CHAIRPERSON: ...the death of Amy Biehl. Before commencing proceedings I should place on record that the original date by which applications for amnesty had to be lodged was the 14th of December 1996. It was announced that this date was to be extended to the 10th of May 1997. This decision has yet to be promulgated in the Gazette and it is anticipated that this is due to take place shortly.

Of the four applications before us three were lodged after the original closing date, one was lodged timeously. The date for today's hearing was finalised to meet the convenience of Mr and Mrs Biehl, the parents of the deceased Amy Biehl, they are here today, they have come from America to attend these proceedings. The Committee has therefore decided that notwithstanding the fact that the closing date has yet to be proclaimed, overall convenience to all parties, including the applicants, dictates that the hearing should proceed today. I trust that this meets with the agreement of counsel for the parties concerned.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, just for the record, Norman Arendse, I'm appearing together with my colleague Advocate Gozo. We are both from the Cape Town Bar, we have been provided with legal assistance by the TRC to represent the applicants in this matter. We don't have any objections with the proceedings going ahead on the basis as outlined by you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I think that it should be made known to people that we have channels of interpretation in three languages, namely English, Afrikaans and Xhosa. Simultaneous translation or interpretation is made available to all parties.

The order in which the applicants are sitting should be placed on record. Will you tell us in which order they are sitting Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, learned members of the Committee. On my far right is Ntombeko Ambrose Peni. Next to him Eazi Mzikhona Nofemela. Next to him Mongesi Christopher Manqina, and next to him Vusumzi Samuel Ntamo.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Brink is there anything else you wish to say before we commence?

MR BRINK: Yes Mr Chair. I would place on record that all the victims involved in this incident, in other words those who were assaulted in some way or another were timeously notified about the hearings today and I am informed that they have decided that they do not wish to attend.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse you may begin.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, learned members of the Committee. Subject to your further or any other directions, we wish to propose dealing with this matter in the following manner. We have prepared written sworn affidavits on behalf of the applicants, they have been prepared in English for everyone's conveniences. We propose, that's myself and my colleague Ms Gozo, propose reading their affidavits into the record. The applicants individually can then confirm the contents of these affidavits. They will then, after we have read their affidavits into the record and they've confirmed them, they are then available for questions from the Committee and from Mr Brink.

Before we do that, Mr Chairman we have prepared an opening statement which I would request my colleague Ms Gozo to also read into the record with your leave Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Gozo you may proceed.

ADV GOZO ADDRESSES: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair and members of the Committee, the names of the applicants have already been read into the record.

This is an incident in which the deceased, Amy Biehl, a Fullbright scholar and an American citizen was killed. This incident took place on the 25th of August 1993 at about 4:40pm at NY 1 road in Guguletu. Nofemela, Manqina and Ntamo were convicted and sentenced on the 24th of October 1994 in the High Court in Cape Town in Case No SS136 of '93. Peni was subsequently arrested, tried and convicted and then sentenced. They were all convicted of murder and they are presently serving their sentences.

Mr Chair I wish to put in front of the Committee today that this act constituted gross violations of human rights as contemplated by the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995, Act No 34 of 1995. The applicants submit their applications in terms of Section 18 of that Act. The applications are made on the grounds that these acts were associated with a political objective as defined in that Act. The applications appear from pages 1 to 33 of the record. It is submitted that it will appear from these applications and from the sworn statements that are presented and sworn to on behalf of the applicants, that the applications fully comply with the requirements of the Act.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No that is not correct, that is subject to the proviso that the closing date will be promulgated.

ADV GOZO: That is correct and I thank Justice Ngoepe for the correction.

JUDGE NGOEPE: At least with regard to the three.

ADV GOZO: That's correct yes.

Further it is submitted that the offences to which the applications relate were associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflict of the past. Also that the applicants make full disclosure of all relevant facts as contemplated by Section 20 of the Act.

It is furthermore submitted that the provisions of Section 22 and 23 of the Act have been complied with in that the applicants were members of the Pan African Students Organisation, a publicly known political organisation usually referred to as PASO which at the time waged a political struggle against the State.

It is submitted that they were members and supporters of the Pan African Congress, popularly known as the PAC, which is also a publicly known political organisation and liberation movement which waged a political struggle against the State at the time.

The applicants were active supporters of the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army, popularly known as APLA. This is also a publicly known political liberation movement and it also waged a political struggle against the State at the time. The applicants did associate themselves with APLA as is contemplated in Section 22G of the Act.

Furthermore it is submitted, Mr Chairman, that the particular offences in respect of which amnesty is sought by the applicants are offences associated with a political objective when one has regard to the following:

The motive of the applicants who committed the offences in question were clearly political in that at the time in question they were furthering the aims an objects of an operation called Operation Great Storm. This was an operation adopted by APLA and PASO. Just as much as there was at the time an operation adopted by the Congress of South African Students, popularly known as COSAS, which was a student organisation affiliated to the African National Congress, popularly known as the ANC. The main aim of both these operations was to make the townships ungovernable, more particularly by preventing government and company supplies and services from coming into the townships and also by killing, maiming and injuring what was popularly known as settlers and this was a term that was used to refer to White persons.

The context in which these offences were committed is that at the time a volatile political climate prevailed, particularly in the township of Guguletu, when both operations, and that is Operation Great Storm and Operation Barcelona were put into operation.

Underlying the further aims of Operation Barcelona was to secure the recognition of the South African Democratic Teachers Union, popularly known as SADTU by the State. Massive support was shown by students for teachers belonging to SADTU and to further these objectives, and that is to gain recognition for SADTU, PASO declared itself to be fully committed to that struggle, and to that end had adopted the slogan, One settler one bullet.

The objective of the offence in question was primarily directed at making townships ungovernable and was also aimed at destroying State and company property, State personnel and private property and individuals. State personnel was also targeted. Also targeted was private property and individuals who were seen as standing in the way of realisation of these objectives. The applicants acted on the instructions and with the approval of PASO and APLA.

It will be submitted that the offences committed by the applicants were directly proportional to the political objectives pursued by PASO and APLA.

In conclusion, Mr Chair, it is submitted that the offences committed by the applicants were not for personal gain, they were not committed for personal malice, ill-will or spite but that they were purely politically motivated actions which were committed under the bona fide impression that the political objectives of PASO and APLA were being pursued.

Thank you Mr Chair.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman may I just - you and the learned Committee members all have copies of these affidavits, just for the record, these are the originals if I could just hand them up.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we should identify them for the purposes of the record. Is there any special order in which you wish to hand them in?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes Mr Chairman the first, or let me just hand up the first on Ntombeko Ambrose Peni.

CHAIRPERSON: That will go in as Exhibit A.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you. Mr Chairman, learned members of the Committee, if I may just then proceed to read into the record what is stated by applicant Peni.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chairman can I just check for the record whether the applicants are comfortable and they can hear what is being said? Thank you.

ADV ARENDSE: Reads:

Can I just pause there Mr Chairman and learned members, to make an amendment which has been discussed with applicant Peni, just wishes to change the next sentence to read as I am going to read it into the record,

Thank you.

That is now subject to what Judge Ngoepe correctly pointed out, that formally it doesn't comply because of the cut-off date hasn't been promulgated.

Mr Chairman then there are just a few questions I would like to put to Mr Peni myself before the Committee does.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think Mr Peni ought to, on oath, confirm the contents of that affidavit.

NTOMBEKO AMBROSE PENI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Your counsel has read out your affidavit, I am going to ask you now whether you confirm the contents of that affidavit?

MR PENI: Yes I do confirm.

EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Ntombeko on the day in question you threw stones at Amy Biehl and you contributed to her death, can you tell this Committee why you threw stones at her and why you caused her death?

MR PENI: The aims of PASO was to bring back the African land to the African people.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman unfortunately I didn't hear the answer.

MR BRINK: Can I assist in that regard?

MR PENI: The aim was to bring back the African land to the African people.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Ntombeko Amy Biehl was a single White female, how were you going to achieve your stated political objectives by causing her death?

MR PENI: It is not the sex that we considered, we just considered that she was a White person because the African land was being ruled by a small minority of White people.

ADV ARENDSE: Ntombeko you hear evidence during the criminal trial that the three passengers who were in the car with Amy testifying that when they got out of the car they implored people in the crowd not to harm her or cause her further harm because she was what they called a "comrade", did you hear this?

MR PENI: I did not hear of this.

ADV ARENDSE: If you did hear from the passengers that she was also a comrade that day would you have acted any differently?

MR PENI: I don't think so.

ADV ARENDSE: Can you elaborate?

MR PENI: At the time we were in very high spirits and the White people were oppressive, we had no mercy on the White people. A White person was a White person to our eyes.

ADV ARENDSE: There was also evidence during the criminal trial that goods belonging to either Amy or to the passengers in the car, that they were taken from Amy or from the passengers, do you know anything about that?

MR PENI: I do not know of these goods.

ADV ARENDSE: Can you elaborate for this Committee on your understanding of the slogan "one Settler one bullet"? Is it not only confined to the use of firearms or does it mean anything else to you?

MR PENI: One Settler, one bullet was directed towards the White people. We just needed weapons to attack, it did not need to be a firearm, whatever you could use you utilised.

ADV ARENDSE: Now some people might say or allege that the killing of Amy Biehl that day was a senseless act of mob violence, I want you to comment on that.

MR PENI: There is no such because even where we were from we were from a re-launch of PASO, where PASO was given instructions to prepare the land for the APLA people, for the operations of APLA.

ADV ARENDSE: Ntombeko how do you feel today about what happened and what you specifically did that day?

MR PENI: I feel sorry and very down-hearted especially today realising the contribution Amy Biehl played in the struggle. When I look closely at what I did I realise that it was bad. I took part in killing someone that we could have used to achieve our own aims. Amy was one of the people who could have, in an international sense, worked for our country so that the world knows what's going on in South Africa, so that the government of the day would not get support, sanctions so-to-speak.

I ask Amy's parents, Amy's friends and relatives, I ask them to forgive me. Just to hear that they have forgiven me would mean a great deal to me. For me it would be starting a new life. I have led an abnormal life under the struggle in South Africa. I do not think I would commit such an act again because right now the situation in South Africa is different. I ask for forgiveness and I am sorry.

ADV ARENDSE: Should you be granted amnesty what are your plans?

MR PENI: To finish my matric because it's difficult to do so in prison. I would like to continue with my studies and be what I have always intended to be in life without politics.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink are there questions you wish to put to this applicant.

MR BRINK: Yes, yes thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Mr Peni, in August 1993 you must have been aware that constitutional negotiations between the various political parties were virtually at an end and peace was coming to the land.

MR PENI: Yes I was aware, however, the constitution of my party, the PAC, was not totally in line with that.

MR BRINK: In paragraph 5.1 of the opening statement made by your counsel you indicated, or he indicated, and presumably on your instructions, that the PAC affiliate organisations were working together with one or two of the ANC affiliate organisations, is that correct?

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman if I may just interject, perhaps if ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: I had not interpreted the question to the applicant yet.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes will you please interpret that to the applicant first.

MR PENI: It is so.

MR BRINK: In other words in your township, in your area, there was no specific rivalry between African National Congress affiliates and Pan Africanist organisation affiliates, is that correct?

MR PENI: Yes they worked together.

MR BRINK: And were aware of the fact that there were a number of White youths who were members of COSAS?

MR PENI: I was not aware of that.

MR BRINK: Were you aware that there might have been White members of the South African Democratic Teachers Union?

MR PENI: I only knew Black members.

MR BRINK: I am not asking whether you only knew Black members I am asking you whether you knew that White people might have been members?

MR PENI: I did not know.

MR BRINK: Did you know Mr Joe Slovo by sight or by reputation?

MR PENI: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know Mr Ronnie Kasrils by sight or by reputation?

MR PENI: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know that they were both prominent members of the African National Congress?

MR PENI: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know there were many other White people who were members of the African National Congress?

MR PENI: I do not know about that.

MR PENI: Well now you were a leading light in your organisation, I presume you kept abreast of politics in general?

MR PENI: Are you stating or are you asking a question?

MR BRINK: I am asking you a question. You, according to the information in front of me, you were a leading light in your organisation and you must have had a general awareness of political personalities and political organisations throughout the country.

MR PENI: Yes that is so.

MR BRINK: Yes. So you must have been aware that there were more than just two White people who were members of the African National Congress?

MR PENI: Yes but they are confined to their own areas.

MR BRINK: Yes, but the point is you knew there were White people who were members of organisations with whom you were then in alliance.

MR PENI: Yes.

MR BRINK: Had Mr Joe Slovo been in the township that afternoon would you have also stabbed and stoned and killed him?

MR PENI: No I would not have.

MR BRINK: Why not?

MR PENI: Everybody knew him.

MR BRINK: Yes, but you see I ask that because in answer to your counsel you said that had you known that Amy Biehl was a comrade you probably wouldn't have behaved any differently. In other words notwithstanding the fact that you were aware that she was a comrade you would have taken part in her killing.

MR PENI: Could you please repeat that Sir.

MR BRINK: In answer to your counsel at this inquiry you told the Committee that had you been aware of the fact that Amy Biehl had been a comrade you would nonetheless not have acted any differently. In other words you would have taken part in her murder.

MR PENI: Are you stating or are you asking a question?

MR BRINK: I am asking you a question.

MR PENI: Please repeat it.

MR BRINK: Very well. In answer, for the third time and listen carefully, I will go very slowly, this morning your counsel asked you whether if you had known that Amy Biehl had been a comrade you would have acted any differently, your answer to him was no, because a White person was a White person. Now what I want to know is why would you treat or would have treated Joe Slovo differently from Amy Biehl?

MR PENI: The reason is that we know about Joe Slovo, we have read about him even though we had not seen him face-to-face we know about him.

MR BRINK: Mr Peni, Joe Slovo was a White man. Now you have told us that a White person is a White person and you would kill merely because of that fact. Now I want to know from you, why, if Amy Biehl had been a comrade, and you knew that she had been a comrade, you would have killed her but not killed Joe Slovo? The question is quite simple.

MR PENI: Nobody knew about Amy Biehl first of all. At the time we were very angry as students as well. The reason why I said that it would not have made a difference if I had known she was a comrade it is because of the high spirits of the students at the time.

MR BRINK: Are you then saying that your reason for killing Amy Biehl was because of your high spirits at the time?

MR PENI: I am saying that the reason why I said it would not have made a difference it is because it was due to the aims of the organisation.

MR BRINK: You had absolutely no idea of what Amy Biehl's political views were, isn't that the situation?

MR PENI: I did not know.

MR BRINK: And your evidence here was that you participated in this murderous attack because the aims of your organisation was to bring back land to the African people, now what I want to know is, how would the killing of an unarmed, defenceless woman possibly help you to achieve that aim?

MR PENI: We believed that the minority White people ruling the country would realise that we wanted our land back. We also believed that they were going to give up this land back to the African people.

MR BRINK: Is it your evidence that by murdering, in the most brutal fashion, Amy Biehl, the African people would get their land back?

MR PENI: Yes it's my evidence.

MR BRINK: The killing of one, single, defenceless woman would effect that?

MR PENI: First of all I would like to rectify something, gender was not significant. Our aim was to attack each White person and go forward.

JUDGE WILSON: But it was not the aim of the PAC at that time to kill every White person they saw, was it?

MR PENI: Please repeat the question.

JUDGE WILSON: It was not the aim of the PAC at that time to kill every White person they saw, was it?

MR PENI: It is true, if it was necessary for the youth to do so it would happen.

JUDGE WILSON: You are not answering my question. Was it the policy of the PAC to kill every White person they saw?

MR PENI: It could not happen that every person be killed, but there was one slogan 'One Settler, one bullet'.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you agree it was not the policy of the PAC to kill White persons on sight, which is what you did on this afternoon, do you agree with that?

MR PENI: It is true that the PAC could not have killed everybody that they saw, however, the PAC was aware that killing each White person the land would come back to the African people.

JUDGE WILSON: And you say that was PAC policy, to kill every White person?

MR PENI: I did not say every White person.

JUDGE WILSON: You said if they killed every White person the land would come back.

MR PENI: Yes, I said that the land would come back to the African people through their killing.

MR BRINK: Mr Peni, isn't it the position that on that dreadful afternoon you were involved in a mindless, savage attack on this young woman, and that it was not politically motivated at all?

MR PENI: Our killing Amy Biehl had everything to do with politics.

CHAIRPERSON: In your mind what did you achieve by killing Amy Biehl?

MR PENI: Even though I am sorry that I contributed in the death of Amy Biehl, but I realised that the unrest at the time and the international recognition helped South Africa to be where it is today.

CHAIRPERSON: You are really saying that as far as you are concerned your taking part in the killing of Amy Biehl achieved the recognition that your organisation wanted, is that what you are saying?

MR PENI: Please repeat that.

CHAIRPERSON: I should perhaps put my question as I did, what did you achieve by killing Amy Biehl?

MR PENI: I said that having killed Amy Biehl I am not happy about that, however, it is such things that have helped South Africa to be where it is today.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Peni, you have been asked what did you achieve. I think it's relevant for me to know what you wanted to achieve? What was your motive? Not whether you in fact succeeded in your motive but what you in fact wanted to achieve.

MR PENI: It was for the land of the African people to go back to the African people.

ADV DE JAGER: Right. And you told us that you were inspired by the slogan of "One Settler, one bullet", is that correct?

MR PENI: It is so.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Brink then asked you whether you would have killed Mr Slovo because he was also White. You said no, because you knew him. But in the slogan " One Settler, one bulett", did they differentiate between settlers and say you should only kill particular settlers, or did they say kill settlers?

MR PENI: I cannot hear the interpretation well, there is a technical problem.

ADV DE JAGER: Could somebody kindly assist him. Could you kindly repeat, interpret the question to him.

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Could I re-frame it then. The slogan One Settler, one bullet did it differentiate between settlers, it said kill all settlers, or it said at least kill the settlers?

MR PENI: In our understanding of the slogan our land was taken by British settlers.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you understand settlers to be White people?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And although you might not have achieved what you politically wanted to achieve by killing one person, one White, but the fact is that if you have killed hundreds of Whites or thousands of them you would have had your land back, or all of them, if you've killed all the Whites?

MR PENI: The land is in the hands of the African people, it is not that the PAC was totally against the White people, all they wanted was their land back.

ADV DE JAGER: And the struggle, as you understood it, was directed against the Whites, is that correct?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And I am correct in saying that it was because the Whites had the political power in hands?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So if we want to come to the truth, as we try to do, we can't say that it wasn't a racial war that's been fought in this country, it was based on race, isn't that so?

MR PENI: Please repeat your question.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't it in fact a racial war that's been fought in this country and the reason for that was because the Whites had the political power and the Blacks strived to get that power?

MR PENI: Yes it is so.

ADV DE JAGER: And wasn't that the reason why you would have killed any White you see?

MR PENI: Yes it is so because we wanted our land.

JUDGE NGOEPE: At the time of the incident in what standard were you at school?

MR PENI: I was in standard eight.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And before then how much experience in politics did you have?

MR PENI: I had not had much experience.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Before belonging to PASO or joining PASO then did you belong to any other political organisation?

MR PENI: No but I was supporting the struggle.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you ever schooled in the politics of the PAC, in particular?

MR PENI: I was arrested whilst in the process of being educated about that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So the policy of the PAC as you are articulating to us was the way you understood it at the time of the incident?

MR PENI: Please repeat the question.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The politics of the PAC as you articulated, as you have just articulated to us today, was the way you personally, you as an individual Mr Peni, understood it to be at the time of the incident?

MR PENI: It is how we were taught.

ADV GOZO: Mr Chair could I interject at this stage, I think the interpretation is not coming out clearly. I can pick this up because I can understand both languages. I think there is a bit of a problem with the interpretation into Xhosa in terms of the sense in which Justice Ngoepe is asking his questions.

CHAIRPERSON: What seems to be the difficulty? Let's try again.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The politics of the PAC as you explained to us this morning, was the way you understood it on that fateful day?

MR PENI: It is how I was taught.

JUDGE WILSON: So were you a member of the PAC on that day?

MR PENI: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And PASO was an affiliate of the PAC, am I right?

MR PENI: It is so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But didn't the PAC have a constitution which allowed White people to be members?

MR PENI: In the way I was taught there was no such.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Peni, when did you become a member of the PAC?

MR PENI: In 1990.

MS KHAMPEPE: And when were you elected as the Chairperson of PASO?

MR PENI: In 1993 on the 25th of August.

MS KHAMPEPE: And prior to the 25th of August 1993 did you hold any executive position with PASO?

MR PENI: No, I was just helping.

MS KHAMPEPE: So meaning you were just an ordinary member of PASO?

MR PENI: Yes it is so.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now in your evidence you stated that you were inspired to a great extent by the speeches delivered by Mr Mfengu and Mr Mathebula which encouraged you to make the country ungovernable?

MR PENI: Yes, it is so.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now did the speakers on the day in question, that is the 25th of August 1993, explain to you how you were to make the country ungovernable? Were you given any ideas on how you would achieve the state of ungovernability of the country?

MR PENI: No.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did you think that by killing a person that you met on that day would actually assist you in achieving that state of ungovernability?

MR PENI: That's what we believed.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know the difference between a political slogan and the policy of a political party?

MR PENI: Yes I do know.

CHAIRPERSON: Am I correct in saying that the PAC is on record as having said that One Settler, one bullet was not part of the policy of the PAC but merely a slogan that was used by some members?

MR PENI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I would like you to go back because I think that this might have some relevance to your conduct on that day when you said that "you were in high spirits" at that time, do you recall saying that?

MR PENI: Yes I do recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely what do you mean by that?

MR PENI: When I say what Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: When you were in "high spirits" at that time, that is the 25th of August.

MR PENI: What I am saying is that we were very eager to obey the instructions of PASO that we make South Africa ungovernable.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that being in "high spirits" is something that happened or lasts for a time, for a short period of time, that afternoon was not just something that just happened that afternoon that you were in "high spirits"?

MR PENI: Yes there are times when the spirits would be high, sometimes they would be down, but on that day we were sent to do a job, to work.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, with the Chairman's permission may I interrupt here and find out from the Interpreter whether, well I don't know the language that the applicant is speaking, but would it not be correct to say that what he says is that they were excited by saying high spirits, isn't that what he's been saying?

INTERPRETER: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

INTERPRETER: That's what I interpreted.

JUDGE NGOEPE: We really wanted to hear the word "excited", that's what we are looking for.

INTERPRETER: Oh alright.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand that if you had not been as "excited" as you were that afternoon, shortly after being elected to this official position, you may not have done what you did by participating in this attack?

MR PENI: Well I do agree that if we were not sent out to act I would not have done it.

CHAIRPERSON: My question really boils down to whether you had given this matter thought in your mind before you actually took part in the attack or whether you did it instinctively?

MR PENI: (Answer not interpreted)

ADV GOZO: Mr Chair may I interject, the Interpreter has just used an English word and if she can please translate that word because the applicant is indicating that he does not understand that word.

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question.

ADV GOZO: The word is "instinctively". The Interpreter when interpreting into Xhosa used the word "instinctively" as it is, if she could please interpret that word.

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: My question was, on that afternoon did you consider the implications of what you were going to do before you did it, or did you merely act instinctively?

MR PENI: I could say that on that day we obeyed orders from our leaders.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Peni I am going to ask you, I will try to speak Xhosa, he wants to know if at the time you attacked Miss Biehl did you do it thoughtfully or had you planned it prior to the act after having been excited by speeches by Mr Mfengu and Mathebula?

MR PENI: It did not just happen.

MS KHAMPEPE: Therefore are you saying that you planned it?

MR PENI: At the time we were told to act and help APLA to fight and burn down government vehicles so that South Africa would be ungovernable. We obeyed the orders.

MS KHAMPEPE: You did not think it, you understood the order to be as you acted?

MR PENI: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Who gave you these orders?

MR PENI: I said it was Simpiwe Mfengu and Wanda Mathebula.

JUDGE WILSON: And where are they now?

MR PENI: They are around.

JUDGE WILSON: So they are both available to come and give evidence that they ordered you to behave like this on the day in question, is that so?

MR PENI: I don't there would be a problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the order that was given to you, "go out from this meeting and kill White people", was that the order that was given to you?

MR PENI: The order was that we should make South Africa ungovernable, burn down government vehicles and every White person that we come across was an enemy.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Peni was the speech delivered by the two speakers you've alluded to, to the effect that every White person was an enemy?

MR PENI: The speakers said the White man is an enemy.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now what did you understand by The Year of the Great Storm?

MR PENI: What I understood is that this is the Year of the Great Storm.

MS KHAMPEPE: But what did that mean if you were to explain to a person like me who did not understand what that slogan stood for?

MR PENI: It was an APLA slogan helped by PASO, the APLA meant that that year, that particular year especially, they were going to attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Did that "Storm" take place?

MR PENI: I would say so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Peni, earlier on my brother asked you whether you knew the difference between a slogan and a policy, and your answer was that you did know the difference, which I personally am not sure I know. Can you tell us what the difference is between a slogan and a policy?

MR PENI: A policy is a constitution set so that the whole organisation can see what way the organisation is going to take.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR PENI: A slogan contributes to the policy of the organisation. A slogan is aligned to the policy of the organisation. The policy was the African land was left through struggles and it will come back through struggles. The slogans were supporting the policy.

JUDGE NGOEPE: In that context you would then say that - where would you put One Settler, one bullet?

MR PENI: The PAC policy is that they would bring back the land through the struggle.

JUDGE NGOEPE: My question was whether this was policy or slogan?

MR PENI: The policy gives birth to the slogan, therefore the slogan is aligned to the policy.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No I wanted to know whether, "One Settler, one bullet", is policy or slogan?

MR PENI: It is a slogan.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chair. Ntombeko you were a member of the PAC and you were a member of PASO. PASO is part of the PAC, is that correct?

MR PENI: That's correct.

ADV ARENDSE: Do the PAC and PASO have the same policy? Do they sometimes differ on matters of policy?

MR PENI: The policies of PASO are taken from that of the PAC, there are just minor differences because we were students.

ADV ARENDSE: The slogan One Settler, one bullet was that an APLA slogan or was it the PAC slogan?

MR PENI: It was a PAC slogan.

ADV ARENDSE: Your alliance with COSAS was that alliance following a meeting that you had with COSAS or did you as an organisation, PASO, decide to support COSAS and to put into operation Operation Barcelona?

MR PENI: We gave support because we had a problem and COSAS had adopted a programme of Operation Barcelona.

ADV ARENDSE: The question was did you have a meeting, physical meeting with COSAS, or did you as an organisation decide on your own to support COSAS in what they were going to do?

MR PENI: We decided on our own because it was our own problem anyway.

ADV ARENDSE: It was put to you without any, if I may say so, without any facts being put to you, but it was put to you nevertheless that COSAS had White members and of course so had the ANC, did you actually see or know any White persons who were members of COSAS or the ANC?

MR PENI: Personally I did not know of anybody.

ADV ARENDSE: Now your evidence is that you were on a bakkie and you jumped off the bakkie and you pursued Amy and you then described what you did. Now it was put to you hypothetically that if this were Joe Slovo what would you have done then. Now I want to ask you, in the highly unlikely event that the late Mr Slovo would have gone there without any bodyguards and without - and he would have been in the car with the three passengers as Amy was, would you have known that it was him, someone stumbling across the road, blood streaming from the head or the face, would you have known it was Joe Slovo?

MR PENI: I would not have known that it was Joe Slovo.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Arendse his evidence was that he didn't know Joe Slovo by sight, that's his evidence.

ADV ARENDSE: Ms Khampepe I understood that they knew him from his standing and photographs presumably.

MS KHAMPEPE: That is not how I understood his evidence. I thought he said he didn't know him by sight. He knew about him but not that he knew him by sight. He had not seen him face-to-face, that's how I recollect his evidence.

ADV ARENDSE: I accept the bit about not seeing him face-to-face, but I understood - but perhaps if we can clear this up, can I ask Mr Peni?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes certainly.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Ntombeko if you had seen - had you seen Joe Slovo before the 25th of August 1993?

MR PENI: I said I read about him in the newspapers before I saw him with my own eyes.

ADV ARENDSE: Had you seen a photograph of him?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: So if he appeared in front of you you would have known that it was Joe Slovo?

MR PENI: It would depend what angle I would be seeing him at.

ADV ARENDSE: Now just to go back to what I was asking of you, you had jumped off the bakkie and had seen a White woman who turned out to be Amy Biehl, you had seen this White woman run across the street, now if it had been Joe Slovo running across the street with blood streaming from his head or down his face would you have taken the trouble to see whether it was Joe Slovo or whether it was some other White male?

MR PENI: I would not have taken part.

ADV ARENDSE: I don't understand your answer. You would not have taken part if you had seen it was Joe Slovo, or you would not have taken part if you had seen it was some other White male?

MR PENI: Please repeat the question.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry can I interrupt if you do not mind and just put the question to the witness. The question is, suppose that particular afternoon and under those specific circumstances where somebody had - where you had jumped out of the bakkie and you saw somebody running in the manner in which the deceased was doing with blood in the face, suppose that person had been Joe Slovo would you have recognised him as Joe Slovo?

MR PENI: It would depend, but if I had recognised him....

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well we are asking you, I don't know what you mean you when you depend, I don't know on what it would depend but I have put you back to the 25th of August 19 whatever, and I am asking you, I am putting hypothetically Mr, the late Mr Slovo in precisely the position in which the deceased in the matter was, the question is, would you have been able to recognise him if it had been Joe Slovo?

MR PENI: If he was running in the same way that Amy had been running I would not have recognised him. I would not have seen that it was Mr Slovo.

ADV ARENDSE: I am indebted to Justice Ngoepe for clearing that up.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Brink if I may ask you, did any of the applicants give evidence in mitigation and is it possible for us to have a copy thereof?

MR BRINK: I will endeavour to get that. All I do have is the judgment on the merits. You see Mr Peni was tried separately from the other three applicants and in your papers, in your bundle you've got a judgment relating to the three applicants, excluding the first applicant Peni.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But we are singularly missing the record relating to, if there was any evidence, in mitigation, but maybe you can take it up with your colleagues, we would dearly like to have copies of the record relating to the evidence if there was any, which was given in mitigation.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse do you know anything about it, or Ms Gozo?

ADV GOZO: I was representing the accused in the trial and the accused put on aspects relating to their ages and their personal circumstances in mitigation.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all that was led?

ADV GOZO: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman if I might just add that obviously at the trial, or maybe it's not so obvious, but their defence was that they had alibis and they were not - they didn't place themselves on the scene, so if the Committee is looking for anything that they may have said about what happened and so on, and about the policy and slogans etc I am afraid we did ask about that and it's not available.

CHAIRPERSON: So I understand that the situation at that stage in the trial was consistent with the attitude that they had adopted as far as their defence was concerned?

ADV ARENDSE: That would be correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So no evidence, extraneous evidence about their frame of mind or what led them to do what they did, that evidence was not placed before the court as part of extenuating circumstances?

ADV ARENDSE: That would be correct Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Arendse the Operation Storm or even Barcelona, you are not in possession of any official documents of the party stating what Operation Storm in fact was about?

ADV GOZO: No documentation relating to Operation Great Storm in particular, but what I can put before the Committee is that around the date of the commission of the offence there was a lot written about Operation Barcelona in the media. I don't know if that would be of assistance to the Committee, but I know that there would be that kind of documentation. And in relation as well to the whole situation about SADTU, the Teacher's Union.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes but as far as the evidence of this applicant is concerned he merely mentioned Barcelona in passing and it doesn't seem to have played a role in his motivation for the killing of Miss Biehl.

ADV ARENDSE: Advocate de Jager the short answer is that we had requested whether there is any documentation which can help us to understand ourselves what this meant. The applicants were unable to provide us with any documentation simply because it was adopted by APLA, it was carried across to them inter alia at this meeting and whatever their understanding was of what it meant came out of what they heard at the meeting and those are our instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you spoken to the people they said addressed the meeting? Do you know how to make contact with them, whether they are available?

ADV ARENDSE: Justice Wilson the answer is no.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink this might be a convenient stage to take the adjournment.

MR BRINK: Yes. May I suggest we resume at two o'clock?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. The Committee will now adjourn and we will resume at two o'clock.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, learned members of the Committee, if there are no further questions of Mr Peni, if we could move on to Mr Nofemela.

Similarly can I hand up the original affidavit of Eazi Mzikhona Nofemela, and can that be marked Exhibit B or Annexure B. Exhibit B, thank you.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman Ms Gozo will deal with this part of the evidence of Mr Nofemela.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you be reading his affidavit first?

ADV GOZO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do proceed.

ADV GOZO ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee may I now proceed to read Easy Mzikhona Nofemela's affidavit into the record.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman may I just interject. Over lunch time one of the journalists asked me about disclosing the contents of the further affidavits which we intend to put before the Committee. I said, look in my view they shouldn't do so because they haven't been disclosed to this Committee yet officially, and perhaps Mr Chairman if you could just give some clarity on that.

CHAIRPERSON: You have been approached?

ADV ARENDSE: Well it would appear that at least that particular journalist was keen to put that on the wire even before these details were made known to this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think journalists ought to be advised that unless an affidavit has been affirmed by this witness they ought not to make use of the contents of that document. I am not too sure whether they are entitled to access to that document before that stage either. Your clients, and I think you should ensure, that their affidavits are not made available until the appropriate time.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman we have certainly done - we were under the impression it's part of the standard procedure that we've been requested a copy of each affidavit that we intend to hand up and that's what we've done, so if I did so mistakenly then I apologise, but as you could have seen just now I passed on an affidavit and apparently that was for the Press.

CHAIRPERSON: That's unfortunate that that has happened. It seems that you can't undo what has been done, and there would be no point in my making any statements at this stage in that regard because these documents are in their hands. One can only appeal to them to hold back making any comments on those documents or publishing them until the contents of those affidavits have been confirmed on oath.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV GOZO: Mr Chairman may I then proceed?

Mr Chairman I don't know if this is being interpreted for the applicant.

on the proviso that was mentioned by Justice Ngoepe being met and satisfied.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EAZI MZIKHONA NOFEMELA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions you wish to put to him in addition to what you have read in the statement?

ADV GOZO: There are no questions I am going to put to this particular applicant, and this may be the appropriate stage for Mr Brink and the members of the Committee to put their questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nofemela your counsel has read your affidavit into the record, do you confirm the correctness of what is stated in your affidavit?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Brink any questions to put to this witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nofemela you have heard the questions which I put to Mr Peni and the answers which he gave to those questions, is that correct?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Please talk into the microphone.

MR BRINK: You can sit back if you wish to as long as it's close to your mouth. If you want to be comfortable be comfortable but just have it close to you.

And do you agree that you were working in association with COSAS, which is an affiliate of the ANC?

MR NOFEMELA: Would you please clarify that.

MR BRINK: At the time in the townships you were working in association with COSAS, you were a member of PASO which was a PAC affiliate, but you were working together with COSAS to bring about your objectives and COSAS was an affiliate of the ANC, is that correct?

MR NOFEMELA: COSAS was the only, was separate from PASO, but we were together with the fights.

MR BRINK: Yes. So that all political rivalry which might have existed between COSAS and PASO were set aside at that time?

MR NOFEMELA: They were not alike.

MR BRINK: No but the point is, isn't it, that your rivalry, you as a member of PASO, that organisation had set aside your rivalry with the members of COSAS at that time?

MR NOFEMELA: What we were fighting for or rivalry for?

MR BRINK: Well that's what I want to know what you were fighting for.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Brink I think ...(intervention)

MR BRINK: Did I mis-hear him?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, I am being confused by what you are saying. The witness says what were we fighting for? He's referring to PASO and COSAS. Now you say yes, we want to know what you are fighting for, but that is not in the spirit of your principal question. Your principal question is that there was no conflict between you and COSAS.

MR BRINK: Well that is correct, that's what I wanted to get from him, that's what I wanted to get from him that there was no conflict between those two organisations at that time.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Then you can't say what were you fighting for if he says there was no fighting between them.

MR BRINK: I understood him to ask me the question what were they fighting for, maybe I misheard him.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You tried to know - you must first understand what he means thereby before taking it further.

MR BRINK: Well I understood that I wasn't, it wasn't a situation where I answered his questions, it was the other way round Judge.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well let's try again.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you can ask him at that time was there common cause between your organisation and COSAS?

MR BRINK: You've heard what Judge Mall has just put, can you answer that please.

MR NOFEMELA: Will you please ask the question.

CHAIRPERSON: At that time was there common cause between your organisation and COSAS?

MR NOFEMELA: As I have said the only thing that we were combined with PASO is the struggle that we were fighting for.

MR BRINK: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: And what was that, what was the struggle that you were fighting for?

MR NOFEMELA: The only thing that caused us to fight or to be in struggle not to pay the school fees, the SADTU teachers to be recognised and that PASO wanted the land to go to the Black people.

MR BRINK: And what did you think the killing of Amy Biehl, what effect would the killing of Amy Biehl have had in regard to that struggle relating to land coming back to the people?

MR NOFEMELA: What's the question exactly?

MR BRINK: You have told the Committee that your struggle, amongst other things, was to get land back to the people, is that correct?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes it's correct.

MR BRINK: What effect would the killing of Amy Biehl have had in regard to that aspect of your struggle?

MR NOFEMELA: Is it the question that what's the killing of Amy Biehl is it made an effect to the killing, to the bringing back to the land?

MR BRINK: Yes.

MR NOFEMELA: I do understand that even today we are also talking about changes, changes that happened.

MS KHAMPEPE: Will you try and speak a little louder, I can't hear you from here, and I don't know if you have a problem with the translation, and if you do have a problem will you please just alert us to that. Do you understand what is being translated to you properly?

MR NOFEMELA: No I don't get the question clearly and the Interpreters are very soft.

MS KHAMPEPE: Yes. Now if you do experience such problems will you please just raise them up with your counsel and advise that you do not understand the translation. Also will you also turn up the volume on your head phones.

MR NOFEMELA: It's okay now.

MR BRINK: Can you hear me clearly?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Miss Gozo, sorry, because you understand both languages, English and Afrikaans, we will assume, unless you indicate otherwise, we will assume that you are satisfied with the quality of the interpretation which, with all due respect as far as I am concerned, on some areas I am not.

ADV GOZO: Yes Justice Ngoepe I was still looking, my view was that that question needed to be broken down. There was a question of understanding what the exact question would be.

MR BRINK: I will put it again. The aims of PASO, you told us, were,

am I correct in thinking that was the policy of PASO?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think in addition to that he said that non-payment of exam fees and the fact of the recognition of teachers were issues as well.

MR BRINK: Yes. How did you think the killing of Amy Biehl would bring about PASO's objectives in the two respects I have mentioned?

MR NOFEMELA: That's what we believed in, that the country will go back to the Africans.

MR BRINK: But what was your objective in murdering Amy Biehl?

MR NOFEMELA: I've already mentioned my objective and I was one of PASO's members. What PASO was involved in I was also involved.

MR BRINK: Do you accept that the ANC and COSAS had White members?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes but only one member.

MR BRINK: Well, there were more than one member, there was more than one member of the ANC certainly, wouldn't you agree?

MR NOFEMELA: No I am sorry I don't know that. I only said there was only one member I knew.

MR BRINK: I am asking you whether you as a, if I may put it this way, a junior politician, were aware of the fact that the ANC had a fairly substantial membership consisting of White people?

ADV GOZO OBJECTS: Mr Chair may I interject to that question, I think that question has been answered, he knew only of one.

CHAIRPERSON: It's being put to him that he ought to have known more, he's a junior politician.

MR BRINK: Can you answer that please Mr Nofemela.

MR NOFEMELA: There was only one member I knew from the ANC which was White.

MR BRINK: You went to a school named after the late Joe Slovo.

MR NOFEMELA: I went there whilst it was Mvusi Mvusi, it was changed to Joe Slovo after I was there.

MR BRINK: Oh I see. Did you know about Joe Slovo?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know about Ronnie Kasrils?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know about Karl Niehaus?

MR NOFEMELA: No.

MR BRINK: Never heard of him?

MR NOFEMELA: No.

MR BRINK: Alright. Did you know what Mr Kasrils looked like?

MR NOFEMELA: I can't remember.

MR BRINK: Did you know what Mr Joe Slovo looked like?

MR NOFEMELA: I can't clearly remember.

MR BRINK: So it's not possible for you to say if either Mr Kasrils or Mr Slovo, the late Mr Slovo had been in Guguletu that afternoon you would have killed them?

MR NOFEMELA: What's your question exactly?

MR BRINK: Well perhaps I won't press this, I don't think he understands. What I really want to know is that had you known that the late Amy Biehl was a comrade or a supporter of the comrades would you have killed her?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Why would you have killed her if you had known that she was an ally of yours, a friend of your movement?

MR NOFEMELA: It's because during that time my spirit just says I must kill the White.

MR BRINK: So you would have killed any White, even if such White had been a member of the ANC, the South African Communist Party, AZAPO or even the PAC?

MR NOFEMELA: If I know that person I wouldn't have killed.

MR BRINK: But such person was White.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I know.

MR BRINK: So why wouldn't you have killed that person?

MR NOFEMELA: During the apartheid era it's because what we were doing or what we were involved in it's because we were in high spirits and violent.

MR BRINK: Well was it your own view then that you had to go out and kill White people or a White person merely because of the colour of their skin and regardless of what their political views might have been even if such political views were the same as yours?

MR NOFEMELA: During those days we were told to assist APLA. What I knew and what I believed in is that if you are killing a White person it's how we are going to get our land back to the Africans.

MR BRINK: So you tell the Committee as Mr Peni did as I understood his evidence, that the killing of a young, unarmed woman would help to bring back the land?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes it's like that.

MR BRINK: And is it correct that at your trial evidence was led that those who accompanied Miss Biehl in the motor car had said to you, and those who attacked her, that you were to desist because she was a comrade? I will give you the reference in a minute.

MR NOFEMELA: No I have never heard that.

MR BRINK: Very well. I refer to the judgment, page 42 of the bundle at line 30.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Brink could you kindly repeat the page number?

MR BRINK: It's page 42 of the bundle which is page 3337 of the judgment and it appears at the bottom near line 30.

Now I want to read to you what the Judge said when giving judgment at your trial. I beg your pardon it's line 24.

Do you remember that evidence having been given at your trial?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I do remember.

MR BRINK: And the people who tried to dissuade you from killing Amy Biehl were Black people were they not?

MR NOFEMELA: I don't even know that there were people who asked us not to do that.

MR BRINK: Well then I won't burden the record but I refer the Committee to page 45 line 2, page 46 line 28 where much the same sort of evidence was given.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you please just give us the reference again because my papers have not been paginated.

MR BRINK: Have they not Judge?

CHAIRPERSON: If you'll just give me the typed page number.

MR BRINK: The typed page number is 3340.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BRINK: Line 2 to line 10.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And Mr Brink you must just bear in mind please that the applicant, according to his affidavit, arrived at the scene only after the deceased was already out of the vehicle, and not at the time when these people were pleading with the crowd before that stage. Well this is what the applicant is saying in paragraph 4 or 5 of his affidavit.

MR BRINK: Yes, yes. But if I could just clarify this aspect in the light of the judgment Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: You may do so.

MR BRINK: Starting at the bottom, the last paragraph at the bottom of page 3339 of the typed judgment and page 44 of the bundle.

Were you there at that stage?

MR NOFEMELA: When I arrived there I was in a bakkie with Peni. While they were pleading I know nothing about that.

MR BRINK: So is it your evidence here that you know absolutely nothing about any people asking Amy Biehl's attackers to desist?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I have heard that in court that there were people asking for Amy Biehl not to be killed, but when I arrived there while the scene was still in motion I didn't hear such a thing.

MR BRINK: How long have you been a member of PASO?

MR NOFEMELA: As from June 1990.

MR BRINK: How old were you at that stage, that is when you joined PASO?

MR NOFEMELA: I was 18 years old.

MR BRINK: You see what I am going to suggest to you Mr Nofemela that the attack and brutal murder of Amy Biehl could not have been done with a political objective, it was wanton brutality, like a pack of sharks smelling blood, isn't that the truth?

MR NOFEMELA: No that's not true, that's not true, we are not such things.

MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember how long after this incident that you were arrested?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I do remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell us when you were arrested.

MR NOFEMELA: I was arrested on the 26th of August.

CHAIRPERSON: You have also said that on that day, that's the 25th of August, you two were in "high spirits" as a result of hearing the speeches.

MR NOFEMELA: I can't hear your question clearly, can you repeat the date for me.

CHAIRPERSON: No I wasn't mentioning the date, I said that on your evidence you were in "high spirits" on that day, presumably as a result of hearing the speeches.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes, it's like that.

CHAIRPERSON: And the fact that you were in "high spirits" was responsible for your conduct that day, is that it?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes it's like that, even what we were told it's to ungovern the country.

CHAIRPERSON: Had you not been in similar "high spirits" on previous occasions?

MR NOFEMELA: I am sorry I can't hear the question clearly.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you not been in similar "high spirits" on previous occasions?

MR NOFEMELA: Are you saying before that day?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NOFEMELA: We were used to be that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you kill many people on those occasion?

MR NOFEMELA: No we never did such a thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Well why on this day?

MR NOFEMELA: It's because she came to Guguletu during a very wrong moment.

CHAIRPERSON: What was wrong about the moment?

MR NOFEMELA: It's because students who were in PASO really wanted the land to go back to the Africans and we were in very high emotions.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now my question was also were you in similar high spirits on previous occasions and you said yes, this was not the first time, do you understand that?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: And on those occasions when you were in high spirits did you kill people, White people?

MR NOFEMELA: No we never killed anyone before.

CHAIRPERSON: Well why on this occasion?

MR NOFEMELA: That day we were very much emotional and we find Amy in our locations.

JUDGE WILSON: Why were you so emotional?

MR NOFEMELA: It's because of what we heard in the launch that we were from.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, but that took place at about one or two o'clock didn't it? Isn't that when the meeting was?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: And you left the meeting, you walked down to the station, you caught trains and this finally happened at five o'clock.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir it's true.

JUDGE WILSON: What was it that kept you so emotional all afternoon?

MR NOFEMELA: As we were throwing stones at the truck on Vanguard Road we were shot there by the policemen, White policemen.

JUDGE WILSON: Mmm, you ran away.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we ran away and we split into two groups.

JUDGE WILSON: Mmm, you caught a train to Heideveld.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: And then you got into a bakkie which was going in the direction where you stayed, you were going home.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: But you happened, by chance on the way, to meet, to arrive where Amy Biehl was, to arrive at the Caltex garage, that's correct, when you were on the way home?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir it's like that.

JUDGE WILSON: And you jumped out of the bakkie and chased after her and stabbed her. Threw stones at her first and then stabbed her.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: That's your version. Why were you emotional, you were sitting in the bakkie going home? And yet you see this unfortunate girl running across the road, you jump out, chase her, throw stones at her and stab her, tell me why?

MR NOFEMELA: There was nothing that could cause us to cool down, we were still in very high emotions so we knew that we had another group that went the other way and we were the one on this way.

JUDGE WILSON: And you stabbed at her three or four times but you don't even know if you stabbed her, why was that? What condition were you in that afternoon, can you explain?

MR NOFEMELA: Are you saying while I was stabbing her?

JUDGE WILSON: You told us in your affidavit that you stabbed at her and you don't know if you stabbed her or not. You tried three or four times and you don't know if you stabbed her. I am asking you why you did not know. You feel if you stab someone, why you didn't know. What condition were you in that you didn't know if you had stabbed her or not?

MR NOFEMELA: Things were happening very fast. There were more than seven, eight or more of people, so that's why I don't know whether I did stab her or not because there were many people there.

JUDGE WILSON: You had the knife in your hand, you could feel if you did it. Don't say it was because there were seven or eight people you don't know. You in fact know from the medical evidence that you didn't stab her, don't you? Don't you?

MR NOFEMELA: Can you repeat your question please.

JUDGE WILSON: You know from the medical evidence that you didn't stab her. She was only stabbed once. You heard the evidence of the post mortem didn't you? MR NOFEMELA: Yes I've heard that in court.

JUDGE WILSON: So you can't give any explanation why you didn't know what you were doing?

MR NOFEMELA: No I am sorry, I won't know whether I did stab her or I attempted to, but I can remember that it was three or four times.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman I think just to be fair to the applicant on the questions that Justice Wilson asked, the evidence from Professor Knoebel was that there was one stab wound which caused her to die. We ourselves searched through the record and the judgment to find out whether there was any evidence from Professor Knoebel about any of the other stab wounds because it's common cause that seven to ten people, from the State witnesses, stabbed at her. We couldn't find any so I am not sure, Mr Chairman, whether it's fair to put it to the witness as a fact that there was only one stab wounds and there were no other stab wounds.

JUDGE WILSON: Didn't the Court find that?

ADV ARENDSE: Through you Mr Chairman the Court found that there was one stab wound which caused her to die ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Where's that?

ADV ARENDSE: There was no finding ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: What page?

ADV ARENDSE: I will try and assist Judge Wilson.

JUDGE WILSON: At page 60 of the record, 3433, the Judge says,

That is the passage I rely on, the finding by the Judge that the post mortem revealed only one stab wound.

ADV ARENDSE: The fuller evidence of Professor Knoebel appears from pages 57, I think through to that passage which Judge Wilson is referring to. But I accept, I am not taking issue with the fact that there was a finding that there was only one wound, I am just saying that it is common cause that a number of people stabbed at Amy, but there was no finding on the record in the judgment that there were other stab wounds.

JUDGE WILSON: No, the finding was there was only one stab wound, the passage I just read to you.

ADV ARENDSE: I am concerned about the suggestion coming from Judge Wilson that the applicant is now tailoring his evidence to suit the finding.

JUDGE WILSON: I am not suggesting he is tailoring his evidence to the finding, I am saying he must have known now that he did not stab her at all.

ADV ARENDSE: Well, with respect Mr Chairman, he is saying that he doesn't know, there were a number of other people who at the same time they were all stabbing at her.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Let's go back to a question which was put to you about what particularly stirred you up that afternoon to commit the crime that you did, and you said that in the past you had been excited, I recall. What I want to ask you is, had you in the past, on any occasion, been addressed in the same way that you were that day during the launch and given what you said were the instructions that were given to you that day? Had you in the past been given similar instructions whatever you conceived of them to be?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And on the occasions that you had been given similar instructions, as you were on that particular day, you were not moved enough to go and commit a likewise offence?

MR NOFEMELA: Each and every activity that we attended we become very emotional insomuch that we feel that we can free the Africans.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Just tell me quickly, you left the scene and boarded the train and then? No I am sorry, I am terribly sorry, when you left the place where the branch was launched did you board a train?

MR NOFEMELA: As from Langa High where this meeting was launched we went as a group of 300 to 400 students to Vanguard Road. Our aim was to ungovern the country, throwing stones at government cars, that's our aim.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes. I am going to go through that pace by pace, I want to try, if I can, to capture the atmosphere of that particular afternoon, and you must listen to my questions in instalments. Well when you left the place where you had launched the branch you were a group of people were you not?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you singing and toyi-toying?

MR NOFEMELA: We were singing and toyi-toying.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Where to?

MR NOFEMELA: We were off to Vanguard Drive.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well did you get there?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we did arrive there.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Still in a group?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Still singing and toyi-toying?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now you are there and what happened?

MR NOFEMELA: We throw stones at White people's cars and government cars and then after that we hijacked a truck and we throw stones at that and we try to burn it down and the police vehicle came and then we went to the police vehicle and throw stones at them and they shoot back at us.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes just give me time also. I told you that I want to take this step-by-step, and you know don't run away with it.

When you did whatever you have just said you did were you still in a group, stoning the truck and police vehicle, were you still in a group?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we were still in that big group.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you still singing and toyi-toying at the same time?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And then after stoning the police vehicle what happened, where did you go?

MR NOFEMELA: We split, some left at Langa, some went to Bonteheuwel station and some to Langa station.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Where did you go, you as an individual, which group did you follow?

MR NOFEMELA: I went to Bonteheuwel.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you walking when you went to Bonteheuwel station?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we were walking.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you still singing and toyi-toying or not?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we were singing, running and toyi-toying.

JUDGE NGOEPE: About how many were you, just a rough estimation?

MR NOFEMELA: Just an estimation, about 80 to 90 students.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And did you board a train there?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we boarded a train.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And what was happening in the train? What did you do in the train? Did you assault people, what did you do in the train?

MR NOFEMELA: We were singing like clapping the trains to raise our emotions.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Eventually the train stopped and you got off the train.

MR NOFEMELA: Are you saying in Heideveld?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Whatever station. I am not familiar with Cape Town.

MR NOFEMELA: We got off at Heideveld station.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And where did you go?

MR NOFEMELA: We get off there, through NY110 toyi-toying and singing up till we reached NY1.

JUDGE NGOEPE: How many were you at that stage?

MR NOFEMELA: Just estimating I think we were still a group of 80 to 90.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes and then what happened further, where did you go from there?

MR NOFEMELA: We went down the road singing to Iona Shopping Centre.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR NOFEMELA: While we were at Iona it was me, Ntombeko Peni, we saw a bakkie, a red bakkie.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR NOFEMELA: And we asked for a lift to the places where we were staying.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And then you got on to the bakkie?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now how many of you got onto the bakkie?

MR NOFEMELA: We were three, the driver was the third person.

JUDGE WILSON: So does that mean two of you got on to a bakkie that had a driver in it? Two of you...

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And - well the bakkie drove off and then what happened? You must remember, like I told you earlier on, I wanted to take you through these paces because I am trying to get a feeling or a view as to how the afternoon was like, the atmosphere. You got onto the bakkie and then what happened?

MR NOFEMELA: We drove with the bakkie and we passed the police station where we were to pass the BP Service Station and we've noticed that in NY108 there's a group of students toyi-toying and singing and we saw the COSAS flag.

JUDGE NGOEPE: About how many students were there, can you estimate the size of the group?

MR NOFEMELA: I estimate 90 to 100 students.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, and then what happened?

MR NOFEMELA: We went down, still in the bakkie, and we saw in front of us that the cars were not driving as normal as if there is something happening there in front.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why did you get off the bakkie? What was the purpose?

MR NOFEMELA: The purpose for us to get off we saw Amy Biehl crossing the street. While she was crossing the street that's the purpose that made us to get off the bakkie and the cars were at standstill.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Where was this crowd of people, about 90 to 100, in relation to the deceased when you first saw her?

MR NOFEMELA: They were very far from her because NY108 is up the street and NY1 is at the other side of the street.

JUDGE NGOEPE: When you saw the deceased what was happening actually? Tell us more about what you saw there.

MR NOFEMELA: What I saw, she was crossing the street. She was bleeding from her face.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR NOFEMELA: There were stones that were thrown at her. Someone tripped her, which is Mongesi.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well what you are saying to us is that when you saw her she was being attacked and she was possibly running away from an attack?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes she was running away from the attack.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now how many people appeared to have been attacking her, or chasing her?

MR NOFEMELA: The first one I saw was Mongesi and then afterwards while she was crossing the street I've noticed that there is a group of seven to eight people attacking her.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And was this some distance away from the group of 90 to 100 students, or what was the position?

MR NOFEMELA: Not a distance. What happens all those people who were there, but the people who were really attacking, those who were attacking them were throwing stones and those who were stabbing her while she is on the ground were eight or seven. They were stabbing her.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And in the meantime what were this group of 90 to 100 doing, if anything at all?

MR NOFEMELA: While some of them were busy throwing stones at the cars, some were throwing stones at her, although I have noticed that most of the people - okay no, some of them who were stabbing her were seven or eight.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I don't know if you will be able to tell us, how many vehicles were stoned, or did you see being stoned by this group of 90 to 100 people, that is in the vicinity of the place where the deceased was attacked? In the vicinity of the Caltex Garage.

MR NOFEMELA: I only arrived and seeing Amy Biehl's car and Amy Biehl, those were the only things I've noticed that were attacked, otherwise I have never seen anything further.

JUDGE NGOEPE: If that is your answer I think I will have to go back to the question which I asked earlier on and ask you, what were these 90 to 100 people doing at the time when some of them were attacking the deceased, what were they doing, if anything?

MR NOFEMELA: I would like to correct something. I said I saw the 90 to 100 group of people while we were passing NY108 and I've noticed that the flag was COSAS' flag, those I saw, the 80 to 90 group who were throwing stones at Amy's car and herself.

JUDGE WILSON: How could they have been throwing stones at her when there were seven to eight people around her stabbing her?

MR NOFEMELA: They were throwing stones at her while she was still running and crossing the road.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Was there any singing or chanting that you could hear of emanating from the direction of the crowd?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes what?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes there was singing and chanting and singing the slogan "One Settler, one bullet".

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I interrupt before anybody else gets on to anything, is there a full copy of the judgment available?

MR BRINK: I believe there is, yes. Would you like me ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Do you know where?

MR BRINK: I think it's in my office in fact. Obviously I didn't burden the record with it ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: No, but I wanted to look up something before I ask this witness something.

ADV DE JAGER: My colleague here tried to bring you back to the atmosphere prevailing during 1993. That was quite a different atmosphere than is prevailing today, is that correct? Is that correct?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir, it's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Would I be correct to say that during that period there were abnormal circumstances prevailing?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir it's like that.

ADV DE JAGER: And it was a volatile period, is that correct?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: You should say if you don't agree with what I am putting to you. Now you said that day you were very emotional and "we find Amy Biehl in our location". Can you tell us, during that period, would it have been safe for any White to go, as you stated, to "our locations" unprotected?

MR NOFEMELA: It was totally unsafe because PASO was demanding the land back to the Africans.

ADV DE JAGER: And did Whites frequently go into the townships, visiting the townships, without protection?

MR NOFEMELA: They used to go there protected by Police.

ADV DE JAGER: And in fact if you have gone alone into the townships during those years it would have been at a great risk, as a White person going to the townships?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: You stated in your statement that you received training from APLA operators and even demonstrations how to handle arms and ammunition, do you remember that part of your statement?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir I do remember.

ADV DE JAGER: Where did you receive the training?

MR NOFEMELA: I just got it inside.

ADV DE JAGER: Where inside, inside what? Inside the township - where?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: And what did the trainers tell you, what should you do, why are they training you in arms and ammunition?

MR NOFEMELA: They trained us how to handle the ammunition. You must not face the guns to the Africans or you must not play with the guns.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, and why should you be trained in handling of arms and ammunition, what should you do with the arms and ammunition?

MR NOFEMELA: They trained us for future so that when the PASO members are marching we can protect them as marshals.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that the only reason why they trained you in arms and ammunition? They didn't give you any other instructions?

MR NOFEMELA: I was arrested while I was still in training.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja. But what was the motive of training you? Should you use the arms and ammunition in a war or was it only to safeguard yourself?

MR NOFEMELA: We were trained in order to defend and to protect the Africans.

ADV DE JAGER: And then you stated,

Did you ever attend a meeting of PASO where a resolution was passed what you should do, or where they instructed you what to do?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I attended PASO meetings when PASO was re-launched.

ADV DE JAGER: And what in fact were you told that day what should you do?

MR NOFEMELA: We were told to make this country ungovernable by stoning the government cars.

ADV DE JAGER: Right. Now was that the full instruction, "by stoning government cars"?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes that's what we were told. We then we were told to implement the slogan, "One Settler, one bullet", and that each and every White person we must stone that person in order to bring back the African country to the Africans.

ADV DE JAGER: So apart from being told to attack government vehicles you were also told to stone people, is that correct? Do I understand you correctly?

MR NOFEMELA: Which people? I don't clearly understand your question.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you told to stone White people, or weren't you told to stone people at all?

MR NOFEMELA: Our land was taken from us by White people so we were throwing stones to White people and to their cars because they were those who were in power.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay, I understand that you did that, but who told you to do it? Was that at the meeting or was it before or after the meeting, or when did this - or didn't anybody tell you to stone White people?

MR NOFEMELA: We were at the meeting.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes I - you were at the meeting, did they tell you at the meeting to stone people or to kill people, to kill Whites?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes they said that the African land has to return back to the Africans. Our emotions led us to throw stones at this White person because our land was taken from us by the White people.

ADV DE JAGER: You see I am putting the questions to you because we must decide whether you have been ordered to do so or whether your deeds were approved by a political organisation, and that's the only reason I am asking it, or whether you were on a frolic of your own.

MR NOFEMELA: We were told to do this, we did not do it on our own. It was not for our own benefit.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, no I understand that, now who told you to do it?

MR NOFEMELA: Simpiwe Mfengu and Wanda Mathebula.

ADV DE JAGER: And they were leaders of the PAC at that stage, or in the leadership cadre of the PAC, is that correct?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes that is correct. One of them was a chairperson, the regional chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. And you understood them to have the authority to give you these instructions, that they were speaking on behalf of the party, is that what you believed?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we believed in our organisation.

ADV DE JAGER: And do you know subsequently, after the unfortunate offence was committed, did anybody in the party approve of what you had been doing?

MR NOFEMELA: Please repeat your question.

ADV DE JAGER: After Miss Biehl was killed did any of the party leaders or personalities, leading personalities in the party say something about it? Did they approve of what you did or what did they say if they said anything?

MR NOFEMELA: Did they say this to us?

ADV DE JAGER: Ja to you or your friends in your presence.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes they did say something to us.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you tell the Committee what they said?

MR NOFEMELA: They said that we made a mistake.

ADV DE JAGER: So they didn't approve of what you've done?

MR NOFEMELA: They approved of what we used to do, but they investigated about Amy Biehl and they said that we made a mistake about her.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Nofemela, it is true that PASO had been making the demand for the return of the land to the African people long before 1993, but that on the 25th of August 1993 you were particularly inspired because of the speech delivered to you by Mr Mfengu and Mathebula. Had you, before the 25th of August 1993, been addressed by Mr Mfengu and Mathebula or by either of them?

MR NOFEMELA: Before?

MS KHAMPEPE: Before the incident in question. Remember you were addressed by Mr Mfengu and Mathebula on the 25th of August 1993, before that date had they previously addressed you as members of PASO?

MR NOFEMELA: No I don't remember. I only remember this particular meeting.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now the evidence already led by Mr Peni was that at this meeting the organisation PASO for the first time adopted the slogan which had previously been adopted by APLA, the military wing of the PAC, which was the Year of the Great Storm.

MR NOFEMELA: Maybe I don't understand your question very well.

MS KHAMPEPE: I will repeat it. Did you at this meeting of the 25th of August 1993 adopt for the first time the slogan which has been referred to as the Year of the Great Storm?

MR NOFEMELA: In 1993, it was the Year of the Great Storm, it started in 1993.

MS KHAMPEPE: And it was at that meeting that you decided to put it into operation, am I correct, that's the evidence of Mr Peni?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes that is correct, in that meeting in Langa High School.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now what did you understand the slogan or the Operation to entail? What was expected of members of PASO since that was the Year of the Great Storm?

MR NOFEMELA: On that particular day?

MS KHAMPEPE: Yes, what were you expected to do since you had adopted that slogan the Year of the Great Storm?

MR NOFEMELA: To make this country or the government ungovernable.

MS KHAMPEPE: And how did you translate that to the One Settler, one bullet". killing of Miss Biehl?

MR NOFEMELA: We had a slogan "

MS KHAMPEPE: But how did this operation affect your conduct in the killing of Miss Amy Biehl? Did you believe that in doing what you did to Miss Biehl you were participating in what was expected of you by Operation Great Storm?

MR NOFEMELA: The case of Amy?

MS KHAMPEPE: Yes.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes it did.

MS KHAMPEPE: And to what extent did the slogan, "One Settler, one bullet" influence you in your participation in the killing of Miss Biehl?

MR NOFEMELA: "One Settler, one bullet", according to our knowledge.....

MS KHAMPEPE: I am still listening. I don't know whether the translators are getting the translation through.

MR NOFEMELA: "One Settler, one bullet", according to our knowledge is that we kill a White person with one bullet.

MS KHAMPEPE: If Mr Mathebula and Mr Mfengu had not addressed you on the 25th of August 1993 do you believe that you would have been able to do what you did and that is participate in the gruesome killing of Miss Biehl?

MR NOFEMELA: You mean that if there were other speakers except these two saying the same words that Mathebula and Simpiwe said?

MS KHAMPEPE: Yes. If they had not delivered the speeches which so inspired you do you think you would have done what you did on the 25th of August?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes we would have done it because we believed that our land was taken from us by the White people.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you take a wallet out of Miss Biehl's car?

MR NOFEMELA: I don't know anything about Amy's wallet.

JUDGE WILSON: Well do you know that evidence was led at the trial that you took a wallet out of her car.

MR NOFEMELA: I heard that in court but I don't know anything about that wallet.

JUDGE WILSON: I think it should be placed on record that the Judge in the portion of the judgment made available to us indicated he didn't think the witness was a very satisfactory witness. But in the portion of the judgment lent to me by Mr Arendse the Judge made the finding that as no ownership had been proved as regards the wallet he could make no finding, so no finding was made at the trial although evidence was led.

One other aspect I would like to ask your comments on, you have told us, as has the previous witness, what One Settler, one bullet meant, that it meant kill the Whites, that is so isn't it?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Now do you remember at your trial Mongesi Manqina gave evidence? He is the gentleman sitting at the end of the row isn't he?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I do remember.

JUDGE WILSON: And he said he was the vice chairman of his branch of PASO.

MR NOFEMELA: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: And he gave evidence that the slogan One Settler, one bullet, a settler means anyone who was not in agreement with what the Africans want, do you remember him giving that evidence?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I do remember.

JUDGE WILSON: And when he was asked to give an example of this sort of person he gave the name of Chief Gatsha Buthelezi as being a settler, do you remember that?

MR NOFEMELA: I do remember that.

JUDGE WILSON: He further said the slogan was not aimed at killing. ...(intervention)

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman may I interject.

JUDGE WILSON: He further said it was a slogan that was not aimed at killing, do you remember him saying that?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I do remember him saying that.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Nofemela do you agree with that explanation given by Mr Manqina before that forum? Do you agree with the explanation given by Mr Manqina of what the slogan One Settler, one bullet means?

MR NOFEMELA: No I don't agree because we did not want to be sentenced, we only wanted to be found not guilty.

MS KHAMPEPE: So the explanation that you have given today you would regard in your opinion as the right explanation, or at least as how you understand the slogan to mean to you?

MR NOFEMELA: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: He was the only one of you who gave evidence wasn't he?

MR NOFEMELA: If I remember well he was the only one.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman if I may now interject. I think it should also then be put to the applicant that accused no.1 the Court found that he did not impress the Court as a truthful witness, in fact the Court found that he lied. And the applicant Manqina will deal with that aspect when he testifies before this Committee.

JUDGE WILSON: He was then dealing with the fact that he wasn't guilty wasn't he?

ADV ARENDSE: That's correct.

JUDGE WILSON: He said he wasn't at the launch of the branch, he made all sorts of denials and that is what the Court made findings about.

ADV ARENDSE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Miss Gozo any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV GOZO: Mr Nofemela what was the situation in the township?

CHAIRPERSON: When?

ADV GOZO: During the time when Amy Biehl was killed.

MR NOFEMELA: The situation was very bad in the township.

ADV GOZO: Why do you say that?

MR NOFEMELA: Because the teachers were fighting for their own rights and the students were also fighting for their rights. Cars were stoned and some were burnt down.

ADV GOZO: And would you say that was in fact the reason why it was, the reason why you have said earlier in your evidence that it was not safe for White people to come to the township unprotected?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes, because they were not safe to go to our locations.

ADV GOZO: Nr Nofemela, in your own words, do you think you can today, you can tell the Committee what effects the incident had on the people who were coming from the launch, what effect did the incident with the police have on them?

MR NOFEMELA: What happened with the police is that they shot at us. Some of the White people who were passing by also helped the police. That made us to be very emotional, that each and every White person we met we will try and do something to that person.

ADV GOZO: Could this have been the mood that you have time and again referred to in your evidence before the Committee?

MR NOFEMELA: Could this?

ADV GOZO: Could this have been the mood that you have time and again referred to in your evidence before the Committee? May I interject Mr Chair, the interpretation is not quite accurate. Can I please repeat that. Could this have been the mood that you have time and again referred to in your evidence today before the Amnesty Committee?

ADV DE JAGER: Could you put it to him in your language.

ADV GOZO: Is this the mood that you are talking about in this evidence you are giving in front of the Committee, that has had an effect on what you did, can you tell the Committee?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

ADV GOZO: Can you please tell the Committee, you have already said you were a PASO member, did you hold any position in the leadership?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

ADV GOZO: Can you please tell the Committee?

MR NOFEMELA: I was the organiser.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you an organiser for the branch or the regional or the national?

MR NOFEMELA: Our unit at school.

JUDGE NGOEPE: By the way, in what standard were you that year?

MR NOFEMELA: I was in standard eight.

JUDGE WILSON: Do I understand that the unit was only launched on the 25th of August 1993, that that was what the launch was? Oh no sorry, you were at Joe Slovo High School weren't you? What is now called Joe Slovo High School and you attended this other launch, no, sorry, I withdraw that question.

MR NOFEMELA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you may proceed.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Can I then move on to Mongesi Christopher Manqina. Can I also then hand up the original affidavit as Exhibit C.

ADV ARENDSE: May I proceed Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Please do.

ADV ARENDSE: Reads:

and his statement Mr Chairman, is at record pages 49 and 50.

That's on the record at page 50.

End of affidavit. Thank you.

I don't have any additional questions to ask Mr Manqina.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MONGESI CHRISTOPHER MANQINA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You have heard the affidavit read out by your counsel, made by you?

MR MANQINA: Yes I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm the correctness of its contents?

MR MANQINA: Yes I do confirm.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Mr Manqina, I just want to refer firstly to paragraph 9.3 of your affidavit. You say,

Now how did you come to put that interpretation upon his order?

MR MANQINA: Will you please repeat the question, I don't understand clearly.

MR BRINK: In paragraph 9.3 you said that when PASO executive members ordered you to go out and prepare the groundwork for APLA and to make the township ungovernable you regarded that as an instruction to harm, injure and kill White people. What I want to know is how did you come to interpret that order in the way that you did?

MR MANQINA: According to my interpretation as we were given these instructions we were told that we must kill anyone we see in the road so that if we did such a thing this will be heard by the government and the government will respond to our grievances.

MR BRINK: Was there a specific instruction given to you to go out and kill White people or not?

MR MANQINA: Clearly there was a specific instruction although they did not give it to us directly, was that we must kill White people. But if you can listen to it clearly you can see that this instruction says that we must kill anyone in front of you so that this country can be ungovernable.

MR BRINK: Do I understand your evidence to be that you were then given a specific instruction to go out and kill White people who might happen to be in the township?

MR MANQINA: "One Settler, one bullet", that's what it means.

MR BRINK: No Mr Manqina you must try and answer my question because it's very important in your own interests.

When these orders were given to you to make the township ungovernable was a specific instruction given to you to kill White people who happened to be in the location or township? The answer requires a yes or no.

MR MANQINA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Who specifically instructed you to kill White people in the township?

MR MANQINA: It was Simpiwe.

MR BRINK: If an ambulance came there to fetch Black people, but the ambulance was driven and manned by Whites but coming on a mercy mission to help Black people, would you have killed the ambulance workers?

MR MANQINA: The ambulance and the journalists were not targeted because we knew that they were there to help people.

MR BRINK: And Amy Biehl, as far as you knew, might also have been there to help you people?

MR MANQINA: We did not know about that because we did not know Amy.

MR BRINK: Were you at any stage present when people, just before she died, implored you to leave her alone as she was a supporter and a comrade?

MR MANQINA: I did not hear that.

JUDGE WILSON: Looking at the thing you saw her driving a car in which there were, what, three Black people, wasn't it obvious she was giving them a lift?

MR MANQINA: Please repeat your question Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: Looking at what you saw, that there was this young White girl, driving a car at five o'clock in the afternoon with three Black passengers, wasn't it obvious she was giving them a lift somewhere?

MR MANQINA: No, because I was talking to a person at this time. I did not see when they stopped the car. I just saw when she was stoned, I then went there to help.

MR BRINK: You joined the pack, is that what you are saying? You joined a pack of murderers?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Surely when you got the order to render the township ungovernable didn't that mean merely to destroy municipal property, to stop paying rent, to destroy or damage State property, wasn't that the order?

MR MANQINA: Before answering your question I want to know about the rent you are talking about.

MR BRINK: Well was there ever a rent boycott in your township?

MR MANQINA: No I don't know about that.

MR BRINK: Very well then I withdraw that aspect and I put it to you this way again. Wasn't the instruction which you received to render the township ungovernable confined to damaging State property, Municipal property and that sort of thing?

MR MANQINA: Yes that is correct.

MR BRINK: You must be quite clear. Was that instruction confined to causing damage to Municipal property and government property?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

MR BRINK: So then it didn't include the senseless killing of White people who happened to be in the township at the time?

MR MANQINA: It is the same thing because she was White, one of the oppressors, that's how we saw her.

MR BRINK: You had no mercy in your heart that day?

MR MANQINA: No.

MR BRINK: I go to paragraph 9.2 of your affidavit. You say that you killed Amy Biehl and the reason that you killed her was to get the government to abolish matriculation fees?

MR MANQINA: Yes, that is correct.

MR BRINK: How did you possibly think that the killing of a single, unarmed, young White woman would bring about your objective relating to examination fees?

MR MANQINA: The government would react when a White person would be killed. The government did not want Black people to kill White people, so by killing Amy Biehl that would make us proud and the government would be able to respond to our grievances as Black people, because the government did not want to respond to our grievances at that time and we were going to continue with that if it did not respond.

MR BRINK: Were you going to send a message to the then government that unless you abolish matriculation fees we will continue to kill unarmed, single, defenceless women who might happen to be in the township?

MR MANQINA: Yes that is correct because our own people died, they were killed by White people.

MR BRINK: But you were told subsequently that you had made a mistake in the killing of Amy Biehl by your, was it the PAC organisation?

MR MANQINA: Please repeat your question.

MR BRINK: Were you told subsequently that you had done wrong in killing Amy Biehl, and that you were told that by the PAC or an affiliate of the PAC?

MR MANQINA: In prison these people did not visit me to tell me this. Some of them came and they told us that I made a mistake in taking part in killing Amy because she was helping us in our liberation as Africans.

MR BRINK: You see I find it very, very difficult to understand how a dispute with the authorities over school fees could justify the killing of an innocent person who happened, as one of the members of the Committee indicated to you, was clearly assisting her Black friends in the township.

MR MANQINA: How was I supposed to identify that she was helping Africans?

MR BRINK: I put to you again, how could her killing possibly resolve a dispute which PASO might have had with the authorities regarding the abolition of matriculation fees? How could it?

MR MANQINA: As I have already said before, her death would have made the government to answer our grievances.

JUDGE WILSON: Did it make the government answer your grievances?

MR MANQINA: Yes we thought that the government would answer if we killed Amy because now we are liberated and we will not kill White people again.

MR BRINK: Mr Manqina, thinking about it now would you not agree with me that it is absolute nonsense to suggest that the killing of Amy Biehl would have solved your problem relating to school fees? Do you not think it's absolutely nonsense?

MR MANQINA: (The speaker's microphone is not on)

MR BRINK: I am afraid you will have to start again or are you able to answer the question?

MR MANQINA: You can ask the question.

MR BRINK: Very well. I am suggesting to you that it is absolute nonsense to say that the killing of Amy Biehl would resolve the problems which you and your organisation might have had with the education authorities.

MR MANQINA: If you see it that way it will not solve the problem but we were going to keep on killing White people, but lastly the government would have answered our African grievances. It was not only the exam fees. We also wanted our land to come back to the African people.

MR BRINK: And the killing of Amy Biehl would bring the land back to the African people is that your evidence?

MR MANQINA: Yes ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: That is not his evidence Mr Brink. He is saying we would have continued killing more people. He is not saying the killing of Amy Biehl that afternoon on the 15th of August would have that afternoon brought back the land to the people.

MR BRINK: I misunderstood him. I do know that one of the other applicants made that point, the killing of Amy Biehl would have brought the land back, if I am not mistaken it was the first applicant.

But let me put it to him, let's get clarification Mr Chairman. Was one of your objectives in killing Amy Biehl to get your land back, land back to the African people?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

MR BRINK: So there was a two-pronged, a two-pronged reason for killing Amy Biehl, one to resolve the educational dispute, and the second to get land back to the African people and the third to make the township ungovernable?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Brink isn't he trying to convey to us that if they continued killing people the situation would have gone out of hand and the government would have realised we should do something about it, we should listen to the grievances and, because if we don't listen they will continue to do it and it would be to the detriment of the whole country, isn't that what he's trying to convey?

MR BRINK: He might be trying to convey that, but what I am concerned with and what this Committee is concerned with, with respect, is the murder of Amy Biehl, how that particular murder could have resolved these various difficulties or problems. That's my point. It's the proportionality bit - it's matter for argument possibly. But that's what I'm getting from him, whether that was his objective in taking part in this murder. But I won't take it any further at this stage Mr Chairman. I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Just so that I understand you correctly, in your mind is it clear that in doing what you did you realised that that single act by itself was not going to achieve a change in the government's attitude on the examination fees or on the question of getting your land back to the African people?

MR MANQINA: I do hear you, but according to my view AZANIA is free today, South Africa is free because of the bloodshed even though we are not ruled by the PAC, we are ruled by the ANC, the fact remains that it's a Black person who is ruling this country, the land is back to its owners.

CHAIRPERSON: My question related to this particular incident. I tried to understand you and to be fair to you that in your mind that you realised that the killing of this one person was not going to resolve your problem about your exam fees and getting the land back to the Black people, you knew that?

MR MANQINA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: What does that mean, do you agree with me or disagree with me?

MR MANQINA: I don't agree with you.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't agree with me. So in other words you believed that killing this one person was going to achieve the results that you wanted, is that what you are saying? Are you sure?

MR MANQINA: Yes, I am sure.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you know at this time there were negotiations going on about the future of the country, that the matter was being discussed by political parties?

MR MANQINA: Yes I knew.

JUDGE WILSON: And that the negotiations were being handled smoothly and agreement was being reached?

MR MANQINA: That did not mean that we won the armed struggle.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you think that at that time killing one person like this could really achieve anything as against what could be achieved by negotiation, by discussion?

MR MANQINA: Please repeat your question.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you really, at that time, knowing that negotiation and discussion were going on, did you really believe that killing one young person could achieve anything that would not be achieved by the negotiation and the discussion which was going on between the parties?

MR MANQINA: We were following instructions.

JUDGE WILSON: So you are now not saying you believed it, just we were following instructions, is that what you are now saying?

MR MANQINA: Please repeat.

JUDGE WILSON: You are now saying not that you believed something would be achieved by doing this, you are saying we were following instructions, that's your defence, is that the position?

MR MANQINA: Yes, we were following instructions.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Can I take you back to the exchange you had earlier on with the Chairman here. Was your view that the killing of just that one person would bring about all the change in the country?

MR MANQINA: That was my view, I saw it that way, when I was alone I saw it that way.

JUDGE NGOEPE: That the death of the deceased was enough to cause the country to come back to the Africans?

MR MANQINA: Yes that is so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now you must explain to me how you manage to entertain that kind of view.

MR MANQINA: Can you please explain?

JUDGE NGOEPE: How can you manage to entertain the view that the killing of one single person on one particular afternoon in Guguletu could change the whole of South Africa, cause it to revert to Black people?

MR MANQINA: As I have already said before, the death of Amy Biehl we wanted the government to answer to our grievances, but if the government did not answer we were going to continue to make this country ungovernable until the government would come to us and answer our grievances. What I believe is that the government was going to answer our grievances.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You would have continued to kill more, as you put it, White people?

MR MANQINA: If there was a need we would have done so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: In what standard were you at that time?

MR MANQINA: I was doing standard six in Guguletu.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Have you progressed any further since then with your studies?

MR MANQINA: Yes even in prison I am continuing with my studies.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What standard now are you?

MR MANQINA: I am doing standard ten.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You didn't do standard eight and nine did you?

MR MANQINA: I did standard eight, but there's no standard nine there, Adult Education.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So you have followed the unconventional route? What I mean is you didn't go through, you didn't pass standard seven and standard eight, standard nine, whatever, because you are reading privately you can enrol for whatever standard?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Manqina I want to take you back to what you've said at paragraph 9.3. I just need clarity with regard to one issue. Your statement reads as follows, or your evidence:

Now what I want to know is, when you started throwing stones at the car had you not, at that stage, realised that the driver of the car was a White person?

MR MANQINA: First of all I did not throw any stones. I went looking for a stone but it was when the driver left the car, running. I did not get a chance to throw any stones. She was then tripped, we then went to her, I arrived at her before others did.

MS KHAMPEPE: I am just reading what has been read by your counsel. So there was never a stage when you actually observed, while the car was being stoned, that the driver was a White person, that is not so?

MR MANQINA: I did see when stones were thrown to the car and I saw that the driver was a White person.

MS KHAMPEPE: And did you at that stage see that the passengers in that car were Black people?

MR MANQINA: I don't remember clearly, I don't remember seeing any other people, but when I was in court I was told that there were four other people with her, because at the time there were a lot of people around the car throwing stones at the car.

MS KHAMPEPE: So you didn't see that the passengers in the car were Black?

MR MANQINA: No I did not see, I just saw White hair.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think that counsel would help us a lot in when they lead evidence-in-chief in dealing with the aspect of the applicant's level of education. I have been doing this in respect of every applicant. I think it is very important because it would enable us to gauge the level of an applicant's political sophistication and that may impact on his understanding of an interpretation of the political situation. And we have been listening to somebody who has been testifying and right at the end of it he tells us that he was only in standard six at the time. I would have preferred to deal with that right at the beginning without prescribing to you exactly how the evidence should be tendered.

JUDGE WILSON: You have told us you saw them stoning the car, you saw the car stop, you saw the White driver get out of the car, correct?

MR MANQINA: Yes that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Now the evidence given at your trial by the passengers was that one of them got out and stood there telling them to leave the deceased alone as she was a student and a comrade, so she must have been clearly visible. You say you didn't see this?

CHAIRPERSON: Answer the question, you shake your head and it is not on record.

MR MANQINA: No I did not see this.

do you remember?

MR MANQINA: Taking a bag from who?

JUDGE WILSON: From the woman, Malesatsi, she gave evidence, remember her?

MR MANQINA: I do remember her.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you remember who she said came and tried to take the bag from her?

MR MANQINA: Yes I do.

JUDGE WILSON: Who?

MR MANQINA: She said I was the one who wanted to take the bag from her.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes. You went and tried to take the bag from one of the passengers and you say you don't know the passengers were Black.

MR MANQINA: What I am saying is that I met these people in court while they were giving evidence that they were together with her. I don't know her.

MS KHAMPEPE: The question is did you or did you not try to grab her bag?

MR MANQINA: No I did not.

JUDGE WILSON: And the other witnesses identified you as being with the group and leading the group didn't they, the anonymous witnesses? Do you remember that? They gave evidence as Miss A, Miss B and Miss C, their names were not disclosed. Two of them said they saw you, didn't they?

MR MANQINA: Yes I do remember them.

JUDGE WILSON: H'n. Right now, the last aspect I want to deal with, you gave evidence at your trial didn't you? You gave evidence on oath didn't you?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: And you were questioned at some length about the slogan "One Settler, one bullet", weren't you?

MR MANQINA: Yes that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: And you remember the passage I read to the previous witness that you said it meant, Settler meant someone who was not in agreement with you, with what the Africans want, do you remember telling the Court that and giving Chief Buthelezi as an example?

MR MANQINA: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: And you said that it was a slogan used by APLA during their training, do you remember telling the Court?

MR MANQINA: Yes, that is also correct.

JUDGE WILSON: You also said that the slogan wasn't aimed at killing, that the use of the word bullet didn't mean the slogan was aimed at killing, do you remember saying that?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Well could you explain why you said that, and you are saying the opposite today, about the slogan not being aimed at killing?

MR MANQINA: The reason why I said that was that I was trying to defend and protect myself in the court of law because I did not want to be found guilty.

ADV DE JAGER: I want to ask you something else. At that time was that the only killing of a White person in the country, a political killing, if it was political, this one?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Weren't Whites also killed on farms and at other places?

MR MANQINA: That was the duty of APLA and MK.

ADV DE JAGER: And what was the reason advanced for those killings, why did it take place?

MR MANQINA: That can be answered by MK or APLA members because I don't have a knowledge about that.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't there statements at that time giving the reasons why they were killed?

MR MANQINA: Please repeat your question Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't you hear of any statement by political parties or armies why they killed people?

MR MANQINA: No, according to what I heard they were killed because Africans wanted their land to be given back to the Africans. As I have already said before, when one person dies, when one White person dies the government reacts to that, that was the reason I heard.

ADV DE JAGER: And in fact at that time more than one White person died, isn't that so?

MR MANQINA: Where?

ADV DE JAGER: In the country, in South Africa as a whole.

MR MANQINA: Ja, it was not the first time that a White person died.

ADV DE JAGER: And well, that may sound, I know it's not the first person, the time that the White person died or other persons died, I think they die every day of the year, but what I am trying to say is was it the only murder committed for political reasons, to influence the government?

MR MANQINA: Is that a question?

ADV DE JAGER: Ja. Or do you agree with what I am saying, or do you differ?

MR MANQINA: Can you please explain your question.

ADV DE JAGER: What I am trying ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He's trying to put a statement to you, not as a question, he's putting a statement to find out whether you agree or disagree with that statement, that's what he's trying to do.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you agree that during that period other Whites were killed, and the reason for the killing of those Whites was to send a message to the government, would you agree with that or not?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink what is the position at this stage of the game?

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman it is now very nearly quarter to five. Possibly if we adjourn now we can start tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. I am a bit concerned about the St James application because I expect there will be a crowd as big as today's and we will have enormous logistical problems unless we can get an announcement out we will probably start about quarter past 11. I think you will be calling one more applicant. Do you have anymore witnesses? I have no witnesses. The last applicant will give evidence and then Mr and Mrs Biehl are here to make a presentation, a statement. I think we should possibly - St James is set down for two days, we might be safe to start St James at 11H30.

CHAIRPERSON: Whatever happens tomorrow will happen tomorrow, but for the time being the position is we can't proceed very much further.

MR BRINK: No.

CHAIRPERSON: One has to take into account the logistical people and others.

MR BRINK: Yes, yes. But what happens tomorrow is extremely important.

CHAIRPERSON: You will have to do the best you can.

JUDGE WILSON: Well I think what is being suggested is we should ask the Press, the local Press, to give as much publicity as possible to the fact that this hearing will be proceeding at nine o'clock tomorrow and that the St James hearing will not take place until later, say 11H30, do you agree?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja. What time is the St James case scheduled to start Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: It would have started in the ordinary way at 9 o'clock, 9H30.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if you can communicate with the attorneys involved in that matter.

MR BRINK: There I can.

ADV ARENDSE: That helps Mr Chairman that we are all involved in the same....

CHAIRPERSON: You will assist in seeing that things will work as smoothly as we can arrange it?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, we this morning they brought the applicants through quite early, just after 08H30 and we can ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: If we start at 9 o'clock and say we finish at 09H30 are we going to have to wait until 11H15 or whatever time before we start with the next matter?

MR BRINK: I don't think there is any prospect of this matter finishing at 09H30. This applicant still has to give evidence, that is the last applicant, Ntamo, he has to give evidence. The Biehls have a statement to make and then there will be addresses to you, similar to this morning's matter, we didn't finish till elevenish.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse I think that counsel for the applicants in that matter must make the necessary arrangements to make sure that their clients are here in sufficient time for us to make a beginning tomorrow morning, whether it will be at 10 o'clock or shortly thereafter one can't say at this stage. But I am now going to adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning in the hope that we finish as soon as we can thereafter.

ADV ARENDSE: We will do everything to assist Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee will now adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.