was a Deputy Camp Commander in Angola. His MK name was Mzwaki, but his real name is Freza Shangasi.

MS MOHAMED: After this incident was related to you, what did you do?

MR SITHOLE: There was nothing else I could do, except to follow their instructions, because as an MK cadre, I had to follow instructions from my Commanders.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, these two Commanders, have they been given notice?

MS THABETHE: Can you give me time again, Mr Chair, I just want to check that one out. Mr Chair, I've got an investigation report done by (indistinct), it appears that both are deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Both are deceased?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you confirm whether your Commanders at the time, whether they are deceased at present or not?

MR SITHOLE: The information I received in 1997 from Commander Shangasi in prison, is that Mr Mapomule had been deceased. Mr Shangasi was also later arrested, and he was sentenced at Westville prison, whereupon he died.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Sithole, before these questions about your Commanders were put to you, you said that after this incident was related to you, you could do nothing but follow the instructions of your Commanders. What instructions did they give you?

MR SITHOLE: After relating that incident, they said as a trained soldier who worked as a Logistics Officer as well as an Ordinance Officer, they would appoint me to be an Ordinance Officer. Therefore I would be responsible for organising arms and ammunition, because after the death of these comrades, they did not know, they could not trace the DLBs, so I was going to be responsible for organising arms and ammunition, so that other cadres could be trained.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the only reason why you had to organise arms, to effect the training of other cadres?

MR SITHOLE: That was the reason that was advanced to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Why I ask, in your original application although it is not really said to that extend, there seems to be a suggestion that you needed arms to protect defenceless people and to free the people from oppression?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell me how that is related to each other?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: You, in your evidence tell us that you were given this order to obtain arms so that these arms could be used in order to train cadres, presumably in weaponry? In your application the suggestion is that really you needed these arms to protect defenceless people and to help them, free them from oppression? Do you agree that that was so? There is a bit of a conflict there, can you explain that?

MR SITHOLE: Please will you explain the conflict?

CHAIRPERSON: That on the one, the one answer you say that the only reason you were asked to obtain arms was to train cadres, the other one is that you were asked to obtain these arms in order to protect defenceless people, and to lead them into freedom from oppression?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, the arms would have been used to train cadres, and that would assist in freeing the people, because at the time there was ongoing political violence. The arms would have been obtained to train cadres to protect the community, because at the time they were not safe.

CHAIRPERSON: I see.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Sithole, after you were appointed as an Ordinance Officer, what did you do to fulfil your responsibilities, to obtain those arms and ammunition?

MR SITHOLE: Firstly I, Mr Mapomule and Mr Shangasi discussed my going to Mozambique to organise a contact. I did that and returned and gave them a full report.

MS MOHAMED: Why did you choose Mozambique as a destination?

MR SITHOLE: I chose Mozambique because it was near, also for the reason that when I left South Africa, the easiest route was through Mozambique. I realised that the easiest way of infiltrating arms into South Africa, would be from Mozambique.

MR LAX: Didn't you go through Swaziland when you left South Africa, not Mozambique?

MR SITHOLE: I did pass through Swaziland.

MR LAX: So, how would you, you didn't go through Mozambique, you said the easiest way was through Mozambique?

MR SITHOLE: When I was in Swaziland, I used to move around because I used to go towards the Mozambique border. When I went to Mozambique, I used the route that I knew well.

MR LAX: Who told you about the contact in Mozambique?

MR SITHOLE: I used my military training as to how to approach people in any area, as well as how to approach individuals when one seeks such items as arms and ammunition. I am in a position to mingle and interact with people from any other country.

MR LAX: You located the contact yourself, is that what you are saying?

MR SITHOLE: I arrived at Nomahasha in Mozambique and was able to locate and find myself that contact. The first person that I met was a peasant, thereafter he managed to get me into contact with that person.

JUDGE POTGIETER: You had no idea whether you would be able to make a contact when you went to Mozambique?

MR SITHOLE: I did not have anybody that I knew in Mozambique, but I was fluent in Portuguese, so I relied on that.

JUDGE POTGIETER: You just went there and you were just going to enquire around and hopefully come across an arms dealer, that was prepared to deal with you?

MR SITHOLE: When I left, I was hopeful that it would not be difficult because even here in KwaZulu Natal, I was aware that there were firearms that were being sold by Mozambique, but I did not want to access those, because I did not trust the people here, I wanted to go to Mozambique myself.

JUDGE POTGIETER: And then if I understand your statement correctly, this arms dealer gave you a purchase price of R36 000, is that right?

MR SITHOLE: That is correct.

JUDGE POTGIETER: Was that about the amount that you acquired in the two robberies, the one of the occupants of the kombi vehicle and the other one in the abortive robbery of the bottle store?

MR SITHOLE: I had hoped to obtain money from Commander Shangasi after they had conducted some reconnaissance at Empangeni. I also went to the NBS bank at Empangeni on the 2nd, and confirmed that indeed the situation was conducive to robbing that place, but on the following day, the 3rd, when we went there, it was no longer the case.

JUDGE POTGIETER: How did that dealer work out this purchase price of R36 000?

MR SITHOLE: As an Ordinance Officer, you do not deal in a small number of arms, you would be looking for a large number of weapons. The reason for the amount to be so high is because there were different types of weapons, such as rocket launchers, rockets and RPG7s as well as ammunition, as well as weapons of Soviet origin, such as Makarovs. Therefore it was not such a high price, because of the number of firearms that would have been obtained, that is why we settled on R36 000.

Failing of which, we would have to provide a new vehicle, which would be a kombi.

JUDGE POTGIETER: Ms Mohamed.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you.

MR LAX: Can I just follow that up, please? In your hand-written statement which accompanies your application, page 14 and 15, you only talk about a large number of AK47s and ammunition, plus RPG7s with their rockets, you say nothing about other weaponry forming part of this consignment? Why is that? You say nothing about Makarovs and other Soviet origin weapons, in addition to what you refer to here?

MR SITHOLE: I assumed that because Makarovs and other firearms were small, I did not regard it as important to mention them. AK47s and RPG7s were large firearms and they were weapons of war, that would have been used in protecting the community.

MR LAX: Well an RPG7 isn't a firearm at all, it is in fact a rocket propelled grenade?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree with that?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, as I mentioned before it is a rocket launcher, commonly known as a Bazooka.

MR LAX: How were you going to use an RPG to defend your community?

MR SITHOLE: As far as I am concerned, such a weapon would not be handed out to anyone. Commander Shangasi had been a Commander, so he knew the type of persons he could hand such weapons to, because those are not just weapons you can use any how, they destroy.

CHAIRPERSON: That is precisely the point, what did you need a rocket launched for to defend people? Rocket launchers are used as a defensive weapon?

MR LAX: It is usually an anti-vehicle weapon, tank or trucks or things of that nature?

MR SITHOLE: That is true, but in a situation of war, you do not just target individuals, but institutions such as the Natal Command, I felt should be targeted because at that time, it is not that everything had been settled politically. There were still outstanding issues that were still being negotiated, that is why I regarded the situation as still that of war.

CHAIRPERSON: That is why we come back to your answers on the previous questions. What did you need these firearms for? You gave the following answers, that these firearms were needed to train cadres in order to defend the community and lead them from oppression, correct?

MR SITHOLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That is defensive tactics? Rocket launchers and such like weapons are used in offensive tactics, whether you aim it at tanks or motor vehicles or buildings, or whatever, is that not so?

MR SITHOLE: That is correct. However, I would like to put it clear that as a soldier, you would not be in a position to not accept any kind of firearm that you know or whose power you are aware of.

CHAIRPERSON: It does not make sense to me that, you spoke to this Antonio, right, the person from whom you were going to buy these firearms? As I understand your evidence, when you went there, you knew specifically what you needed the firearms for. You needed firearms to defend the community and to train cadres in order to defend this community and lead them from oppression? You must have asked him "look here, we are looking for certain types of firearms", not so?

MR SITHOLE: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And then, if he offered you rocket launchers, why didn't you say "look, we don't need rocket launchers, we need firearms, conventional firearms"? You are negotiating a price for particular firearms?

MR SITHOLE: I was also excited at the prospect of getting those firearms, those weapons, because I was aware of how they could be used, so it did not occur to me that I should not accept...

CHAIRPERSON: No, come Mr Sithole, you are a trained cadre from MK. I know of very few MK members who are undisciplined. You were trained for five years, not so?

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you haven't got time as a cadre, to become excited about particular types of weaponry? Correct? If you were a trained MK member, you would not have got excited at the type of weaponry on offer, perhaps you would have got excited at the success of your mission of obtaining firearms, correct?

MR SITHOLE: Well, I see that now, but at that time it did not occur to me.

JUDGE POTGIETER: Mr Sithole, can you just help me there as well, you said you have this knowledge. This kind of arm that we are talking about here now, a rocket launcher, would that be effective against a armoured vehicle?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, they can be used because they are capable of destroying everything, even a wall.

JUDGE POTGIETER: If I say armoured vehicle like the vehicles that the Security Forces used to use, but also vehicles like say the Fidelity Guards would use to transport large amounts of cash?

MR SITHOLE: If you use that in such a mission, that is to rob money, it cannot be used for the reason that it will destroy everything, so you would not be able to get even that money. It is a weapon of war.

JUDGE POTGIETER: Yes, but I don't want to get involved in the niceties of this sort of operation, I just want to know whether it would be effective against those kind of vehicles that I have listed?

MR SITHOLE: It can be used, however you can only use it if you just want to destroy the vehicle, not if you have the intention of getting the money.

JUDGE POTGIETER: Yes, thank you.

MR LAX: Can I just follow up? Can you just help me with one little thing you have said earlier that worried me a little bit? You spoke about attacking Natal Command with such weapons, did I hear you right?

MR SITHOLE: I was making an example, that such a place could have been targeted, if you had such weapons in your possession. If I had been asked or ordered to do that, I would have done that.

MR LAX: You spoke about that being part of the struggle and you said South Africa was not yet at a time where those things were no longer necessary? Isn't that right?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: But the fact of the matter is that the armed struggle had already been ceased at that point in time, November 1992, it had been suspended?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, it had been suspended, but the situation was that people were dying like flies, for example the Boipatong and Bisho massacres, as well as the incident that I mentioned earlier at Z Section. As a trained cadre, yes, we were ordered to suspend the armed struggle, but the situation was such that it affected us and we did want to do something to combat the situation.

MR LAX: You wouldn't have wanted to do something on your own, you would have done something as a disciplined member of MK under proper orders and instructions of MK? At that stage you were part of a community formation? Is that not so, you were a community formation at that point in time?

MR SITHOLE: That is correct.

MR LAX: MK itself wasn't operating? MK had suspended its activities and its members, where they were based in communities, formed part of community structures?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct, but Mr Mapomule and Mr Shangasi were forced by circumstances on the ground, to come to me and I realised the need for me to accept what they were telling me.

MR LAX: Yes, but the point I am making is an attack on Natal Command would have been totally and utterly out of order, any kind of semblance of order because that was a direct attack on the Army of the then State in circumstances which amounted to an act of war, when the armed struggle had been suspended? It wasn't a question of defending your community?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I would not dispute what you are saying.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You went with two friends, colleagues pointed by your Commanders, to a bank you had identified as a prospective target, being the NBS in Empangeni? Correct?

MR SITHOLE: As I mentioned earlier, the NBS had been suggested to me the same way as the two persons had been handed over to me. Commander Freza Shangasi had already done the reconnaissance at NBS.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, on page 2 of your written statement, Exhibit A, in paragraph 13, the last sentence you say there -

Do you see that?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I see it. I would just say that that must have been a mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: It must have been a mistake in a document that you yourself say you did not think it necessary to amend, and it is a document in which we in fact affected amendments this morning? Be that as it may, you say in the very document that you were provided with two recruits, presumably to assist you. Were you people armed when you went to the bank?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I was given two AK47s as well as a revolver.

CHAIRPERSON: You say according to the statement that you went there and saw that it was too well protected by security guards? The result of which you decided that the job would be too risky and you abandoned the idea? Am I correct?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was in command of that Unit when you went to the bank, you?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I was the Commander.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, then you people left the NBS bank in Empangeni and proceeded to Mike's Kitchen in Empangeni?

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It was then decided, or you decided that you should steal this motor vehicle, a kombi parked outside, correct?

MR SITHOLE: The kombi was robbed from its owners.

CHAIRPERSON: But you decided that that kombi had to be taken?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I made the decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you decide that the kombi should be robbed? Why didn't you go to another bank that was not so well protected?

MR SITHOLE: It was not easy to proceed to another bank at which we had not done any reconnaissance.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you decide to steal or rob the people of the kombi?

MR SITHOLE: I was running out of time to go back to Mozambique, and I decided that the kombi was ideal in that it would be used in exchange for the ammunition and firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, you had then opted for the alternative mode of payment for all those arms which was valued at R36 000 or a kombi? Am I correct?

MR SITHOLE: That is correct, because that was our agreement with Mr Antonio.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And thereafter you proceeded to Stanger with the intention of robbing a bottle store there, on the suggestion of one of your colleagues? Correct?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct. The suggestion had been made by myself, but the person who knew the area of where we could obtain that money, was Temba.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And you agreed with that, as Commander of that Unit?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I did say so because at that time, I realised that the vehicle must be shipped out of South Africa immediately, because if not, we would be in trouble with the law.

CHAIRPERSON: We will come to that later. Did you know of the existence of this bottle store before it was suggested as a target, to you?

MR SITHOLE: I didn't know the bottle store, but for the reason that Temba had studied at Ungoya and he was in the position to identify the bottle store ...

CHAIRPERSON: How is it that you agreed to go and rob the bottle store without a reconnaissance exercise, when in fact the idea of robbing another bank was rejected because of that reason?

MR SITHOLE: From my knowledge of bottle stores and shops in general, it is easy to undermine the security that would be there, also for the reason that the situation was urgent, we needed to acquire those arms from Mozambique quickly, back into KWaZulu Natal.

CHAIRPERSON: Immediately before you robbed the people of their kombi, you must have had an idea as to how you were going to take it to Antonio, not so? That is the reason you went to rob them of the kombi, because that was the alternative mode of payment? Correct?

MR SITHOLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you going to drive it to Antonio or how were you going to get it to him?

MR SITHOLE: As I mentioned, I was driving that kombi, because when we left Stanger, I was on my way to Mozambique already.

CHAIRPERSON: So why was it necessary then to go and rob the bottle store, you were on your way with the mode of payment, together with R3,000 to Mozambique?

MR SITHOLE: Perhaps you did not understand me. After the robbery at the bottle store, I was on my way to Mozambique, and I left Temba and the other person along the way, so that they could collect the other vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you go to Mozambique straight after the Mike's Kitchen incident, because now you had your alternative mode of payment, in the form of a kombi, in addition you had R3,000?

MR SITHOLE: That is true, however R3,000 would not have been enough to pay for petrol expenses.

CHAIRPERSON: You had R3,000?

MR SITHOLE: I was still explaining that that amount would not be able to take a vehicle to Mozambique as well as transport firearms from Mozambique into South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR SITHOLE: I do not see how it would enable one to do that, because firstly I did not know how much transport cost would be from Mozambique into South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now, be that as it may. How long after this incident were you arrested?

MR SITHOLE: I was arrested on the same day, when I was in Greytown, just cooling the kombi off. I realised that the police had been notified in advance.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened to the R3,000?

MR SITHOLE: That money was inside my bag, together with my travelling document. I believe that it was the money that was confiscated by the police, alleging that it had been robbed from Stanger. However, that amount had been robbed from Mike's Kitchen, and it belonged to the owners of the kombi.

CHAIRPERSON: I have to ask you this question, from what you tell me now, it seems that you were at the kombi letting it cool down, when you were arrested? Correct?

MR SITHOLE: I was not inside the kombi, I had just parked it outside the city in Greytown.

CHAIRPERSON: Where were you in relation to that kombi?

MR SITHOLE: It was more than 100 metres away.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, in your written statement, Exhibit A, you say that you were subsequently arrested in Greytown as the police had traced you, because you had left your bag with your identity document in the stolen kombi? It gives me the impression it is because they found your identity document in the kombi, that they were able to find you and then arrest you? Is that correct or how did they manage to find you in Greytown?

MR SITHOLE: What I would like to say is before they found the bag in the vehicle, they had already located me. When they found the bag, I was already in their custody.

CHAIRPERSON: So it had nothing to do with your identity document, you were arrested without the help of your identity document? Do I understand you correctly?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I was arrested before the police found the ID inside that bag.

CHAIRPERSON: Then please make sense with this statement you are making, paragraph 21 of Exhibit A regarding your arrest.

It says here -

MR SITHOLE: That is not the case, the police arrested me before they found the bag inside the kombi.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the second problem you are having with your statement as being incorrect?

MR SITHOLE: It must have been a mistake made by the person who wrote the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: I want you to ponder this while we have tea, when we started this hearing, you were given the opportunity to amend whatever you wanted to, in that statement. Ponder about it, I am going to ask you a question now regarding that, when we resume. We will adjourn for tea.

ON RESUMPTION:

LUCKY SITHOLE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember the question I posed to you before we adjourned? It was how the police was able to arrest you and there is a conflict between what you tell us and what is written in your statement? Can you explain it or can't you?

MR SITHOLE: What I can explain is I was on my way, getting away from Stanger and I had no alternative but to flee. I cannot relate the leaving of the bag in the vehicle with my arrest, because the police located and arrested me while I was about 100 metres away from the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Now one other question, you say when you were arrested, you were already on your way to Mozambique, but you were giving the kombi a chance to cool down? Correct?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you take the route through Greytown? That is not on the way to Mozambique?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, under such circumstances, it was not just running away as you would under normal circumstances. At that time, I was running away because the police had been alerted, and other people had also been alerted. That is why I was forced, or ended up heading that way, to Greytown, but Greytown was not my destination.

CHAIRPERSON: I know that but it is going in a different direction to the one which could be used to go to Mozambique?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: How were you going to get to Mozambique on that route?

MR SITHOLE: I would explain again. When I arrived in Greytown, it was to the intent that I was allowing the car to cool down, and secondly I wanted to give enough time to enable myself to see that the police were not after my tail, so as to be able to plan effectively my route to Mozambique. In any case, under those circumstances I was not acting normally, because I was running away from the police.

MR LAX: How would you have gone to Mozambique, because you have already told us you didn't have enough money? How could you be on your way to Mozambique when you didn't have sufficient money for the logistical purposes that you said, to transport the arms back, and so on? That was the reason why you wanted to go and rob the other place, the bottle store? Your version is that you got no money at the bottle store, whatsoever, so how could you be on your way to Mozambique?

MS THABETHE: Can I clarify something, Mr Chair, because I am listening to both, sorry. I am listening to both, the translation and the Zulu version, and from what I hear, I hear him say in Zulu, it is not exactly the same thing, I don't know whether he is moving very fast, I don't know whether the Interpreter is comfortable with the speed.

CHAIRPERSON: Never mind the comfort, what are you saying, that there is no proper translation?

MS THABETHE: Not everything is being translated as he is saying it, I don't know if it is because he is moving fast or what.

INTERPRETER: What have I left out, that is what I would like to know?

MR LAX: Did you hear the question from the Interpreter?

MS THABETHE: Yes, yes, I did. I heard you saying that he was running away from the police, not that he was on his way to Mozambique from the time he left the bottle store. I don't know...

MR LAX: He said much earlier that he was on his way to Mozambique, he has confirmed that he was on his way to Mozambique. He has confirmed that Greytown isn't in the direction of Mozambique and he cannot explain that.

MS THABETHE: Yes.

MR LAX: That, it is not in issue that, from the time he dropped his comrades with the other vehicle, he was on his way to Mozambique. That is not in issue.

CHAIRPERSON: And it has been interpreted, his last answer was that "I was also running away from the police."

MS THABETHE: That is how he landed up in Greytown.

MR LAX: Correct.

MS THABETHE: As opposed to going to Mozambique.

CHAIRPERSON: He stopped in Greytown to let the kombi cool down and to check whether the police were after him. That is what was translated.

MR LAX: It is clearly understood by us. It doesn't change the nature of my question.

MS THABETHE: Okay, that is not how I heard it, but maybe the applicant should repeat.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you hear?

MS THABETHE: I heard him saying that from the bottle store, he ran away, that is how he landed up in Greytown. He was running away from the policeman, so it is not like he was going to Mozambique from the bottle store, but he ended up in Greytown, because he was running away from the policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what was interpreted?

MS THABETHE: Oh, okay.

CHAIRPERSON: As Mr Lax says, in the context of his evidence as a whole, that is now the second reason why he went to Greytown, substantially or essentially he was on his way to Mozambique, but he, as I understand his evidence, he was taking a different route to avoid detection, as I broadly understand his answer, and that is what Mr Lax is asking him about.

MR LAX: You see, I am asking something completely different. What I am asking is this, as far as you were concerned, you were now ready to go to Mozambique, after laying low, to effect your transaction with Antonio Dios, is that right?

MR SITHOLE: I would like to explain again. As I was about to leave from Greytown, to Mozambique, I couldn't manage with the amount of money that I had, and I couldn't get any transport that would come from Mozambique to KWaZulu Natal.

MR LAX: Why did you tell us earlier, before tea, that you were on your way to Mozambique?

CHAIRPERSON: Let me help you remember. You said that with the kombi and the R3 000-00 that you robbed at Mike's Kitchen, there was insufficient funds to complete the mission, and that is why the Stanger bottle store came into the picture as a target for robbery. Do you understand?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, in all that you are saying, you are right, but the thing is maybe you did not understand me properly. I am going to explain again.

CHAIRPERSON: I cannot be right if I didn't understand you properly, then I cannot be right? You better get your story right. I am just reminding you about your answers and the context in which you gave them earlier today.

Either when you were at Greytown, you landed up Greytown either on your way in the way you described, to Mozambique, or for some other reason. What is the position?

MR SITHOLE: I would like to explain again. In Stanger I was running away, when I left Stanger and the others, I told them to go back, but I had to proceed to Mozambique, but I was under pressure because I was running away, and the road to Greytown, doesn't proceed to Mozambique. I had to take any other route, I had to leave the car in Greytown, so that I will be able to move from there to Mozambique, to evade the police.

It is not that I moved from Stanger to Mozambique.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were on your way to Mozambique when you were at Greytown? Do I understand you correctly?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax has asked you to explain the following, if that is so that you were on your way to Mozambique when you reached Greytown, how do you explain that when earlier today you told us that you had insufficient funds to go to, to complete the mission that you had in Mozambique, and that is why you decided you were going to rob another store, to obtain this R36 000? How do you explain that conflict?

MR SITHOLE: I want to explain again. After failing in the robbery in Stanger, it was important for us to make sure that the car crosses the border to Mozambique, even though we were not going to take the firearms but I had to get money for the firearms, but the car had to cross the border to Mozambique.

That is why I say we had to leave for Mozambique on that particular day, because I couldn't stay for a night with this car that was obtained during a robbery.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that your answer to the question?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is my answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Now let's turn to page 34 in the bundle.

This is a copy of your application for indemnity in respect of this matter? Correct?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that your signature at the foot of that page?

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: At page 35 it seems to be a letter attached to the application? Correct?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct. I first wrote the letter, the form was sent to prison after writing this letter.

CHAIRPERSON: That is your signature at the foot of that page, page 35?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that letter on page 35 was written by you?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And I assume you were satisfied with the contents thereof?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I am satisfied, I am the one who wrote the letter.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, on page 35, in the middle thereof, you say there that you denied the case in court, but

did you write that?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You say -

Did you write that?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON:

Did you write that?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON:

MR LAX: Company.

CHAIRPERSON: Company?

Did you write all that?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the truth as you say in this letter that you want to talk the truth?

MR SITHOLE: I first wrote this letter before the TRC body was established and what I wrote here, I was together with the other comrades who were inmates. Because we did not want to reveal some of the organisation's activities, we had to do this in a specific manner, that is why I decided to write this letter in this way.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it the truth?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, it is the truth, but this does not necessarily mean that this letter is the same as the one that I drafted with my legal representative. The contents - I am saying what I wrote here, we were together with the other comrades in prison, we wanted to write this letter in a specific manner, because we did not want to reveal some of the activities because we did not know anything about the TRC. What is important is the one that we are talking about right now, and at the time we did not take the TRC seriously.

MR LAX: Mr Sithole, the TRC had not even been promulgated yet, this was in 1994 that you wrote this letter, in June 1994. This was a different process of indemnity under what was known as the Further Indemnity Act of 1992. The new government was already in power at that stage, the 20th of June, it is after the election?

MR SITHOLE: That is true, but if you are going to remember well, this was written after the Dr Nelson Mandela had already forwarded a statement saying that all the Security Forces should apply for indemnity, but we did not know more about this process, we wrote this letter because we wanted to be freed from jail. That is the reason why we did not know what was going to happen.

CHAIRPERSON: I am going to ask this question one more time, there are other matters on the roll. What is contained in this letter on page 35, is that the truth or not? You don't seem to want to answer the question?

MR SITHOLE: It is true.

CHAIRPERSON: That is how it happened?

MR SITHOLE: As I explained initially that everything in this letter was written by me, but what is important is this, during this process, we did not reveal all the activities of the ANC, because we couldn't trust even the authorities in jail, because we regarded them as our enemies.

We wanted them to understand the indemnity, but had to understand what I had written here.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, when did you now decide to trust the authorities in an attempt to get out, at what stage of your term of imprisonment?

MR SITHOLE: Even today I cannot trust the authorities, and I will never trust them, but what I wrote here, I wrote it because I was with the ANC leadership, those who would pay us a visit, and they told us how to forward our applications.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you start to trust the authorities?

MR SITHOLE: I cannot trust them, even up to date.

CHAIRPERSON: So what made you tell the truth then in the amnesty application?

MR SITHOLE: I did that after meeting with the ANC leadership, who used to pay us visits in prison. They explained the procedure.

CHAIRPERSON: You trust the authorities now?

MR SITHOLE: I cannot trust the jail authorities, I only trust the ANC leaders.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the ANC leaders were in power when you wrote that letter on page 35, Nelson Mandela was the President of the country?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you fill in this form?

MR SITHOLE: I cannot remember the date, but all I can say is that it was October 1994.

CHAIRPERSON: I am talking about your application for amnesty?

MR LAX: Page 7 has a date on, it looks like the 7th of April 2000, that is the date it was attested.

MS MOHAMED: Sorry Mr Chairman, if I may come in here and assist, when we initially received instructions in this matter, we contacted the TRC in an endeavour to find out whether the application had been finalised or not, we were then informed telephonically that when initial application was made, the file was closed administratively and should the applicant desire for his application to be reconsidered, he should make the necessary representations by means of the letter, and the TRC would then place it before the Committee for further consideration.

By follow up through that, the TRC offices faxed the amnesty application to us for completion. We then duly attended to assisting the applicant fill in the form at Westville prison, and that was sent to the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Did he not fill in any initial forms?

MS MOHAMED: I am not certain what had happened to that initial form.

CHAIRPERSON: Now tell me, when did you feel comfortable now to make the application for indemnity then?

MR SITHOLE: Application for indemnity, is this separate letter, the one that you just talked about now? After that we talked about amnesty application, application for amnesty, not indemnity?

CHAIRPERSON: When did you feel comfortable making an application for indemnity?

MR SITHOLE: The first application for indemnity, if I remember well, I wrote that application after Nelson Mandela announced that people should apply for indemnity.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you satisfied then that you could trust whoever was going to hear the indemnity application, and that you should tell the truth?

MR SITHOLE: Truly speaking, I did not have much knowledge about whether my application was going to be considered. I never told myself that the time would come and a person would be sitting in this kind of a forum, testifying.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I am not talking about this kind of forum, I am talking about indemnity. When did you think that you stood a chance of being released by way of indemnity?

MR SITHOLE: I thought that people would just read this application and then the person would be convinced after reading my application.

CHAIRPERSON: You trusted the authorities then?

MR SITHOLE: It did not come to me directly, I was given it by the authorities, it was coming from the mail and then they told me that they were going to rewrite this letter again for me, as you can see that the handwritings are not the same, and then the person took the copy and rewrote the whole thing, and then they only asked for a few details like ID numbers and the like.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is that that wrote it?

MR SITHOLE: One of the jail authorities whose name is Morris Mbela.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. Now you read what he wrote in this form?

MR SITHOLE: He wrote this letter and then he read it out to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, were you satisfied, did you not see what he wrote?

MR SITHOLE: The situation in prison is like this, after forwarding an appeal, no one will read it out to you, you would be told that it has failed, and then you would be sent back to the jail and you wouldn't have a say thereafter. Things are only changing now.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you signed this document, were you aware of its contents?

MR SITHOLE: I take it as what he wrote here is exactly what I told him, as I am reading it now, but when he was busy writing, I did not read this, but I only signed.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you satisfied that he wrote down what you told him?

MR SITHOLE: When I look at what I wrote and reconcile with this other, though it is not the same, but at least it is more or less the same thing.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not answering my question, my question is are you satisfied that he recorded what you told him?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I am satisfied.

CHAIRPERSON: And thereafter, when you were satisfied, were you satisfied then? You are satisfied now, I am accept that, then, before you signed it, did you sign it on the basis that he had properly recorded what you had told him?

MR SITHOLE: As I have explained now, I am satisfied, but at the time you would be told to sign here, and you wouldn't be asked to say anything.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. Now you have already told us that you are satisfied that the contents of page 35 is in fact the truth and what occurred, and how it occurred, of the incident?

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a similar version on page 34, under paragraph 11 and I am going to read it to you.

MR LAX: Page 34, paragraph 11. You are going away from it, go back to page 34.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 34.

MR LAX: Your finger is there, paragraph 11, just above your signature.

CHAIRPERSON: I am going to read it with you. The question is "your justification for regarding the offence referred to in paragraph 9(c), which was robbery, two counts of robbery, to be an act with a political objective, and your answer is as follows:

That is in line with what you say on page 35. Do you agree?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct, but I would like to explain this. This was not the reason, if you look clearly. It is not a reason that can force a person to commit robbery. I did mention that when we were writing there, we had to write this letter to appear more personally, because one would be running away from revealing some of the activities, but after meeting with the leadership, we were free to say anything.

I take this as the one that, as we were trying to, I wrote this information because I wanted to protect the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Why, the organisation had already attained rule of the country by then?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So how does that fit in with your explanation now that you didn't tell them the real reasons, because you didn't want to divulge the truth, because you were not interested in embarrassing the organisation? How would you be embarrassing the organisation, if the organisation was in power already?

MR SITHOLE: I would like to explain this, any time, if the ANC, there is something, if there is something that should happen, but it would offend the ANC, I always try by all means, not to do that because I am trying to make sure that even if it is in power, I cannot just embarrass the ANC with something that is not within its principles.

CHAIRPERSON: But yet you say that is how it happened, why it happened, the crime? You accept that now? That is actually the reason, as contained on page 35 and page 34 as to why you committed the crime?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I mentioned that, and I did explain that the reason for me to say that, I wanted to, this whole crime to appear as a personal gain, because I didn't want to divulge information. I couldn't just tell anyone about the ANC's problems, or some of the activities.

MR LAX: Would that have helped you to get out of jail? How would that be regarded, how would personal gain be regarded as a political objective?

MR SITHOLE: That would depend solely on the Committee who would be there to deal with the application, but what I think even today, I am always on the side of the ANC, I can even get into trouble rather than divulging some of the activities of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may continue.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Sithole, I want to take you to page 17 of the bundle. Mr Sithole, I refer you to page 17 of the bundle, this is a statement that is made by Mr Munsami Govender, and he was one of the employees in the bottle store on that day. Towards the end of that statement, there is a sentence which says -

MR SITHOLE: I cannot dispute that, but all I can remember is the R3,000 that I took from the owners of the car. I know nothing about the R2,000, but I am the one who was there, taking the money, but I was disturbed after hearing the gunshot, I couldn't do anything further.

MS MOHAMED: You see, you were disturbed when you heard a gunshot. Who fired this gunshot?

MR SITHOLE: There was an exchange of fire, between Temba who was holding an AK47 and a person who had a small firearm, while Mr Munsami was inside.

MS MOHAMED: So Temba had a gun?

MR SITHOLE: We were armed with two AK47s.

MS MOHAMED: So you were also armed with an AK47?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

MS MOHAMED: Okay, now between who was this gunfire being exchanged, I am sorry, I am not following this too clearly. You said Temba had a gun?

MR SITHOLE: When Munsami came, he came with a firearm and they shot at each other, but I cannot remember whether he first shot at me, but I was just disturbed during the process. When he came out of the door, he was coming directly to me, but I cannot say whether he first shot at me, but one thing I am sure about is that what actually disturbed me there, was this gunshot.

MS MOHAMED: Okay, because on page 20 there is a further statement by Mr Govender. This is a hand-written statement, and if you look at the last three lines of that statement, Mr Govender says -

Can you comment on that?

MR SITHOLE: I cannot dispute that, because he is not even here right now, but all I am saying is what I know. I did not see Mr Govender, but I remember seeing Mr Munsami on his coming back.

MS MOHAMED: Mr Sithole, Mr Munsami and Govender is one and the same person.

MR SITHOLE: I apologise, the manager who was in the bottle store, I cannot remember his name, but it is him.

MR LAX: This is the manager, Mr Munsami Govender was the manager, he went to call the owner who was another man, Mr Pillay.

MS MOHAMED: That is correct.

MR LAX: Mr Pillay. He says both of them didn't have a firearm and they never fired any shots at you?

MR SITHOLE: What I say is this, there was exchange of fire, thank you for correcting me about Munsami Govender. He is the one who brought the firearm, I can even identify him, even today. He is the one who came with a firearm. I did not see the second person. I only see this for the first time, that there was a second person.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you. Mr Sithole, now if you can refer to page 21, that is the continuation of that statement. The penultimate paragraph reads -

MR SITHOLE: As he says, there was money, I want to dismiss this amount of money that was recovered. The money that I remember that was left in the pocket was R3,000, but in Stanger, I cannot remember anything. I was disturbed, I am the one who was there trying to get the money, but I couldn't continue because of some disturbance.

MS MOHAMED: This amount of R940 that was returned to Mr Govender, is presumably the money that they recovered, and it was your evidence earlier that the R3,000 that you received from Mike's Kitchen, was in the kombi, so can you explain to the Committee the discrepancy of these amounts, and why only R940 was returned?

MR SITHOLE: I am not in a position to explain that, but all I know is that the money, the whole amount was R3,000, therefore it means that some amount is missing, if we see this R940 here.

MS MOHAMED: Did you take any of that money for your personal use?

MR SITHOLE: It did not come to my mind, and I was getting out of the car as a person who was trying to run away. Even the bag and some travelling documents were left behind, things that are supposed to be with me.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Sithole, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Sithole, did you go to school?

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

MS THABETHE: How far?

MR SITHOLE: As far as standard 10.

MS THABETHE: Now, when you completed the ...

MR LAX: Sorry, I didn't hear the answer?

MS THABETHE: Standard 10.

MR LAX: It wasn't translated unfortunately.

MS THABETHE: Because he spoke in English, he said as far as standard 10.

MR LAX: I just couldn't hear him at all.

MS THABETHE: Okay.

MR SITHOLE: I did not pass matric.

MR LAX: But you can read and write English?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETHE: I want to go back to your indemnity form on page 34, paragraph 11 which says you must give a political justification. Why did you give an answer, did you think this answer was a political justification?

MR SITHOLE: As I explained before, during this process when it was announced that people should apply, I took it easy, I thought that people would be convinced by writing this letter.

CHAIRPERSON: Answer the question, did you think that that was political in nature? That is what you were asked.

MR SITHOLE: It is personal, but what was on my mind, I thought that it would be connected to politics, so that it doesn't actually get into the organisation's activities.

MS THABETHE: Did you have any legal advice when you completed this form?

MR SITHOLE: No.

MS THABETHE: I just want to follow up on another aspect of your evidence that you gave earlier on. When you were talking about having left the bottle store, and having gone to Greytown, what led you to leave the car in Greytown and walk the 100 metres that you were referring to earlier on? Can you just explain that, how did it come about that you left the car and then you walked, and then the policeman found you?

MR SITHOLE: When I was in Greytown, I was alone. I left the car because I wanted to put it there to cool off, it was not that I was abandoning the car. I had to run away and I had to use the same car crossing the border to Mozambique, I was not abandoning the car, I just wanted to leave it there for a while.

MS THABETHE: What do you mean that you left the car to cool down, what do you mean by that?

MR SITHOLE: I wanted to leave the car there and make sure, and make sure that the police are not following me, and even if they would find the car, they wouldn't, I wanted the police not to find me in the car, and I would later go back and get the car.

MS THABETHE: What about the money and the ID that you left in the car, didn't you think they could trace you if they found the car and your ID?

MR SITHOLE: When I was running away, that did not come to my mind, I did not think that my identity document and the money in the bag, but what was important to me was to leave the car there for a while. I didn't even think that the bag was in the car, I thought that some of my colleagues had taken the bag and the travel document and the ID. It was a mistake from me to leave them in the car, because those were the things that would implicate me, if found.

MR LAX: How were you going to get across the border into Mozambique, without travel documents, if you thought that your colleagues had taken it?

MR SITHOLE: In my mind I didn't think that the ID and the travel document were in the bag, I thought that they were in my jacket, as I was wearing a suit. Those are the things that I normally kept in my jacket.

MR LAX: You have just told us two seconds ago that you thought they were in the bag and that your colleague took them? Those were your very words? Carry on Ms Thabethe.

MS THABETHE: Thank you. I just want to finalise one thing, is it your evidence that the robbery and the attempted robbery that you committed, was done under the auspices of the ANC? Is that your evidence?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETHE: Do you know Mr Tom Madlala?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I know him.

MS THABETHE: Have you spoken to him with regard to this incident before?

MR SITHOLE: Yes. When we saw each other in prison, he had been there for quite a long time, and we would discuss about these things, together with other comrades. We would make a joke about all these incidents.

MS THABETHE: I am not talking about an informal meeting, was there a situation where there was a formal meeting, that is between you prisoners and the ANC officials, to discuss your incidents?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, it happened. If I am not mistaken, it was in 1996. We had a meeting, a very important meeting, where the ANC leaders were there and we discussed about this.

MS THABETHE: Just to clarify, was the ANC leadership aware of your incident, your specific incident?

MR SITHOLE: Those who were present, visiting us on that particular day, they did not know about this incident, but I am not sure among them, who knew about this incident. But as we were discussing there, no one knew a thing about this incident.

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

MS MOHAMED: I have no questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Any more witnesses, Ms Mohamed?

MS MOHAMED: Mr Chairman, I would like to call Mr Tom Madlala.

CHAIRPERSON: I am in your hands, if you want to call him, you call him.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Madlala, what language would you prefer to use?

MR MADLALA: Zulu.

TOM MADLALA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Madlala, do you know the applicant seated here?

MR MADLALA: Yes.

MS MOHAMED: How did it come about that you knew him?

MR MADLALA: I first saw him in prison, in Westville prison. He was with the other ANC members.

MS MOHAMED: When you were at Westville prison, were you an ANC member?

MR MADLALA: Yes.

MS MOHAMED: Did you feature on the ANC structures at the prison?

MR MADLALA: Yes.

MS MOHAMED: What position did you occupy?

MR MADLALA: I was the Chairperson of the ANC.

MS MOHAMED: Do you recall the applicant ever discussing these incidents with you?

MR MADLALA: The one that I first heard about was on the 6th of September 1995, when we were paid a visit by the ANC leadership, who were coming from the national organisation. The comrade, Carl Niehaus was from the National Executive, there was Bheki Cele who was a Deputy Secretary in the province at the time.

There was Sanso Nxunu who was the First Secretary of the ANC. There was a mass meeting of all the ANC comrades in church hall in the prison. That is when I first heard about the cases where comrades were involved, almost half of them, and the complaints that the comrades had, we heard about them on that particular day.

As usual the MK members in prison, Lucky Sithole would be the one who would represent all the MK cadres in prison. Their living conditions and the ANC activities, he would talk about those, and he would even talk about the integration after they are released and about their pensions. That was Lucky's task to forward that information to the leadership.

MS MOHAMED: Can you recall whether Mr Sithole discussed this incident, in other words his involvement in this incident, with the ANC leadership at that meeting?

MR MADLALA: Yes, he made mention of that. Can I say something? What Lucky stated there, it was an accusation that was directed to the ANC leadership, in that mass meeting. Not in the caucus, but he stated that specifically in that mass meeting he was open about it, and then he said after coming from the exile, they were given instructions by the Commanders to commit crimes like robbery in order to help the organisation.

But the very same organisation now is in power and is doing nothing to help them get amnesty. The responses came from comrades like Carl Niehaus, who said the ANC had given itself time to change all the laws, concerning indemnity. Early in 1996 they promised that a TRC body would be established. Everybody who was in prison for politically motivated crimes, they should use the opportunity to apply for amnesty, and these people should reveal everything that they know.

That was the only first forum that was established by the ANC government, it was this TRC.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: What about indemnity?

MR MADLALA: About indemnity, it came about in 1990 during the negotiations that were in Groote Schuur in Cape Town.

When there was this law that would be passed by the National Party government, that law was passed in November 1990, and then people had to apply for indemnity early in 1991. I was in prison at the time. The manner in which things were happening, was very disorganised. There was no formal structure like the TRC. I am one of the people who applied. The prison warder would fill in the form for you, if you would try and show that you know something about politics, at least you would get a form, but there would be additional statements that had to be done by the prison warders and in their own handwriting.

I actually think that the ANC did not like this process of indemnity, nationally. That is why there was a problem in 1992 in September. The indemnity did not make any move to release the ANC prisoners, because this was just a cover up to save the National Party prisoners, the ANC submitted a list of about 1500 people who were in prison, but only 40 people were released, and those people were criminals. The people who were arrested for political activities, were still in jail.

That is why this TRC body was established, this was the only platform where all the people who were arrested for political reasons, would be released. As far as I am concerned, this indemnity was not such a good process at all.

Including the Indemnity Act of 1992, was not a good process.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Thabethe?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Madlala, Mr Sithole have applied to the Committee for amnesty for a robbery, you were listening, for the robberies and the attempted robbery?

MR MADLALA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: He claims that he did this under the auspices of the ANC.

MR MADLALA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: What would you say in response to that, what would be your comment to the Amnesty Committee in terms of granting or refusing amnesty?

MR MADLALA: About granting amnesty, I am not, I want to explain about what I heard from him. ANC is a very organised organisation. The ANC President, the current President was the one who had been to the ANC, to the TRC, for submissions, submissions that were covering each and every activity of the ANC.

If the TRC is considering Mr Sithole's application, they would use those that were covered in the submission. I would also like to request the TRC to take a note, this is not for the first time for me to come here to the TRC, long before the establishment of this TRC, Lucky Sithole had mentioned something like instructions. I remember at some stage he was very, very angry, he staged a walkout. It is not for the first time that he speaks here about the instructions that were given to him by the ANC, he started talking about that as early as 1995.

I would further request that the TRC when considering his application, should take note of those issues. As a person who was a former Chairperson of the ANC in prison, all these applications were in my hands, all the members of the ANC who were in prison in KwaZulu Natal, were in my hand. I started working with them while I was in prison. When I was released in this year in March, the ANC gave me a portfolio of going ahead with these applications, up until the last date of the TRC.

I am so used to communicating with the TRC office in Cape Town. There are problems that sometimes I would be told that a person did not get amnesty, but the same person would be called again, because of some problems. I am not sure whether there is a communication breakdown or not. The example of Dannyboy, I received a letter that Dannyboy, his application was turned down, but yesterday he was here to appear before the TRC. I think that I know more about Sithole and the others' applications. I am not hearing about them for the first time here.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mohamed?

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused.

MR MADLALA: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other witnesses?

MS MOHAMED: No, Mr Chairman, that is the applicant's case.

MS THABETHE: No witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Any submissions, Ms Mohamed?

MS MOHAMED IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman, I would just like to address you very briefly. I understand that in the course of his evidence the applicant mentioned certain statements, and then later on it turned out to be inconsistencies and the like.

I understand if viewed, if one particular view is taken, then obviously that is totally detrimental to his application and it could go to the very foundation and basis of that application, but what I would like to say is that on instructions received from the applicant himself, it seems that given the finer details of the operation at Stanger may not have been canvassed properly and things like that, but he at all stages, was the Ordinance Officer as appointed by the Commanders in the Umhlazi area.

He was a trained MK person and he was quite familiar with the manner in which ...

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think, and I speak for myself, but I don't think we've got any illusions about his training and his affiliations.

MS MOHAMED: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: I speak for myself. The difficulty I have is the reasons why the crimes were committed. He has told us one version now, accompanied by the statement which he signed and handed up by you, this morning, Exhibit A, but yet in all other statements which was canvassed with him, some different reasons.

He has made valiant attempts as far as I am concerned, to explain that away, but fundamentally, and really significantly, he concedes that the contents of the letter on page 35, read together with the application for indemnity on page 34, is in fact the truth? That is the difficulty with which I am confronted.

MS MOHAMED: Yes, Mr Chairman, I understand that and that can be an insurmountable difficulty.

CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate your position, I mean sometimes those mountains cannot be climbed.

MS MOHAMED: It is my instructions that the applicant views this as a forum at which he can actually speak quite freely, and the evidence given by Mr Madlala clearly indicates his bona fides and his involvement in this activity, from as early as 1995.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the trouble with Mr Madlala's evidence is that it does not reflect on the actual offences?

MS MOHAMED: Yes, I understand that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't deal with it.

MS MOHAMED: Yes, but the applicant has maintained that he was acting under instructions and apart from those submissions, I can take it no further, and I leave it in the hands of the Committee. Thank you.

MS THABETHE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chair. I have no submissions, except to say that I support Ms Mohamed's.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, it is because from the evidence led, it appears, and also from Mr Madlala, it appears that the applicant was acting under instructions when he committed these actions.

With regard to the indemnity form, what I would submit Mr Chair is that it appears that the applicant did not have legal representation or legal advice.

CHAIRPERSON: So what?

MS THABETHE: As to how to, as to what information should be revealed in this form.

My submission Mr Chair, would be that what he has written is the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: If he is telling us the truth today, then he lied in the indemnity form, isn't it?

MS THABETHE: I wouldn't argue so, Mr Chair, because these could be his personal, these facts could be correct in as far as his personal capacity is concerned, the fact that he had kids, the fact that the ANC didn't take care of its own.

CHAIRPERSON: But he tenders that paragraph as reasons for committing the crime or crimes?

MS THABETHE: Which is why, Mr Chair, I am arguing that I think that can be ascribed to the fact that he did not have legal representation as to what factors should have been revealed by him, and as to what reasons he should put forth in order to get indemnity.

MR LAX: You see my difficulty, if I could speak for myself, is based on Mr Madlala's evidence. We are not dealing with your average lay person, we are dealing with someone who was the leader of the prisoners, who made representations on their behalf, who dealt with these kinds of things? Do you understand, we are not dealing with somebody who was just an uneducated somebody who didn't know what all of this was about?

Whether he had a lawyer or not, is irrelevant and Mr Madlala has given evidence to that effect?

MS THABETHE: With respect, honourable member of the Committee, the indemnity form was completed in 1994 and it is clear that at that stage most prisoners did not know exactly what information should be revealed in those indemnity application forms.

MR LAX: There is no evidence to that effect, there is no evidence whatsoever to that effect? There is evidence to the contrary, that this person was the leader of the prisoners and that he was helping them do all these things.

MS THABETHE: At what stage though, Mr Lax?

MR LAX: That was Mr Madlala's evidence.

MS THABETHE: From what I heard, Mr Madlala was talking about the period from 1995 onwards, when the leaders ...

MR LAX: He said he was in the prison from 1990, this man came there in 1992, 1993, after his conviction, then his evidence was, they used to talk about these matters before and regarded them as a joke, before the meeting?

MS THABETHE: Well, that is not how I gathered the information from Mr Madlala. I thought he was saying from 1995, that is when they started pursuing for amnesty, but ...

CHAIRPERSON: Let's leave that point, we will discuss it. What do you say about Mr Sithole's credibility? How do we handle his failure to deal with certain conflicts? How do we deal with the particular conflict that is germane to this application, the one hand he gives us what appears to be a well-founded political reason for committing this offence, whereas he says what is contained in his indemnity letter, is in fact the truth? How do we deal with it?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair ...

CHAIRPERSON: How would you like to deal with it?

MS THABETHE: I would like to argue it, Mr Chair, the way I understood his evidence, of course I was following it in Zulu, I would say I didn't see any material contradictions or conflicts in his evidence, more than an issue that maybe some issues were not canvassed, especially as to what happened after the bottle store was robbed, up to where he got arrested.

But with regard to the indemnity form, I would argue, Mr Chair, that what was written in the indemnity form, is the truth, in as far as his personal reasons are concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: But he says that is the truth, and that is why it happened, he admits that under oath today?

MS THABETHE: But he did concede Mr Chair, with respect that what he wrote in his application, was the personal aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But it is the truth?

MR LAX: It wasn't the personal aspects, it was an attempt, you see, this is my problem, it was an attempt to deflect responsibility from the ANC. If that is the case, then it is not the truth, because the truth is that he got orders from the ANC to commit the act, that is the truth.

Now many applicants have appeared before us, as you well know, and they have said "yes, I have lied in my indemnity application, but I lied because I wanted to protect the ANC."

MS THABETHE: Yes.

MR LAX: This man isn't saying that he lied because he wanted to protect the ANC, he says he told the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: As it happened?

MS THABETHE: Oh, that is not how I understood it. I thought he was saying he spoke about his personal circumstances in the indemnity form, as opposed to the political circumstances because he did not want to reveal the incidents, thus exposing the name of the ANC, that is how I heard him, but of course I was listening in Zulu.

I don't know whether my learned colleague heard the same thing, maybe being translated?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Ms Thabethe, if I can remind you, you in fact asked him a particular question related to that.

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The question, he was in effect, that in the indemnity paragraph ...

MS THABETHE: Paragraph 11?

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 11, he is specifically asked to explain how the act for which he seeks indemnity is one that is politically justifiable.

MS THABETHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you are the third or the fourth person to ask him that question. What did he answer?

MS THABETHE: I cannot remember precisely Mr Chair, what he answered.

CHAIRPERSON: That is when he said that he didn't choose to tell the truth in order to protect the image of the ANC.

MS THABETHE: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: But we must remember he has also said under oath that what is contained therein, is in effect the actual truth, the actual reasons why he did it. That is a conflict that we are saddled with.

MS THABETHE: Yes. Mr Chair, I would leave it at that, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will take time to consider this application and deliver the decision in due course.

MS MOHAMED: As the Committee pleases.

MS THABETHE: As the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until two o'clock.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. We now come to a new matter and for the purposes of the record, the Panel is as before. I am going to ask the representatives to identify themselves for the purpose of that record.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman, I am Ms Mohamed, from the firm Dehal Inc, on record for Mr Mpanza.

MR PANDAY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I appear on behalf of the victims, Mr S. Panday. Mr Chairman, just to place on record, there were two victims located in this matter, however there is only one present, that being Mr Jobe, from the Jobe family. Thank you.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the position about the other?

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, in principle the application is not being opposed, save to say that the family seeks full disclosure as to the incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: But are you representing both victims?

MR PANDAY: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Despite the absence?

MR PANDAY: Well, unfortunately one cannot be present.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I accept, but you carry instructions of that victim?

MR PANDAY: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What are the names of those victims?

MR PANDAY: The first victim is Mergen Raymond Samuel.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and the other?

MR PANDAY: And the second set of victims is Anthony Jobe.

CHAIRPERSON: Spell the surname please.

MR PANDAY: J-o-b-e. That is the next-of-kin of Kanyile Petrus Jobe.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes? Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. I am Ms Thabile THABETHE, the Evidence Leader.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, with your leave, prior to commencing the application of Mr Mpanza, there is a matter that I would like to address you on. If you are aware, there are two other persons involved in this matter, according to Mr Mpanza's application are Mr Mzwake Cleopa Shandu and Mr Sifiso Goodman .

Mr Chairman, there was a High Court application brought on Monday in the Natal Provincial Division, to have these two applications be joined and recognised as applicants for the purposes of this hearing, that was done pursuant to previous proceedings before the Amnesty Committee, when the matter could not proceed because Mr Malevu and Mr Shandu were not recognised as applicants at that stage. Given the directions from the previous Committee that heard the matter, we were asked then to follow up on the relevant High Court application.

The position is that the matter was heard in the NPD on Monday, the 28th of August before Justice Msimang and the Judge found that he is not in a position to decide the issue, and he ordered that the matter be referred to this Amnesty Committee to consider whether the applications of Mr Malevu and Mr Shandu is properly before the Committee.

Mr Chairman, with your leave, I would like to address you on that basis then, and possibly place the status of their application before you, so that you can make the necessary decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mohamed, the Act stipulates, I think peremptory regulations that applications by each person who seeks amnesty for whatever offence, must firstly make such application on a prescribed form. I think it is around Section 16 or 17.

MS MOHAMED: Yes, I think it is in Section 18.

CHAIRPERSON: Whatever. There are other formalities that have to be complied with for an application to be regarded as before a Committee. Now, we are not in possession of any form purporting to be an application by either Mr Shandu or Malevu. I don't know if you are in possession of such a document?

MS MOHAMED: No, Mr Chairman, I am not in possession of such a form.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether such forms were completed?

MS MOHAMED: On the instructions I have received, sorry, I am going to use the word applicants just for easy reference, that both of them have completed their forms. Mr Malevu at that time, on completion of the form, around May 1997, was at Westville prison and the form was completed and then duly sent to the prison authorities for onward transmission to the TRC. Mr Shandu at that stage was at Waterval prison, and he says he did likewise, where the form was sent to prison authorities for forward transmission.

It is also my instructions that they received no further communication from the TRC about the outcome of that application. At some stage, Mr Chairman, just to clarify the position ...

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got a copy of the papers that were served on the Court?

MS MOHAMED: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Could I have a copy of that, please.

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, if you seek to use mine, because I am not involved in this problem, so it would be easier for you, it is just a fax copy that was sent to my office.

JUDGE POTGIETER: What the other applicant, is it Mr Malevu?

MS MOHAMED: Yes.

JUDGE POTGIETER: Where did he submit his application to, which prison was it?

MS MOHAMED: Mr Malevu was at Westville prison.

JUDGE POTGIETER: Westville? And he also completed a form and handed it to the authorities at the prison?

MS MOHAMED: Yes. And Mr Shandu was at Waterval.

JUDGE POTGIETER: He was at Waterval prison you said?

MS MOHAMED: Yes.

JUDGE POTGIETER: Have you got a date roughly when all of this happened?

MS MOHAMED: Around May 1997.

JUDGE POTGIETER: In respect of both Shandu and Malevu?

MS MOHAMED: Yes. Mr Chairman, if I may with your leave, I want to explain the situation to you.

After these forms, according to Mr Malevu and Shandu, after they had sent it to the prison authorities, they received no further word from the TRC about their application per se. What had happened was around July 1999, the TRC Investigator, Mr Joshua Cele called at Westville prison to speak to Mr Malevu, I think at that stage he had just been cited as an implicated party in Mr Mpanza's matter. During the course of the consultation an affidavit was drawn up which Mr Malevu had signed and I am aware that that affidavit is included in the bundle.

MR LAX: Is that at 4 to 10 of the papers?

MS MOHAMED: Yes, Mr Lax. And likewise, Ms Sheila Mkhize and Mr Joshua Cele again consulted with Mr Shandu at Waterval prison and a similar affidavit was then drawn up, and that is also included in the bundle, on page 11 to 16.

MR LAX: Those affidavits though were for the purposes of their implication in Mr Mpanza's application?

MS MOHAMED: That is correct Mr Lax. What had happened at that stage was in these affidavits, both Mr Shandu and Mr Malevu in the relevant paragraphs, if I may point you to that ...

JUDGE POTGIETER: Where is that?

MS MOHAMED: Mr Malevu's affidavit, for ease of reference I am going to refer to the typed version so that we can locate it quicker, on page 4.

JUDGE POTGIETER: Yes, what paragraph?

MS MOHAMED: Sorry, on page 5, paragraph 10, this is dealing with the status of their application, page 5, paragraph 10, the second sentence of paragraph 10, Mr Malevu says -

MR LAX: With the greatest of respect, how can that be in line with what you have just told us?

MS MOHAMED: Mr Lax ...

MR LAX: Let me just finish. You have just told us that they individually applied at Westville and Waterval in May 1997, this says all three of them were together and they all made one application in one form? Those are two totally different versions?

MS MOHAMED: Yes, Mr Lax, if I may, I do apologise.

JUDGE POTGIETER: Take us to the other affidavit as well, and just, you were busy pointing out where these things appear, and I accept you will then explain?

MS MOHAMED: Yes.

JUDGE POTGIETER: Yes. And Mr Shandu's affidavit, the typed form on page 11.

JUDGE POTGIETER: Paragraph?

MS MOHAMED: Paragraph 2. That is the typed version, Mr Shandu says -

JUDGE POTGIETER: Thank you.

MS MOHAMED: Those are the relevant paragraphs. And then Mr Chairman, what had happened is, based on that affidavits, the TRC then said to, actually by means of a letter, to both these applicants that it seems as if they had applied unilaterally, one application, and the necessary applications will then have to be made to a Committee who hears the matter.

The TRC then confirmed that they didn't have any written application before them. So what has happened is, when the matter came before the Committee on a previous occasion, I think it was in March this year, the Committee was then appraised of the situation and the two applicants at that stage were not represented. It was at that stage, after that adjournment, that we became involved in the matter, upon receiving instructions from Mr Shandu and Mr Malevu.

They said to us that the contents of this affidavit was put to them, because by that stage we had received the previous bundle that was prepared in this matter. They said to us that these affidavits incorrectly represent the position, in that there was a misunderstanding at some level, between themselves and the Investigators who took down these affidavits.

They then said to me that they wrote out their applications, it was sent to prison authorities and they had each done this on their individual forms. The High Court papers which were then submitted to the NPD were then drawn on the same lines.

CHAIRPERSON: Which they understood?

MS MOHAMED: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And they signed?

MS MOHAMED: Yes, Mr Chairman. It is on that basis now, that I am before you. I have, apart from these submissions, I don't have anything further to make. I am aware that the Act clearly says that application has to be made on the prescribed form.

But given the, I understand that there is also a difficulty about the different versions and if need be, Mr Chairman, both the applicants are willing to testify as to the correctness or incorrectness of various versions that have been put forward.

MR LAX: If I may, have you made any enquiries at either Westville prison or Waterval prison, as to whether their names appear on any list of applications forwarded to the Truth Commission in about May 1997 as we have heard that there were such lists compiled, of various people's applications?

MS MOHAMED: Mr Lax, we had taken the applicants' word for it, that the forms were forwarded and I cannot say that we actually did an enquiry, no.

MR LAX: So the answer is no?

MS MOHAMED: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mohamed, we are of the view that we need to consider this application, we cannot obviously do it here. I don't think it is going to affect you or this hearing, if we proceed to listen to the application that is properly before us and make a decision thereafter about joining the other two. Have you got any objections to that?

MS MOHAMED: Not an objection, Mr Chairman, if I may just clarify then, would you then, if we do proceed with Mr Mpanza's matter, at the conclusion of his evidence and the relevant witnesses ...

CHAIRPERSON: Then we can decide whether the other two can be joined or not.

MS MOHAMED: Yes, so will it be necessary for me to then call Mr Malevu and Mr Shandu at that stage, or should I just hold on to that?

CHAIRPERSON: For what purposes?

MS MOHAMED: Because - okay no, I follow what you are saying. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If we decide that they are, or can be joined, then you call them as applicants.

MS MOHAMED: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: If we decide or find that they cannot be joined, then that is the end of the matter.

MS MOHAMED: Okay.

MR LAX: Sorry, there is a third permutation. I didn't understand you quite clearly, but you may want to call them as separate witnesses in Mr Mpanza's application?

MS MOHAMED: Yes.

MR LAX: To back up his version, as opposed to them being applicants, is that what you were asking?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, then that doesn't matter, because then they come here in their capacity as witnesses. I would think that you first wait for a decision on their status in this application first, it does not stop you from calling them as witnesses for this application.

Mr Panday, have you got any objections to the proposed ...

MR PANDAY: No, Mr Chairman, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: It is just a concern, Mr Chair. My learned colleague has indicated that the two, perhaps have indicated that there was a misunderstanding in them having stated the same thing, that they completed one application form, which they signed, and also they add that there was no, they did not furnish individual forms. Now, I don't know whether it is necessary, but I would wish them to come if possible, and state the correct position because all of them are Zulu speakers and I am not sure whether there is a suggestion that maybe there was a misunderstanding, in terms of language, but because it is clearly stated what they said.

I think it would be necessary to call the people who also took the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we will see at the end of the day what we decide. Mr Mpanza, what language would you like to use?

MR MPANZA: I would like to use Zulu.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ZIBA GERALD MPANZA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mpanza, I am referring you now to this bundle of documents. Mr Mpanza, on pages 1 to 3 of this bundle, which contains your application for amnesty, do you confirm that this is your application, and that you in fact signed the form on page 3?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I do.

MS MOHAMED: Okay. I am going to refer you to a typed statement which I have drawn on the instructions that you have given me. Mr Chairman, copies have been made available to my learned colleagues as well.

Mr Mpanza, do you confirm having read this statement?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I read it.

MS MOHAMED: Do you also confirm having pointed out certain incorrect facts which have now been corrected?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I did.

MS MOHAMED: And on your instructions then, in paragraph 3, 1981 was struck off to read 1991?

MR MPANZA: That is correct.

MS MOHAMED: And then on page 3, paragraph 11, the first two sentences have been struck off, and you have initialled that. Mr Chairman, I must apologise to the Committee and to my learned colleagues, when we were receiving instructions, we originally thought that the whole of paragraph 11 should be deleted, and that is why some lines go across. It is just the first two sentences that must come off and the sentence that reads -

that sentence remains.

Mr Mpanza, do you confirm that, and do you confirm having signed next to that?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I do.

MS MOHAMED: Mr Chairman, if the statement may then be called Exhibit A?

CHAIRPERSON: It is so marked.

MS MOHAMED: Mr Mpanza, isn't it correct that you are applying for amnesty for an armed robbery which occurred at Avocas Wholesalers on the 16th of March 1992?

MR MPANZA: That is correct.

MS MOHAMED: Isn't it correct that in the 1980's, you were a member of the UDF?

MR MPANZA: That is correct.

MS MOHAMED: And isn't it also correct that you were a member of MK?

MR MPANZA: That is correct. I was a member of MK.

MS MOHAMED: Okay, and on your return to South Africa in 1991, what role did you assume within the ANC structures?

MR MPANZA: My main role was to train Self-Defence Units, as well as to train other people to become MK cadres.

MS MOHAMED: Will it be correct to say that you were a Commander of the Self-Defence Unit?

MR MPANZA: Yes, that is correct.

MS MOHAMED: And which area was this Unit set up in?

MR LAX: Sorry, before you go on, do I understand you correctly to say that your main role was to train SDU members and to get other people to become MK members, was that correct?

MR MPANZA: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MS MOHAMED: In which area was this Self-Defence Unit based?

MR MPANZA: I was based at kwaMashu.

MS MOHAMED: Mr Mpanza, this incident that you seek amnesty for is linked to a meeting that occurred round December 1991, isn't that correct?

MR MPANZA: Please clarify the meeting that you are referring to.

MS MOHAMED: Okay. On your return to the kwaMashu area, whilst you were still a Commander of the SDU ...

MR MPANZA: When I returned to kwaMashu, I was an MK member and I worked with SDU's and because of my training, I became a Commander of the SDU.

MS MOHAMED: How did it come about that you became involved in this armed robbery at Avocas Wholesalers?

MR MPANZA: Towards the end of 1991, in December, comrade Lindani Nteani from Mkababa arrived, he had come to seek assistance from me, assistance in terms of weapons, because there was an ongoing violence between the IFP and the ANC there.

I explained to him that we did not have firearms because when we returned to South Africa, we did not have firearms in our possession. As a trained soldier, Lindani requested that I assist them to protect them in that area.

That is how it came about that one was involved to obtain money. Lindani came to me in December 1991. I explained to him that we did not have firearms. As an MK cadre, he requested that I assist them. At that time we were working in collaboration with other comrades from kwaMashu. I then enquired from other comrades from exile, if any of them had firearms.

MS MOHAMED: Sorry Mr Mpanza, before you go on, this comrade Lindani Nteani, where was he from?

MR MPANZA: He was from the Mkababa Youth League.

MS MOHAMED: And what was his position within the Youth League?

MR MPANZA: He was the Chairperson of the Danganga Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: How old was he?

MR MPANZA: I am not certain, but he was quite a mature person.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he hold a higher rank than you in the ANC?

MR MPANZA: He held a higher position in his area.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am asking was he higher ranked than you?

MR MPANZA: I will say yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You were the Commander of MK?

MR MPANZA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: He was President of a Youth League in a particular area?

MR MPANZA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How could he have a higher ranking than you in the structure?

MR MPANZA: Lindani Nteani held a position at the Mkababa Branch. I respected him for the reason that he had been trained as well as for the position he held at his area. He had been trained by me in exile, and when he returned to South Africa, he had been appointed to that high position.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR LAX: So he knew you from exile?

MR MPANZA: We first met before I left for exile, and we also met in exile.

MR LAX: As Commander of your SDU, who were you answerable to?

MR MPANZA: As MK cadre from exile, we had been requested to train SDU members inside the country, but the person we liaised with was Papa Ndlovu.

MR LAX: Who was Papa Ndlovu?

MR MPANZA: Papani was the Commander in charge of all the SDU's.

MR LAX: For which area?

MR MPANZA: In Sections C, D and E, kwaMashu.

MR LAX: Thank you. Please continue.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Lax. Mr Mpanza, at the point where I interrupted you, you said that Mr Nteani had come to you for assistance and you had said to him that you didn't have, sorry, you were not in a position to assist him?

MR LAX: No, he started saying that he then started making enquiries?

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Lax. Please can you tell us about the nature of the enquiries you were making?

MR MPANZA: I made enquiries from other comrades from exile, if any of them had DLBs to assist the people of Mkababa.

It appeared that from those comrades, none of them had firearms.

MS MOHAMED: And then, what did you decide to do?

MR MPANZA: After I had made enquiries from the comrades, realising that I did not obtain assistance from them, I then called Sifiso Malevu and explained the problem to him. When I left Sifiso was an active comrade in the UDF. He is one of the people whom I trusted.

When I returned from exile, he is one of those persons who assisted me in getting my way around South Africa, because at that time things had changed. When I returned from exile, I also gave him some information about the ANC and I also trained him under ground so that if I needed assistance, he would be in a position to help me.

I contacted him, I explained the problem of Mkababa people to him. I informed him that comrades from Mkababa were short of firearms, whereas they were under attack from the IFP and the Security Forces. I was telling him this because I felt that perhaps he could have suggestions as to what to do, because he had been inside the country all the time.

I also informed him that I nor any comrades from exile, had firearms. It was decided that we should identify a place from which we could get weapons. As we were still discussing the issue of robbing a place to obtain firearms, we could not come up with any suitable venue. This was discussed over several weeks.

As time went on, we were still involved in that exercise of identifying a venue. Eventually we decided that we shall rob and get money so that we could go to Lindani, who would then identify somebody who would sell us firearms, because there were weapons that filtered from places like Mozambique.

That is what we discussed, and decided with Sifiso.

MS MOHAMED: When you were having these difficulties, did you tell Mr Lindani Nteani about these difficulties?

MR MPANZA: We would see each other from time to time, and I would tell him that he should wait whilst I was still devising means of obtaining those firearms.

MS MOHAMED: Okay, and then you and Mr Malevu, you said earlier, you discussed these difficulties. What happened thereafter?

MR MPANZA: After our discussions, which went on for several weeks, as well as carrying out some reconnaissance at those places which were potential venues.

MR LAX: What places were these, sorry?

MR MPANZA: For instance we went to look around town and some areas outside town where firearms were sold, but we could not find a suitable venue.

MR LAX: But you were looking for places where you could get money, not where firearms were sold? You had given up on the firearms?

MR MPANZA: As I mentioned before, we initially looked for a place where we could obtain firearms, so we abandoned that idea. In stead we looked for a place where we could rob money to buy those firearms.

At that time, we had not identified a place where we could rob money.

MS MOHAMED: Yes, and then what happened?

MR MPANZA: At the beginning of 1992, Tulani Shabalala who came from Empangeni arrived, and on his arrival, he came to see me and I knew him from exile where he had undergone a crash course at Bangwe.

He reported to me the situation that prevailed at Empangeni at that time. There was violence between the ANC and the IFP. He told me that there was an SAP member by the name of Steyn, who was a great danger to ANC comrades, because he supported the IFP.

Because of this Steyn and this colleagues, they could not get to the IFP. Tulani then requested that we assist him in killing Steyn. I listened to that request and told him that I would see what I could do. I did not promise him anything at the time, for the reason that we were busy.

Tulani then returned to Empangeni. I promised him that I would follow him shortly, I would see what plan I could come up with.

MS MOHAMED: Sorry Mr Mpanza, before you go on, Tulani Shabalala, what was he also known to you as?

MR MPANZA: Tulani was a Chairperson of the ANC at Empangeni. I also knew him as a comrade in UDF and COSAS before I left the country.

Moreover I trained him at Bangwe, where he underwent a crash course.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you. To take you back to your evidence where I interrupted you, you said to Mr Shabalala that you would see what you could do to assist him? You can continue from there.

MR MPANZA: I told him that yes, I have heard his problem and I would see what I could do. He then left and I told him that I would send somebody to Empangeni to see him. He then returned to Empangeni.

After that, I discussed the matter with Sifiso, that comrades from Empangeni are involved in a war with the IFP, and there is this person, this policeman by the name of Steyn, who has become very problematic to them.

I explained that comrade Tulani had come to request me to kill this Steyn, because they were of the opinion that if he were to be killed, perhaps they would make some progress. I then requested Sifiso to go to Empangeni to see Mayibuya. I telephoned Shabalala to inform him that Sifiso would meet him.

MS MOHAMED: Mr Mpanza, just for clarification, Mayibuya and Shabalala were one and the same person, isn't that correct?

MR MPANZA: Yes, that is correct. Mayibuya was his combat name, which I used when talking to Sifiso.

MS MOHAMED: To take you back to this point, you said you had telephoned Mayibuya?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I telephoned Mayibuya and I was with Sifiso, I informed him that Sifiso Malevu would come to him and that is the person with whom I was going to discuss everything.

They then discussed over the telephone, over where to meet. Sifiso then left for Empangeni. This happened on a different occasion.

Okay, and then what happened after Sifiso went to Empangeni?

MR MPANZA: Sifiso left for Empangeni, he spent two days there. He returned and informed me that the situation was quite bad. The houses were being burnt, (indistinct) that these attacks were carried out by the IFP.

He told me that he went and saw Steyn, therefore he was in a position to identify him. He also informed him of where he worked. However, he realised that it would be difficult to kill him at his place of work, because that was a police station.

Because we were also involved in trying to obtain money, Sifiso came up with the suggestion that we should target a place nearby a police station, because the police such as Steyn, who were from the Murder and Robbery Unit, would be the first to respond if something happened.

Sifiso then told me that we could kill Steyn by robbing a place nearby the police station because he would be the first or amongst the first to arrive, should such a robbery take place. Sifiso then identified a place nearby, which was Avocas Wholesalers. He identified that place because it was near and there were not many people around there, so there would not be many casualties, or people who would be caught in the crossfire. We were also convinced that the Murder and Robbery Unit would be the first to arrive at the scene, should we commit this robbery.

MS MOHAMED: So you then agreed with Sifiso's plan that you should rob the place in order to lure Steyn to the scene as it were?

MR MPANZA: I understood his proposition, and I requested him to take me to Empangeni to that place, so that I could also see Mr Steyn as well.

Sifiso also came up with the suggestion that if we were to rob that place, we would be in a position to assist the Mkababa comrades to buy firearms. At the same time, we would also be able to execute the mission that had been suggested by Tulani, which was killing Mr Steyn.

It was not important where we obtained the money from, as long as we got it so that we could buy firearms. That plan assisted us in accomplishing both these missions at the same time.

MS MOHAMED: Okay, now you said earlier that you requested Sifiso to take you to Empangeni. Did you in fact go to Empangeni with Sifiso?

MR MPANZA: Yes, we did. We went to Empangeni and I saw that area. Sifiso then took me to the city centre, in that way he was trying to show me where Steyn was, but we could not locate him at that time. We then went to Avocas Wholesalers, and I also realised that it was suitable, because there were not many people around that place.

We did some reconnaissance as to how we would conduct our mission. We did not see Steyn on that first day. On the following day we went back to the city, looking for Steyn, but we could not locate him there. We then went to a Spar that was near the Empangeni court. Sifiso then recognised Steyn there and he showed him to me. We followed him and I was able to identify him.

We thereafter left. We then went back to the area we were going to attack, to do some further reconnaissance.

MS MOHAMED: After your reconnaissance work was carried out, did you then return to kwaMashu?

MR MPANZA: Yes, we returned to kwaMashu.

MS MOHAMED: Okay, and what did you do on your return to kwaMashu?

MR MPANZA: After we had returned to kwaMashu, we decided to go back to Empangeni, to do some further reconnaissance as well as to ensure that indeed the situation was as we had thought.

We did not see any difference to what happened there previously. Eventually we discussed as to who could assist us in this mission, and I informed Sifiso that I did not want him to identify prominent people, because this was an underground mission. If we were to be seen in the company of prominent comrades, somebody may suspect something. Sifiso then suggested Tekozani Ngema, Nmezela Mkungu and Mzwake Shandu. He then told me that comrade Shandu was in the Police Force, but he was sympathetic, he was supporting comrades and he would be in a position to assist with the firearms, to carry out the operation at Empangeni.

MS MOHAMED: Did you discuss this progress with Mayibuya and Lindani Nteani?

MR MPANZA: I informed Lindani Nteani that I would contact him when everything was ready, I did not give him the details of what I would do.

With regards to Mayibuya, I did not inform him when and where I would carry out the mission. He was more involved with administration, and it would be safer not to involve him in this type of activity, so he would only hear from me when I had completed the mission.

MS MOHAMED: I am going to take you to the point where, the day of the incident, can you just tell us how it is that you proceeded to the scene?

MR MPANZA: After all of us had met, we left Durban on a Saturday and we ...

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mohamed, we are terribly hot in here, can we take a break for 10 minutes?

MS MOHAMED: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ON RESUMPTION:

ZIBA GERALD MPANZA: (s.u.o.)

EXAMINATION BY MS MOHAMED: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mpanza, the time that we have broken for the short adjournment, you were at the stage where you were saying that you had left Durban on the Saturday and you had arrived at Empangeni.

MR MPANZA: That is right.

MS MOHAMED: Okay, now, who was with you at the time?

MR MPANZA: It was myself, Mzwake Malevu, Tekozani Ngema, Nmezela Mkungu.

MS MOHAMED: Why did you leave for Empangeni on that Saturday?

MR MPANZA: We left for Empangeni on Saturday so that we could show comrades Tekozani as well as Mzwake the area, because they did not know that area. We also were avoiding arriving on the same day that we were going to carry out the mission.

MS MOHAMED: Which day had you chosen to carry out the mission?

MR MPANZA: We decided on the Monday.

MS MOHAMED: Did you choose any particular time?

MR MPANZA: We decided on the morning when the place was not yet busy.

MS MOHAMED: Okay, now I am going to take you to the morning of the incident. If you could briefly tell us what happened?

MR LAX: Sorry, before you do. Can I just clarify, I had looked for example in paragraph 10 of your affidavit, I am just trying to clarify exactly who was with you. It was yourself, Malevu, it was Mzwake Shandu, Nmezela Mkungu and Tekozani Ngema, is that right?

MR MPANZA: That is correct.

MR LAX: Okay, because it was translated as Mzwake with another surname, that is why I was a bit puzzled. But you are confirming that now?

MR MPANZA: Yes, it is.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Lax. Mr Mpanza, on the morning of the incident, can you tell us what happened when you arrived at Avocas Wholesalers?

MR MPANZA: We left that morning, there were four of us in the car, myself, Mzwake Shandu, Nmezela Mkungu and Sifiso. Tekozani Ngema was going to wait for us in a different car, some distance away, so that the people who were going to carry out the mission, were just the four of us.

Tekozani then went to that predestined point. Myself, Mzwake Shandu, Sifiso Malevu and comrade Mkungu went to Avocas Wholesalers. On arrival there, Sifiso and Nmezela Mkungu went inside. I and Mzwake Shandu remained outside on the lookout.

The main reason why I remained outside was that if Steyn and his colleagues from the Murder and Robbery Unit arrived, I would be in a position to kill him. Sifiso and Mzwake Shandu then went inside. There were security guards on the outside, one had a two-way radio and another had a firearm.

We tried to stop the one who had the firearm, but he tried to flee. We pursued him, got hold of him and sat him on the ground, as well as the few people who were outside, we also told them to lay down. After a while, Sifiso and the other comrade returned with the money. Mzwake was next to the door, and I had concentrated on the passage where we were expecting Steyn and them to approach from.

A security van then arrived, by that time we had already put the money inside the car. It stopped outside the gate, one person who was driving, alighted from the vehicle and produced a firearm. On realising that these were not the people we were expecting, it would be unwise and it would run counter to our mission to harm innocent people. As they had produced firearms, there was a chance that he could perhaps shoot at us, and innocent people would be harmed.

We then decided to leave. There was no way that we could go through the gates, because they had used their vehicle to jam that route. I then told Mzwake to inform the others that we should leave. This was done, and we fled by jumping over a fence around Avocas Wholesalers.

We then went onto the road. Mzwake Shandu went in a different direction, I and Sifiso Malevu and Nmezela Mkungu went towards the main road, and went into a bush. We, Sifiso was then stung by bees there, and we did not know how big or how far this forest stretched, so we decided to come out and try to hide elsewhere, inside the town.

We then came out ...

CHAIRPERSON: So you were arrested at the end of the day?

MR MPANZA: Yes, we were arrested on the following day.

CHAIRPERSON: By whom, the following day?

MR MPANZA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: By whom?

MR MPANZA: The Empangeni Murder and Robbery Unit police, but however Mzwake Shandu was arrested on the same day. I saw Mr Steyn when the investigation was already underway, but I did not recognise him when I was being collected.

MR LAX: You were able to escape, get back to kwaMashu and you were arrested there?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I was arrested at kwaMashu.

CHAIRPERSON: And the others?

MR MPANZA: I and Sifiso Malevu, Tekozani Ngema and Nmezela were able to flee and were not caught on the same day. We remained at Empangeni until the end of the day, Mzwake did not return. We then assumed that he had been arrested. On the following day, we went to kwaMashu and the police arrived at my home that very same evening, with Sifiso Malevu. Thereafter we went to Tekozani Ngema who tried to run away, but he was captured. Nmezela Mkungu was not arrested on that occasion, because he was not at home when the police arrived. We were thereafter taken to Empangeni.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Panday?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Just briefly. Mr Mpanza, I don't have a problem following your evidence, but just a few concerns have arisen. You originally stated that you sent Sifiso Malevu to go to Empangeni and meet Shabalala so that he can also identify who Steyn was, is that correct?

MR MPANZA: Yes, that is correct.

MR PANDAY: Right. Now on the day that you went to commit this, before I go to that, is it correct that you did not know who Steyn was, and you could not identify him?

MR MPANZA: I did not know him before I went to Empangeni.

MR PANDAY: Right, and you did not know what he looked like?

MR MPANZA: No, I did not.

MR PANDAY: On the day you went to Empangeni to commit this robbery at Avocas Wholesalers, you mentioned that Sifiso and one other person, went into the store to commit the robbery, is that correct?

MR MPANZA: Yes, that is correct.

MR PANDAY: Now, what would have happened had Steyn arrived at the crime before these two people came out, how would you have identified Steyn?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think he did testify that at some stage at the court ...

MR LAX: He was in a Spar?

MR PANDAY: No, but this was consequential to the robbery, I am talking to the stage leading to the robbery and the robbery.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR LAX: Mr Panday, what happened was that in his testimony he dealt with the issues raised here in paragraph 8 and 9 of his affidavit, paragraph 9 in particular, the last two sentences of paragraph 9. He says -

He didn't give that precise evidence, but he gave evidence to the same effect.

MR PANDAY: Okay, thank you Mr Chairman. Now, Mr Mpanza, do you know who attacked and assaulted the security guard?

MR MPANZA: What happened was, we took his firearm away, I do not remember if he was assaulted, because what happened, he was chased, I stopped him, I removed his firearm and took him back to the building. He was unharmed at that point.

MR PANDAY: Is it you that took his firearm?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I did.

MR PANDAY: In his statement ...

MR LAX: Sorry, before you go, what do you mean you don't remember assaulting him? Either he was assaulted or he wasn't?

MR MPANZA: I did not assault him, I just removed his firearm. He was chased by Mzwake and I stopped him and took his firearm away.

MR LAX: Fair enough.

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, just bear with me. Now, right, now on page 48 of the bundle of documents, this was a statement given by Mr Joubert, the security guard, who is now deceased, this is what he says in the third paragraph -

I presume the "he" refers to you, because you confirmed that you took his firearm?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I hear what you are saying. It is however not true that I kicked him, nor was I wearing any boots. What I remember is that he ran towards me, I stopped him and took his firearm away. I am certain that I did not kick him, nor was I wearing any boot.

MR PANDAY: So you say he ran towards you?

MR MPANZA: Yes.

MR PANDAY: Who approached him and pointed the firearm at him?

MR MPANZA: Mzwake produced a firearm, because I was next to him.

MR PANDAY: And did you do anything else to the security guard?

MR MPANZA: What I recall was that I ordered them to go inside, other than that I did not do anything to him.

MR PANDAY: Who was the leader of this operation?

MR MPANZA: I was the leader.

CHAIRPERSON: Who did you report to?

MR MPANZA: After completing the mission, I would have reported back to the people who had requested me, I would have reported back to the people who had requested me to carry out this mission, and this people were in the structures of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, the structure of the ANC concerns me. You see, when a Commander of an area is going to attack the apartheid institution such as a policeman, there is no way he can do so without permission of his superior, isn't that so?

MR MPANZA: It depended on your role, as a person who had been trained, I was at that liberty to take my own initiative in carrying out activities that were in line with the policy of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: In 1993, when was this, 1992, the armed struggle was suspended and an attack on an apartheid institution such as a policeman, was a very sensitive issue, is that right? Do you remember that?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Especially attacking a policeman would necessarily have to be approved by the national organ of the ANC, dealing with such attacks? Not so?

MR MPANZA: I understand what you are putting to me.

CHAIRPERSON: I am asking you do you agree with that?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: In this case, was that done?

MR MPANZA: There was a national conflict between the ANC and the IFP at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: You are not answering the question. Did you consult Chris Hani?

MR MPANZA: No, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you consult anybody at that level?

MR MPANZA: No, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember Rashied? He was the Head of Special Ops? You don't remember?

MR MPANZA: I do not remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you consult any MK structure?

MR MPANZA: There is a comrade (indistinct) Regional Commander in Angola, a Timothy Mokoena who came to address us at kwaMashu. When we arrived from exile, there was still an ongoing war in kwaMashu.

Timothy was his combat name. This person had authorised us to continue training people inside the country and because of his stature, we believed that what we were doing was in line with ANC policy.

MR LAX: You see, can I stop you, there was a big difference, there is a big difference between training people as part of the setting up of SDU structures which was a legitimate MK activity, and we know about that, we have seen all the documentation, we have heard from Ronnie Kasrils himself, we understand that that was a legitimate conduct on the part of MK operatives to assist communities to form SDU's. What the Chairperson is talking about is different. It is an offensive operation against an enemy agent? It is furthering the armed struggle, and the armed struggle was suspended?

Now if you were going to engage in that kind of conduct, you needed to get proper authorisation because it is a sensitive matter? Do you understand?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I do. However, the situation was such that we could not wait until we consult people like Chris Hani when people were being killed, we liaised with people who were from the area.

CHAIRPERSON: So are you saying that none of the structures, MK structures or any person involved in the MK structure was in fact consulted about the proposed assassination of Steyn? Is that what I understand?

MR MPANZA: I informed Papa Ndlovu from kwaMashu.

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me?

MR MPANZA: As I explained before, before I discussed the matter with Sifiso Malevu I had contacted Papa Ndlovu who was in the MK structures in kwaMashu.

MR LAX: You didn't explain before at all?

CHAIRPERSON: Before we get to that, are you talking about consulting him about assassinating Steyn? Is that what you are saying now, you did consult an MK man in the structures?

MR MPANZA: As I Commander in kwaMashu, I explained the situation at Empangeni to him.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the first time you are telling us about that? You did not explain it before? But besides that, what was his role?

MR MPANZA: When we returned from MK, no one held a rank. It was only the ANC that could refer to ranks such that people were only given ranks when they returned to South Africa. You would perhaps be appointed Commander of an area.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand the question, or do you just not want to answer it?

MR MPANZA: I will request you to repeat the question, perhaps I do not understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you or did you not clear the proposed assassination of Steyn with anyone in your MK command structure, which you should have done? Not necessarily Chris Hani, somebody else maybe?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: When?

MR MPANZA: We normally met with Papani at training camps, so I explained to him at one of those occasions. However at the time I did not inform him who was going to accompany me on the mission, I was just requesting firearms from him at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: So you did not get approval from him, you just requested firearms, is that it?

MR MPANZA: I informed him of the mission and also requested firearms from him. As a Commander he also did not oppose my mission.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you tell him, that you were going to kill Steyn? Did you tell him that?

MR MPANZA: I explained the situation as explained to me by Mayibuya.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell him that you were going to kill Steyn, that is what I am asking?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I told him that I intended killing Steyn.

I was requesting to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do we struggle to get that answer out of you for so long?

MR MPANZA: Perhaps I did not understand the question clearly.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you didn't, but I fail to understand how you misunderstood a simple question.

Now, that person that you told about it, you say, where does he fit in the command structure?

MR MPANZA: He is presently deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't ask whether he is alive or not, I am asking you what rank was he?

MR MPANZA: As I mentioned before, we did not have ranks in exile, but he was a Commander in kwaMashu and we fell under him.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you told him that you were going to kill Steyn and you were going to commit this robbery and you asked him for firearms for the mission, I suppose? Is that correct?

MR MPANZA: I did not explain the issue of the robbery fully, because I had previously discussed the matter with him. When I requested the firearm from him, it was for the intention of killing Steyn.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Interpreter, is there any difficulty in communicating with the witness?

INTERPRETER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Because he seems to misunderstand my simple questions? Anyway - so he provided the firearm for you?

MR MPANZA: No, he did not.

CHAIRPERSON: I just thought you asked him for a firearm and then explained what was going to happen? What happened, did he refuse to give you a firearm for the operation or what?

MR MPANZA: He said there were no firearms available at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. Now, in your statement you make no mention of this Commander, in fact at paragraph 12 of the statement, you say that you did not have any weapons and Shandu and Malevu were then charged with providing ammunition and firearms?

MR MPANZA: Yes, we did not have firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: So when did you speak to your Commander, before or after this conversation with Malevu and Shandu?

MR MPANZA: That was prior to my discussion with Shandu and Malevu.

MR LAX: Can I just clarify something? If you turn back to page 3 of your application form, there is a section talking about what, where your approval or your orders came from and you don't mention this Papani Ndlovu at all? He was your Commander? You do quite the opposite in fact, you say that the approval came from the Mkababa Danganga Branch, affiliates of the ANC? The approval for the operation did not come from them at all, they didn't even know you were going on this operation, you have told us that already, why did you say that in your form?

MR MPANZA: I did not inform Papani when I was going to carry out the mission, nor did I inform the people from Mkababa, when and where I was going to carry out the mission. The reason why I did not mention this was because I only requested a firearm from him, and he was also not involved in planning, nor in the carrying out of the operation.

MR LAX: Well, you see, when the Chairperson asks you whether you got permission from anyone higher up in the structures, you then say yes, Papani Ndlovu was the man I discussed it with and he didn't say anything that I shouldn't carry on with it, thereby implying that he gave you permission? Isn't that so or have I misunderstood you completely?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I did say so. I told Papani about the mission and he did not disagree with me, and when I asked for a firearm, he said he did not have one available.

As a Chairperson, and as a person whom I respected, I am certain that if there was a problem or if he had a problem with the mission, he could have advised me otherwise.

MR LAX: But he was the one who should have given you permission to carry on with this whole operation, isn't that so? He was in charge of your SDU, he was your Commander?

MR MPANZA: Yes, he was my Commander, however he was more involved in the training of SDU's. Since this was a separate mission, I did not give him full details of where and when the mission would be carried out. If for instance the mission was going to be carried out in kwaMashu, I would have given him full details of the mission.

MR LAX: Why didn't you tell him as your Commander, that you were going to carry out a mission in another area, that had nothing to do with your duties in kwaMashu? Was it because he wouldn't have approved of it in the first place and that is why you didn't tell him where you were going, and the details of the operation?

MR MPANZA: What I would like to explain is, in MK if you were a trained person, you had that liberty of engaging in activities that were in line with the organisation's policy. We could not wait and inform the leadership every time a situation arose.

MR LAX: Robbery was not in line with the policy of the African National Congress? Killing of policemen were not in line with the policy of the African National Congress at that time? Isn't that correct?

MR MPANZA: Yes, that is correct. However, the entire country was embroiled in a war between the ANC and the IFP and the ANC would issue out policies which were sometimes broken because of the situation that took place on the ground.

CHAIRPERSON: If you acted against the policy of the ANC, surely you cannot call on the authority of the ANC to justify your actions? Is that not so? If the ANC said you couldn't do something and you did it, which is unlawful, you then cannot say I did it in the interest of the ANC?

MR MPANZA: From what I know of the ANC, had I done something that was not in line with the ANC, I would have been called to a hearing where I would have to explain my case. Thereafter a decision would be made as to the legitimacy of what I had done. I believed that the ANC would indeed call me and hear my side of the story as to why I had carried out such an act, and it would be up to them to make an appropriate decision.

CHAIRPERSON: After you escaped, after the robbery, did you go to anybody to report what had happened?

MR MPANZA: This took place on a Monday, we went to eSikhaweni and realised that Mzwake Shandu was missing. We tried to find out what had happened to him. Later on in that day, we learnt that someone had been arrested in the vicinity of that crime. We heard that that person had been found in possession of a firearm. I also looked for him around at (indistinct), such that ...

MR LAX: Just answer the question, it is really simple. Did you report it to anyone or didn't you, just a simple yes or no is good enough. You don't have to relate a long history to us.

MR MPANZA: No, because I was arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were in kwaMashu already?

MR MPANZA: I arrived at kwaMashu at night.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you, when were you arrested?

MR MPANZA: On the very early hours of the morning.

CHAIRPERSON: When you arrived at kwaMashu, why don't you go and report to your superiors, "look, this is what happened, and indeed we believe that one of our men was arrested"?

MR MPANZA: I arrived very late at kwaMashu. I think when we arrived in kwaMashu, it was after twelve midnight and after a short while, the police arrived. There was no other person that I could contact at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: If you had to survive till the next day, who would you have contacted?

MR MPANZA: I would have written Papani and informed him of our mission to Empangeni where one of us had been arrested.

MR LAX: Can I just take you back, you still haven't given a clear answer to the question I asked you previously which was why did you put in this form here, paragraph 11(a) and (b) that the approval for this mission came from the Mkababa affiliated the ANC, and in particular Lindani Nteani when you had already told us that Nteani had no knowledge of this operation at all?

MR MPANZA: Can you please repeat that question, I was still paging through?

MR LAX: No problem. Why have you written in your form here, paragraph 11(a) and (b) which paragraphs deal with the question of the approval for you actions, and why have you told in this form that Lindani Nteani gave the approval, when in fact you have already told us that he had no knowledge of this operation?

MR MPANZA: Lindani did not know anything about the operation, however, he is the person who had requested us to assist him. I would not have participated in any robbery, had he not made that request.

MR LAX: But he didn't ask you to go and rob somewhere, he asked you for firearms?

MR MPANZA: Yes, he had made that request, however, we had discussed with him if there were any other areas or places that sold firearms, where this could be bought from.

MR LAX: So this is not true, what is in your form here, he didn't authorise this operation? He didn't grant you the approval to go and rob the Avocas Wholesalers, he also didn't grant you the approval to kill Steyn? Isn't that so? He didn't even know about it?

MR MPANZA: Indeed Lindani did not know that we were going to conduct a robbery, he knew that we were going to obtain money in any way. He also did not know about the plan to kill Mr Steyn. He just requested assistance in terms of getting firearms or money to buy firearms.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Panday, we have interrupted your cross-examination.

MR PANDAY: No, no problem, Mr Chair. May I continue? Mr Mpanza, the Empangeni area, would they not have had an SDU unit there?

MR MPANZA: I didn't get that information from Tulani.

MR PANDAY: In the Empangeni area, who was in charge of the Empangeni area, which ANC official?

MR MPANZA: It was Tulani Shabalala.

MR PANDAY: What was Tulani Shabalala's role? What rank did he hold?

MR MPANZA: He was the Chairperson, and as a trained person he was also a leader in the Security Branch, the ANC security in Empangeni.

MR PANDAY: Now, as a trained person and leader of the ANC Security Branch, couldn't he go to the regional office for assistance?

MR LAX: Sorry, can we just correct you? There is no such thing as the ANC Security Branch.

MR PANDAY: No, I understand that, but I am just going through the evidence that the applicant is giving. I am aware of that, Mr Chairman.

Where is the regional office for the ANC, in that time, where was the regional office?

MR MPANZA: They had their own office in Empangeni, the ANC office, and there was another office that was responsible for the whole province, in Durban.

MR PANDAY: Now, that office was in Durban? Now, wouldn't it have been more appropriate for Mr Shabalala to go to the regional office for assistance, than to come to you?

MR MPANZA: The ANC office, Mamande, is dealing with political issues, they are not involved in any things like that. It was difficult for them to go to the ANC office and tell them about the mission.

There was an MK office where he could have discussed this with the MK cadres. He knew how to find those cadres, as a person who was trained, he decided to work with me.

MR PANDAY: The office for the MK cadres, where was the office for the MK cadres?

MR MPANZA: Even here in Durban, there was an office.

MR PANDAY: Now, wouldn't Mr Shabalala have gone there, than come here?

MR MPANZA: Because of the fact that he had so much in his hands, and he decided to ask me for assistance, as a person who was from exile and he put his trust in me. As a cadre, if you have attended the Commanders' course, you were allowed to take an initiative as long as you are going to stand for that.

MR PANDAY: Now, Mr Mpanza, based on your evidence, would it be correct for us to assume that the ANC would have done nothing or would have known nothing about its supporters being attacked by IFP and Steyn, because you all did not relay any information?

MR MPANZA: I cannot say that, all the operations that were taking place, were reported to the ANC. IFP, there would be a conflict between the ANC and the IFP, and we wouldn't go there to the office and tell them that we have attacked the IFP members. We could only report if there was a problem, for instance in a situation whereby some ANC comrades are arrested, then we go to the ANC and tell them about that.

MR PANDAY: So you are saying in fact to us that the MK cadres did want they wanted, there was no control. If you thought there was a problem, you handled the problem and that was dismissed?

MR MPANZA: No, I am not trying to say that. It used to happen sometimes that you would see yourself having to take an initiative. You would try by all means to solve the problem, and submit the reports thereafter, only if it is necessary.

MR PANDAY: Did you submit any reports when you first heard the complaint about the problem in Empangeni?

MR MPANZA: I was arrested after the incident, therefore I couldn't do it.

MR PANDAY: No, no, I am not talking about the incident. When Shabalala came from Empangeni and told you there are problems with Steyn and the IFP, did you submit any reports to the ANC explaining the problems?

MR MPANZA: No.

MR PANDAY: Right. In Mkababa, Lindani was a Youth League Chairman, isn't there a Head Office in Mkababa, for the Youth League to report to?

MR MPANZA: Lindani was coming from that office. He is one of the people who were working there.

MR PANDAY: He was just the Chairman of the Youth League, you mentioned earlier?

MR MPANZA: Yes, that is correct.

MR PANDAY: If Lindani held such a high position, shouldn't he have gone to the ANC directly?

MR MPANZA: Yes, Lindani was coming from the ANC as he was a member. I cannot say what decision was taken, that led him to come to me.

MR PANDAY: Mr Mpanza, you make it seem that you were a very important person in the struggle that was going on. Did you personally have any contact with any ANC officials regarding problems in Mkababa and problems in Empangeni?

MR MPANZA: Most of the times, I was working in the kwaMashu office. We were also working with the people from Durban. This mission was just directed to me, because these people came straight to me to ask for assistance, and then I talked to the Mkababa leadership, I also talked to the Empangeni office. Lindani was a well known person in the ANC circles. Tulani Shabalala was coming from Empangeni as an ANC member.

He was holding a certain position in the ANC in Empangeni. Therefore when I was connecting with him, it was obvious that I was connected to the ANC.

MR PANDAY: Mr Mpanza, had there been problems in kwaMashu, had there been problems in kwaMashu, who would you have gone to help, or who would you have asked for help?

MR MPANZA: I would go and report to Papa Ndlovu. If that was a military problem, he is the one who would tell me what to do, because he was responsible for the kwaMashu area.

MR PANDAY: Right, now was Papa Ndlovu responsible for all military activities and did he control your activity as well?

MR MPANZA: Papani was in charge of the MK matters in kwaMashu.

MR PANDAY: Right, now when the MK went to Empangeni, that was an MK matter? The question is simple, when you and the other members went to Empangeni, was that an MK matter?

MR MPANZA: I can say it was an MK matter, because there was going to be a battle, a fight.

MR PANDAY: Wouldn't you have had to get the consent from Papa Ndlovu to carry out this matter?

MR MPANZA: Yes.

MR PANDAY: It is either yes or no, Mr Mpanza, you are rambling and losing most of us. Would you have had to get the consent of Papa Ndlovu to carry out this MK matter, yes or no?

MR MPANZA: No. Because Papa was working only with the kwaMashu area. My mission was outside the kwaMashu area.

MR PANDAY: Now, when you went to carry out the robbery and hopefully attack the policeman, Steyn, didn't you find it a bit strange that you were going to attack him right next to the police station, and the robbery, didn't you expect to see more policeman at this robbery, where this robbery took place?

MR MPANZA: When we checked the place, there were policemen, but there were not that much. We thought that the only police who would come, after we had attacked Steyn, and run away.

MR PANDAY: Did you expect Steyn to come there by himself when this robbery took place? Isn't that odd?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I was expecting him to come with his colleagues.

MR PANDAY: With his colleagues?

MR MPANZA: Yes.

MR PANDAY: So you ran the risk to assassinate effectively a whole police station if they got there?

MR MPANZA: If it had happened that we were going to be ensued in a battle with them, but we were first going to check if there was Steyn, and then we were going to attack him, but if the other police would come to us and attack us, we would run away, but if there was Steyn only, we were going to attack him and run away.

MR PANDAY: Mr Mpanza, you mentioned in paragraph 9 that roundabout February 1992 you managed to identify Steyn when you saw him in a court house, why didn't you wait for him until he left this court house and attacked him then?

MR MPANZA: I was not armed and it was not within my plans. There is a principle that you have to spot places where you can attack a particular person, and check about your safety and the safety of the civilians if you are doing that, or the safety of the community. You cannot just attack randomly.

MR PANDAY: So you say the safety of the civilians? Now, had a battle ensued at Avocas Wholesalers, do you think the civilians would have been safe?

MR MPANZA: Yes, because I had chosen the time early in the morning. We had planned that civilians wouldn't have been affected, and we knew that there were only a few people in the shop, and we forced them inside the shop, and then the only people who were expected to be there, was police and we knew that the Wholesalers, there is no way that, the people are not that much there in the area of the Wholesaler.

MR PANDAY: Okay. Thank you Your Worship, nothing further.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR THABETHE: One question, Mr Mpanza. Is it correct that Mr Shandu was a policeman?

MR MPANZA: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETHE: On page 12 of the bundle, paragraph 4, sorry paragraph 13, is it true that he was promised by yourself that he would be given a small portion after the robbery?

CHAIRPERSON: What paragraph is that?

MS THABETHE: Paragraph 13, page 12.

MR MPANZA: I would like to explain this further. It is not that we were giving him some compensation, the reason for him, we as Africans, we believe in using ntelezi when we are going to the battle, and he is the one who, Mzwake, organised that ntelezi for us, and he had paid money for that ntelezi. The money was not that much. You have to perform a specific ritual before you use certain medicine in African ...

MS THABETHE: I didn't really want to know what he was going to do with his share of the money, I just wanted to know from you whether you did promise him a share of the portions that you were going to rob? I don't want to know what he was going to do with the money. I just want to find out that aspect.

MR MPANZA: Yes, we did promise him the money.

MS THABETHE: So would I be correct to say that he was part of the operation, by virtue of the fact that he was a policeman, who was going to assist you in the robbery and thereafter you would give him his share of the money? Is that putting it correctly?

MR MPANZA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Thank you. I have no further questions.

MS MOHAMED: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Just one thing, in your application form you made no mention of this assassination of Steyn, why is that? It does not appear anywhere in your application form, at all?

MR MPANZA: When this happened, this application form had three pages. I wrote much about Lindani, because I thought that I would get the opportunity to testify (indistinct), I was going to give more details.

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 10(b) specifically asks for justification regarding the acts, omissions, offences associated with a political objective? There you go about telling us about Self-Defence Units and how you were asked about the Mkababa Youth League, etc. You made no mention of this other aspect of why this whole operation was conducted? Now you come and tell us, now you are specifically asked in this form, now you come to tell us you knew about it, but you thought you would come and tell us in person? Why didn't you leave that paragraph blank and come and tell us everything in person?

MR MPANZA: I did not mention Steyn, but as a person who had not discussed with the legal representative, I mentioned the incident, it was my intention to attack Steyn, but it did not happen. The only thing that I made mention of, was the robbery, because we did not attack Mr Steyn.

After discussing with the legal representative, I saw it as important that we should also mention Mr Steyn. If Steyn was eventually attacked, that was going to be mentioned.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't this idea of attacking Steyn as a political reason, an after-thought to your application?

MR MPANZA: Yes, it is, but if we did not intend to attack Mr Steyn, we wouldn't go to Empangeni. We would do everything in (indistinct), but the reason for us to go to Empangeni, our intention was to go for Mr Steyn.

MR LAX: What were the chances of the Head of the Murder and Robbery Unit in Empangeni, he was a Major, what were the chances of the Head of the Detective Unit arriving at the scene of a crime before anyone else, so that you could assassinate him? I mean, really? Can someone just help him with his headphones please?

They are going to give you another one. Can you hear now?

MR MPANZA: Yes.

MR LAX: The question I am asking, is a simple one. Did you seriously expect the Head of the Murder and Robbery Unit, which is a Detective organisation, to come personally to the scene of a crime in response to it being perpetrated?

MR MPANZA: That was also possible, but our aim was to attack Mr Steyn. We had heard that if something happens, he is the first person to come to the scene. I cannot say he wouldn't be there, yes, there was a possibility.

MR LAX: Steyn was the Head of the Murder and Robbery Unit, as you know?

MR MPANZA: I didn't have that knowledge. I only knew him as one of the policemen of the Murder and Robbery in Empangeni. That is what I knew.

MR LAX: Just a last point, you said that when you eventually did see Steyn, it wasn't the same person who you had originally been pointed out to, you didn't make him out at all, is that right, did I hear you correctly?

MR MPANZA: I do not understand the question, when, whereabouts?

MR LAX: You said you saw Steyn afterwards, after you were arrested?

MR MPANZA: I saw him before my arrest, before the operation.

MR LAX: I thought you said in your evidence after a question by the Chairperson, that Steyn didn't arrest you, but you saw him after you were arrested and you did not, he wasn't the same person you had been pointed out to, that is what the evidence was at that stage, as I understood it?

MR MPANZA: I did not put it that way. I mentioned that Steyn, Sifiso pointed Mr Steyn out and after we were arrested, during the investigation, I saw Mr Steyn. He was also there in Empangeni while I was arrested.

MR LAX: I clearly misunderstood your evidence, but thank you for clearing it up.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, when you completed your form, your application form for amnesty, did you do it yourself?

MR MPANZA: I asked a certain comrade to write it in English, but I can also read English, but I wanted him to use a proper spelling as I am not good in the spelling.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you read it before you signed it?

MR MPANZA: Yes, he read it out to me.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were satisfied that he had properly completed that form?

MR MPANZA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was that comrade?

MR MPANZA: It is a certain comrade by the name of Moses Skosana, who was an inmate in Westville prison. There were also legal representatives. Moses Skosana is the one who wrote the application form.

CHAIRPERSON: who was the legal representative?

MR MPANZA: I cannot remember well, I cannot say, I do not know his name, or her name?

MR LAX: Wasn't it Jabulani Mokoena?

MR MPANZA: I am not sure, I cannot remember the name.

MR LAX: Because he is the lawyer who signed it when you took the oath? Do you see that?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I can see that.

MR LAX: Is it the same person who was present?

MR MPANZA: This happened a long time ago, but all I know is that a certain comrade helped me during that process.

CHAIRPERSON: What was that comrade's name?

MR MPANZA: Skosana.

CHAIRPERSON: Skosana.

CHAIRPERSON: Who else was present when you ...

MR MPANZA: There was Tom Madlala.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR MPANZA: Lucky Sithole was also present.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, anybody else?

MR LAX: Translation please?

MR MPANZA: Most of the ANC comrades were present there, because we were at the hall.

CHAIRPERSON: But immediately present with you, you made the statement to Skosana, recorded it in English because you wanted proper English spelling.

MR LAX: Who was listening?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, aside from that, who was in attendance there with you and Skosana? Was anybody else in attendance? I know they were all in the hall, I understand that, but specifically when you were completing your form, Skosana was there. Was Tom Madlala there by you or was he roaming around in the hall?

MR MPANZA: Tom Madlala was in the room, but he is one of the people who saw my statement, because he is a person that I used to work with.

CHAIRPERSON: But when you were making it, was he roaming around or was he by you?

MR MPANZA: The person who was close to me, was Lucky Sithole. Yes, Tom Madlala was there, but he was also helping other comrades as well. After completing the statement, I showed it to Tom Madlala.

CHAIRPERSON: And Lucky Sithole, you say, was immediately by you, helping you, or was he also helping others also at the same time?

MR MPANZA: He was also helping the other comrades.

CHAIRPERSON: So as I understand your evidence, Madlala and Sithole were overseeing the completion of these forms? Correct?

MR MPANZA: As I am saying, there were many comrades there, and Tom Madlala was amongst the comrades, as a person who was working with me closely, I did give him the statement to look at it, because I knew that he was very familiar with the political struggle.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you show it to anybody else?

MR MPANZA: After showing it to Tom Madlala, I took it to the legal representative who was there.

CHAIRPERSON: And you gave it to him?

MR MPANZA: Yes, I gave it to the legal representative.

CHAIRPERSON: So, no one else saw this document, only Tom and Skosana and yourself and the legal representative?

MR MPANZA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And as far as I understand your evidence, when Skosana read it out to you, you signed it?

MR MPANZA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was commissioned by this other person, this lawyer you say?

MR MPANZA: What actually happened is Skosana assisted me while drafting the statement, he drafted the statement in his own hand, and I was dictating to him, and I read it with him and he checked for the mistakes. After that Tom Madlala took a look at the statement and Lucky Sithole was also there, as he was writing with Skosana, and then I decided to take it to the legal representative, who read the statement and then he told me to sign.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now, do you know, was Malevu there?

MR MPANZA: No, he was not there.

CHAIRPERSON: When you filled in the form?

MR MPANZA: No, he was not there, he was not in the hall.

CHAIRPERSON: And Shandu?

MR MPANZA: No, he was also not present.

CHAIRPERSON: You heard your Attorney make an application earlier today, I am not too sure which set of facts I must quote to you, but basically and in effect what they are saying is when you made the statement, you made it on their behalf as well. Do you know anything about that?

MR MPANZA: I made this statement, my own statement. Sifiso drafted his own statement and then he told me about it, but we did not draft the statements the same day. He told me about it and even Mzwake Shandu, I wrote a letter to him about this TRC forms and then he told me that he was about to fill in the TRC forms also.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was he that you wrote to him? Was he not in the same prison?

MR MPANZA: No, he was not in the same prison.

CHAIRPERSON: So, did he write back to you?

MR MPANZA: We used to communicate with letters with him.

CHAIRPERSON: And did he say that he was going to write, make his application?

MR MPANZA: What I can remember is that when he came to Westville, he told me that he had forwarded an application, and he was going back to Waterval prison.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. You are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Shall we adjourn until tomorrow morning? Ms Mohamed, we are of the view that as happens on appeal, the normal court of law, that your application is one for condonation, if on the merits there seems to be prospects of success, then we will grant the condonation and deal with the merits.

If we are of the view that the applications will fail on the merits, then we will refuse the application for condonation. I am happy to deal with it on that basis, we will see at the end of the day, what we decide.

MS MOHAMED: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you happy with that?

MS MOHAMED: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, then you can call them. Are they not here?

MS MOHAMED: They are here, but - okay.

CHAIRPERSON: They have listened to what the applicant has said.

MS MOHAMED: Yes, and in addition to those, there are still two other witnesses that are present, that is Mr Nteani and Mr Shabalala, the two Commanders that have given Mr Mpanza ...

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, we will adjourn till tomorrow at nine o'clock, is that okay with the Prison Authorities? Thank you.