TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

AMNESTY HEARINGDATE: 09-07-1997

NAME: BASSIE MKHUMBUZI THOBELA MLAMBISA GCINIKHAYA MAKOMA
DAY 1_________________________________________________________________

CHAIRMAN: Mr Brink, are we ready to commence?

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, there seems to be some confusion. On your papers, the front cover, the index, there is reference to the first applicant as Makoma, the second one Mkhumbuzi who is here. Those two are here. The third one who is here is a gentleman known as Thobela Mlambisa. Mr Letlapa Mphlalele who had brought an application, is I understand not attending. He will not be attending. That is Letlapa Mphlalele, he made an application, he was notified but I gather he will not be appearing. I can't hear you sir.

CHAIRMAN: Has he communicated that?

MR BRINK: I am advised by those who represent the PAC in this matter.

CHAIRMAN: Yes. So now, is there somebody else in the application by Mr Mphlalele?

MR BRINK: Yes, and that is this gentleman Mr Thobela Mlambisa.

JUDGE WILSON: And we doesn't have an application for him?

MR BRINK: I will arrange to get it out, I don't know how this happened, how these things have gone like this. I understand however, there was application lodged and it is very much in the same terms as the application form, form 1's which you have in respect of Mkhumbuzi and Makoma and I understand further that affidavits had been prepared by those representing these three on the same form as in the Amy Biehl matter.

CHAIRMAN: May we have the name of the third applicant Mr Arendse, please.

MR BRINK: The third applicant today is Thobela Mlambisa.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, Mr Arendse.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, learned members of the Committee. Myself and my colleague, Ms Goza appear here for these applicants in this matter. Mr Chairman, it is correct that Mr Mphlalele, has not given us any instructions. We actually don't know where he is at the moment, so we are not here to represent him and he is not before the Committee. In any case it will become apparent soon, that he was not actively involved in the St James incident, it would appear from his application for amnesty relating to the St James incident, that at the time, he is the time who gave the orders, the instructions, he was the Director of Operations of APLA, so he is not here before you today unfortunately.

CHAIRMAN: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Mlambisa is in fact an accused in the trial pending against him and Bassie Mkhumbuzi in the St James matter and we were always under the impression that his application is before you, so just last week, during the course of last week, we submitted an affidavit on behalf of Mr Mlambisa stating that he did in fact apply. Since then, we have been told that his application had been found and that the matter is enroled to be heard today together with the other two. I am not sure what arrangements internally, why Mr Brink was not advised of this.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Brink you will sort that out in due course?

MR BRINK: I will most certainly do so.

CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr Bembridge?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Honourable Committee, we appear, myself and Mr O'Dowd, who is from the firm Hofmeyr Herbsteins, today I appear on his instruction to represent the victims in this matter, Mr Dawie Ackerman and Mr Lorenzo Smith. I understand that there are a number of victims of the massacre present at the hearing today, although they have not all specifically and formally opposed the matter, they are in fact present at the hearing today. We however only represent Mr Smith and Mr Ackerman at this stage.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, good, thank you. We will record that.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, may I also ask you to make a note I did receive by way of correspondence a formal objection to the applications for amnesty by Mr Dimitri Makogon. This gentleman is away from Cape Town at this time, but indicated that he strongly oppose the application. He was in the church when this incident happened and he lost two legs and one arm. He was a Russian citizen. Whether he is still ...

CHAIRMAN: What is the date of that letter?

MR BRINK: That came, and I haven't got the letter with me immediately, but it came about three weeks ago. It was fairly recent.

CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR BRINK: As far as all the next of kin and victims are concerned, notification was given to all those who had an available address. I may say that Bishop Frank Retief, the Bishop of the Church of England South Africa, and who is apparently connected to St James Church, was very helpful and cooperative and he sent me a list of all those whose whereabouts he was aware of and notices accordingly, were given to those people. In addition notice of these proceedings were published in the church magazine, so that, and I believe announced in church itself, so that all those who were involved, apart from those who have left Cape Town and left the country, are aware of the matter.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Just for the record, the applicants are sitting from left to right in the order in which we intend to, or we propose to deal with the applications. Bassie Mkhumbuzi and in the middle Thobela Mlambisa and on his left Gcinikhaya Makoma. Mr Chairman, as far as objections to the amnesty applications are concerned, my colleague and I, we only know about that through the press. We haven't been given or we don't know, we can only assume on what basis the applications are being opposed. Now, I suppose that Mr Ackerman and Mr Smith will be giving evidence before this Committee. We haven't had the benefit of seeing any statements which they have perhaps submitted or handed in to the Committee or to the TRC, so we haven't had the benefit of discussing them with the applicants.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, in the past the practise has just been that notification, rather notice of these applications are sent to interested parties and they turn up on the morning of the trial to say they are opposing the application and that is the notification we received. In terms of the Act, they are not required to furnish the grounds for opposition. In other words, the Act doesn't say that they mustn't furnish, but there is no provision in the Act requiring them to furnish their grounds for opposition. So we just have to do the best we can as we go along.

ADV ARENDSE: I agree, I just mentioned that just in case we need to ask for an adjournment or whatever to take instructions.

CHAIRMAN: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Then also just for the record, Mr Chairman, Mr Mlambisa's application number is AM7596/97.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR BRINK: When was it submitted? Do you know when it was submitted, what date it was received by the Committee?

CHAIRMAN: Mr Brink, did I understand earlier that you may be handing in documents at some stage? If your documents are ready it might be convenient if you made them available as soon as you can.

MR BRINK: Judge, I believe we are at the present in the process of preparing some extra copies. Perhaps in also in response to my learned friend's comments, we were as I previously advised, briefed in this matter on very short notice, we have only had some two days to prepare for the matter and that is the reason for no proper previous discussion between us as to the opposition of the matter and we, as I also mentioned, may also require some indulgence from the Committee in that regard. As I understand there are copies of the documents which people propose to use, being prepared at the moment. We do however, have a number of copies presently available. I am not just quite sure as to on what basis we should at this stage distribute them among the various interested persons until the required number have in fact been prepared.

CHAIRMAN: Did Mr Arendse and Ms Goza have adequate notice of what is contained in your papers? The sooner they know about it, the better it would be for us?

MR BRINK: Certainly we are in a position to provide them with copies right away and we have also a certain number of copies which we could provide to the Committee right now.

CHAIRMAN: You may do so as soon as you can.

ADV ARENDSE ADDRESSES: Mr Chairman and learned members of the Committee, then just by way of an opening statement, can we just put the following on record. Unfortunately developments before this Committee have caught up with us and we haven't managed to put this together in writing this time, so I am afraid I am just going to have to read this back to you. Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, on the 3rd of March 1995 Gcinikhaya Makoma was found guilty of eleven counts of murder of the attempted murder of at least 58 people and of the unlawful possession of arms and ammunition. This incident took place at the St James Church in Kenilworth on Sunday, the 25th of July 1993. It is notoriously known as the St James Church massacre. Makoma was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment and he is currently doing his sentence. In the judgement the court, the trial court found that "it was plainly a joint enterprise". Makoma was the only accused in the trial. That is at page 69 of the record. The applicants Mkhumbuzi and Mlambisa were part of that joint enterprise. They currently face the same charges relating to the St James incident and they are out on bail at the moment. We will be submitting Mr Chairman, that the applicants Makoma, Mlambisa and Mkhumbuzi be granted amnesty for the following reasons: Firstly, at the time they were all members of APLA. Secondly they carried out the orders of APLA Commanders, more particularly Sichumiso Nonxuba. Nonxuba is now deceased. He died in a motor car accident in November last year, while he was out on bail in connection with this matter and he was accused 1 in the subsequent matter, not the one that Makoma was in. He was the Commander of the operation and he was one of the persons who was in church, who came into the church, threw a handgrenade and fired the shots which caused the deaths of 11 people and injured many others. Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, if it is of any value, myself and Ms Goza also represent the accused in the second St James trial, if you can put it that way, and we know this as fact. Those instructions were given to us. Just in case, we are not saying this because the man is now deceased and we can take the liberty of using his name. The other person I was saying Mr Chairman, who gave an order was Letlapa Mphlalele, and that will also appear from his application form which one finds at pages 15 to 21 of the bundle. He was the Director of Operations of APLA at the time. The third reason which we advance for submitting that they should be granted amnesty, is that APLA is the armed wing of the PAC, was a political liberation movement as defined in the Act and at the time APLA was waging a struggle against the State, private property and private individuals in pursuance of their objectives. We will also submit Mr Chairman, that the acts were associated with a political objective, that of APLA, namely to free the country for the Africans so that they can get their land back. The applicants acted or orders, on instructions. The acts took place in a political context when this country was being ruled by a White minority, regarded as illegitimate by the Black majority. The St James churchgoers were regarded as part of that White minority. Now Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, we must just pause there because it is clear that a number of so-called Coloured people and I think Mr Smith, whom I happen to know personally, was also in church at the time. And we will submit that the applicants assumed that because St James was in a White group area, as it was defined then, that all the churchgoers were White. They were obviously wrong in assuming that. We will also submit that the acts were performed in the execution of an APLA High Command order, that having regard to the political context at the time, that the offences were directly proportionate to the political objectives sought to be achieved by APLA and lastly Mr Chairman, that the offences were not committed for personal gain and were not done out of personal malice, ill-will or spite against any of the deceased or the victims concerned. Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Arendse, as far as Mr Mphlalele is concerned, were you originally instructed to appear on his behalf, what is his position? Was he given notice through your Attorneys or Mr Brink perhaps could assist us there? Is he in default today or how should we treat his application?

ADV ARENDSE: Mr De Jager, Mr Chairman, Mr Mphlalele has always given us instructions. Mr Mphlalele, it is well-known for what it is worth, to the staff here at the TRC, that he actively, he in fact brought in boxes full of applications for amnesty being made on behalf of APLA members. He had been involved with us as legal counsel in this matter since last year already. We were in fact present during the course of last year, when the applications were made the first time. I think they were only confirmed though, in May this year. That appears from the application. So, we can't understand and we don't have any reason why he is not here. And we just hope that for his sake, that nothing happened to him. He has got every reason to be here. So we want to ask that as far as his application is concerned, that that be withdrawn at this stage and be re-enroled at a subsequent stage.

CHAIRMAN: Very well, we will do that.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Brink, you will make note of that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, let me just interrupt you on that. I notice that in your opening address, you made reference to Mr Mphlalele's application. I don't know what you had in mind in that regard. Are we going to be at large to use the contents of his application, for example in cross-examining the applicants?

ADV ARENDSE: I would submit yes, that regard can be had. I think these applications are made before a Commission of votes, so it is in the form of an affidavit and certainly, we want to rely on what he says in his application.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You might have to give it a more careful thought, because it could have the kind of consequences that may cause problems to the applicants, may prejudice the applicants. And I think you should as the Chairman has asked, you said you are withdrawing his application, you want it to be removed from the role as it were. You are not withdrawing his application, because if you withdraw his application, you may not make it later, you will be out of time to make another application. You are just asking us to remove it from the roll?

ADV ARENDSE: That is correct, Judge Ngoepe.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, well the only point that remains is what I have asked you, whether you are saying that we should use his affidavit to cross-examine your clients for example. Maybe you should give it some careful thought.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, it is part of the record. The contents of his application have been discussed with the applicants and we certainly note Judge Ngoepe's concerns and we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

MR BRINK: The problem I have Mr Chairman in that regard, although it would have been difficult, but I understood from Mr Arendse neither he nor Ms Goza were actually representing Mr Mphlalele. If they had not instructions from him, I don't see how they can ask for the matter to be removed from the role and maybe set down for another day, that is the problem I have. Without direct instructions, but I am not making difficulties, it is just ...

CHAIRMAN: All we can say at this stage, Mr Mphlalele's application stands down until we hear further.

ADV ARENDSE: Very well.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, may I just mention one aspect on that point. It seems to me that the application on behalf of the applicants who are presently before the Committee, is somewhat premised on what will be said by Mr Mphlalele and that they presume to state that he was the person who gave them orders, it appears to me that they intend to rely for support in their applications, on what will be said by that person. To the extent that these proceedings are also premised on a full disclosure, I have some difficulty as to how the Committee is expected or will be able rather, to make findings as to whether full disclosure has been made, whether a truthful disclosure has been made, whether there is any foundation in what is being said by the other applicants, without being able to test what the person who they rely on, would in fact say.

CHAIRMAN: We will wrestle as we get along. How we would propose to deal with the evidence that is going to be adduced before us, the Committee will decide. But we can't postpone these proceedings just because Mr Mphlalele is not here and we are going to proceed and cross-examination invariably can be directed at applicants at any kind of information that may be at your disposal, it need not be evidence in anybody else's document or affidavit. So, to what extent reliance is placed on their evidence and they acted on the orders of so and so, when so and so is not here to confirm it, these are matters which we will have to decide when the time comes.

MR BRINK: I understand.

CHAIRMAN: For the time being, we will just proceed with the evidence.

MR BRINK: I understand that.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps Mr Arendse, could I add, you should perhaps have a look at Section 19(8) whether this application of Mr Mphlalele is a public document now and whether it can be used. Was the hearing in connection with himself, I don't know whether we've started that?

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, I did say earlier that we always had instructions from Mr Mphlalele to represent him. When I say we don't have instructions, we don't have instructions today to make representations on his behalf for example. So we certainly don't have any objections to reference being made to his application and that the contents of the application being disclosed publicly.

JUDGE WILSON: Did he instruct you to appear at these hearings?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, Judge.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ... properly understood, Mr Bembridge's argument is that you want to take an affidavit of Mr Mphlalele, you want to base your case on it and yet, he is not here for him to cross-examine him in that regard? I think actually that is what he is saying. In other words, you understand what I mean, he is saying that Mr Mphlalele is not here, you ask us to stand down his application, but at the same time, you want to retain his affidavit, which is very fundamental apparently to your clients' case. You want to rely on it, but he is not going to be able to cross-examine Mr Mphlalele because he is not here.

ADV ARENDSE: The evidence will reveal that the reliance is more apparent than real. There is no reliance on Mr Mphlalele's application. And I would go along with the suggestion of the Chairman that we proceed and that we deal with that aspect if and when it becomes necessary.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Arendse, you may proceed.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, then just along the same lines and the previous application, we want to hand up affidavits. Copies have been made available to my colleagues. The original if we could mark that

Exhibit A.

CHAIRMAN: This is the affidavit of whom?

ADV ARENDSE: Sorry Mr Chairman, we intend to start in that order I said, Mkhumbuzi, Mlambisa and Makoma.

CHAIRMAN: The affidavit of Mr Mkhumbuzi will go in as

Exhibit A.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you. Mr Chairman, thank you. The affidavit of Bassie Nzikizi Mkhumbuzi. Copies have also been made available to the interpreters, Mr Chairman. "I, the undersigned, Bassie Nzikizi Mkhumbuzi, do hereby make oath and say that I am aged 21 years and I reside at 2023 Unathi, Old Crossroads. I am unmarried and I am the father of three children aged four, one and eleven months. The facts to which I depose, are true and correct and within my personal knowledge, unless the context otherwise indicates. I grew up in Cape Town and went to school in Cape Town and reached standard 8, at Vuyiseka High School in Woodstock. I am currently facing eleven charges of murder, charges of attempted murder and three of unlawful possession of arms and ammunition. I am out on bail at the moment and I am currently stationed at 3 SYI Infantry Battalion in Kimberley doing my basic military training. I will shortly be transferred to the Northern Cape Command on a permanent basis. The charges which I face, relate to the events at the St James Church in 3rd Avenue, Kenilworth in the District of Wynberg, on Sunday, the 25th of July, 1993. At the time, I was 17 years old. I have submitted an application for amnesty in terms of Section 18 of the Act in respect of the charges which I face. I have been a member of the Pan African Congress since 1989 and a member of the African People's Liberation Army since November 1992. Before that, as an organiser of the PAC Youth League, AZANYO, I had actively supported members of APLA by providing assistance when called upon to do so. I was a member of an APLA Unit of which Makoma was a trainer, that is one of the other applicants. We held regular weekly meetings where we allocated each other various tasks. We would always report back at the weekly meetings whether or not the tasks we were given at the previous meeting, was carried out. As a member of APLA I was trained by APLA Operators and Commanders in various aspects of conducting guerilla warfare. The training I received included physical training, attending political classes and receiving instructions on how to use and operate weapons, ammunition, arms and handgrenades. I was also taught how to make petrol bombs referred to as Molatov Cocktails. Approximately a week before the St James incident took place, Makoma told me that an operation was going to take place and that we were to prepare ourselves. He did not tell me when or where or what operation would take place or what the target or targets would be. He instructed me to prepare myself by getting into top physical condition and more importantly, I was instructed to get weapons and ammunition in Umtata, Transkei from comrades at the APLA High Command. I cannot recall the names of these persons, I was given their code names and I cannot remember them any longer. I went to the Transkei on the Monday before the incident and returned on the Thursday. I went alone on a bus, I went to the address I was instructed to go to and there met some APLA comrades and they gave me two R4 rifles, 365 rounds of R4 ammunition, 3 M26 handgrenades plus the sum of R200-00 rand. At this point I was not told why I had to collect the arms and ammunition, or for what purpose it would be used. I knew, however, from my training, that it would be used for some or other operation. On my return to Cape Town, on the Thursday, I took the bag containing these arms and ammunition to a house in Khayelitsha. After I left the arms and ammunition at the house, I was instructed to inform Sichomiso Nonxuba, now deceased where the house was where I stored the arms and ammunition. I did as I was told and took Nonxuba to the house, left him there and I don't know what happened to the arms and ammunition after that. I did however, see the same bag on the Sunday when the operation took place and while we were at the Langa taxi rank. I assumed that the same military hardware was in the bag. On that Thursday when I left Nonxuba at the house in Khayelitsha he told me that we would meet again on the Saturday, the 24th of July, 1993 at approximately three o'clock at the Iona shopping centre in Guguletu. When I arrived there the Saturday afternoon I saw Nonxuba and Mlambisa there for the first time. Nonxuba introduced Mlambisa to me as Aubrey and he told me that Aubrey was going to work with us. Nonxuba instructed me to prepare four petrol bombs on the Saturday and that I had to have it ready for the operation on the Sunday. At this point, all that Nonxuba told me and Aubrey, that there would be an operation the following day, the Sunday. On that Saturday I prepared the petrol bombs. On Sunday, 25 July 1993, we met at the Uluntu community centre in Guguletu. This time Makoma was also with us. We met between eleven and twelve noon. At this point Nonxuba told me that I was going to be part of the operation. He still had not told me what the nature of the operation was, what the target would be or what time it would take place. We were told to meet again at 6 pm at the Langa taxi rank. I was ordered to bring along the petrol bombs. When I got to the Langa taxi rank before 6pm Nonxuba was already there and I noticed that he had brought the bag which I had brought from the Transkei. A little later Mlambisa and Makoma arrived in a Datsun motor vehicle. When I got into the car, the Commander of the operation, Nonxuba, said that we were going to the target. He still did not reveal any details of what the target was going to be. I was told that I would be the security, Mlambisa the driver. I was sitting in front with Mlambisa. Nonxuba and Makoma were going inside. After they came out of the building I was to use the petrol bombs to throw them inside. As Mlambisa drove, Nonxuba was giving him directions as to how to drive and where to drive. It is only when we got to the place which was identified by Nonxuba as the target did I realise that it was the St James church. We had circled the church about three times. There were many cars and it appeared as if there were many people inside the church. Mlambisa drove into the parking area at the church and parked approximately 10 metres from the entrance to the church. Mlambisa reversed the car so that the back was facing the entrance. Nonxuba and Makoma got out, each one armed with a rifle and a grenade. They then entered the church. I heard a grenade and gunshots and then saw a red car stopping in front of us, apparently to block us. I got out of the car and threw a petrol bomb at the car and Mlambisa got out and shot at the car, causing the car to speed away. Then Nonxuba and Makoma came out of the church, jumped into the car and we immediately sped away. I did not do what I was supposed to do, that is to throw the petrol bombs inside the church. I do not know what happened inside the church, but I am fully aware that with the arms and ammunition carried by Makoma and Nonxuba, that people would be killed or injured. When we were in the car and making our getaway, Makoma said that someone had shot at him inside the church and that he was bleeding, but neither Makoma, nor Nonxuba said what happened inside the church. Nonxuba did, however, ask why I did not throw the petrol bomb and then I explained to him why I did not do so. We then drove to a place under the direction of Nonxuba. I later learned that this place is called Ottery. Mlambisa and I left Nonxuba and Makoma there at a house in Ottery with the weapons. Mlambisa and I took the car to a scrap yard in Ottery, left it there and returned to this house on foot. We slept at the house that night. That same night, we watched the news on CNN and I saw for the first time what happened inside the church. On the Monday morning Nonxuba and I took a bus to Wynberg and from there a taxi to Guguletu. Nonxuba got out in Guguletu and I went home to Old Crossroads with a taxi. I stayed at home for a while and I left to go to New Crossroads to my cousin's place. There I laid low for a short while, but then after a week or two, when I heard that Makoma had been arrested, I left for the Transkei by bus. I stayed in Umtata in a safe house. I was arrested in February 1996 in connection with the St James case, but I was already in custody after being arrested on 1 November 1995 in connection with an armed robbery which allegedly took place in Crossroads. This case against me has now been withdrawn. I deeply regret the loss of life which occurred as a result of the operation of which I was a part on Sunday the 25th of July 1993. At the time I was 17 years old and I followed the orders that I was given without questioning it. I was very impressionable then and regarded the older APLA operators such as Nonxuba as heroes. I wish to ask the family, relatives and friends of the deceased and other victims who were injured, for forgiveness. I respectfully submit that my application complies with the requirements of the Act, that the offences which I committed and associated myself with, were offences associated with the political objective, committed in the course of the conflicts of the past and that it accords with the provisions of Section 22 and 23 of the Act and that I have made full disclosure of all the relevant facts relating to the St James incident, which is within my personal knowledge. Accordingly, I respectfully request that I be granted amnesty in respect of those offences relating to the St James incident". And it is signed by Bassie Nzikizi Mkhumbuzi and it was signed on the 7th of July 1997.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Mkhumbuzi, will you stand up please?

CHAIRMAN: Swear him in, Sisi.

BASSIE NZIKIZI MKHUMBUZI: (sworn states)

MS KHAMPEPE: You have been properly sworn in, you may sit down.

CHAIRMAN: You have heard your counsel read your affidavit, did you understand it? Do you confirm the contents of that affidavit?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I do confirm.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions Mr Arendse, you wish to put to the witness?

ADV ARENDSE: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Bembridge, do you wish to question this witness?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I do Judge. Mr Brink has suggested however, that I first get some guidance from the Committee on one aspect. We have in our possession certain statements which were made by Mr Makoma, confessions which were made to the police which were ruled inadmissible at the hearing, the criminal hearing in this matter. It would seem to me that in light of the fact that the applicants now intend to confess to their participation in these events, that the contents of these statements are no longer inadmissible on the basis that they were inadmissible at the trial, that they would appear to some extent, in any event, to be correct. Mr Brink, has however suggested that I put to the Committee or ask for the Committee's guidance as to what their admissibility would be particularly with a view to cross-examination in these proceedings.

CHAIRMAN: It seems Mr Bembridge you will have to clear the groundwork with Mr Makoma first to establish whether this was his statement, whether it was made freely and voluntarily, whether any pressure or any violence was exerted on him at the time and matters of that kind.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That certainly may be the case, however, the difficulty now is that certain of the contents of that statement, may be relevant with respect to this applicant.

ADV DE JAGER: On what grounds was it decided that it was not admissible?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It was decided, no it is not correct to say it was decided that he was assaulted, the court specifically found that the accused as he was in those proceedings, had not been assaulted, it was found however, that due to the length of the interrogations and perhaps the time of day and factors like that, although it cannot

per se be said that he had been induced into making statements against his will, that the manner in which the interrogations were held, was not the best manner and there may have been some emotional stress on him at the time, which may have perhaps induced him to say things which he otherwise may not have said. But it was not found that the interrogations

per se were improper or ...

ADV DE JAGER: But wouldn't that be also the case here then, why should this differ if it was inadmissible on the grounds of long interrogations or legally inadmissible, why ...

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, I would submit that it could be relevant to the extent that it now appears that the applicants will admit largely that what they said in those statements, is correct, which was categorically denied in the criminal proceedings. Now it appears that they admit that what the nature of the confession was largely speaking, completely correct.

CHAIRMAN: Well, in that case, you will have to deal with it like my brother is suggesting to you, in fact I initially misunderstood, I thought that it was his own statement, now you say it was Mr Makoma's statement.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That is right.

CHAIRMAN: You can do no more than if you have that statement, which was made by Mr Makoma where he refers to this particular witness, the best for you, you can do no more than ask this gentleman and say to him, in a statement which Mr Makoma disowned, he said you did this and this, is it true? If he says it is true, then you have no problem, but if he says it is not true, then you can't take it any further. But you will have to deal with it, not with pertinent questions, you will have to single out statement by statement, you may not say to him so and so made a statement, is that statement not true, that is what I am referring to when I say not a pertinent questions. You will have to deal with the statement sentence by sentence to be on a proper footing.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The evidential value of all that is something which we will have to decide at, at the appropriate stage.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BEMBRIDGE: I appreciate the Committee's guidance on that. Mr Mkhumbuzi, can you tell me when did you first become a member of APLA itself?

MR MKHUMBUZI: In November 1992, but I am not sure about the date.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And how were you recruited to that organisation?

MR MKHUMBUZI: As a member of the PAC, I knew that there was a military wing of the PAC, which is APLA. I was interested in joining or being a member of APLA. In the activities I have done, I was an organiser and I met these people, I then joined APLA.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was in fact the procedure for joining APLA, was there any formal procedure or any formal steps that you had to take?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, there was no procedure in joining APLA except that if you wanted to be a member, and if you believed to what we believed in, if you wanted to be a member of APLA, you became a member of APLA, so there was no procedure to follow in order to join APLA. If you wanted to join, you would join.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: But what did you join, did you have to tell someone I am now joining APLA or how did this transition from being an ordinary member of the PAC to becoming a member of APLA take place?

MR MKHUMBUZI: What I did, I used to attend PAC meetings. I was AZANYO organiser and I always heard about APLA soldiers but I couldn't contact and meet them. They would come to PAC members and I found out about that after a long time, that they would attend PAC meetings and listen to the meeting and to the procedures. And they would pick up right persons, that is how they recruited people to join APLA. You would not just come and say you want to be a member of APLA.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did your training with APLA begin?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I can say that I was a member of the Task Force. I was working for the Task Force. From there there were known contacts who were known to the leaders of the Task Force. From there you would be a member of APLA.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was the purpose of this Task Force?

MR MKHUMBUZI: The purpose of the Task Force was to protect and to defend PAC members. Those who were working on the ground.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I just want to refer you to the plea of Mr Makoma which he made when, in the criminal trial in which he was prosecuted. It is at page 5 of the bundle for the purposes of the Committee. I don't know whether the applicant in fact requires a copy for him, otherwise I can just read to him the section to which I am going to refer.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is it a lengthy passage you want him to consider?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is a passage of about four lines.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, just put it to him.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Okay. In his statement to the court, Mr Makoma said that in and during 1993, PAC members were attacked by members of rival political organisations. He said this led to the formation of the Task Group under the leadership of Siphiwe Makweso and this group was specifically informed to protect PAC leaders and members, do you confirm that that is correct what he says?

CHAIRMAN: I can't find that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is at page 5 of the bundle, Judge.

CHAIRMAN: Your bundle?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Which we handed up to the court, I beg your pardon.

ADV DE JAGER: Typed page 5. The 5, typed?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is amongst the bundle of documents which we've handed up in the file.

ADV DE JAGER: Ours are not numbered, as far as I can see.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: There should be numbering on the top, right hand side of the page.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Bembridge, is it not on page 4 of the plea examination, if some documents have not been paginated?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is typed page 4, and marked page 5 on the top right hand corner. It is page 4 of the plea explanation, but page 5 of the total bundle which we've handed up.

CHAIRMAN: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Where on that page is this, Mr Bembridge?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is at the paragraph marked 20.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Line 20?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It begins slightly earlier than line 20, but...

MS KHAMPEPE: Line 16.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, at the middle of the page?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, just give him another chance, read that to him.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mr Makoma stated in his plea to the court that in and during 1993, PAC members were attacked by members of rival political organisations. This led to the formation of a Task Group under the leadership of Siphiwe Makweso. This group was specifically formed to protect PAC leaders and members. Do you confirm that that is correct?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: So then is it correct to say also that the Task Group of which you were a member, was designed to protect the PAC from its opponents?

MR MKHUMBUZI: The Task Force was to protect the PAC members.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It was not designed to go out and attack other people, it was designed as a defensive unit, is that correct?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, it was not to attack, but I can say that in defending or protecting members in the Task Force, there were different structures. Although some of the people were not aware of those structures, my information is that the Task Force was there to protect or defend members of the PAC.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And it was there to protect the members against as it states, attacks by members of rival political organisations? Is that correct?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I said that what I knew about the Task Force is that it protected PAC members.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you consider the congregation at the St James church as a rival political organisation which posed some threat to your members and leaders?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Please explain your question how?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I want to know did you see the congregation of the St James church as a rival political organisation which threatened your members or leaders and which it was therefore necessary for you to defend them against?

INTERPRETER: If I may interject Mr Chairman, there isn't proper interpretation of the word "threat", I think the misunderstanding between the person who is asking the question and the applicant is as a result of a failure to interpret appropriately the word "threat".

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Perhaps I can rephrase my question Committee. Did you see the congregation of the St James church as a rival political organisation which may attack your members and leaders?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Will you please repeat the question, it is not clear to me?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you see or did you consider the members of the congregation at the St James church as people who would, who were a rival political organisation to the PAC and who may attack the members or leaders of the PAC?

MR MKHUMBUZI: My answer to that - people from Azania, when the land was taken from them by the Whites, they were using churches in all means. They were using the churches.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How were they using the churches to attack the PAC?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I did not say they were using churches to attack PAC, I talked about when they took the land from the people. The land which we wanted - so they were using churches in all means.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you or do you not say that the church was being used to attack the PAC?

MR MKHUMBUZI: The question is not clear when you ask about the church.

CHAIRMAN: Sorry, did you hear him say that, I did not hear him say that. I never heard him say that the church was used to attack the PAC.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: My question is whether he says it or whether he does not say it.

CHAIRMAN: Well, he hasn't. On what basis do you ask that question if he hasn't said that. Is it a wrong interpretation or what?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am asking him whether it is his opinion that the church was used to attack the PAC, he doesn't seem to understand my question, I am trying to put it in a slightly more basic form, to say to him, is it his opinion that the church attacked the PAC or is it not his opinion.

MR MKHUMBUZI: Will you please repeat that question for me?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Is it or is it not your opinion that the church was used to attack the PAC?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Again I am saying that I did not say that churches were used to attack PAC.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Then on what basis do you justify the Task Force from attacking the church?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I don't remember mentioning a Task Force attacking a church.

MS KHAMPEPE: May I interpose Mr Bembridge? I think what Mr Mkhumbuzi has said is that he was a member of the Task Force which was formed to protect and defend members of the PAC. The evidence that has been admitted through the affidavit indicates that the church was attacked by him whilst he was a member of APLA, shouldn't you by tying the two before you can put that question to him? Was a Task Force a unit of APLA?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, I attempted to clarify that with him earlier when I asked him the manner in which he joined APLA, he explained he joined APLA by joining the Task Force as I understood him.

JUDGE NGOEPE: That is how it started, but the actual attack may have taken place at a time when he was not merely a member of the Task Force, but as a member of APLA and according to his evidence as I understand it, it was APLA that attacked the church.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Then I think I am obliged to ask him again how he became a member of APLA.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I don't think that is really necessary, you are taking up a lot of time, because the fact of the matter is that PAC - who is a member of PAC knows that APLA is a military wing of the PAC, he was recruited into APLA, I don't think we should take too much time over that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well he says he was recruited into APLA, it appears at this stage only that he was recruited into the Task Force.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Quite right.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: He did not have any of the functions which would justify the attack on the church.

JUDGE NGOEPE: At the time when the attack took place, he may have been not only in the Task Force, but as a member of APLA, clear that up. Perhaps I should clear it up. You joined APLA as a member of the Task Force.

MR MKHUMBUZI: I joined APLA while I was a member of the Task Force.

JUDGE NGOEPE: While you were a member of the Task Force, is that how it is? Yes?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I am sorry, come again?

JUDGE NGOEPE: While you were a member of the Task Force, you joined APLA?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I joined APLA.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So then the attack was not carried out by the Task Force, it was carried out by APLA?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did you make this transition from being a mere Task Force member to being a member of APLA?

MR MKHUMBUZI: As I've already said before, in our meetings, PAC meetings, AZANYO meetings and Task Force meetings, there would be APLA members, although we were not aware of that. It would happen that they will pick right people, those who they saw a right people. They will approach you in a certain way, but you would not be aware of that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were the other people who went with you on attack, all members of APLA?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, everybody who was there.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How do you know that?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I know because we would be in APLA meetings together.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Who was the person who gave you your orders regarding training?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I was trained by a man who came here by the name of Vusi, that is the name I know.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And what role did Mr Makoma play as a trainer?

MR MKHUMBUZI: We were training together, we were doing physical training together. Roadworks and all that training.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: So Mr Makoma was not your trainer, he merely trained with you?

MR MKHUMBUZI: We were training together.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: So if I refer to paragraph 8 of your affidavit, then there is a mistake there in that it says Mr Makoma was a trainer of APLA, then that is not correct?

MR MKHUMBUZI: How did you ask the question before?

ADV DE JAGER: Couldn't a trainer be training together with you, running with you, training with you, although he is in charge of the operation, the training operation?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That is possible, I think however, it is an important distinction and we must ascertain which one it was.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I don't understand whether you are challenging his membership of APLA, or whether you are challenging Makoma's membership of APLA, because if you are not ...

JUDGE WILSON: No, Makoma was an trainer, now he says he wasn't. What you are challenging isn't it, is that in his affidavit he said I was a member of the APLA unit of which Makoma was a trainer, he has now said Makoma trained with me, I was trained by somebody else.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That is correct, that is what I am trying to clarify in any event.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Bembridge, shouldn't you probably try and ascertain from the witness what kind of training was given by this man called Vusi?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That may be a relevant factor, but I think firstly it is important to establish what Mr Makoma's function was, was he a trainer in the sense of having some authority over this applicant or was he merely a co-trainee.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Put it to him that in his affidavit it is said that Makoma was a trainer, ask him whether that is correct or incorrect.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Was Mr Makoma your trainer, did he have authority over you, or was he merely someone who trained with you?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I would like to ask a question. Which training are you asking about, because we were training together with Makoma doing physical training.

JUDGE WILSON: Did Makoma train you in any sphere?

MR MKHUMBUZI: It is not clear to me, to train me how because he was a trainer in physical training.

JUDGE WILSON: What do you mean by that, did he show you how to do things?

MR MKHUMBUZI: We were training together, because in physical training we would come with different exercises.

JUDGE WILSON: Who would show you the exercises? Who would tell you what to do?

MR MKHUMBUZI: In physical training, each person would come with his or her exercise because nobody would know each and every physical exercises available, one would come with a different physical exercise and we would do it all together.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You see, I want to read to you a sentence from your affidavit which says I was a member of an APLA unit of which Makoma was a trainer, is that correct?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, that is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Right, you may carry on from there.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you. Am I correct in saying that the person you knew as Vusi, was your superior, he was the one who was the most superior person responsible for your training?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Which training?

CHAIRMAN: Any training that you can think of. Why are we engaging in this kind of hair splitting exercise, any kind of training.

MR MKHUMBUZI: I can say that Vusi was training us, he was the one training us, was the one giving us military training.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Let's move a little faster than that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And in that training you trained with Mr Makoma as well?

MR MKHUMBUZI: In military training?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Yes.

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Is Vusi the same person known as Nonxuba?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You don't know? Did Vusi go on the attack with you to St James?

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Bembridge, I think the explanation was it is not Vusi.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Oh, yes.

MS KHAMPEPE: Not, that he doesn't know. I hope you got the right translation.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I got the translation he doesn't know.

MS KHAMPEPE: It is incorrect, what he said was "no, Vusi wasn't."

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And Vusi, he did go on the attack with you though?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, he was not.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: He was not on the attack.

MR MKHUMBUZI: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: When you were instructed about this operation you were to go to, which you say you were later told to go to the Transkei and collect weapons for, who told you about that operation?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I was told by Vusi.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And you say he told you nothing about the operation?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, he did not.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you discuss this with Makoma at any time?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I didn't.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You were training together, but you didn't discuss anything about this proposed operation between each other?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I don't remember.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: So you may have discussed between each other, you just don't remember?

MR MKHUMBUZI: We did not discuss anything apart from discussing within that week that there was going to be a certain mission, before that week, we did not discuss anything about St James.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: In that week, did you discuss St James?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, we did not discuss anything about St James.

JUDGE WILSON: I think you said during that week, we did discuss about a certain mission. Is that so, there was going to be a mission?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And what did you discuss? Did you discuss what the type of mission was going to be?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, we did not discuss that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What did you then discuss about the mission?

MR MKHUMBUZI: We did not discuss anything about the mission, but we were told that there was going to be a mission.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: As I understood you, you said in the week preceding the mission, you did discuss it.

CHAIRMAN: I think the word "discuss", might have conveyed a wrong meaning, you know. They were told that there was going to be a mission. I think that is what he is trying to convey.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you talk to Makoma about the mission at all?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why not?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I did not know anything about the mission, so there was nothing to say.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, did Makoma talk to you about the mission?

MR MKHUMBUZI: He said that there was going to be a mission.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And did you ask him anything about it?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, there was nothing I can ask.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What do you mean there is nothing you could ask, you could ask what the mission would be, surely you could ask where the mission would be? You could ask him all those questions? Were you not interested?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, the fact of the matter is that he didn't ask. Isn't that enough?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I think not, with respect Judge, he says he didn't ask, but that is highly unlikely in the circumstances and I think he is not being truthful on that issue.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is there any evidence that you have, that contradicts that?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, with respect, we can't present evidence on that behalf, we are appearing for the victims in this matter, it is however unlikely and I think this is a point on which it can be suggested that this person is not making a full disclosure of what he knew.

CHAIRMAN: Well, you can argue that, although one view may be that it is likely that he would not have been, I mean for security reasons, those details they might not be disclosed to these guys beforehand, especially in operation of this nature.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Details may not have been disclosed, but I think it is highly unlikely that he would not at all have discussed this mission that he says he was aware of.

MS KHAMPEPE: Maybe Mr Bembridge, that was part of his training, they were not trained to ask details about the operation, until when they were told.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can I put this to you Mr Mkhumbuzi, Mr Makoma in the statements which I earlier discussed with the Committee, which he disputes, which he says were made to the police under interrogation, he said that he was told by Vusi a long time, at least a week before the mission took place, that the mission was to be at a church in Kenilworth. Did he never tell you anything of that nature?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, he did not.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did he tell you whether he knew or did not know anything about the mission?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Who ware you talking about?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mr Makoma.

MR MKHUMBUZI: Please repeat your question.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did Mr Makoma say to you that he did not know any of the details of the mission, did he say to you that he did know any of the details of the mission?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I did not ask him when he told me about the mission, so he could not tell me anything, what kind of a mission was it because I did not ask him.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why did you not ask, were you not interested?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I could not ask him.

CHAIRMAN: Why? The question is why?

MR MKHUMBUZI: What I knew was that if you got an order, you had to follow that order, you don't have to ask question concerning that order. You just have to listen to the person who is giving you an order.

JUDGE WILSON: You haven't suggested for one minute that Mr Makoma was giving you an order. I can understand you not questioning an order, but all you've told us is that Mr Makoma who is a friend of yours, who was training with you, told you that there was going to be a mission. Surely you would want to know from him, what sort of mission, what do we have to do?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I did not want to know more, because I knew that we were trained for such operations. I did not want to know any more details when he told me.

MS KHAMPEPE: What was Mr Makoma's function in your unit?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I knew Mr Makoma, he would come at home and visit me, but I am not aware of his function, but I knew that he was a member like APLA, just like myself.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You did however do your training together, so you knew him?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I knew him.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you have ranks in APLA?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I did not have a rank.

ADV DE JAGER: You didn't have a rank, did Mr Makoma have a rank?

MR MKHUMBUZI: He did not tell me of having a rank, I don't think he had a rank in APLA.

ADV DE JAGER: Was he on the same level, a soldier on the same level or was he on a higher level?

MR MKHUMBUZI: We were in the same level according to my knowledge. He was not giving orders to me, we were just advising each other.

MS KHAMPEPE: When Mr Mkhumbuzi, in your affidavit, that at paragraph 10, I think that is what Mr Bembridge is struggling with, when you say you were instructed by Mr Makoma to prepare yourself by getting yourself into physical position, what do you mean by that? If you were on par with Mr Makoma and he wasn't in a position to be able to give you instructions or orders in your unit?

MR MKHUMBUZI: When I mentioned this in my statement, I meant that we could get a message maybe from Makoma, we could get a message through Makoma from the Commander or they can get a message through me from the Commander, maybe it happened this way that day.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, do carry on.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you. Well, the question is how did it happen? Not maybe how it happened, you said in your statement specifically that it was Mr Makoma who came and told you to make preparations for the operation, however now in your testimony you say that you didn't discuss the matter at all with Mr Makoma, now which one of the two is it?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Your question is not clear to me.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: In paragraph 10 of your statement, you say that it was about a week before the attack that Mr Makoma came to you and told you that the operation was going to take place and to make preparations, you say he told you to prepare yourself by getting into top physical condition and that you were to go and get weapons from Umtata.

JUDGE WILSON: He doesn't say that. He instructed me to prepare into top physical state, that is him, but he then goes on to say and more importantly ...

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I beg your pardon, that is correct. I am sorry, I misread that. You do say however in your statement that Mr Makoma told you to prepare yourself for the operation and to get yourself into top physical condition. But in your evidence now, you say you didn't discuss the matter or talked to Mr Makoma about the operation at all.

CHAIRMAN: That is not necessarily inconsistent you know. They did not talk about what they were going to do, he was just told that he must prepare himself for whatever they were going to do. Isn't that what it really means?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, I asked him when he said that they didn't discuss the objectives, what they did then speak about regarding the operation. He said that they didn't really speak at all.

CHAIRMAN: Quite right. He just told him you better get ready.

MS KHAMPEPE: I have him saying Mr Bembridge that the details of the actual operation were not discussed, but Mr Makoma gave him instructions to do certain things, which included getting himself into a proper physical condition for the mission. But the details of the mission

per se were not discussed by Makoma.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That is his suggestion certainly. I submit however, that that is not consistent with what he had been saying in his testimony.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Who is the person who actually gave you the order to go to Umtata and collect the weapons?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I said it was Vusi.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It was Vusi, and what exactly did he say to you?

MR MKHUMBUZI: He told me to go to Umtata, to a certain house in Umtata, he gave me the address. There I would meet a person and that person would know why I was there.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Again, you didn't ask him any reason for this?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I did not.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You arrived back in Cape Town after collecting the ammunition and you took them to a house you say. Thereafter you had certain meetings, one at the Uluntu community centre with a person called Nonxuba, who is that?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Nonxuba was the person who was present in the church.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And what did he instruct you?

MR MKHUMBUZI: When?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: When you saw him at Uluntu community centre?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I said that he told me to prepare petrol bombs, known as Molatov, we were then going to meet in the morning on Sunday.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: He didn't give any reason as to why?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, he did not give me any reason.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And again you were not interested to ask?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I could not ask.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: When you got into the car to proceed to the actual operation itself, you still didn't ask him where you were going?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I did not ask. But what I knew was that we were going to an operation. That is what I was thinking.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why didn't you ask him what the operation was and where you were going?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I could not ask.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why could you not ask?

MR MKHUMBUZI: What I knew was that I had to follow orders as they came. I could not ask anything more. I was just following orders.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Who told you that, that you were not allowed to ask any questions?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I was told by Vusi, the one who was training me.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did he tell Makoma that too?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I don't know whether he told Makoma.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: If he told you as part of your training, then I presume that Mr Makoma would have been told at the same time?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is that a question?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Perhaps I can rephrase it. If Vusi told you that as part of your training, was Mr Makoma told at the same time or was he not told at the same time?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I would like to explain something.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Please go ahead.

MR MKHUMBUZI: Mr Makoma was staying at his home, I was staying at home. We would meet in meetings, but what I am sure about is that Vusi told me that Makoma was together with us in the same training. If he told me not to ask, it is clear that he also told Makoma.

JUDGE WILSON: Did he tell you privately or did he tell you when he had the people there that he was training?

MR MKHUMBUZI: My training was private.

CHAIRMAN: Was that part of your training that you mustn't ask questions?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, it was part of my training.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you know now, whether anyone had been to the St James church before the attack to plan the operation? Do you know that now?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I don't know.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was your training as to attacks, was it not part of your training that attacks should be carefully planned?

CHAIRMAN: You mean planned by him?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am saying was it part of his training that attacks in general should be carefully planned by whoever was to be in control of that operation?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Please repeat your question.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Do you know whether attacks are properly planned beforehand?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I do know that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You don't know whether this specific attack was properly planned though?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I don't.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: In all likelihood according to what you have been told in your training, it had been planned?

CHAIRMAN: ... along with the question that the comment you are making, you know, the likelihood of him being told and so on, I mean that really hardly is a question.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I won't take it any further. Had you heard of the St James church before the attack took place?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Where did you live at the time?

MR MKHUMBUZI: At home.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Where is that or where was that?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Unathi, in Old Crossroads, number 2023.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were you aware of the St James' activities in Khayelitsha?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You were not aware that St James has a daughter church in Khayelitsha?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You were not aware that the congregation from St James, Kenilworth, on Sundays go to church in that church in Khayelitsha?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I did not know.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can I take it you knew nothing about the St James church before the attack?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was then your objective in forming part of that attack?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Please explain your question.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was your intention in forming part of that attack? What did you expect the attack to achieve?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I took part in the attack so that our land can come back to us and so that there can be democracy in this country.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did you intend the attack to achieve that?

MR MKHUMBUZI: According to me, this attack would bring down the spirit of the oppressors in order for us to think back what they have done to see that it was not a good thing to take the land from its people.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How would it bring down the oppressors?

MR MKHUMBUZI: When there is violence in White areas, they would try and go to the government to lay there grievances so that the government can listen to our own grievances in order for us to live together in peace.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And that was your intention or your reason for taking part in the attack?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I can say so.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: But Mr Mkhumbuzi, when you decided to take part in that attack, you just said you didn't know the attack was going to be in a White area.

CHAIRMAN: No, you asked him questions, what did he hope to achieve and he gave you a general answer as to how he understood the position. You can't take it very much further than that, can you?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: With respect, he said his motivation for taking part in the attack was to perform an attack on a White area, yet he said he didn't know that prior to him actually deciding to go on the attack.

CHAIRMAN: Quite right. They attacked a White church and you asked him what were you hoping to achieve? He offers you an explanation as to what he thought, if there was violence in a White area, the government would pay attention to their grievances.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: With respect, what I asked him was what was his motivation for going on the operation.

CHAIRMAN: Well, maybe that is putting it differently, but I think the answer is the same, isn't it?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: With respect, I would submit not. I submit his motivation for going on the operation is formed prior to going on the operation. He said that his motivation was to attack a White area.

CHAIRMAN: His motivation was that he wasn't told, he was merely told he was to be part of an operation, that is all.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Specifically that is the point I am trying to make. I am saying he is not being truthful in saying that.

CHAIRMAN: Well, suggest to him that you knew all along that there was going to be an attack on the church and despite that, you went, put that to him.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Certainly, Judge, if I put that to him, however, if I put that to him as bluntly as that, he is likely to deny it straight up.

JUDGE NGOEPE: My problem is that you take that question out of context. Out of the context of PAC APLA operations, and you singled it out as a small little trip that has to be considered on its own. You ignore the whole context which he has given us that I was a member of this, I was a member of this military wing operating this way and that way and then you singled it out and you take it out of that general context and then you put it in isolation there.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I don't seem to put it in isolation, however, it is clear if what he says is true, he couldn't have been aware that that would be the effect of the attack, it may for all he knew, have been an attack on an ANC position which would not have had the effect which he says is would have had.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What was the general objective of APLA, the military wing?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That I can't speak for on behalf of APLA, but certainly it would seem that their activities ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, hasn't the applicant told us what it was all about?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It also seems to be that he was also involved in organisations which carried out defensive duties.

MS KHAMPEPE: But with due respect, Mr Bembridge, that is the point that you actually covered, I think you went back to that point repeatedly. The Task Force he referred to was indeed a defensive unit, but the APLA unit that he has given evidence to, was definitely something completely different to the Task Force, but he initially referred to he was recruited from the Task Force whose duty then was to defend the community. He was recruited from that Force into the APLA unit which had a completely different function from the Task Force, that is the evidence which is before us.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Perhaps I should ask him then what was the purpose of APLA at the time?

MR MKHUMBUZI: The purpose of the APLA at the time was to fight until the land was brought back to its owners.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Who was that fight against?

MR MKHUMBUZI: The land was taken by the White people, those who oppressed us at the time. It is clear that we were fighting against them.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did the PAC or APLA have any other enemies at the time?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No. I don't think so.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did the PAC ever, or APLA ever launch attacks on other political parties?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I did not hear even in the news about that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were you aware of the nature of the weapons that were going to be used in this attack?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I knew about the weapons that they would injure people, but I did not know that it would be people in church. But I knew that the weapons were there to injure people.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you know that handgrenades with nails glued to them, would be used in the attack?

MR MKHUMBUZI: The handgrenades together with other weapons, I was told to take a suitcase and I was told what was inside the suitcase, but I did not open the suitcase to see whether there were handgrenades, but these were written down that in this suitcase, there are such and such weapons. I had to give them back to the person who sent me.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You didn't look inside and see for yourself?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I did not.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You say now you think it was wrong to attack the church if I understood you correctly?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Now?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I thought you have said a moment ago that you think it was wrong to have attacked the church? You don't think that?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I don't remember saying that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Okay, what is your attitude now then to having attacked the church?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I sympathise with the people who died in the church and I would like to ask for forgiveness to them. But we could not stop what was happening at that time, we could not stop it at that time. But now there is peace.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why could you not stop it at the time?

MR MKHUMBUZI: As I've already said at that time we were fighting for our country and for democracy. It was very difficult at the time to stop such incidents because this country, we were oppressed in this country, South Africa, we could not at all.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you think the attack achieved anything?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I think so because today we are in this country South Africa, we are living together. We are not fighting with each other, we are here today to this Truth Commission to give or to explain what we have done before.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were you aware that there were negotiations going on about the new constitution at that time?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I would listen to the news and I would hear about the negotiations.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Was that not a better way of achieving peace and democracy?

MR MKHUMBUZI: The PAC did not see it that way at that time. But it was an easy way because it did not tell APLA to stop fighting with the Whites at the time.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you have any knowledge of why APLA denied responsibility for the attack at the time?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I don't have that knowledge.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you think it was in accordance with the PAC policy at the time to carry out that attack?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I think so.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can you explain then why the PAC said it was not?

MR MKHUMBUZI: It was not what?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That it was not in accordance with their policy?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Would you like me to explain why the PAC ..

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am asking you if you know why the PAC said that that attack was not in accordance with their policy and why they condemned the attack?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I am sorry, I don't know why they condemned that, maybe they can explain why they deny it. I for one, I cannot explain.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Are you aware that the PAC was participating in the negotiations about the new constitution?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Which one are you talking about, which negotiations are you talking about?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: The negotiations that were taking place about the very same that that attack was carried out, over the new constitution?

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't it almost like the Prestasie advertisement - "strengthen our negotiating arm?"

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That may be, I am asking if he is aware that there was negotiations going on. Negotiations in Kempton Park?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I would listen to the news and see this in the news, but I did not get a report about what PAC said in the negotiations.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What did you do after the attack?

MR MKHUMBUZI: After the attack, I went to stay with my cousin and then from there, I went to the Transkei.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you report back to anyone, any of your superiors as to what had happened?

MR MKHUMBUZI: What do you mean, where in the Transkei?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Anywhere, in Cape Town or in the Transkei, did you report to anyone what had happened at the attack, anyone at APLA?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I told no one.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: So therefore you spoke to no one about the attack before it took place, you spoke to no one about the attack after it took place?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: But you went as far as preparing petrol bombs, carrying weapons, all this for an attack which you knew nothing about?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I want to put it to you Mr Mkhumbuzi, that you are not telling the truth, that you were aware, well before this attack took place what the target was, that you were aware that it was a church.

JUDGE WILSON: You are putting this to him, so I take it you have information to that effect?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am going to suggest that ...

JUDGE WILSON: Suggesting, you are putting it to him that he knew, that is a definite statement isn't it?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, I will put that to him, that is the basis on which I am putting it to him. Is that correct, you deny that?

MR MKHUMBUZI: What are you talking about?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am saying to you that I believe you knew before the time what the target of the attack was, and that it was a church?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I know nothing about that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What is your attitude to the fact that it was not only White people in the church?

MR MKHUMBUZI: The only thing that I can say is that I sympathise with those who were non-White in the church, I apologise to them, even to the Whites, but they could also understand how was the situation during that time and how quick things could happen, so we couldn't differentiate that these were White and these were Coloureds.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why was it necessary to attack a church?

MR MKHUMBUZI: As I've said that I did not know that we were going to attack a church. I didn't know that the target was the church. But I felt as I've said before, the Whites were also using churches to oppress the Blacks. They took our country using churches and Bibles as we are reading the history. We as the oppressed ones.

ADV DE JAGER: Do I understand you correct, even if you've known that it was a church, you would have attacked the people in the church?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: If it was a church for Black people and there were only Black people, would you have attacked the church then?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, we couldn't have done that.

ADV DE JAGER: So you attacked the church and you would have attacked it even if you knew it was a church and there were White people in the church?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Can you please come again with the question.

ADV DE JAGER: You would have attacked in any event, if you had known it is a church and if you knew beforehand that there was White people in that church?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, we would have continued with the attack.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, now could you give us the reason why you would have continued with the attack, knowing it is a church and knowing there are White people, what was the motivation for your attack?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Will you please rephrase your question, I don't understand clearly.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did you want to attack the White people?

MR MKHUMBUZI: By doing so, attacking the Whites, we knew and we read from the books that they are the ones who took the land from the Africans. That was the main reason for us to attack the Whites.

CHAIRMAN: Any further questions?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: May I just ask, do you ever go to church yourself, have you ever been to church yourself?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I do go to church.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: So you know that people go there to pray and to pray for peace amongst other things?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I know that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Don't you think that you could have found a better place to attack?

MR MKHUMBUZI: As I've said before, I did not know that we were going to the church. Even anywhere the attack would have taken place, not just because it was a church, I mean anywhere the attack was going to take place.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BEMBRIDGECHAIRMAN: Mr Brink?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, following on the last aspect of my colleague's questioning to you, are your mother and father still alive?

MR MKHUMBUZI: My mother is still alive.

MR BRINK: And is she a churchgoer to your knowledge?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.

MR BRINK: And while you were still at school, I take it you and your family would go to church on Sundays?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.

MR BRINK: To what denomination do you belong?

MR MKHUMBUZI: The African Gospel Church.

MR BRINK: So you must be perfectly aware that a church is a place of sanctuary?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, the ones I attended I knew that they were sanctuary but there were churches that were used to do the wrong things as I've said before. I've said most of the White churches were used to oppress the Blacks. So the one I attended I knew that people were praying for peace that was not around. Even under the circumstances that they were living, they were praying for peace. So some other churches I knew that they were just being used by our enemies to oppress the Black people.

MR BRINK: You have told us that you used to read the newspapers and listen to the radio and presumably watch television, is that correct?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.

MR BRINK: And you must have been aware of the fact that many, many leaders of the so-called White churches were fighting apartheid?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Like whom maybe?

MR BRINK: Well, like Beyers Naude of the Dutch Reformed Church. Like Archbishop Tutu of the Anglican Church.

MR MKHUMBUZI: I can tell something about Bishop Desmond Tutu, about others I know nothing.

MR BRINK: Did you know that he was one of the church leaders who were opposed to apartheid, the answer is yes or the answer is no?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No.

MR BRINK: You weren't aware of that fact? Are you telling the truth, are you telling the truth here Mr Mkhumbuzi?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, it is true, I know nothing about that.

MR BRINK: You know nothing about Bishop Tutu's activities?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I do know about Bishop Desmond Tutu.

MR BRINK: Did you know, having regard for the fact that you were a reader and a listener to the radio and a watcher of television, were you or were you not aware, this is the last time that I will ask this question about Bishop Tutu, that he was opposed to apartheid?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I do know that.

MR BRINK: Yes. Have you heard of Dr Beyers Naude?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No.

MR BRINK: You haven't read very much then have you, in the last few years?

CHAIRMAN: He is still young.

MR BRINK: Anyway, you told us that the church is a place of sanctuary, you agree with that?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, those I used to attend.

MR BRINK: All churches are places of sanctuary, aren't they and synagogues and mosques? Are they not?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Now I do agree with that, because I can see the role of churches after what happened in this church and I can see that other Priests, when I am watching TV, they do not like violence.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, I think when it was put to the applicant that many White leaders were opposing apartheid, in all fairness to him, it should have likewise been indicated to him that many White church leaders in fact justified apartheid and sought even to justify it on religious grounds.

MR BRINK: Yes, that is perfectly true, in fairness to him. I thought that would be dealt with in re-examination. But I take your point, Judge. Yes, you've heard what Judge Ngoepe has said, it is perfectly true that there were some churches in this country who did support apartheid, that is so. But you were also aware of the fact, weren't you that churches provided missionary work to help underprivileged people such as yourself?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Are you asking whether I had a knowledge of that?

MR BRINK: Yes.

MR MKHUMBUZI: Please repeat your question, I did not understand very well.

MR BRINK: Were you aware of the fact that many, many churches did missionary work to assist underprivileged people, such as yourself?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I did not know about that and I did not read about that.

MR BRINK: Never heard it talked about?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No.

MR BRINK: You only discovered as I understand your evidence, that the target that evening was to be the church at a time when you were approaching it?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I did not find that when we were approaching the church, but I only see when we got there, when I saw a board written outside. That was when I noticed that it was a church.

MR BRINK: Did you then know that the church was your target?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.

MR BRINK: To your knowledge that church could have been half full of Black people, half full of White people?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, we did not know.

MR BRINK: Exactly, you did not know. So you could have been causing injury and death to Black people, had there been Black people in that church that evening?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Is that a question sir?

MR BRINK: Yes.

MR MKHUMBUZI: Please explain your question again sir.

MR BRINK: When you realised that you were going to attack the church, more specifically the people in the church, there could have been many, many Black people at that service as far as you were aware?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I did not think about that.

MR BRINK: You did not think about that.

MR MKHUMBUZI: No.

MR BRINK: Do I understand then that the attack upon the church was a revenge attack because when the land you say was taken away from your people, they were using the churches, the Whites were using the churches, was this then a revenge attack?

MR MKHUMBUZI: It was not a revenge, but we just wanted our land to be brought back to us. Not that we were revenging because churches were used to oppress our people, but we just wanted the land to be brought back to us.

MR BRINK: Wasn't this just an act of mindless barbarity?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No.

MR BRINK: Notwithstanding eleven people were killed and a considerable number of people were seriously injured, defenceless people at prayer?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Is that a question sir?

MR BRINK: Do you want me to put the question again?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.

MR BRINK: Was this not an act of mindless barbarity, perpetrated on people who were in a house of worship, a house of God at prayer on a Sunday evening, when many people were killed and many, many more seriously injured?

MR MKHUMBUZI: At that time, we were fighting. According to my understanding every target would be attacked.

MR BRINK: So you were fighting and you decided to fight unarmed, defenceless, peaceful people who were at prayer in the house of God?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Can you please repeat your question because I don't clearly understand.

MR BRINK: No, I don't want to put it again Mr Chairperson. I will read to you a copy of a letter I received from one of the victims in fairness, because the Committee has it and I indicate that this gentleman who is not present, apposes the application. I want to read his letter to you and you may comment on it if you wish. I, Dimitri Makogon, will be out of Cape Town on July the 9th and 10th, 1997 and do wish to make known my opinion regarding the amnesty application by those responsible for the St James massacre in which I lost both legs and my right arm. The aim of the TRC is to establish the truth, the truth is that on July the 25th, 1993, the three applicants killed 11 and injured more than 50 civilians, gathered in a church, unarmed and defenceless. Would you like to comment on that?

MR MKHUMBUZI: The only thing I would like to say is I don't know when you say he is not in Cape Town, Dimitri ...?

MR BRINK: Dimitri Makogon, I don't know whether the pronunciation is correct. He was in church that evening.

MR MKHUMBUZI: I really don't know but I would like to meet him and apologise to him. Maybe he would understand because what we did was not right, we do regret that, but I wish we could meet with him, maybe he would like to listen when we try to apologise. But I don't know when you say he is not in Cape Town to show that we are sincerely apologising.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK: Thank you.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mr Chairman, I have been asked by one of the victims behind me, I have just had a note passed to ask one further question of this applicant if I may be given leave to do that.

CHAIRMAN: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is actually two questions Mr Chairman. You said that when you went to church, or you say that you didn't go to church and you identified the Uluntu community centre as the place where you went to church, is that correct?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, not at Uluntu community centre, it is African Gospel Church, NY79 in Guguletu.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I beg your pardon, I misunderstood the question. You said you went to a meeting at the Uluntu community centre?

MR MKHUMBUZI: When?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You said in your statement you went to a meeting there?

MR MKHUMBUZI: When, in which meeting?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You said on the Sunday the 25th ...

JUDGE WILSON: He didn't say they went to a meeting, he said they met at the Uluntu community centre.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You met Mr Nonxuba at the Uluntu community centre of the 25th of July 1993, is that correct?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Was that the blue centre in Khayelitsha, in Site C, next to the railway line?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, the one I am talking about it is in Guguletu, at NY108.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Okay, thank you very much. The second question ....

CHAIRMAN: It is not the second one, but I am allowing you. Do carry on.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You say that APLA assumed that St James was in a White group area? Do you yourself know whether that is in fact correct?

MR MKHUMBUZI: I am not sure whether it is true or not.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Are you aware that on the time of your attack, Kenilworth was no longer a White group area and that there were people of other races living in Kenilworth?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I didn't know that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But was it a traditionally so-called White area?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I must be honest, as I stated at the outset, it was a question passed to me by one of the victims, I cannot state categorically, but I assume that it was a traditionally White area.

CHAIRMAN: Any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, just shortly. Firstly, I think I made the point in my opening statement, I don't think the applicant mentioned that in his affidavit or in his evidence, about St James being in a White area? Bassie, did you identify St James as a target? The church?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I don't know. I never heard anyone identifying St James as a target, what I knew is that we were going to an operation.

ADV ARENDSE: In your opinion, would APLA identify a target which had mostly Black people in it, would you expect them to identify a target like that?

MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I don't think so. Such a thing could not have happened. Let me explain. I don't think so because what I have learnt, before anything could happen, we would like to investigate first, so I don't think we will go to places where there is mostly Black people.

ADV ARENDSE: Do did you assume that these investigations were done and that the target was as you would have expected it to be, namely White people?

CHAIRMAN: He is just going to give you an opinion.

ADV ARENDSE: I am asking for his opinion.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, you are asking whether he assumed, he assumed that? I don't think it is worth very much.

ADV ARENDSE: As you please Mr Chairman, I would withdraw it.

CHAIRMAN: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Bassie, were you trained to use R4 rifles and M26 handgrenades, on how to use it?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I was trained to use R4 rifles and the handgrenades.

ADV ARENDSE: I am just asking you this, because that is the arms and ammunition used during the attack. Now my question is, you were told on your evidence, on a very late stage that you are going to be part of the attack in the form of "security". Now my question is, were you instead of for example Makoma, asked to go inside the church armed with a rifle and a handgrenade? If you had been ordered to do so, would you have done so?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, we were working under instructions. I was trained to use the R4 rifle and the handgrenade. If I was instructed to do so, I wouldn't oppose, I would just follow the instructions.

ADV ARENDSE: As an APLA operative at the time, why were you not told, informed what the targets would be and who would the target be and so on?

MR MKHUMBUZI: The only thing I can say is I was still a new APLA member, I was still in the premature stages under the training. Maybe I am just thinking, if they have told me, they would think I would go and tell the police like to become an informer, sort of, so that I can put my comrades in trouble, because things as such do happen. That is what I am thinking of.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSEJUDGE NGOEPE: You are aware, aren't you that there was in some churches, there was apartheid?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And in fact in some churches, they didn't even want Black people to come in to worship in there, isn't that so?

MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, it is so.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you very much. Mr Brink, is there any suggestion on your part as to whether we should carry on now?

MR BRINK: I don't know how long the, possibly if the next applicant could be led, it would probably take a quarter of an hour to read his statement, to get that out of the way, but I am in your hands.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Arendse, get done with his statement. Ms Goza, can we proceed with the statement of the next witness?

MS GOZA: Yes, Mr Chairman. For the purposes of the record, I shall now proceed to read the second applicant's statement. "I, the undersigned Thobela Mlambisa, do hereby make oath and say that ..."

MS KHAMPEPE: We don't have copies Ms Goza of your affidavit.

MS GOZA: We apologise Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, we are quickly trying to make a copy available as soon as possible. We do apologise.

CHAIRMAN: You don't have copies there yet?

ADV ARENDSE: Sorry Mr Chairman, it is my fault.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, you may proceed.

MS GOZA: We do apologise, the events of the day are catching up with us.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand. It is having its effect elsewhere as well. This will be handed in as

Exhibit B.

MS GOZA: "I, the undersigned Thobela Mlambisa, do hereby make oath and say that I have already in connection with this application, I wish to make a further affidavit regarding my participation in the St James church incident". Mr Chairman, if at this stage I may indicate that the first portion of that sentence relates to an affidavit that the second applicant made relating to explaining that he had in fact forwarded his application in (indistinct), which at the present moment cannot be found. That is what that first portion of that sentence refers to.

JUDGE WILSON: That is still not an application, you say it can't be found. Is there no application then in respect of this applicant?

MS GOZA: I beg your pardon My Lord, my colleague is correcting me that it has been found. I do apologise, I was not aware.

JUDGE WILSON: I trust that it is going to be made available to us some time.

MS GOZA: "Paragraph 2 - The facts to which I depose are true and correct and within my personal knowledge, unless the context states otherwise. Paragraph 3 - I have been a member of the Pan African Congress, commonly known as the PAC since 1989 and I have been a member of the African People's Liberation Army, commonly known as APLA, since 1990 whilst I was still at school. I was recruited into APLA by Sichomiso Nonxuba, now deceased. Paragraph 4 - I grew up in the Kentani area and went to school there up to standard 10, where I attended the Maqibe High School. I matriculated in 1990. Paragraph 5 - I had been appointed as a unit Commissioner in the Transkei where I was operating from. Paragraph 6 - On the Tuesday before the incident took place, I got an order from the late Mandla, also known as Mazala or Powa, the APLA Chief of Logistics in the Eastern Cape Region to come to Cape Town. I had never before been to Cape Town. He gave me an address where to go to. I knew that I was coming to Cape Town on an APLA mission. At the time, I did not know it was going to be the St James church. I left Umtata on a Chilwan's bus, on the Wednesday and arrived in Cape Town on Thursday. I went to an address in Macassar and found Sichomiso Nonxuba and Makoma there. Nonxuba told me that my code name was Aubrey and introduced me to Makoma as Aubrey. I knew Nonxuba, but I was meeting Makoma for the first time. Nonxuba told me that I had been requested to come to Cape Town so that I could act as the driver during the operation. At that stage he gave no details. Nonxuba and Makoma left me at this house in Macassar and returned later that night. They still did not tell me what the operation was about. Paragraph 7 - On the Saturday before the Sunday when the incident took place, I met Nonxuba and Mkhumbuzi at the Iona shopping centre in Guguletu at approximately three o'clock. There I was introduced to Bassie. Nonxuba again told me that I would be driving during the operation the following day, but gave me no details. My task was to hijack a car. I then went back to the house in Macassar. The next day Makoma fetched me with a taxi and we went to the Uluntu community centre in Guguletu where we met Nonxuba and Bassie. Nonxuba spoke as the Commander and said that we would be involved in an operation that day but he never mentioned what the target was going to be and when it was going to take place. However, he told me and Makoma that we were to get a car. We had to meet him at the Langa taxi rank at 6 pm, that evening. Makoma and I then went to Guguletu where we saw a Datsun motor vehicle, idling in the road. The driver came out of the house and I approached him and asked him whether we could borrow the car and that we would return it. We told him that we were members of the PAC and APLA. He refused and I shot at him with my 9 mm pistol. I don't know whether I shot him because I only wanted to frighten him. He then surrendered the car and I drove it. Paragraph 8 - I then drove to the Langa taxi rank where we met Nonxuba and Mkhumbuzi. They got into the car. Nonxuba then directed me as I drove. When we got to the target and after we had circled the building a few times, I noticed that it was a church. Paragraph 9 - I pulled the car to the front of the church, with the back facing the entrance. While the car was idling, Makoma and Nonxuba got out and Bassie and I stayed inside the car. While we were waiting, a red car stopped, blocking our exit. Bassie then threw a molatov cocktail at the car and I shot one round at the car, causing the car to speed away. More-or-less at this time, Makoma and Nonxuba came out of the church. I had heard a grenade exploding and I heard firing inside the church. I knew that people were going to get killed or injured during the operation. Paragraph 10 - I drove off under instructions from Nonxuba who was the Commander of the operation. I dropped Nonxuba and Makoma at a house in Ottery and Bassie and I then went to a nearby scrapyard, to leave the car there. The scrapyard was about two kilometres away. We returned to the house on foot and stayed there until the next morning. Later that Sunday night, we saw on the CNN news what happened inside the church. The next morning I left the house with Makoma and went to Crossroads in a taxi. From Crossroads, I took the taxi to Macassar. This is the last time that I saw those guys. I went back to Old Crossroads from Macassar during the week, and stayed there for about a week until I heard that Makoma had been arrested. I then left Cape Town for the Transkei with a taxi. Paragraph 12 - I was arrested on the 25th of January 1996 in Tempe, Bloemfontein, while I was being integrated into the South African National Defence Force. At the time I was at the First Special Service Battalion. I am currently stationed at 97 Ammunition Depot in De Aar. Paragraph 13 - I deeply regret causing the loss of life on the 25th of July 1993 and further causing so many people to be injured and maimed. I wish to ask the relatives and friends of the deceased and those who were victims of the attack, to forgive me. At the time I was acting under instructions from APLA High Command and I was trained not to question these instructions. Paragraph 14 - I respectfully submit that my application complies with the requirements of the Act, that the offences in respect of which I am applying for amnesty are offences associated with a political objective, committed in the course of the conflicts of the past and which are in accordance with the provisions of Section 20, subsection 2 and subsection 3 of the Act and that I have made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts. Accordingly I respectfully request that the Committee grant me amnesty". Mr Chairman, those are the contents of the second applicant's sworn statement.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Mlambisa, will you just stand please. Sisi, swear him in.

THOBELA MLAMBISA: (sworn states)

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you, you have been properly sworn in.

CHAIRMAN: Have you understood your affidavit which has been read out by your counsel?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, I did.

CHAIRMAN: And do you agree that that is the truth? And do you confirm its contents?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, I do.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Before we adjourn, I don't know what is contained in the other affidavit or in the application, because it is not before us, but in this affidavit as far as I could gather, it is not clear what the political objective was. I don't know whether it is, perhaps you could point out where it is mentioned.

MS GOZA: If we could be granted a short time to ... Advocate De Jager, the paragraph 3 of the second applicant's affidavit states that the applicant was a member of APLA and the affidavit on paragraph 6 goes on to state out the instructions that were given to the applicant from APLA High Command. And on paragraph 13, it is specifically stated there, and if I may read from paragraph 13, "At the time I was acting under instructions for APLA High Command and I was trained not to question these instructions". We would respectfully submit that those paragraphs read together state the objectives as is required in Section 20 of the Act.

ADV DE JAGER: I think it states that he received instructions from APLA and that he carried out instructions from APLA, but nowhere is it stated that the objective for the act associated with a political objective, that the objective might have been to gain political power or whatever it might be, but you could have a look at it tonight and see whether you are satisfied.

CHAIRMAN: And you can adduce evidence to that effect?

MS GOZA: We are indebted to the Chairperson and Mr De Jager, we will look into the option of actually then leading oral evidence in relation to that particular aspect.

CHAIRMAN: Very well, we will now adjourn and resume at nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMISSION ADJOURNSON RESUMPTION CHAIRMAN: Mr Brink, are we ready to proceed?

MR BRINK: I just want to - yes Mr Chairman, but before the matter proceeds, I understand the Committee now has copies of the application of Mr Thobela Mlambisa.

CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR BRINK: The mystery of Mr Letlapa Mphlalele appears to have been cleared up. There was a news item in this morning's Cape Times on page 3 on the bottom left hand corner, and I will read it. "Former APLA Operations Director Letlapa Mphlalele was a guest of the PAC and could not be released to appear at the TRC's amnesty hearing in Cape Town yesterday in protest against the TRC's lack of objectivity, the PAC Transkei branch said last night. Mphlalele failed to appear as scheduled yesterday with Bassie Mkhumbuzi, Thobela Mlambisa and Gcinikhaya Makoma to apply for amnesty in connection with the St James church massacre in 1993. The Transkei branch said discussions should be held first with the PAC national leaders about the uneven-handedness in which political parties, previously involved in the political conflict, are being treated by the TRC functionaries." That was a South African Press Association release.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you. In the light of that statement, it is after all only a press statement, it is not an official communication.

MR BRINK: No.

CHAIRMAN: Directed at the TRC or directed to the Amnesty Committee.

MR BRINK: No, but I thought I would bring it to your attention Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Yes. I would imagine that in due course there would be some official communication from the PAC at their leadership level directed, sent to us about their attitude.

MR BRINK: Yes.

CHAIRMAN: We will then know whether Mr Mphlalele is going to pursue his application or not. Is there any light you can throw on that?

MR BRINK: No, not at all.

CHAIRMAN: Ms Goza?

MS GOZA: Not at all.

CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr Arendse, no? Thank you very much.

JUDGE WILSON: Should we re-number this

B1 and number the new affidavit

B2?

CHAIRMAN: Yes. We will renumber the two affidavits. The affidavit of Mr Mlambisa, the first one should be

B1 and the one that has just been handed in, should be

B2.

MS GOZA: Mr Chairperson and members of the Committee, before the proceedings proceed in the line of questions, could I be permitted to re-examine the second applicant, Mr Mlambisa in relation to the aspect that was raised by Adv De Jager concerning the political objective? It was raised yesterday Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, you may do so.

MS GOZA: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN: Just remind him he is under oath.

MS KHAMPEPE: May I just interject, Ms Goza, to remind Mr Mlambisa that he is still under oath.

THOBELA MLAMBISA: (still under oath)

EXAMINATION BY MS GOZA: Mr Mlambisa, you are a member of APLA, are you?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, that is correct.

MS GOZA: What are the objectives of APLA? Mr Mlambisa, I am speaking to you in English, there is an interpretation for you. If you feel more comfortable, please feel free to talk in your vernacular. Can we start again.

MR MLAMBISA: APLA was the armed wing of PAC. It was formed to overthrow the White government because the European Whites took our land from our people.

MS GOZA: Do you associate yourself with the objectives of APLA?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, I do.

MS GOZA: If you associate yourself with the objectives of APLA, how do you understand your involvement in the St James incident?

MR MLAMBISA: APLA had its own Commanders. I am involved in the St James massacre because I took orders from my Commander. I felt happy in that operation, the St James operation.

MS GOZA: Can you please explain what you mean when you say that you were happy?

MR MLAMBISA: To explain that we were working under orders of our Commanders. It was an operation that will liberate Africans, so that we can be in democracy.

MS GOZA: Now that you know that so many people were killed in that incident, how do you feel?

MR MLAMBISA: Now I feel very bad and I would like the people who were in the church, today to forgive us because at the time we were fighting.

MS GOZA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS GOZACROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mlambisa, when did you start training with APLA?

MR MLAMBISA: In 1990.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And what form did your training take?

MR MLAMBISA: Military training.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And what did you learn in that military training?

MR MLAMBISA: How?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How to do what?

MR MLAMBISA: There are many things done in the Army.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were you trained in the use of weapons?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were you trained in how to plan attacks?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, we were trained for that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were you trained that it was important to plan attacks and that all attacks should be well planned?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I see in the attack on the St James church, you were instructed to be the driver of the vehicle that would be used? Was there any specific reason why you were chosen as the driver?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, there was a reason.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was that reason?

MR MLAMBISA: The unit on this attack had no driver, they decided to take me to be their driver.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Had you had special training in driving?

MR MLAMBISA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did you know that the unit in Cape Town had no driver?

MR MLAMBISA: I got this information when I met the Commander of the operation, the late Mr Commissioner.

CHAIRMAN: I think part of the question really is why did they specifically have to go all the way, wasn't he in Umtata?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: In Umtata.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, why did they have to go all the way to Umtata from Cape Town specifically to come and take you as a driver?

MR MLAMBISA: I wouldn't know that, because I was just following orders from my Commanders. The reason for that, I am not aware of it.

JUDGE WILSON: Could you give us the name of the person again, I am afraid I didn't get it, from the late, who was it?

MR MLAMBISA: Which one, because there are two people who are deceased?

JUDGE WILSON: Well you said you got information that there was no driver from the late somebody.

MR MLAMBISA: Please repeat your question sir.

JUDGE WILSON: Did anybody make a note of it, can somebody else tell me what the name was?

MS KHAMPEPE: Sichomiso Nonxuba.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I take it that it was also part of your training that when an attack was to be planned, one should go and have a look at the place where the attack would take place and plan the attack properly as to how it would happen there?

MR MLAMBISA: It is not so.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why is that not so? Is that not part of proper planning?

MR MLAMBISA: I was not a Commander of APLA at the time.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I think you are misunderstanding my question, I am not saying did you go and plan the attack, what I am saying were you not trained during your training that if one is to command an attack, it is important to go and have a look first at the place where the attack will take place, so that you can plan how it will happen there?

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Bembridge, can I also understand your question. Are you saying if one has to command an attack or participate in an attack?

CHAIRMAN: If one has to plan.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: My question perhaps should be rephrased, that is an important part of planning an attack that the site of the attack would be visited to ascertain how the attack will take place there? In the ordinary course that that would be a normal part of the training?

CHAIRMAN: Yes, carry on.

MR MLAMBISA: I don't clearly understand the question.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Okay, what I am asking you is was it part of your training, did they teach you in training that when an attack is planned, it is an important part of that planning to go and look at the place where the attack will happen to plan how the attack will take place there?

MR MLAMBISA: I was not trained in that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You said you were told that it was important to plan attacks. How then was this planning going to take place, how did they tell you that you were to plan attacks?

JUDGE WILSON: Were you taught at all how to plan attacks or were you merely taught how to carry out orders?

MR MLAMBISA: The Commanders would come to the units on the ground and they would give us the sketch and they would give us instructions to follow. That is how we were trained.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, what sketch are you talking about, would that be the sketch of the intended object of an attack?

MR MLAMBISA: No, it was not about the sketch of the attack, it was the way of an operation. Even after the liberation, we were taught how to protect our country from another country, if the country is to attack South Africa again.

JUDGE NGOEPE: It may be that you were not specifically trained or told in training that some planning must take place, but you are a trained soldier of APLA, wouldn't you expect some surveillance to take place first and some planning? Not necessarily by yourself, by somebody else given your military knowledge and training?

MR MLAMBISA: Things like what?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Wouldn't you expect that prior to an attack and as part of training, there will be some surveillance etc, planning, visiting the place and so on?

CHAIRMAN: To identify that target, to see where it is situated, how best to approach it, matters of that kind?

MR MLAMBISA: As far as I know, it was happening in the ranks of APLA, but I for one, I have never done that.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, you can't take that any further.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now, are you aware whether any such planning took place regarding this particular attack on the St James church?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, I think so.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you know who did that planning?

MR MLAMBISA: No, I don't know. I think it was my Commander.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That was Mr Nonxuba?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did he give you any instructions as to how to carry out this attack?

MR MLAMBISA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did he then expect you to know what you were supposed to do?

MR MLAMBISA: I won't know.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: So are you saying that you would go to the attack with the Commander, but you wouldn't know what to do when you got there?

MR MLAMBISA: We knew that on our way to St James, on that Sunday.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What did he tell you on the way to St James?

MR MLAMBISA: He just directed me as a driver, he was just giving me directions how to drive and where to go up until we reached the St James church.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: He didn't tell you what you were going to do when you got there? Do you know?

MR MLAMBISA: Do you mean us?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Yes.

MR MLAMBISA: He told me on Sunday when we met at Uluntu community centre that I will be helping them by driving the car during their operation.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What did he tell you was the nature of the operation?

MR MLAMBISA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: He didn't tell you where you would be driving the car to?

MR MLAMBISA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: He didn't tell you where you would be going afterwards?

MR MLAMBISA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: He also didn't tell you what the target of the attack was?

MR MLAMBISA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Nobody else told you, none of your other comrades who were participating in the attack told you what the target of the attack was?

MR MLAMBISA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And you were the driver of the vehicle who would take the people to the attack and take them away from the attack, that is correct is it not?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you have any plans as to what you would do if anything went wrong?

MR MLAMBISA: No, we had no plans.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: So, if I am understanding you correctly then, you were the person responsible for making sure that the team got to the attack and away from the attack safely, but you had no idea of where you were going or how to get away from there thereafter?

MR MLAMBISA: Can you please repeat what you have just said?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am saying is it correct to say ...

CHAIRMAN: Your question is really a repetition of what you have been asking, you know. All he knew is that he was going to drive this group to that place and drive them back.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mr Mlambisa, what would have happened if something had gone wrong? You didn't know what the target was, what if it had been a military target and Nonxuba had been shot, how would you have escaped?

MR MLAMBISA: If I can tell you correctly, I think the people who are sitting next to me, would have directed me.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: But they also say they had no idea where the target was or what it was going to be.

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, it is like that, they didn't know where we were going to attack, but they are residing in Cape Town, they know Kenilworth and they know Wynberg. They know Cape Town as a whole.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: But you were chosen as the driver?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, I was chosen.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you say in your evidence yesterday, that this was the first time you've been to Cape Town?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, sir.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I think that is in fact contained in the statement in hand. When you went to steal the car that you were going to use in the attack, once you had stolen it, what if any preparations did you make to actually use it in the attack?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Such as?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: For example, did you put petrol in the car?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, we did put petrol in the car.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Am I correct in saying that you put about R40-00 worth of petrol in the car?

MR MLAMBISA: Are you telling me that?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am asking you if that is about right or not?

MR MLAMBISA: No, I can't remember, I think it was R50-00. I think it was R50-00.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did you know that would be enough?

MR MLAMBISA: I don't know whether there was no petrol in the car, but we thought it was not enough and we were just preparing for an emergency, so we had to put petrol in the car.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: If you were preparing for an emergency, why didn't you ask your Commander what the possible escape route was or what plans he had in case something went wrong?

MR MLAMBISA: I cannot know, only my Commander can know that because he was the one who gave us the petrol money, he was the one who knew how was the operation going to take place, otherwise I know nothing further than that.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bembridge, isn't the crux of the matter the admitting they had done this, they admit this brutal shooting, that he drove the car, that he in fact robbed the car, that he shot somebody in robbing the car. Isn't the crux of the matter the question of proportionality?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: With respect, Mr De Jager, I think there are two issues to this. The one is the issue of proportionality, the other one is the issue of full disclosure and we dispute that a full disclosure is being made here. I do not accept that these applicants are being honest in purporting to dissociate themselves with any responsibility for the choice of target or denying that they had any knowledge of the type of target that they were going to attack. I submit that is not in the spirit of the disclosure that is contemplated in the Act.

CHAIRMAN: Well, full disclosure certainly of relevant facts, but whether R40-00 or R50-00 worth of petrol was put in the car, who put the petrol and matters of that kind, surely I don't think that we should go into detail of that kind, I don't think they impinge on the point that you are trying to make.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: As you please Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I understand you to, in effect, it may be a question of how one does it, but I understand you to say that, listening to your previous five questions or so, I understand you to want to show that these applicants took part actually even in the planning of this operation and possibly they are just putting everything onto the late Nonxuba or something like that and that they must have taken part in the actual planning and sat down and discussed what we must do, which route to take if we are caught, something like that. I think that is what you are trying to do and you are saying that by trying to say that they did not take part in the planning and the like, they are withholding information?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That is my suggestion. I will submit it is essential in the nature of an operation such as this, that everyone would have had to have some input in as to how the attack was to take place. Specifically the driver, who would be responsible for the safety of the team to a large extent.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And maybe agree or even disagree on certain aspects of the planning, something like that.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you dispute that this was his first visit to Cape Town, you haven't asked a thing about that? If it was his first visit to Cape Town, is it at all likely that he would know what route to take, what to do, wouldn't he have to rely on the people who lived in Cape Town to tell him that?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am unfortunately not in a position to dispute that was his first trip to Cape Town, but to the extent that he alleges that that is a significant factor in that it mitigates against the suggestion that there is any likelihood that this attack being carried out without him having been fully appraised as to how it would be done, where the attack was to take place, what the target was and how it was intended he would escape.

JUDGE WILSON: Are you suggesting they drove him around Cape Town, showing him the roads in Cape Town? Which routes he could take, because I find that very hard to believe?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am suggesting ...

JUDGE WILSON: He was a common soldier, he was not an officer of APLA, he was brought in for one purpose and that was to drive the vehicle, so he says. There were three other people in the vehicle with him, all from Cape Town, surely they are the ones who would have known the route where to go?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I won't take that any further.

CHAIRMAN: While you are looking at something else, can we take this further. You asked him what preparations they did in regard to the vehicle and then he mentioned only the petrol, but I am interested in other aspects as well. What further preparations did you make with regard to the vehicle, for example did you remove the original registration numbers of the vehicle, put false ones on or did you drive the vehicle without the registration number?

MR MLAMBISA: We drove, we used the car as it was, we only just put in the petrol.

ADV DE JAGER: At what time did you steal this car?

MR MLAMBISA: It was in the afternoon, round about six o'clock, I am not exactly sure about the time. It was past six or before six o'clock.

ADV DE JAGER: Because you had to meet your colleagues at six o'clock. So you had to get the car before six o'clock if possible?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes. That is why I am saying I am not sure about the time. But what I am sure of, after six o'clock we were already in Langa from where we had taken the car.

ADV DE JAGER: And before taking the car, you were armed already?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, we were already armed.

ADV DE JAGER: And in fact you shot at the owner of the car?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you hit him?

MR MLAMBISA: I am not sure whether I did hit him or not.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you intend to hit him?

MR MLAMBISA: No, no.

ADV DE JAGER: But if it was only a shot fired, I am sure you would have been able to tell us no, I didn't intend to hit him and I didn't hit him because I didn't shoot at him, I only wanted to frighten him.

MR MLAMBISA: I just wanted to frighten him so that he can give us the car keys and we take the car.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You say that the first time that you realised you were attacking the church, was when you had already circled the church a number of times. What did you think when you realised that it was a church that you were going to attack?

MR MLAMBISA: There was nothing I could do, I was just following orders from my Commander. I had to obey orders.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why do you have to obey orders, why is there a reason why you cannot say I do not want to participate in this attack?

MR MLAMBISA: I would have been putting myself into trouble, we were not trained that way.

CHAIRMAN: And in fact you wanted to obey orders, that is the position, isn't it? You wanted to be part of the process?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, sir.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: When was the first time you met Mr Nonxuba?

MR MLAMBISA: I met him in Transkei.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And how did you meet him at that time, how did that meeting come about?

MR MLAMBISA: He was my trainer and my Commander. It is him who recruited me to join the APLA.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: When did he come to stay in Cape Town, do you know?

MR MLAMBISA: He stayed here a very long time, I think he grew up here in Cape Town.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were you aware of the type of weapons that were going to be used in the attack?

MR MLAMBISA: No, I had no idea.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You say though that you were armed before the attack took place?

MR MLAMBISA: Not for the attack, but I had a pistol for myself.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Where did you get it from?

MR MLAMBISA: I got it from Khaya Makoma.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Okay, do you know where he got it from?

MR MLAMBISA: I am sorry, I don't know.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Where were you when he gave it to you?

MR MLAMBISA: I was in Macassar. I was in a house in Macassar.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you know whose house that is?

MR MLAMBISA: No, I don't know, but when I came there they were the only people who were there and I was the one who was staying there.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you ever meet the person called Vusi?

MR MLAMBISA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Have you ever heard of him?

MR MLAMBISA: No.

CHAIRMAN: Did Makoma tell you why he gave you the pistol, what did he give it for?

MR MLAMBISA: I think it is because as I was coming in there, I was introduced by Sichomiso Nonxuba to him and he introduced myself to Sichomiso and he told them that I was also a member of APLA. So, I think for my own protection I got that pistol.

CHAIRMAN: Protection against what?

MR MLAMBISA: From our enemies because APLA was well-known that it was fighting, the Boers were fighting the PAC.

CHAIRMAN: He didn't tell you that you need it to have it in the light of the mission that was to be carried out?

MR MLAMBISA: No, I was just given it for my own security reasons.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Who is Mazala or Powa?

MR MLAMBISA: Mazala is the Chief of Logistics in the Eastern Cape Region.

JUDGE WILSON: And what did he have to do with this mission?

MR MLAMBISA: It is very difficult to understand the opinions of the High Command and their duties because APLA has its own top secrets.

CHAIRMAN: Carry on.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you ask Makoma anything about the attack?

MR MLAMBISA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why not?

MR MLAMBISA: I knew from Transkei that there was going to be an operation, otherwise I didn't know it in detail. I knew that there was going to be an operation whether of which kind, but I had no guts to ask. That is what I knew it from my heart. An operation for PAC.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was your motive for taking part in the attack?

MR MLAMBISA: I also wanted to be the part of those who were going to free the Azania.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did you think this attack would contribute towards freeing Azania?

MR MLAMBISA: The government would have noticed that the African want their land back and along the line, they would have given us freedom as we can see at the present moment, we do have democracy.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Is that democracy not rather as a result of the negotiations that took place between all the political parties?

MR MLAMBISA: I won't know that. Maybe negotiations took part, but the only thing I know, it was a pressure from the APLA movements.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did you think this attack would make the White people give your land back?

MR MLAMBISA: Like now, we are free. We can come forward and tell the truth, we are not radicals any more, we are the peace loving people.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did the attack contribute to that though?

MR MLAMBISA: Because democracy.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did the attack lead to democracy?

MR MLAMBISA: It was a pressure to the government by the APLA. The government noticed that their people are dying, so they must do something.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: When you say that the government noticed that their people are dying, what people are you referring to?

MR MLAMBISA: Those who oppressed us.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: The White people?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: If you look at the people sitting in the two rows behind me, they are all people who were part of that congregation at St James that you attacked, do you not see many people there who are not White people?

MR MLAMBISA: I can see them.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How would it assist you to attack them at St James?

MR MLAMBISA: As I've said before, that I was taking orders from my Commander. And if you are just shooting, if you are just shooting someone within many people, you just get shot to everyone. That was the policy of the APLA.

CHAIRMAN: I didn't get that clearly, maybe it wasn't translated or interpreted, just say that again please. The last part of your sentence, if you just shoot, what did you say?

MR MLAMBISA: If you are in a place where there are Boers mostly, because APLA was attacking the suburbs, which means the White areas, we exactly knew that in suburbs the residents were White, so the churches that were there, were attended by White people, because Blacks were not going to the White churches. So if there were a few Black people in there and the majority was White, then there was no reason for us not to attack.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Would you say it is APLA policy to attack a church where nearly half the people are not White?

MR MLAMBISA: APLA was attacking the Boers.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And if nearly half of the people who were there in the church, were not Boers, what then?

MR MLAMBISA: As far as I know, the methods of the High Command, they do recognisance whereby they would have decided whether the target must be attacked by APLA. It was obvious by the time we were going to St James, they knew that there were only Whites there or mostly Whites.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is interesting that you say that, because the people from St James will say that they think, they read that they noticed the church being reconnoitred prior to the attack taking place. So they agree with you that it is probably so that the attack was planned and whoever the planner was, knew what type of people would be in the church.

MR MLAMBISA: It is obvious the one who was planning the attack, was our Commander and he knew that there were only Whites there.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, clearly he didn't know that, because there were not only Whites there. And if that is the case, do you still say that it is in accordance with APLA policy to have attacked that church?

MR MLAMBISA: It is only him who can answer that, Sichomiso. I for one, I knew that reconnaissance was being done by the Commanders. We were only just taking orders from our Commander.

JUDGE WILSON: When you arrived at the church, you parked right outside the front of it, is that so?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, sir.

JUDGE WILSON: I read in the newspaper yesterday evening I think, that there were an estimated 900 people in the church. If this was so, this would have probably meant there were a lot of cars parked outside that church. Did you notice that?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, I have noticed that.

JUDGE WILSON: That there were a lot of cars?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, sir.

JUDGE WILSON: So it would seem that there would be lots of people there apart from those who lived in the immediate vicinity? People who had gone there by car?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What about the foreign people that were in the church, the people from Russia who were in the church, how would it assist for APLA to attack them?

MR MLAMBISA: I didn't know about that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: The person, the people from St James will say that they had for almost two years, when Russian people coming to that church every weekend and that whoever therefore, did the reconnaissance would have known that.

MR MLAMBISA: What was I supposed to do then?

CHAIRMAN: He has already told you he was merely the driver and he did (indistinct), as to whether they were Russians or not would hardly be something within his knowledge.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mr Mlambisa, do you still say - or how many people was it that went into the church, only two?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, sir.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Are you sure of that?

MR MLAMBISA: As I've said, I am definitely sure.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Because Mr Smith, Mr Lorenzo Smith will say that he thinks he saw three people in the church.

MR MLAMBISA: He does not know the truth.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: There was a car that came and stopped in front of you while you were standing in the parking lot, is that so?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And the person who was in the car with you, threw a petrol bomb at that car and you shot at that car. Why was that, why did you do that?

MR MLAMBISA: I didn't throw a petrol bomb, I just shot at it because it was parking in front of us, so we didn't have a way to go out.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That petrol bomb and that bullet could have killed the person in that car, isn't it so?

MR MLAMBISA: Just because that person was a White, I just wanted to hit that person, but unfortunately it didn't.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: So you didn't really care who was killed in the course of this attack, you were prepared to kill anyone who got in your way?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, it is true.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You also didn't know for a fact that the person in that car was a White person, did you?

MR MLAMBISA: It was clear that it was a White person.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How was it clear, it was dark wasn't it?

MR MLAMBISA: There was a light, there was a bright light in St James, so I noticed that the person was White.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Have you ever been to church Mr Mlambisa?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you still go to church?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, I am still going to church.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you not think it was wrong to attack people in a church where they are praying?

MR MLAMBISA: I had nothing to do then, because I was just taking orders from my Commander.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can you explain why the PAC has condemned your attack on the church as being wrong, why they did so at that time?

MR MLAMBISA: I am sorry, I cannot explain that, I am also confused.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What are you confused about?

MR MLAMBISA: About the condemning of the mission that took place in St James.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And why was it, or do you know why it was that APLA themselves denied that they had any responsibility for the attack?

MR MLAMBISA: APLA never denied that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Perhaps I can read something to you from a report in the Argus on the 26th of July 1993 where it was reported ...

ADV DE JAGER: Page?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is page 36 of the bundle, I beg your pardon, of the second bundle that was handed up by the victims yesterday.

ADV DE JAGER: thank you.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is a report in the Argus that says APLA denies involvement in massacre. The Azanian People's Liberation Army, the military wing of the Pan Africanist Congress said the massacre at St James church was not our sort of operation. Can you explain why they would say it is not their sort of operation?

MR MLAMBISA: APLA has its own Commanders. Can you tell me who said that?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It was said from Dar Es Salaam.

JUDGE WILSON: Shouldn't you read that next paragraph as well. Commenting from Dar Es Salaam today an APLA spokesman said the movement was still waiting for information from its forces on the ground, and that they would issue a full statement later?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I was going to move on to that Judge. Would you like to respond to that?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, you can carry on.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: The second paragraph that the Judge read to you, did you understand that?

MR MLAMBISA: No, I didn't understand. I thought he was just referring to you.

CHAIRMAN: I think in fairness, this witness may never have seen this article at all. I think it should be placed before him to see it.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: We can do that.

ADV ARENDSE: He clearly doesn't read the Argus ...

MR MLAMBISA: Where about?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: The article is headed "APLA denies involvement in massacre."

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Bembridge, can you just read it out so that it can be interpreted to him, maybe it will facilitate matters.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: The section the Judge referred to was commenting from Dar Es Salaam today an APLA spokesman said that the movement was still waiting ...

MR MLAMBISA: If the one who is interpreting can speak in English, maybe I would understand.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I will read it for you again. It says commenting from Dar Es Salaam today an APLA spokesman said the movement was still waiting for information from its forces on the ground, but we don't believe every killing in South Africa can be attributed to APLA, though APLA would issue a full statement later. He said last night's attack was not the sort of operation APLA would mount."

MR MLAMBISA: Would you like me to answer?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you have any comment on that?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, I do.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What is your comment?

MR MLAMBISA: The PAC has got its own movement. I would like to know the person who wrote this. The Boers can also write this. I would like the person who wrote this report, this spokesman, if I am talking about the spokesman, they are not talking about any one, I would like the name of that person. Maybe Mphlalele, I just want the name of that person. APLA did not deny their involvement in this operation.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You said that your instructions came from APLA High Command, is that not right?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Is it not rather the case that this was an attack planned not by the High Command, but by someone in Cape Town who was not authorised in any way to carry out an attack of this nature?

MR MLAMBISA: I think it was the members of the High Command. The well-known Pepe Mphlalele approved what we did in St James.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: But he is not here today to confirm that he approved of it, he decided not to come.

MR MLAMBISA: I am not saying that, I am just saying in the operation plan, I know nothing about Letlapa, I am just referring to the operation question about the approval of it.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: In the same bundle you have presented to us the very next page, page 37, there is an article headed various organisations claim responsibility for the attack. According to a spokesperson of the South African Press Association, SAPA, a man phoned the agency on Monday morning in Cape Town and introduced himself as the Regional Commander of APLA. He apparently said that more blood would be shed if the country was not returned to the Blacks. And then it continues to say that the PAC in fact the Regional Director, denied that APLA was involved.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Firstly I would submit that it is clear that the PAC at all times have denied participating and condemned the attack and secondly that lends some support I would submit to the suggestion that this was an attack planned by a local Commander perhaps without authority, rather than an attack planned by High Command as is suggested.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. Well, while you suggested that, what would the position then be as far as soldiers are concerned, if it was in fact planned by a local Commander who had authority or would you suggest he had no authority over the foot soldiers?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, clearly he wouldn't have authority to authorise attacks which were not in accordance with PAC and APLA policy at the time.

ADV DE JAGER: But how would that impact on the foot soldier?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: To the extent that they would be participating in an attack which did not comply with the political objectives, adhered to by the organisation which they purport, in whose name they purport to act, I would suggest that that is not then a legitimate political objective which they were seeking to achieve.

ADV DE JAGER: Would they have known it?

MR MLAMBISA: It is difficult to say whether they personally would have known it, but they should certainly have been aware of the policies of their party at the time.

ADV DE JAGER: Would you suggest the policy of their party wasn't to attack Whites at the time?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: The policy of the party was clearly not to carry out attacks of this nature at the time, that is stated clearly by the representatives of those parties.

ADV DE JAGER: Would it be making any difference whether it was five farmers killed or five people in the church?

MR MLAMBISA: I think very much, with relation to the question of the proximity and the proportionality of the attack, it makes a very great difference, I submit.

ADV DE JAGER: But not as far as the object is concerned, political motive?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, that very question of proportionality and proximity is what is to be used in determining whether it was in fact an act associated with the political objective.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, that is what I ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: You see, if you are White you are White, even if you are in church or in a rugby stadium, if you are White, you are White. Maybe you will develop that point much conveniently later during argument.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, proceed with your questions.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Perhaps I can just put one more statement to the applicant. Perhaps I can refer you to page 47 of the bundle, it forms part of a press statement made by the PAC, relating to the armed struggle. If I can just read that to you. It says there in the first paragraph on the top of the page, in the militarised environment in our country of the 1990's in the face of third force violence against our people and individuals in places of worship and in trains and taxi's, internally based operatives often made errors that APLA had earlier avoided. There was little political work done unlike in the camps abroad. These were the causes of the departures in the 1990's which we as political leaders who declared war must and do take responsibility for. Even if war itself was forced upon us by the oppressor, the upholders of White domination. Does that not amount to an admission that what you did was a departure from APLA policy at the time?

CHAIRMAN: Once again, let him see it if he wishes to see it.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I thought he did have it in front of him.

MR MLAMBISA: Can I answer?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Go ahead.

MR MLAMBISA: As I've said before, we were forces on the ground. There were also members of the High Command. They never told us the things that are written down, we never knew about them. I think members of the High Command and the leadership of the APLA can answer this question, but not me. We are only taking orders from our Commander.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: But the leadership today decided that they would not come here to answer these questions for you.

CHAIRMAN: Would he know about that?

MR MLAMBISA: No, I don't know.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were you aware that at the time the attack on St James took place, that negotiations were taking place to draft a new constitution for this country?

MR MLAMBISA: Yes, I knew.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why did you think that the attack at St James was a better way of achieving democracy than those negotiations?

MR MLAMBISA: APLA was formed to fight, we are still waiting for someone to order us to stop the fighting. So we were still fighting then up until we had orders to stop the fighting. I am also sure that you also know that. The struggle was still taking place, there was no suspension.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can I refer you to page 70 of the bundle which is also a press statement from the PAC. In referring to the negotiations that were going on at the time, they say throughout this period the PAC adopted a positive outlook and urged the negotiating parties to be principled. Consequently we played a positive role in the convening of the multi-party negotiating forum which ultimately adopted the interim constitution and paved the way for the democratic election of 1994. Are they not saying there that the party in whose name you purported to act, encouraged rather participation in the negotiations, than violent attacks?

MR MLAMBISA: I am denying nothing, it is like it said. As I've said before, we were taking orders from our Commanders, but we never heard of any suspensions on the armed struggle that was only the duty of the High Commander to tell us to stop the fighting. I wouldn't change anything, I couldn't say anything. Only the Commanders would have told us and if we don't obey orders, we will be in trouble.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bembridge, the PAC took part in negotiations. They were the sort of, could we call it, the mother organisation, but APLA in itself was also a known political organisation acting under its own Commanders as far as I could gather. APLA itself never negotiated, is that correct?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That is correct, as I understand it.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. Right, thank you.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: The suggestion is merely that in light of their press statements, that the PAC being the mother organisation, was urging principled action and positive participation then how could it have been the objective of their military wing to contradict that?

CHAIRMAN: Yes. As far as this particular witness is concerned and the limited role that he played in the matter, he couldn't be said to be aware of all the decisions taken at the level of the High Command and was merely directly responsible to those who were ordering him to do what he did. That is as far as it goes, isn't it, as far as this applicant is concerned?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Except to the extent we would suggest that the party itself was encouraging positive action, not negative.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BEMBRIDGECHAIRMAN: I understand. Mr Brink, are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Not for this applicant, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Any re-examination?

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GOZAADV DE JAGER: Mr Goza, could you kindly at this stage, formulate exactly for what amnesty is being asked for in respect of which offences? Because it is not very clear from the application.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, they are out on bail and we don't know precisely what the charges against them are, but I think that is a matter that must be cleared up after you have dealt with the witnesses.

MS GOZA: Mr Chairperson, can we perhaps in our address after we have led the various evidence, attend to that aspect? Would that be in order?

CHAIRMAN: Yes. Very well. Yes, you may proceed.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, can we move on to applicant Makoma and can I hand up the original of his affidavit, marked

Exhibit C.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, please. The affidavit of Makoma will go onto the record as

Exhibit C.

EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Thank you Mr Chairman, if I may proceed to read into the record the affidavit of Gcinikhaya Christopher Makoma. "I, the undersigned Gcinikhaya Christopher Makoma, do hereby make oath and say that I am 21 years old and currently serving a sentence of 23 years at the Victor Verster prison for eleven counts of murder, attempted murder and three of the unlawful possession of arms and ammunition arising out of the St James incident which took place on Sunday, the 25th of July 1993. The facts to which I depose are true and correct and within my personal knowledge, unless the context indicates otherwise. I have made an application for amnesty in terms of Section 18 of the Act, in respect of the charges of which I was found guilty as well as the incident relating to the ambush of a police motor vehicle in Khayelitsha. This application however, relates only to the amnesty application in respect of the St James church incident. At the time of the incident, I was 17 years old. I was a member of the Pan African Congress and a member of the African People's Liberation Army, APLA. I joined APLA in 1993. I was introduced to Sichomiso Nonxuba by his code name Lester, by Vusi an APLA Commander approximately three weeks before the St James attack. I was a member of Vusi's unit. Vusi was going away for between two to three months and said to me that Lester was going to take over the command of the unit. I met Lester for the first time approximately three weeks before the attack. Mkhumbuzi was the only one of the applicants in this matter whom I knew quite well before the attack. I met Mlambisa for the first time when Lester introduced him to me on the Thursday before the attack, at a house in Macassar. Mlambisa was introduced to me as Aubrey. I accompanied Nonxuba, Lester and I gave Mlambisa a 9 mm pistol for his protection. When I met Mlambisa, Nonxuba did not discuss any aspects of the operation. I was made aware by Vusi that there would be an operation, but at the time the target was unknown to me. The full compliment who would be involved in the operation met for the first time on Sunday, 25 July 1993 at the Uluntu shopping centre. There Nonxuba ordered me and Mlambisa to get a car and Mlambisa and I left together. Although Nonxuba revealed no details of the operation to us, we knew that there would be an attack. After we met, Mlambisa and I went to Crossroads and Guguletu looking for a car. We found a car in Guguletu when it was already quite dark and it was after six o'clock. We took this car at gunpoint, after we told the driver that we were members of the PAC and APLA and that we only wanted to borrow the car. The driver refused to voluntarily hand the car to us and I heard Mlambisa firing a shot after which we got into the car and drove off. From there, we went to Langa where we met Mkhumbuzi and Nonxuba at the taxi rank. After Nonxuba and Mkhumbuzi got into the car, Nonxuba gave Mlambisa directions where to drive. Nonxuba told me that I was to be part of the operation, but whilst in the car, he never told me where the operation would take place. I knew that there were guns and ammunition in the bag which was in the car. As we drove, Nonxuba told met that I was to go inside the target with him. At that time I was not aware that it was going to be the St James church. When we got to the target however, I realised that it was a church. Nonxuba then told me that we were going to be the main operators, he gave me a rifle and a handgrenade. I knew what this would entail as I had received training in how to handle weapons and ammunition. Mlambisa parked the car fairly close to the entrance of the church. We got out of the car. I had no disguise and only put a cap on my head. When we entered the church Nonxuba led the way and as we entered we were in a passage which led to the main doors. People were walking up and down the passage. We left off the passage for a few seconds and then Nonxuba said we will enter through the main doors. Nonxuba then told me to throw the handgrenade and to shoot to kill. Nonxuba led the way and we then burst through the doors of the church. Nonxuba first threw his handgrenade, he was on my left hand side, and then I threw mine. As the handgrenades exploded, we took cover behind the doors, re-entered and while the people inside were screaming we started to shoot. We shot indiscriminately and I finished my full R4 magazine, some 31 rounds of ammunition. We had also heard a shot outside and a car screeching. We went back into the passage to reload for our later protection. Inside the church one of the churchgoers had also fired at us. As we left Nonxuba was in front and I turned back to shoot at the person who shot at us. We got into the car and the car sped away. When I was inside the car, I realised that I was bleeding. When we were inside the car Nonxuba again directed Mlambisa where to drive. I subsequently learned that it was a house in Ottery. Inside the house Nonxuba treated my injury with bandages. I had suffered a cut on the left hand finger. The next day I left the house with Mlambisa and went to Old Crossroads. I was later arrested at Unathi in Old Crossroads on 5 August 1993. I admit that I was not truthful when I gave evidence during my trial. I do, however, wish to reiterate that the notebook which is referred to at pages 52 and 53 of the record which is before the Committee, that that notebook belonged to Vusi although I had scribbled on some loose pages which were found in the notebook. I had no idea that the St James church was to be the target. It is now obvious, however, that Vusi and Nonxuba had known of the operation for some time. As a member of APLA we operated under the slogan "one settler, one bullet" and this to us meant that any White person in South Africa was regarded as a settler and if we came across any settlers during our operations, they had to be killed or injured. I now deeply regret the loss of life and injury caused by me and the other applicants on 25 July 1993, and all I can ask for is that the family, relatives and friends of the deceased and the other victims, forgive me. I respectfully submit that my application complies with the requirements of the Act, that the offences that I have committed were associated with a political objective as contemplated by the Act and that I have made a full disclosure of all the facts relevant to the St James incident and to this application. I accordingly, respectfully request that I be granted amnesty in respect of the offences which I have committed and for which I have been found guilty and I am currently serving a sentence". It is dated and signed by Gcinikhaya Christopher Makoma on the 7th day of July 1997.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Makoma, will you just stand please to take the oath.

GCINIKHAYA CHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: (sworn states)

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you, you have been properly sworn in.

CHAIRMAN: Your counsel has read our your affidavit, did you understand it?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I did.

CHAIRMAN: And do you confirm its contents?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I do.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any questions you wish to put to this witness Mr Arendse?

EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: Yes, Mr Chairman. Mr Makoma, at the time on the 25th of July 1993, you were a member of APLA is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, it is correct.

ADV ARENDSE: Did APLA have any political objectives and if so, what were these political objectives?

MR MAKOMA: APLA had political objectives. APLA is a military wing of the PAC, it was formed to fight the armed struggle. It was fighting to bring back the African land to the owners whom are known as Africans, who were taken by the Boers and they ruled. APLA was the military wing, it was involved in the armed struggle, fighting the Whites, fighting for the independence of the Blacks.

ADV ARENDSE: Did you agree with or associate yourself with that objective which you have just described?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Now Mr Makoma, you said in your affidavit, that you entered the church with one other person, and that was Nonxuba, is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, it is correct.

ADV ARENDSE: Now we've also heard my colleague here next to me, Mr Bembridge put it to your comrade next to you that they will say that there were three people inside the church, what do you say to that?

MR MAKOMA: No, there were only two of us.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, if I could just for the record refer to page 1 of the bundle handed in on behalf of the victims, that the summary of the facts in paragraph 2, the last sentence in paragraph 2 alleges that while two guest singers were singing a hymn on the stage, accused 1, that would be Sichomiso Siphiwe Nonxuba and Makoma, the applicant, entered the church through a door next to the stage. The accused carried machine guns, R4 rifles and handgrenades which had wire nails glued to it. I just mention that for the record, because that was the summary that was given to us as counsel in the criminal trial. Now Mr Makoma you heard what I just read out to you about that it is alleged here that you entered through a door next to the stage, would that be correct, at the church at the time that you committed this deed?

MR MAKOMA: I won't say it was near the stage, but what I know is that we entered and on my left side there was something like a pulpit.

ADV ARENDSE: Is it correct that you were armed with an R4 rifle and that you had a handgrenade on you?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, it is true.

ADV ARENDSE: Can you just take that bundle which is there by Bassie. Mr Chairman, I just want to refer to some matters in the second bundle if I can call it that.

CHAIRMAN: The second bundle.

ADV ARENDSE: No, not the record of this application. The bundle handed up by my colleague, Mr Bembridge.

CHAIRMAN: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Can you turn to page 5 Mr Makoma. On page 5 and going onto page 6, your counsel at the time Mr Desai who is now a Judge, read into the record in the criminal trial a plea on your behalf, do you remember that?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I do remember.

ADV ARENDSE: You remember that you pleaded not guilty in respect of all the charges against you?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Now obviously at the time you were not telling the truth to the court when you pleaded not guilty to the charges against you, is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I was not telling the truth.

ADV ARENDSE: In the middle of the page on page 5, round about lines 18 to 20, there is reference to a Task Group under the leadership of Siphiwe Makweso and that this group was specifically informed, it should be formed I suppose, to protect PAC leaders and members. I joined the aforementioned group. Is that part of your statement, is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, it is true.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, is it that Task Group that took part in the attack on the St James church on that Sunday?

MR MAKOMA: No, it is not the Task Group, it is not the Task Force, it is APLA.

ADV ARENDSE: Is there a difference between the Task Group and APLA unit?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, there is a difference.

ADV ARENDSE: What is that difference?

MR MAKOMA: Task Force is one of the PAC alliances that was formed to protect the PAC from the Branch originals to the National level?

CHAIRMAN: What? The Branch originals?

MR MAKOMA: From Branch level to the National level, protecting the PAC members.

ADV ARENDSE: So would it be correct to say that the functions of this Task Group or Force was different from the function or task of an APLA unit when it is put into operation?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, later on still on page 5, by way of explaining, you remember you were arrested with this bag?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Now you explained that you got this bag from Siphiwe Makweso on the 5th of August 1993 at the Nyanga taxi rank, do you remember saying that in court?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, was that correct, was that the truth?

MR MAKOMA: No, it was not the truth.

ADV ARENDSE: You also say in your plea explanation that you were not a participant in the St James attack, was that the truth?

MR MAKOMA: No, it was not the truth.

ADV ARENDSE: If you can turn to page 6 at the top? You say there that at the time of the attack you were a standard 8 school boy at the Lulhaza High School, is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I was a student.

ADV ARENDSE: The next part you say that you were not a member of APLA or the military wing of any other political organisation and that you do not believe that it is the policy of the PAC to perpetrate such acts, was that the truth or was that correct?

MR MAKOMA: No, it was not the truth.

ADV ARENDSE: And then the plea ends by you saying that at the time you were with your girlfriend Francis Shally in Crossroads. Was that the truth?

MR MAKOMA: No, it was not the truth.

ADV ARENDSE: In fact, Mr Makoma, the court found that you were an untruthful witness during the trial, is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: You agree with that finding?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I agree but not in everything.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay. We will try and deal with the not everything part now. Mr Chairman, my learned friend Mr Brink suggests that I should suggest to you that perhaps it is appropriate to take a short break.

CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn for 15 minutes.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS FOR 15 MINUTES - ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRMAN: Mr Arendse, you may proceed.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Makoma, can I refer you to page 7 of the bundle that you have there. Now, page 7, 8 and 9 purports to be a statement which was taken from you. The date on page 7 on the top, right hand side, is 14 August 1993, do you remember that?

MR MAKOMA: I do see it.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, if I can just refer the Committee and my colleagues to page 48 of the record in regard to this statement which I have referred to Mr Makoma, the Judge, Judge Marais in the criminal case said that and I quote from line 6 onwards that we were not satisfied that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deprivation of sleep and the persistent and continuous interrogation which immediately preceded the making of the statement to Lester, played no significant causative role in the accused's decision to make the statement. It is for those reasons that the statements made to Lester were ruled to be inadmissible. Do you remember the Judge ruling that the statement which I've referred you to and which is on pages 7, 8 and 9, that that statement was not accepted into evidence by the court?

MR MAKOMA: Are you talking about the one in front of me?

ADV ARENDSE: The one in front of you.

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, we are here before the Amnesty Committee for you to reveal the true facts of what happened at the incident, when it took place, before the incident, during the incident and after the incident, do you accept that?

MR MAKOMA: Can you please repeat what you have just said?

ADV ARENDSE: I am asking you do you accept that you are here before the Amnesty Committee to say to the Committee exactly what happened before the incident took place at St James, what happened during the incident and what happened after the incident?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: And do you accept that you must tell the truth about all those things to the Committee?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, it is for that reason that I want to take you through this statement even though the court ruled that it was not acceptable to the court. Now, in the statement there is a constant reference to a person called Vusi. Do you see that? In the statement there is constant reference to Vusi.

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: There is also reference to Bassie and it is spelt Bhasi, do you see that?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I can see it.

ADV ARENDSE: On page 8 there is also reference to Aubrey, yes?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I can see that one too.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, it may be put to you or suggested to you that notwithstanding the fact that the criminal court ruled this statement inadmissible, notwithstanding that fact, that ruling was on technical grounds as it were, but and this is the point I want to make, but that what is in the statement is really what happened before, during and after the incident. What would your response be to such a proposition? That what is contained in the statement is really what happened before, during and after the incident?

MR MAKOMA: No, it is not exactly it.

ADV ARENDSE: How did this statement come about?

MR MAKOMA: What happened is this, when I was arrested the policeman had already had their own information. They already knew about the unit of APLA that was present at that moment and who was the Commander. They already knew about the attack that happened. The names Aubrey and Bhasi, they knew about them. Even my name too. But how did they find them, I don't know. Some of the things, most of them, they questioned me about were the things that were asking me, forcing me to say. So I was forced to accept those things. The ones that I know and the ones that I don't know. So under such circumstances I decided that instead of dying in the police cells, I must make my own story. The one that could be closer to what they are telling me to do. So that is how the statement came about.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, the court in your trial also rejected your allegations that you were amongst other things, assaulted before or during making this statement or while making the statement, the court rejected your allegations in that regard, do you remember that?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I do remember.

ADV ARENDSE: Well, what is the true position then?

MR MAKOMA: As I've said in the court that I was tortured, beaten up and the statement that I made I was forced by the policemen that they are real. I was forced to say yes to that. The names they were talking about I had to accept them, but the problem that they had as policemen, they couldn't identify the people they were talking about.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Arendse, what exactly are we busy with now? Do you want to start another trial within a trial or what are we busy with here, because as far as I understand the situation, the statement on page 7 which seems to be troubling you, why I don't understand, is that in the first place the trial court did not admit it, it found it was inadmissible, for whatever reason. Your client has said to us that it does not contain the truth at any rate. Why are we going to this great length to investigate circumstances under which the statement was made if the trial court had rejected it in any case and your client is also rejecting it now. On what conceivable basis can it come into and be used here in our proceedings before us against your client?

ADV ARENDSE: Judge, thank you for asking me that question. The questions around the statement are being put in anticipation of what I believe my colleague, Mr Bembridge will be putting to the witness. As I understand their case up until this point, they are opposing this application on two grounds, the proportionality aspect and that these applicants are not revealing the whole truth to the Committee. That is one reason.

JUDGE NGOEPE: That reason makes it immediately a question for re-examination because I mean you can't re-examine in advance. You would have to wait and see to what length Mr Bembridge is going to go and then deal with it in re-examination because you keep on anticipating, maybe you are mis-anticipating and then we don't know, you see, that is why I am asking, we don't know how far we are going to go in the process of trying to anticipate the cross-examination, particularly if the basis of this statement is so dubious.

ADV ARENDSE: Judge, can I answer that in three parts?

JUDGE NGOEPE: He may not even talk about it, Mr Bembridge may not even refer to it.

ADV ARENDSE: Firstly, with due respect it is a perfectly legitimate tactic or aspect of leading the evidence of your client to anticipate what the opposition is coming to say or do. Secondly the processes, the criminal trial and this process are entirely different. If there is in fact, and that seems to be your

prima facie view, that this statement should be thrown out completely because another court has already in its opinion given a ruling on it, then if the Committee is agreed that that is the case then believe me I would be the first one to accept it and I won't have to deal with it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, you don't understand my point. The question of legitimate anticipation is a fair one, but you missed the point. There must be a basis for it, for anticipation and it is not for me to say that we will throw that statement out, your client has said it does not contain the truth.

ADV ARENDSE: Judge, the other reason which I think is a compelling reason why we should deal with it and why I rather deal with it, is that the question can legitimately be put to him that the names Vusi, Aubrey, Bhasi, there is mention of a Datsun vehicle, are mentioned in the statement, be it that it was ruled inadmissible, it is also mentioned in your statement before the Commission, it is also mentioned by the others. We now know as a fact that Vusi exists or existed. We know as a fact that Aubrey ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: I suppose we can proceed, but I sincerely hope that we are not going to go into a trial within a trial on the allegations of assault by the police and all that sort of thing.

CHAIRMAN: Wouldn't it be, sorry, wouldn't it meet the requirements if you just cleared up with your client that to the extent that his evidence here, differs from the contents of his statement, he maintains that what he is now saying, is the truth? Now, then if you are going to suggest to him that some of what he said in that statement was suggested by the police, or by anybody else to him, to say, then you may point out that. Point that out, but I think that it will be appropriate if we proceeded along the lines as suggested by my brother, the other side know by now that there are differences between what is contained in his statement and what he is saying here now under oath and in his affidavit. So, I think that there can't be too much dispute, everybody knows that there are these differences. If it is your intention now to go through each point of difference between his evidence here now and what is contained in that statement, then I think that you are overstepping the mark.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Makoma, it has been put to your other comrades already, that you would have been aware that the St James church was a target, even before the killings took place. What do you say to that?

MR MAKOMA: I do agree with my fellow Africans, nobody knows about it except the Commander.

ADV ARENDSE: Tell us a bit more about Vusi, is Vusi and Nonxuba are they one and the same person, are they different persons?

MR MAKOMA: They are two different people.

ADV ARENDSE: Who was Vusi?

MR MAKOMA: He was one of the APLA Commanders.

ADV ARENDSE: Was he involved in the attack?

MR MAKOMA: No, he was not involved.

ADV ARENDSE: Was Nonxuba involved in the attack?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, he was involved.

ADV ARENDSE: What role did he play?

MR MAKOMA: He was the Commander, everything that happened we did that under his instructions.

ADV ARENDSE: So he led the attack, he led the attack?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Can you turn to page 31 of that bundle? Now, you see I don't know whose handwriting it is, but we are not going to put that in issue, there is a comment there from Barney Desai, do you see that name there?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I can see.

ADV ARENDSE: Do you know who he is? Barney Desai?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I know Barney Desai.

ADV ARENDSE: He is high up in the PAC is he?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Now in the last three lines there on page 31 he says, "We condemn this mindless violence on churchgoing people". He is referring to the St James attack. Do you want to comment on that?

MR MAKOMA: The only thing I can say African Barnie Desai is the leader of the PAC and the APLA, is the military wing of the PAC and the attack that happened in the St James church, was led by one of the High Commanders in APLA. Then in 1993 when he was commenting as he is saying here, I can understand as he is the politician and during those days we knew that the struggle was still in power. On behalf of the APLA, I think the members of the PAC are not involved in the operations done by APLA. Only APLA members that are involved and they are the only ones who can come with clear information in anything that has been done by APLA.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you. Now, if you turn to page 36, this has been referred to by my colleague Mr Bembridge already, I think he put it to Thobela, do you see page 36?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I can see it.

ADV ARENDSE: You see there APLA denies involvement in massacre and then on the next page, I think quite properly pointed out by Adv De Jager at the time, that in Afrikaans, in the middle sort of in the paragraph next to these identikits there is in Afrikaans, you don't have to read it, but the sum total of what that says is again where the organisation accepts responsibility for what happened. Now, I want you to comment just on the denial that you see there on page 36. Did you see that? I suppose on the 26th of July you had been arrested, you had been in prison at the time, awaiting trial, weren't you?

MR MAKOMA: When?

ADV ARENDSE: Sorry, this is the day after the incident, sorry, I am getting confused now with the matter before this. July the 26th was just after the killings. You are from Cape Town is that right?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, that is right.

ADV ARENDSE: Is this from the Argus, do you read the Argus?

MR MAKOMA: Only when I've got money I do buy Argus.

ADV ARENDSE: But did you see this, did you read this particular article then?

MR MAKOMA: No.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, Mr Makoma, you know what you did. The carnage that you inflicted on the churchgoers attending the church at the time, resulting in the death of 11 persons and injury, some of them maiming people for life, like the Russian gentleman whose letter was read to you yesterday, to us yesterday. What is your view of that now, how do you view what you did? How do you feel about it today?

MR MAKOMA: What I can say is this, to those relatives whose loved ones have been killed and those who had injured, and those who were badly hurt, as I was deeply involved in that mess, I threw a handgrenade, I fired shots obeying the instructions from my Commander, that resulted in what we are talking today about, I do regret and please forgive me because it was the situation in South Africa at that time. And as a soldier, obeying instructions from the Commander, I was trained that the Commander is the only one that gives the instructions. You don't have to question that. You don't have to deny that. Do as you are told. I as Khaya, as I was deeply involved in this, but there was nothing I could do, to let this not happen because this was an order from above and as a soldier I had to obey the instructions. I am so sorry, please forgive me. To those who had been injured and their loved ones who passed away. I know there is no one who had the right to kill. But the situation in South Africa led us as we were young as we were, to do those things because we grew up in a violent country. We were seeing our fellow Africans being shot and killed by the Whites. All in all, I don't know if you grew up in such circumstances, wouldn't you expect such things to happen because we were not involved in the struggle because we wanted to, we were forced by the situations. There is nothing I can say. If you do forgive me, or you don't, it is all up to you. But the information you wanted to know who did this, I as Khaya, I told them what I did and how was I involved. That is all, thank you.

ADV ARENDSE: How do you feel towards or about White people now, today?

MR MAKOMA: What I can say today, it is a new South Africa and I also know that this new South Africa came through struggle by the Africans. So the Whites are also people, we were not fighting them because they were White, we were fighting them because of their deeds as the White nation. If today, as I am listening on television and radio, because I am in prison, they said there is peace amongst the Africans, Whites and Blacks, I am happy to see that. As Whites they are not looking to Black people as animals that were supposed to be killed, armed or not armed, sleeping or alive, young or old, because what they did were not directed to old people, they were directed to the youth as Africans, as part of the African nation, we made a decision that we won't tolerate such a thing. So, when there is peace, I am also prepared to take them as human beings. If they are also taking Africans as human beings, people who have the right to live, to go anywhere, to say anything independently because by the time we were involved in this mess, such things couldn't happen. And as we were young, blood was still very hot, we couldn't tolerate those things. I don't say that gives me the power or the will to go out and kill as I wish. I was obeying the instructions from my Commander. As he couldn't come forward and agree to this because he passed away, because it is clear that we are the ones that have to answer. I am saying to the parents, those who lost their children, injured, we are very sorry. Not because of the St James massacre, but in everything that happened under the name of APLA, because it was the situation in South Africa during those days. We were also forced to do such things. I am finished, thank you.

ADV ARENDSE: Khaya, we now know that there were not only White people in the church, there were also so-called Coloured people in the church. Were you aware of that fact at the time?

MR MAKOMA: No, I as Khaya I didn't know that.

ADV ARENDSE: Did you assume that there were only White people going to be present in the church or at the target?

MR MAKOMA: As far as I know, APLA was fighting the Whites. So when we were going to attack there, I assumed that we were fighting the Whites. As I was inside the church, I didn't notice anyone who is not a White. Even if that person was there, the order said I must shoot, throw the handgrenade, I couldn't reject that because I was trained that the instructions are not disobeyed.

ADV ARENDSE: The Judge in the trial, when he found you guilty said, and Mr Chairman I am referring to page 50 of the record, the line 5 or so from the bottom, he said - Khaya, it is not in front of you there, I just want to read the portion of the sentence there which says that the attack could only have been committed to serve a political objective. That is what the Judge said in your case, do you agree with that finding of the Judge?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I do agree with that.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have got no further questions.

JUDGE WILSON: Before you stop Mr Arendse, I am afraid I am totally confused and I would like to clarify something and I don't want you to think that I am reopening the question. You told us of a statement made by this witness which was introduced as evidence at the trial and which the Judge rejected.

ADV ARENDSE: That is right.

JUDGE WILSON: Is that so?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: You then referred to pages 7, 8 and 9 of the bundle.

ADV ARENDSE: Of the bundle handed in, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Handed in, yes. Now that is a statement made by the applicant, it was not introduced in the trial, no ruling was made about it. Is that not so?

ADV ARENDSE: Judge, I do see that this is a statement that appears to have been taken by Don Segal.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, it was not the statement that was handed in at the trial, it is not the statement that the trial Judge made a ruling about.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, no I accept that.

JUDGE WILSON: So it is totally irrelevant from that point of view?

ADV ARENDSE: The only relevance Judge, with due respect...

JUDGE WILSON: The statement made at the trial, is at page 10.

ADV ARENDSE: Ten of the bundle?

JUDGE WILSON: Ten of the bundle handed in. It goes on from there.

ADV ARENDSE: Well, with due respect Judge, regardless of which statement one is referring to ...

JUDGE WILSON: I just want to know why you introduced the other one.

ADV ARENDSE: Because I was under the

bona fide impression that that is the statement that I wanted to deal with and that is the statement that was rejected, if it was a mistake...

JUDGE WILSON: It was a mistake, we can just ignore it?

ADV ARENDSE: Well, but I am nevertheless pleased with the answers that the witness gave in regard even to this statement that was apparently made to Segal, because I wanted to tie up the names that are mentioned in the statement on pages 7, 8 and 9 with what is found in his statement to this Committee. I don't have any further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSECHAIRMAN: Mr Bembridge?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mr Chairman, I am in somewhat of a difficult situation at this stage. I have been approached by Mr Lorenzo Smith, who is one of the victims whom I represent, he has advised that he is due to leave for Bloemfontein at one o'clock. We did not anticipate that we would not be able to lead his evidence before this time. He has asked me to request the Committee whether there is any possibility of some arrangement being made or some plan being made to allow him to in fact give his evidence before he leaves at one o'clock and whether some departure from the normal procedure would be considered by the Committee in these circumstances? He will naturally abide by whatever finding the Committee makes.

CHAIRMAN: Have you any objection to that Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr Bembridge, you may do so, call your witness.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am indebted to the Committee for its indulgence and to my learned friends. We then call Mr Lorenzo Smith.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, please. We will have to place Mr Smith somewhere near a microphone. Can he take one of these microphones please. Mr Smith, will you please stand.

LORENZO VICTOR SMITH: (sworn states)

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. What are your full names?

MR SMITH: My full names are Lorenzo Victor Smith.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, you may proceed.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Smith, it is correct that you are a parishioner at the St James church in Kenilworth, is that correct?

MR SMITH: That is correct.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How long have you been a parishioner there?

MR SMITH: Plus minus five years.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And you were in the church on the evening of the attack on that church in 1993?

MR SMITH: That is correct.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can you tell the Committee something about the make-up of the congregation in St James?

MR SMITH: Well the congregation, the church is open to all nationalities, irrespective to colour, creed, etc. We go there to worship God and that is all that we do.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What is your reaction to the suggestion that the attack on the St James church was justified as being an attack against White people?

MR SMITH: I feel that the church is a place of sanctuary and looking at the way it was constructed, it was preplanned and being preplanned, the church itself has got no political aspect as to what is actually put across the board. If it was that which I see looking at it, whoever came to the church to preplan it, they could actually identify the amount of people and the different nationalities that were at the church at any given time on a Sunday evening or any other evenings.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can you describe what those nationalities and groups of people were?

MR SMITH: We have Russians, we have Muslims, we have Christians, Black, White, Chinamen, you name it, it attends the church.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And you say that is so on any evening at the church?

MR SMITH: At any given time of worship, you will find that the same mixed crowd attending the church.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And on the night that the attack took place, what was the make-up of the congregation on that evening?

MR SMITH: Man, it was similar although the weather allowing many people not to attend, but nevertheless it was the same sort of amount, 90 percent was mixed in the church.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I understand that evening you had a large contingent of Russian sailors.

MR SMITH: We had.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What role did they play at the church?

MR SMITH: To hear the gospel.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were they regularly in attendance there?

MR SMITH: Yes, for about three years they were regular attenders there.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Would it have been evident to someone going into the church that there were Russian people present, were any adjustments made to the ceremony itself to allow for them?

MR SMITH: Yes, at a later stage, the service would actually come to a pause where the Russians would actually leave the service and would have a special service, translated in Russian at a smaller sort of hall with an interpreter in English.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can you describe what the missionary policies of the church were?

MR SMITH: To save souls and to preach the gospel.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you do any missionary work outside the Kenilworth area?

MR SMITH: I belong to the organisation with Russians at one stage, my late wife and myself.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What about in any of the poorer areas of the Western Cape?

MR SMITH: Well, on a normal basis I would go out, whoever I would meet, colleagues, workmates and speak to them about the good news of salvation.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did the church perform any missionary work in the township areas?

MR SMITH: They do.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was the nature of that work?

MR SMITH: Again to preach the gospel of salvation.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I understand also that the church has affiliated churches inside some of the township areas?

MR SMITH: They do.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Where are they?

MR SMITH: I could be - I know of a few of them, there is one is Khayelitsha, there is one in what is the place's name, Lavender Hill and they have many other smaller churches around too.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do people from those churches ever visit at the Kenilworth, St James church?

MR SMITH: They do at given times.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And do you from St James, visit those churches in the townships?

MR SMITH: We do.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What is your comment on the suggestion or any suggestion that maybe made that the applicants as victims of apartheid or as representatives of apartheid, were therefore justified in furthering the struggle against apartheid and in attempting to achieve the ends of that struggle, in committing this attack upon the church?

MR SMITH: Again I do emphasise the point that the church is a neutral place, a place of worship and it is open to all nationalities. Why choose a church of that nature to have the grievances with?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you consider what happened at the church that evening, to be a gross violation of your human rights?

MR SMITH: I do.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can you describe briefly what happened?

MR SMITH: It was a normal evening, Sunday evening. Unfortunately we were blessed with a thunder storm, that many fellow Christians couldn't attend, but nevertheless it never kept myself and my late wife and my children from attending the service. We attended, we normally when we reached the church, we located ourselves in seating places where we regularly sat in and that evening my wife said to me, darling, could I just move one seat forward. I thought to myself one seat forward? I asked her what is the reason, she said well, the teenagers were making a noise in the background. We normally sit right at the back, about 25 rows from the front, right at the back of the church, that is our normal seating places. During the service, what drew my attention, the way the door on the left hand side was opened. One person entered the church. At that time I thought it was a hoax, he lodged a handgrenade and started firing. I thought at that stage it was fire crackers, they were probably playing you know, some (indistinct), whatever you call it. But then when I saw the people actually taking cover and falling, I said to the crowd and my wife, take cover, this is for real. At that time, the first person that actually emptied his rifle, his automatic rifle, walked back to the door when the second party walked in and stood in the centre on the one side, because there are two isles and he emptied his rifle. Then he walked towards the door. But I could see everything because where I was laying, I thought to myself I am protected and I am protecting my wife because I was laying right on top of her and thinking that if anything should happen, the shot will actually take flight and it will never reach us because we are on a higher plane, but the second party walked back to the isle after he had emptied his rifle and he lodged a handgrenade right up the isle which actually landed about a metre and a half away from me. And that handgrenade actually caused my wife's death and many others that were in that vicinity at the time, the second handgrenade. To me it was canny to think that here I protected her with my body, nothing was wrong, I never had a scratch on me, but here my wife had the shrapnel that actually went right through her, right through her heart and she only lived for about 10 minutes of that and she was gone.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: There were, I understand about 1 300 people in the church that night?

MR SMITH: That is right.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What were the age groups represented there?

MR SMITH: We have various age groups, we have from minors going right up to if you are fit enough to attend the church, the church will be open to you.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Could you describe the scene in the church after the attack, what took place after the attack?

MR SMITH: It was a miracle I will say, because the Lord's hand was over each individual that suffered that evening and I feel that although he allowed it to happen, the outcome of things that we only see today, we don't know why, but we know that the outcome of things was for a reason. And I felt that my wife died in the presence of serving him. I have no animosity, the way that she died, but the way she was killed, I disagree that a person can go out to take someone else's live in that manner. I feel that we believe in prayer, and through prayer we were actually set free from this whole situation that this country was in. Violence had maybe on the brink at time, had taken place but it wasn't through violence, it was through prayer and if you go back into the Bible itself, it states there that people were suffering in bondage and they were set free at the time, but through prayer. For 40 years they had prayed, people had suffered, Christians had suffered, but at a given time, the Lord set them free. And this is what I felt too that at the given time, we will be set free. If you look at the country's situation and economics, you could actually see we were going to a slump. We were being boycotted by other countries and violence wouldn't add any help to the situation that we were in.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mr Smith is it so that you were, yourself, discriminated against under the system of apartheid?

MR SMITH: That is true. I was brought up in District Six, I can identify with the struggle of the Blacks. My late father was White, he had to actually class himself as a Coloured, reclassified himself. I never had the privilege of seeing my grandparents, because at that stage, if you had reclassified yourself, there had to be no dealings with either the White or Coloured. My dad said to me at one stage, when he was alive, he said you know, the heartache that this country has come across, has affected many a person and until you see reason that you can forgive that things do come to a change, that is before he died, he accepted Christ within his life too and I was so grateful for that, because this was part that I could see the outcome of things, what happened through the St James massacre. But nevertheless we stayed in District Six, we had to evacuate District Six because of the Group Areas Act, we had to go to other areas. It was good and it was bad, because I feel that people staying in that area was pushed further back where they couldn't attend jobs, etc, because of transport, but to have the option of buying their own homes, so in a way it was good and in a way it was bad. So I could relate to the way the Blacks were feeling and certain places that you weren't allowed to go would be, it was either White or Coloured. I've been overseas, travelled overseas as a Seaman at many places and what is worse to go to a country where it is not practised by the government, but you get social discrimination which is worse when in the country you stay, you knew where you were on and off. And I knew at a given time, things will change. As it was introduced in this country, 40 years prior, it would change at a given time.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you as a victim of apartheid, not consider that there was any justification in the means used in this attack to achieve the ends which allegedly was sought to be achieved by it?

MR SMITH: I do.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you feel there was some justification in the attack?

MR SMITH: There was justification which I feel to their part, they felt there was justification, but I feel that what they had looked at, the target that they had chosen, was not the right target to choose, to bring their motive to the media.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Are you satisfied from your own experience from these events, that the applicants have made full disclosure of the relevant facts?

MR SMITH: Man, what I've heard, we actually have to take an oath to actually tell the truth as to what had actually happened at that day. But what I heard of the colleagues sitting in front, right in front of me at the end, he mentioned that two of them came in at the same time. I recall sitting right at the back, only one came in, one fired, the other one was standing at the back. There was someone at the door, I couldn't see him, but the door was ajar, it was open. The one went back again and the gentleman sitting in front of me, he entered in. As he said he entered in, but he entered in, he is the one who opened up fire, walked back to the door, came back to the isle and lodged the handgrenade, but what I heard what he said that they went back into the isle, reloaded and then lodged the handgrenade, so where is the truth of what actually happened? Doesn't he recall what actually happened at the time?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: From what you observed that night, how many people came into the church to attack it?

MR SMITH: I saw two people coming into the church at different intervals and I presume there was a third person, because the door was ajar.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You didn't see the person?

MR SMITH: I never saw him.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What conclusion did you draw from the manner in which the attack was carried out, as you've just described it?

MR SMITH: Man, to me it was a military organised attack, that is all that I can say.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What is your response to the suggestion that it was only the Commander who had any knowledge of the target or the nature of the attack, that the other people who were involved in this or was carrying out, had no such knowledge?

MR SMITH: I believe that we have a will and a right to refuse things when we come face to face with it and each and every one out there that were involved in the incident, had at the given time a chance to make that decision. Yes, or no, if they are going to go through with what was happening, what is going to take place.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What then are your feelings as to whether these applicants should be granted amnesty in these circumstances?

MR SMITH: I feel that if amnesty is granted, it must be granted on a truthful basis and that is it.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you think it can in the circumstances be granted on a truthful basis?

MR SMITH: Well, what I've heard, I have mixed feelings, that is all.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you think these applicants should be granted amnesty?

MR SMITH: If they are telling the truth, yes, if they are not, then justice should take its course.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can you briefly just describe what the effects were on the church community itself, effects of this attack?

MR SMITH: I can speak for myself. I am going through major, I wouldn't say myself, I have remarried, I will be married in August for two years. Just through the grace of God I met a beautiful woman, she is fantastic, I love her dearly. I have put the past back about my wife, I accepted her death. She has gone home, she has gone to a place that I look forward to in being. My children are suffering tremendously. There are times when my wife too, she feels that she is inadequate to fill a gap of a mother, she is a parent, but of a mother. I have got a daughter of 18 years old, there are given times when I didn't know her. I said to her, this is going to be a lifetime for you to go through the situation that you are in. I have a son that is 23, he is doing his Master degree in Marine Biology, he doesn't speak. He doesn't speak about the incident. He has got a deep, deep sort of trauma about it. He says he is feeling okay, but I know he is not. And I feel that it is going to take them a lifetime to overcome. I have accepted it, I have put my wife behind my back, and I accepted her death, but the way she died, I feel it is not right for any human being to take life in that manner.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Have you observed any similar symptoms in any other members of the community?

MR SMITH: I have.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BEMBRIDGE
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any questions that counsel wishes to put to this witness, Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE: Very reluctantly, yes Mr Chairman. Mr Smith, we coincidentally know each other. Can I just share with you the regret and sorrow of what happened on that day.

MR SMITH: Thank you.

ADV ARENDSE: I don't wish it on anybody and we have instructions also from the applicants to convey their deep regret to you about the death of your wife and the death of other people. Mr Smith, can I just read back to you what Mr Makoma said in his statement about what actually happened in church? He says when we, because I am just reading it back to you because I think perhaps you either didn't hear properly or it didn't come over to you correctly what he actually said. When we entered the church, Nonxuba, who is also deceased, led the way and as we entered, we were in a passage which led to the main doors. People were walking up and down the passage. We left off the passage for a few seconds and then Nonxuba said we will enter through the main doors. He told me to throw the handgrenade and to shoot to kill. That was presumably now in the passage as they - Nonxuba led the way and we burst through the doors of the church. He first threw his handgrenade, he was on my left, that is on this applicant, Makoma's left, and then I threw mine. As the handgrenades exploded, we took cover behind the doors, re-entered and while people were screaming, we started to shoot. We shot indiscriminately and finished the respective R4 magazines, collectively must have been about 62 rounds of ammunition. That is what he says what happened. Doesn't that approximate ...

MR SMITH: No, it doesn't. I would like to ask you if that is his true statement that he made across?

ADV ARENDSE: It is, he said so under oath.

MR SMITH: Well, what I've seen and there is many in the church that can verify the same thing, what I've seen on oath, he came in. The second person that came in, it was him, right, he first shot before he emptied out his rifle, walked a couple of paces to the door, turned back again to the isle and lodged the handgrenade. I was sitting at a place where I could see everything from the distance where I was sitting. To me there is a miss, sort of evidence that he is giving.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, you are saying applicant Makoma did this?

MR SMITH: He came in the second time, that is what I am saying.

ADV ARENDSE: Did you see him clearly?

MR SMITH: I can't see, I know it is a Black person. I am short sighted, I know it is Black person, he verified that he came into the church, I have to take his word for it, but that is what I've seen.

ADV ARENDSE: So you can't even say for sure whether he was in the church? We know now that he was?

MR SMITH: What I can say, I definitely know at the given time, there was two different people who entered the church, and not at the same time.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay, firstly it is two people only?

MR SMITH: It is two people only and the door was ajar, the door swing closed when there is nothing keeping the door ajar.

ADV ARENDSE: So it is not three people who came into the church?

MR SMITH: Not three in the church, two entered at different times.

ADV ARENDSE: So when my colleague Mr Bembridge put it to one of the applicants that it was three people, he was - that was not your instructions?

MR SMITH: Man, to me - I said there must have been a third party because the door cannot be ajar at that for them, for the door to be ajar, because the door is a swing door, it will close by itself.

ADV ARENDSE: So you are prepared to accept that there were only two killers in the church?

MR SMITH: There were two that came in at different intervals into the church.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Just for the record, Mr Bembridge said there were presumably three people.

ADV ARENDSE: I am prepared to accept that thank you, and I recall now actually that he said that Mr Smith, Mr Lorenzo Smith will say, that there were three or as the Judge corrected me, presumably three. You are now sure that there were two?

MR SMITH: There were two, but as I say a door cannot be ajar when it has a spring loaded onto it, it will close up by itself.

ADV ARENDSE: It is a swing door?

MR SMITH: A swing door.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR SMITH: So if the door closes by itself, you know, to me something definitely that is keeping the door open.

ADV ARENDSE: How quickly did this all happen, did it happen quickly or did it take some time?

MR SMITH: This thing must have taken plus minus, over a minute to a minute and a half. And you can say you can see a lot in a minute and a half. You can ask me how do you see in a minute and a half, all these things.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR SMITH: If you are concentrating on one thing and your attention is taken away, the way it was, you have full sort of focus on what is actually taking place and that is actually what I was doing.

ADV ARENDSE: So why couldn't you identify Mr Makoma?

MR SMITH: As I said to you I am short sighted. I cannot see further. You put anything in front of me, faces are vague at the distance of that nature, but I just know they weren't covered up, their faces weren't covered up. They were dark skinned people and two people came in at different times.

ADV ARENDSE: Was there any other distinguishing feature of Mr Makoma's.

MR SMITH: Man, they had darkish coloured clothes, that is all and what I could say was what I've seen and that is what I have seen.

ADV ARENDSE: Did they wear anything on their heads?

CHAIRMAN: I don't think he was attempting to identify anybody.

MR SMITH: The one had a cap on.

CHAIRMAN: I don't think he is attempting to identify anyone.

ADV ARENDSE: If the Chairman just allows me perhaps another question, I will get to the point.

CHAIRMAN: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Sorry, I didn't hear that Mr Smith?

MR SMITH: The one had a cap on. A cap on his head, like a balaclava. As I said to you the way they came in, they never came in disguised. You could actually make sure that those were the people, so what they actually did meant that whoever is going to actually identify them, they weren't concerned about it. They actually came to the church, fully prepared whatever gives, whatever the cost may be, that is what they are going to do.

ADV ARENDSE: We all know that, we accept that that they were prepared, that it was planned. Did you make a statement to the police along the lines that you ...

MR SMITH: There are so many that made statements to the police at the stage, I felt that - to the press I spoke many a time to the press and in my affidavit to the press you can actually read what I am actually speaking about, it is the same thing, nothing changed from that time to now.

ADV ARENDSE: So you didn't make a statement to the police?

MR SMITH: I never made a statement to the police.

ADV ARENDSE: And you never testified in court?

MR SMITH: Man, to me I tried to I wouldn't say shield away from it, but I don't look at news, because I look at positive things, not negative things. When these accused were trailed, someone came to me and said do you know that the perpetrators of St James had appeared. I said what, he said, don't you read the news, and I said I don't buy newspapers.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR SMITH: Because I believe in a positive way and that is the way I look at things. Not the negative way of bad stuff to run you down when you get up in the morning and look at the news. That is all that you see, violence, crime, corruption.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes. In 1993, there was violence, crime, corruption, do you accept that?

MR SMITH: Well, to a certain degree I do.

ADV ARENDSE: Do you accept that there was violence perpetrated against Black people, African people by the State, by the police, people were shot and killed?

MR SMITH: Yes, I believe so through hearing from others.

ADV ARENDSE: Well, from what you read in the newspapers, I take it at the time perhaps, you ...

MR SMITH: Maybe not fully on the newspaper. I am not politically minded. As I said to you, I don't involve in any of the political situations that is in. To the matter of fact, I don't even know who - our President I do know is Mandela, but the rest of it, I don't even know.

ADV ARENDSE: But you were born in District Six?

ADV DE JAGER: Could I ask Mr Smith, Mr Smith in fact whatever way we look at it, there is a confession that they in fact killed your wife. They don't deny that today. Whether she was killed by a bullet or by shrapnel, he even wouldn't know, but that wouldn't pardon him. What he had done was according to the law wrong, he had been convicted and sentenced for murder. So, we are not disputing and I don't think anybody could dispute that as far as the law is concerned, he is guilty, he had been found guilty of murder and it was murder. So that is not what is at issue today. The only thing we have got to consider, is whether in terms of the Act, amnesty could be granted and in that respect I don't think, it is necessary Mr Arendse, to go into details and try to let's be honest, nobody could have observed everything that happened there, it happened in seconds. So I believe Mr Smith is honestly relating what he in fact saw. And I don't think it would be of any advantage to us, it could serve any purpose if perhaps he had seen things differently from what the applicant said. It couldn't help us in coming to a decision.

CHAIRMAN: This put on the basis that what this witness, Mr Smith now says, proves that the applicants have not made a full disclosure and if that is based entirely on the fact that there is a difference in his version, from the applicant's version, that difference is on the matters of detail, you know. That doesn't throw any light on whether the event occurred or not, it is just on a matter of detail and that difference might be an honest difference of memory, recollection of events and so on.

ADV ARENDSE: We are perfectly happy to leave it on that basis. Mr Smith, at the time in 1993, we were still being ruled by a White minority, you accept that?

MR SMITH: I do agree.

ADV ARENDSE: And political organisations had different agendas? Do you accept that? In terms of what they wanted and what their vision for the future was?

MR SMITH: At that time there was a process of elections carrying on and I knew, you know, looking at the situation the country is in, a change is going to come about.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, I think it is well-known that there were talks at Kempton Park, I think you are referring to that, those negotiations, not elections with respect, but there were negotiations.

MR SMITH: The negotiations, you know, with this you feel that if that is taking place, why have the violence to back that up? You can have a peaceful settlement through a different manner than violence. Wait till after that, the outcome of that and if you see, you are not getting what you actually standing for, then by all means, apply yourself to what you think is fit, but in this manner, I don't see they could do that.

ADV ARENDSE: But do you accept as a fact that there were nevertheless organisations who differed on the manner in which they are going to bring about change in this country? There were some, just to narrow it down, there were some who believed that they should do so through sitting around a table and there were others who believed that they should do so through the barrel of a gun?

MR SMITH: As I've said before, I don't read the news, it is only what I hear from people and to me, as I heard, there are people out there called APLA, whatever it is, that were taking offence in that manner.

ADV ARENDSE: So do you vaguely remember that APLA was a militant organisation?

MR SMITH: Man, to a certain extent it can, it rings a bell vaguely there.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes. The composition of the church, the different nationalities you were referring to. Do you accept that one couldn't expect the applicants here today to have known that?

MR SMITH: Normally, the people, as I've said before, we attended the church, you find out, you familiarise yourself with one seat and you stick to that seat and in the front rows, there were Blacks, outright Blacks, there is one person sitting in the congregation this evening, that was sitting right in front, my daughter was the last actually that was pulled down, and she is not fair and you could see it from a distance and the guy that shot to that direction, the guy right in front of me, if he couldn't see that, then I don't know, then he didn't know what the distinction between White and Black is.

ADV ARENDSE: But I am talking about the composition, you told us about the Chinese and the Russians.

MR SMITH: There are Chinese and Russians that attend the church as I said to you and outright you can actually see them.

ADV ARENDSE: You also said that this thing happened in a matter of seconds and it happened very quickly.

MR SMITH: I did.

ADV ARENDSE: Do you accept that the only basis that one can explain what happened that day, is that what was done must have been done to achieve some political objective?

MR SMITH: Man, to me, sorry about the noise, I felt in my way, that they wanted to gain media exposure and the only way they can do it, is to use a church.

JUDGE WILSON: Did they want to retrieve media exposure for their political purposes?

MR SMITH: As I said again to the APLA sort of reasoning, I wasn't aware of what their reasoning and status was in this country, fighting the courses for, because I never read the newspapers etc.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you very much Mr Chairman, thank you Mr Smith.

MR SMITH: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRMAN: Any questions you wish to put?

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, thank you.

CHAIRMAN: Any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV BEMBRIDGE: Just one question Mr Chairman. May I just clarify with you Mr Smith. What you are saying is that, or am I correct in summarising what you are saying to be that because the door in the church stayed open, you assumed there was a third person holding the door open?

MR SMITH: That is right.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BEMBRIDGECHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Smith.

MR SMITH: I would like to thank the Judges for allowing me to give my testimony before the time, but it is an unforeseen matter, thank you.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Cross-examining?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mr Chairman, my learned friend has suggested, as he suggested that I suggested that we take an adjournment at this stage until half past one, I don't know what the Committee's attitude to that would be?

ADV ARENDSE: I won't say anything to you in confidence again.

CHAIRMAN: It seems that the Committee members generally are persuaded by your request. We will adjourn until half past one.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNSON RESUMPTION - CHAIRMAN: Mr Bembridge, you were about to commence questioning of this applicant.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Makoma, when did you, you say you became a member of the Task Force or rather you became - let me just clarify something. You became a member of the Task Force in 1993, is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: When did you then become a member of APLA?

MR MAKOMA: I became a member of APLA when the one who was a Task Force Commander was arrested. And it was investigated that I was one of those who were suspected. Under those circumstances I had to align myself with APLA members.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: When did that take place though?

MR MAKOMA: In 1993.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Also in 1993? After you had joined the Task Force already?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can you remember more or less what month of 1993 that was? Was it in the beginning of the year or the middle of the year?

MR MAKOMA: At the beginning of the year.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How long after you had joined the Task Force was it that you joined APLA?

MR MAKOMA: It was not long after the Commander of the Task Force was arrested.

JUDGE WILSON: How long after you joined the Task Force was the question, not how long after the Commander was arrested.

CHAIRMAN: Was it one month, two months?

MR MAKOMA: It was only a month.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Was it not very close to the attack, about a month or so before the attack on the St James church that you joined APLA?

MR MAKOMA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Am I correct in saying it was when Vusi approached you that you in fact joined APLA?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Is it not correct that he only approached you some three or four weeks prior to the attack on the St James church?

MR MAKOMA: No, that is not true.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Is it correct that at some stage you left home with your parents, and you went to live with somebody else, another lady in Site C?

MR MAKOMA: Will you please repeat your question?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Is it correct that you at some stage left your parents' home and went to live with another woman, another lady in Site C in Khayelitsha, because you thought your parents would force you to go back to school, which you didn't want to do?

MR MAKOMA: Are you asking whether that is true or not?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am asking if that is true?

MR MAKOMA: No, that is not true.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did you come to meet Vusi?

MR MAKOMA: I met Vusi through someone who was from the PAC.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Who was that person? The person whom you met Vusi through?

MR MAKOMA: It was Mhambi.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And who was he in the PAC, what position did he hold?

MR MAKOMA: He was in the Regional Executive of the PAC.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Who is Mr Mkula?

MR MAKOMA: He is the Chairman of the PAC, in the Site B Branch.

JUDGE WILSON: Could you repeat the name please?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mkula?

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Was it not at Mr Mkula's house that you met Vusi for the first time?

MR MAKOMA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did Vusi, or is it correct to say that Vusi recruited you to APLA?

MR MAKOMA: What happened is this, when I heard that police are looking for me, the leader of the PAC of the Region also heard that, they are the ones who asked me to meet Vusi.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And how was it arranged that you would meet Vusi, where did you meet him?

MR MAKOMA: There was a rally in Guguletu, that is where we met.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And who is Vusi in the PAC or in APLA?

MR MAKOMA: He is the Commander.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Where is he now?

MR MAKOMA: I don't know.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: When was the last time that you saw him?

MR MAKOMA: I last saw him about two or three months before the attack, because he was supposed to go away. The only thing I knew he was supposed to leave in a period of two to three months. And then Lester was going to take over, Lester Sichomiso.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What is Vusi's full name?

MR MAKOMA: In APLA we don't know each other by our full names, I know him as Vusi.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did your training - Vusi trained you in military training, is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: By the time I was still in the Task Force group, as Bassie has said before, there were also APLA members who were involved in the Task Force, but we knew nothing about them. We didn't know that they were members of APLA, I was trained by them. Everything was organised by the Commander of the Task Force. I was trained by them with my fellow Africans. The ones that police were looking for.

JUDGE WILSON: Could I go back for a moment, I just want to make sure I've got the thing down. Did you say you last saw Vusi two to three months before the attack?

MR MAKOMA: The last time I saw Vusi, it was before the attack, and he was supposed to leave in two or three months time.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How long before the attack was it that you last saw him though?

MR MAKOMA: I can say a month before the attack, or either three weeks, I am not really sure.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can I just check that your previous answer was properly interpreted to me. Did you say the last time you saw him, it was intended that he would leave three months after that?

MR MAKOMA: The only thing he told me is that he won't be in the area for two to three months.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: So he said he was going away for two to three months, not going away in two to three months time? Is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, that is what I was trying to say.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Now, you say that in the criminal trial in this matter, you were not telling the truth to the court?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And you also said in the trial that you were assaulted and by that assault forced into making statements, confessions, is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you still say that you were assaulted in that manner and do you still say that your statements were made because of an assault?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What is your response to the Judge's finding that you were laying when you said that?

MR MAKOMA: Can you please repeat the question?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What is your response to the Judge's finding in the criminal trial that you were laying when you said you had been assaulted and interrogated?

MR MAKOMA: I've heard the Judge saying I am laying, but I was facing a very difficult time at that moment so I couldn't bring in front the evidence that I was tortured and beaten. I did hear him, but I tried to show him that I was tortured. There was nothing I could do when he said I was not beaten.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: There was a long investigation at the trial into whether you were beaten or not, is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: I know that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And you had an Advocate, Advocate Desai representing you in that trial, is that also correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And you gave him instructions and you told him everything that had happened to you and he put all that before the court, is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Now, I am putting to you that the record of those proceedings dealing only with the question of whether you were assaulted or not, runs into almost 1 000 pages. At the end of that investigation, the Judge still found that you were telling lies when you said that you were assaulted. Do you still insist that you were assaulted in interrogation?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You see if the Judge after that long investigation which I have described and after you say your Advocate put your story to the court, if he found that you were laying, then how are we to believe otherwise today?

CHAIRMAN: He is telling you that he disagrees with what the Judge found. That is what the essence of his evidence was.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mr Chairman, I felt it necessary however, to give him that opportunity, since it will clearly be for me to argue that if the Judge found that, then we should similarly found that.

CHAIRMAN: You can argue that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, I thought I should merely give him an opportunity to comment on that argument.

JUDGE NGOEPE: It will be a very interesting argument. Just because somebody else disbelieved him, we must disbelieve him?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You made two statements to the police, is that not so Mr Makoma? You made one ...

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You made one to Detective Segal on the 14th of August and then you made one to Major Lester on the 15th of August?

MR MAKOMA: Those that were taken to the court were the only two, but I've made many statements, more than two.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Is it not so that the statement you made on the 14th of August is very much the same as the statement you made on the 15th of August?

MR MAKOMA: Can you please repeat your question?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Is it not correct that the statement you made on the 14th of August, is the same or very much the same, as the one you made on the 15th of August?

MR MAKOMA: Whether they do look similar or not, the only thing I know is that I was forced to make those statements.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Now, if we look at your statement that you made on the 14th of August, in that statement you say that two weeks before the attack on St James, you saw Vusi at a taxi rank in Site C, that he told you that he was going to Kenilworth, that he told you that he used to go to a restaurant there, but that on this occasion he was going there to find a place to attack? Why did you say that?

MR MAKOMA: I will answer your question. It is because I was tortured, that is why I made that statement. If you still continue asking those questions, I won't have to answer those because the torture effected me badly. If you still continue, you will make me rude.

INTERPRETER: If I may interject there Mr Chairman, the interpretation there was not exact. The applicant said that I will then find myself in a situation where I say things that I did not mean to say, then the interpreter interpreted that as rude, which is not quite the same.

MS KHAMPEPE: In fact he says I will say things that I wouldn't like to say.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: But where did you get this idea from that you had met Vusi at the taxi rank, where did that come from, that idea?

MR MAKOMA: I told you that police knew Vusi. By the time I was arrested, I was facing some problems. The policemen said I must agree with what they are telling me as they are telling me. Under different circumstances, the way they were torturing me, so I had to make up some stories like this one. The one you are saying they are statements.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Makoma, you told us now that if counsel would continue to ask you questions, you would tell us things that you wouldn't like to tell us. Is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Would that be the truth you will be telling us? Would that be the truth that you are going to tell us, that you wouldn't like to tell us?

MR MAKOMA: What I am trying to clarify here or to bring up, they didn't accept this in court. Political parties have informers. I was not an experienced soldier, I had a problem when I met policemen who had full information that some of them, I don't know. I was tortured, beaten, I couldn't sleep, I was not eating. Under those circumstances I had to do many things so that I can run away from this thing. Although the policemen didn't bring that thing up or forward. I tried to kill myself, but they found that. I took the gun from the police, not in the intention to kill them, but to kill myself because I was in a very, very difficult situation.

ADV DE JAGER: No, the only thing I wanted to know, what is it that you would tell us that you didn't really want to tell us, is that what you have related now? Did you refer to this?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, because this thing didn't even come up in court.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Perhaps you can have a look at page 8 of the bundle in front of you. If you have a look at the last paragraph on that page, before it says signed G.C. Makoma, that paragraph, can you read and understand that?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I've read that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: The description of the attack that took place, as to how the attack happened, that is correct, is it not?

MR MAKOMA: The one here is not the truth.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Let me read to you the section. You went to the church it says.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ... those portions that you think you disagree with?

MR MAKOMA: Sorry, what page is that?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Page 8.

MR MAKOMA: Where on page 8?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: On the last paragraph before it says signed G.C. Makoma. It starts .. then Vusi asked Aubrey ...

MR MAKOMA: Okay, yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That paragraph. Although you say that some of the names are wrong, that is how the attack happened, is it not?

MR MAKOMA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What is incorrect there?

MR MAKOMA: First of all Vusi's name is mentioned here that he is involved, of which he was not there.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: anything else?

MR MAKOMA: I am still looking, please wait for me. A Cressida is mentioned here, there was no Cressida there.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Then after that it goes on to say what had happened?

MR MAKOMA: Again, we did not go to Site B after this attack.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What I want to ask you is if now, you had admitted to the police here that you had committed the attack, why is it necessary for you to make up all these other things about the meeting in Kenilworth and what Vusi told you about the attack when he met you in Kenilworth. You've now confessed to being involved in the attack, the police would not surely have forced you to say all this? This is something you made from your own head?

MR MAKOMA: I told you before - I don't know what you want me to say now.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What more did the police want from you than the fact that you had participated in the attack and that Vusi was in the attack?

MR MAKOMA: There were many things.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Like what?

MR MAKOMA: They wanted to know about the operation that happened in a restaurant in Claremont, who attacked there, shooting of policemen in Guguletu of which I know nothing about that. And who did that, they had information that I was also involved. And as the Commander of the Task Force was arrested, the Commander told them I am the one who is responsible for the ammunition. I did keep the arms.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Then, now you say you knew nothing about the attack on the policemen in Guguletu, but you knew something about the attack in Claremont? I don't say you were part of it, but you knew something of it?

MR MAKOMA: Who told you that?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am asking you if that is so?

MR MAKOMA: No, I didn't say that. I am telling you that I was asked things that I know nothing about.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well you said you knew nothing about the Guguletu attack, you specifically said that, you didn't say you knew nothing about the Claremont attack.

MR MAKOMA: Maybe you didn't hear me or there was no right interpretation because I told you that I know nothing about these things.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Bembridge, was this statement used during the trial?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: As Judge Wilson correctly pointed out, there was no decision on this statement during the trial, it was the other statement which was submitted and therefore rejected during the trial.

CHAIRMAN: Was this one used in whatever way, was it used at all?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I don't believe it was used, no.

CHAIRMAN: And if it, well you haven't established that whether it was used?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: No evidence was led on the statements at the trial.

CHAIRMAN: You don't know why it was not used?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It may have been that the Prosecution expected similar difficulties. I don't know. I cannot comment for the State Prosecution at that stage.

CHAIRMAN: It may even be that they accepted his possible argument that he was assaulted into it.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: They clearly rejected, or the Judge clearly rejected any suggestion that he had been assaulted in interrogation.

CHAIRMAN: Any way, we don't know why it wasn't used. That is what I am trying to find out.

JUDGE WILSON: It was mentioned but not used, at page 47 of the record, after having referred to the questioning, prolonged questioning of the accused, the Judge there says the accused then capitulated, wrote a lengthy statement for Segal and agreed to point out things at the scene of the crime the next day, top of page 47. He then agreed to point things out and he said that he had been compelled to do so because he had been assaulted by the police.

CHAIRMAN: You can proceed.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman. You see, it seems clear to me from this statement, that you were well informed about what the target of the attack was and that you knew it was a church in Kenilworth and that when you and the other applicants say you had no idea of the target of the attack, you were not telling the entire truth.

MR MAKOMA: We are here to tell the truth, so I don't know what you want us to say.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You refer in paragraph 6 of your affidavit to an attack at a house in Macassar. I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, I misunderstood the context in which it is written.

CHAIRMAN: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Where did you get the 9 mm pistol that you gave to Mlambisa for his protection?

MR MAKOMA: It was one of the weapons that was left by Lester.

CHAIRMAN: By what?

MR MAKOMA: Lester, one of the guns that were left by Lester with me.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: When did he leave it with you?

MR MAKOMA: It was his own gun. After Vusi left, we used to meet time and again and he gave me this rifle.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

JUDGE WILSON: What other guns did he give you?

MR MAKOMA: R4 rifle, but it was not used on the attack.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you know where he got these weapons from?

MR MAKOMA: No, I don't know.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Where did he keep them, where did he get them from to give to you?

MR MAKOMA: I don't know. I just accepted the one that he gave me.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Where were you when he gave it to you? Where were you when he gave it to you?

MR MAKOMA: Where he was staying.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: In his house?

MR MAKOMA: It was not his house, it was one of the fellow Africans' house.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Now, you say you were told by Vusi that there would be an operation?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: When was it that he told you this?

MR MAKOMA: Before Lester arrived.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What did he tell you about the operation?

MR MAKOMA: He just told me that there was going to be an operation, nothing further than that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why did he just say that - in what conversation did it come up that there would be an operation?

MR MAKOMA: I can't tell you, he is the only one who knows, but he told me about the operation.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did he tell you, you were going to be involved in the operation?

MR MAKOMA: No, he didn't.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why then do you say in paragraph 7 of your affidavit, that you knew there was going to be an attack?

MR MAKOMA: On that question, if you mean why, are you really meaning why?

JUDGE WILSON: What was the question? Why did you not say in your affidavit you knew there was going to be an attack?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: No, why did he say in the affidavit he knew there was going to be an attack?

CHAIRMAN: Didn't he say that he was told by Vusi that there was going to be an attack?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: He said there would be an operation.

CHAIRMAN: Maybe that is a difference in words rather.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I submit, a significant one.

CHAIRMAN: Make your point then.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Let's look at that. Are you referring to paragraph 7 ?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You say why did he say that ...?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: There was going to be an attack.

JUDGE NGOEPE: If what?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: If all he had been told is that there was going to be an operation. How did he know that the operation ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you read paragraph 7, did you read the preceding sentences?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Yes. My understanding from all the applicants is that all that they knew is that there would be an operation, that they had no further details.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Was Vusi there on the day? On this day, on the Sunday, the 25th?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It appears not.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, you asked him whether Vusi did tell him as to what was going to happen? Whether there was going to be an operation, which was apparently on a different day, some days before the 25th?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Certainly, but his evidence is that right up until the time of the attack itself, they didn't know the operation or what the nature of the operation was. Now he says that prior to the time, he knew that there was to be an attack.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, what do you think operation means?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It could have been anything with respect Mr Wilson.

CHAIRMAN: Certainly.

JUDGE WILSON: When he says I was made aware by Vusi that there would be an operation, but at that time the target was unknown to me, doesn't that only mean an attack? An operation where the target is unknown?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, clearly then, that is my suggestion, that they were then given more details than merely that there was an operation.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Bembridge, I must say in Xhosa an operation is an attack. I think you will have to phrase your question in such a way that you make it quite clear to Mr Makoma that you want far much more than what has been put in the interpretation.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: With respect, it is the applicant who makes the distinction in his affidavit, not I.

CHAIRMAN: Yes, this is in the English language, it is done through interpreters and I think that you must concede that the word operation and attack can be read as if they were synonymous, but I don't know whether there is anything material that turns on it. You wanted to know precisely whether he knew where the operation was going to be or where the attack was going to be and he said he didn't know. So he didn't know where the operation was going to be or what it was, he didn't know where the attack was going to be. You are saying that he knew about it, that is the point you are trying to make, isn't it?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: He knew more than that it was merely an operation.

CHAIRMAN: What could be more?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It could be anything, it could be ...

CHAIRMAN: Such as?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: At attempt, a bank robbery for funds for the organisation, an apprehension of an informer, an exercise in defense of the party.

CHAIRMAN: Well, it depends upon how he understood the word operation at that time.

ADV DE JAGER: If you have known two weeks before that there would have been an attack on the church, and that you would be attacking Whites, would you have participated or not?

MR MAKOMA: When we have told something, they were not going to ask for permission from you. They were just giving orders. You don't have to oppose or ask any questions up until they tell you this is the right time to do that.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, and if you were ordered, you would have carried out the orders? Is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And if they ordered you a month before the time that you should go and attack a church, you would have gone? You wouldn't have disobeyed their order?

MR MAKOMA: I would have gone there.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Would you have gone if you had known that the church would be half full of non-settlers, if I can put it that way?

MR MAKOMA: An order is an order. You don't think who is there and who is not there. If an order is being instructed, you just do that.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Makoma, were operatives in your unit ever involved in the actual identification of targets?

MR MAKOMA: No, it was only the Commander who used to do that.

JUDGE WILSON: Had you been involved in any APLA operation attack before this?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: On that occasion, had you been told what the target was before the attack?

MR MAKOMA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: After the attack, you say you went to a house in Ottery.

MR MAKOMA: Yes, we went to a nearby house, then I didn't know that it was Aubrey.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Whose house was it?

MR MAKOMA: I don't know.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you see the people there the next day who owned the house?

MR MAKOMA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Who was in the house the next day?

MR MAKOMA: It was me and my colleague next to me.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What happened to the weapons after the attack?

MR MAKOMA: When we arrived at night, the weapons were taken and put back into the bag and I went to sleep. The following day I woke up, Lester left and Bassie left and then we were told that we will be leaving in the afternoon. I don't know what happened to the arms, maybe we left them in the house, I don't know.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You say in paragraph 13 of your affidavit that it is now obvious to you that Vusi and Nonxuba had known of the operation for some time. Why is that obvious now?

MR MAKOMA: They were the Commanders, both of them. We were soldiers.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why is it only obvious now though, why was it not obvious before the attack? If you have a look at paragraph 13 in the last sentence, it is now obvious however, that Vusi and Nonxuba had known of the operation for some time. Why is that only obvious now, why did you not realise that before the attack took place?

MR MAKOMA: The name obvious that is written there, maybe it is the English that I don't understand, but what I know is the Commanders are the only ones who are supposed to know. Because if they didn't know, there was no attack that is going to happen.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: When you were arrested, you were arrested with a bag, is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What were the contents of that bag?

MR MAKOMA: There were books, a diary, a bullet and the cleaning equipment for the guns and my jersey.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Cleaning equipment for which guns?

MR MAKOMA: I mean guns?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Any guns?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And where did you get the bag from?

MR MAKOMA: Vusi left the bag with me.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Before he left?

MR MAKOMA: Yes. And then I was supposed to take that bag to Lester. And he said I must keep it for a while. By the time I was arrested I had this bag with me, taking it to Lester.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why were you taking it to Lester at that time?

MR MAKOMA: Because he told me to do so.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: When did he tell you that?

CHAIRMAN: Why were you taking it at that time and not some other time, is that the point?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That is correct.

CHAIRMAN: Why on that particular day were you taking it to Lester?

MR MAKOMA: It is because Lester told me that the following day I must bring the bag.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: The day following what?

MR MAKOMA: Before the day I was arrested.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: So you were in contact with Lester the day before you were arrested?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why was that?

MR MAKOMA: Because I was the one who knows where Lester stays.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What did you have to contact him about though?

MR MAKOMA: As my Commander I was supposed to go and see him.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: For what purpose?

MR MAKOMA: For messages, maybe I would have taken and give to other colleagues of us.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What did you think the attack would achieve?

MR MAKOMA: Can you please clarify your question?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What did you think would be achieved by the attack?

MR MAKOMA: The attack was done under the Commander of APLA, and APLA was fighting the armed struggle. It was fighting for the land of the Blacks that were taken from them with force by the Whites and that was the duty of APLA to fight for the land to come back, using armed struggle, that is what it was formed for.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: How would this attack help the land to come back?

MR MAKOMA: The struggle that was going on in this country, as the African nation was the struggle to the oppressors. When we see them, we see White people. They were the minority that was ruling. The power they had were using them to oppress the Africans. They were in a war with us as Africans although we were unarmed, the way they were armed. APLA then was fighting returning a bullet with a bullet, protecting the Africans in Azania and the PAC was busy using other tactics, so that you people in the government could hear the cries of the children of Azania. If your ears couldn't listen, APLA decided to take guns to open the ears that were not prepared to listen.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: But is it not so Mr Makoma that the very time you did that, there was a special meeting of all the parties arranged in Johannesburg to specially provide that all the ears of everybody would be opened to hear what the PAC and everyone else had to say, at the very time you committed this attack?

MR MAKOMA: I know that, but APLA as the military wing of the PAC never had an instruction from the political leadership of PAC not to use the arms, that is why soldiers of APLA were still busy fighting and shooting.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You heard earlier the press statements that we read out and the newspaper reports which said that the PAC denied any responsibility for the act, that they condemn the act, that APLA denied any responsibility for the act. You heard the statement of Mr Desai who said that he condemned the act, you heard APLA saying it was not the kind of operation that they would authorise. On what basis then do you say it was in the furtherance of APLA's policies that you committed this attack?

MR MAKOMA: The attack was led by one of the High Command members of APLA. One of the big high profile members of APLA who were giving instructions to the soldiers.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: If that is so, then why did this APLA spokesperson in Dar Es Salaam say they had no responsibility for the attack?

MR MAKOMA: Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, when there is a call to South Africa and when someone is calling him or herself as a member of APLA, and then that person does not identify him or herself clearly, and then we were supposed to take that instruction. And we would say it is from APLA and yet, it is from the media or the papers, not from APLA.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You knew when you went into that church that there would be many people inside and that what you did would kill many people and injure many people? Is that so?

MR MAKOMA: Are you saying when I was going there I - is it I knew that there was going to be many people because I have told you that I didn't know. Maybe you can ask whether did I see that there were many people, because I knew nothing before that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: As Judge Wilson said earlier, you saw there were lots of cars parked outside for one, so there must have been many people? You saw when you went inside that there were many people?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, inside.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And for what purpose was it necessary to glue nails onto the handgrenades?

MR MAKOMA: The weapons that were used there, I was seeing them for the very first time and I never put any nails. If who took them there and who put the nails there, I don't know.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: But you knew when you threw that handgrenade that there were nails glued to it?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I saw them that there were nails glued, but the order said I must throw it while it is glued.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You have been to church yourself, is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And you know that the church is a place of sanctuary and a place where people pray?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you not think that something else would have been a better target than a church?

MR MAKOMA: If I was in the position of choosing the target, I would have thought that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BEMBRIDGE
CHAIRMAN: Mr Brink, are there any questions you wish to put?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: I just want to clear up one point, it won't be long. You said earlier in your evidence that you met Vusi through a PAC Regional Executive member?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Can you give me his name, I missed it. The name of that Regional Executive member who introduced you to Vusi?

MR MAKOMA: It was Mhambi.

MR BRINK: Can you spell it please?

MR MAKOMA: Mhambi.

MR BRINK: Was that his code name or his real name?

MR MAKOMA: I won't know whether it was his real name or surname, that is all I know it was Mr Mhambi.

MR BRINK: That is the only name you know?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

MR BRINK: And of what region was he an Executive member or of which region rather?

MR MAKOMA: Western Cape region;

MR BRINK: Western Cape?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

MR BRINK: And is he still about, is he living in the Western Cape, do you know?

MR MAKOMA: No, I don't know whether he is still here in the Western Cape or not.

MR BRINK: So you don't know where he lives?

MR MAKOMA: I know he stayed here in Cape Town, but I don't know where exactly.

MR BRINK: All right. Finally, just to refer you to page 5 of the bundle Mr Makoma, I beg your pardon, page 6 of the bundle. The first sentence was read out to you and you said some of it is incorrect and some may have been correct. It is correct that at the time of the attack, you were a standard 8 schoolboy?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

MR BRINK: That was correct? But you say it is not correct when you said that you were not a member of APLA or the military wing of any other organisation?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

MR BRINK: That wasn't correct. But it is correct, isn't it, that it was not the policy of the PAC to perpetrate such attacks?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

MR BRINK: That is correct?

MR MAKOMA: It is correct.

MR BRINK: You see what I don't really understand is that APLA is part and parcel of the PAC, I know it is the military wing, but it is the same organisation, isn't it? The PAC is the umbrella organisation and it have the junior branches and the military wing?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Would not APLA Commanders have received instructions from the leadership of the PAC not to perpetrate acts of this sort in the light of the fact that negotiations were proceeding at Kempton Park?

MR MAKOMA: Will you please repeat your question?

MR BRINK: APLA was part and parcel of the PAC, is that correct?

MR MAKOMA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Now I understand that you were merely a soldier and not an activist in the PAC as such, but what I find hard to understand and maybe you can help me, how it came about that the PAC which was involved in peace negotiations at the time of this attack, had not told APLA leadership not to do this sort of thing. Do you understand?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I understand.

MR BRINK: Are you able to comment?

MR MAKOMA: Yes, I can make a comment. APLA had powers to go on with the armed struggle from the Congress that was held by the region of the PAC of South Africa. As long as the Congress that didn't hold another meeting to tell the soldiers not to attack, orders were still going on on the ground that we must continue attacking up until the leadership could call another Congress and then the members of the PAC of all the regions, would take a decision that APLA must stop the armed struggle. And then APLA would stop. Because the leader is a political leadership which is PAC, the mother body.

MR BRINK: Thank you.

MR MAKOMA: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINKCHAIRMAN: Any re-examination?

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE
CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you very much.

MR MAKOMA: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRMAN: Mr Arendse, do you propose calling any other evidence?

ADV ARENDSE: No, Mr Chairman, that is the case for the applicants, thank you.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Bembridge?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman. We would like to call Mr Ackerman. He has asked me to request Mr Chairman that we just have a very short recess if possible, just a few moments for me to speak to him.

CHAIRMAN: Very well, we will take a very, very short recess.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

COMMISSION TAKES A SHORT ADJOURNMENT
ON RESUMPTION - CHAIRMAN: Mr Bembridge?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you for the opportunity Mr Chairman, we would then like to call Mr Dawie Ackerman.

CHAIRMAN: What are your full names, Mr Ackerman?

MR ACKERMAN: Dawid Jakobus Ackerman.

DAWID JAKOBUS ACKERMAN: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ackerman, you are a parishioner at the St James church in Kenilworth, is that correct?

MR ACKERMAN: That is correct.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What is the denomination if one may term it that of that church?

MR ACKERMAN: It is the Church of England in South Africa.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And what if you could just give some more detail perhaps, is the make-up of that congregation there?

MR ACKERMAN: It is a congregation of born again Christians and visitors who come to the church who hopefully will accept the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and become Christians.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Now, I understand that you have people attending the church who live outside the area of Kenilworth itself?

MR ACKERMAN: That is correct.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What type of people are those?

MR ACKERMAN: They come from all sectors of the community. They are - we are predominantly a family church, where families come to worship. Families meaning mothers, fathers, children and children of all ages.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I understand also that there are people of all race groups who attend that church?

MR ACKERMAN: That is correct.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And I put it to you the applicants earlier that there is a percentage of almost 50 percent or around 40 percent of people who attend the church, who are not in fact considered White?

MR ACKERMAN: At this point in time I would say that is a close percentage, I don't have the exact figures, but just by casting one's eye over the congregation today I would say that it is very close to 50-50.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And at the time of the attack?

MR ACKERMAN: I would say it was about 35 - 40 percent people of colour and the others so-called Whites.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And was this on a regular basis that that would be the make-up?

MR ACKERMAN: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What other people did you have attending the church, I understand you get certain missions to the ...

MR ACKERMAN: That is correct, we have a mission outreach to visiting Seamen in our port, we worked very closely at the time with another missionary organisation called Biblia and together with them, we concentrated on visitors in the harbour, Seamen and Russians, Filipino's, Chinese, Koreans, were brought to our church.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And are these people also in regular attendance there?

MR ACKERMAN: The most regular is the Russian, that happens just about every week, depending upon whether there are ships in the harbour, the other Filipino's and Koreans and so on, that fluctuates with the work of Biblia, but not so weekly regular, but I would say regular in terms of every few weeks.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I understand that on the evening of the attack, there were a number of Russian people in the church and that there were in fact a couple of hundred or two hundred or so?

MR ACKERMAN: On the night of the attack, there was about 125, in the immediate weeks before that, there was a crew change taking place and we had up too 350 to 400 visitors about two weeks prior to the attack.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I understand that the church also does missionary work in the poorer sections of the Western Cape community, can you perhaps elaborate a little bit on that?

MR ACKERMAN: We have had since the mid 1980's an outreach to Khayelitsha, to Site C, that is to the Black community, we also in the old apartheid era had outreaches to other so-called Coloured areas where we established daughter-churches, some of them became constituent sister-churches and became independent from our help and became self-sufficient churches. We never saw them in any other context but as Christian churches and they happened to be in areas which were disadvantaged and we were fully aware of that and our outreach to them in the first instance, was for the gospel, but we realised too that you can't reach out to these areas without having a social obligation also.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And how did you go about fulfilling that social obligation?

MR ACKERMAN: In the Khayelitsha outreach, we commenced by established a creche facility during the week. The same hall was used on Sundays for services. During the week also we provided sewing classes at that facility for the women of the area.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And I understand that you had two affiliated churches in the Khayelitsha area?

MR ACKERMAN: At that stage we had one, we now have a daughter-church in Mandela Park. At that stage already we had the ground, but through lack of funds we hadn't yet been able to start the building work. Building work has commenced recently and in fact I think it must be completed by now. And that is in Mandela Park and that is a more permanent feature. Nothing in Site C can be permanent, you are only allowed to erect timber and iron or shack type of dwellings there. Excuse me, could I have some water please, thank you. Please carry on.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I understand also that there was some interchange between the churches and that people from the various churches attended services at the other churches forming part of the St James group if we can term it that?

MR ACKERMAN: That is quite correct, we regularly, every Sunday people from our church would go out to Khayelitsha to participate in the services that were being held there. And similarly from time to time, we would bring the parishioners or the children from the Khayelitsha outreach to our church to expose our people to them again.

CHAIRMAN: Sorry Mr Ackerman, can I just ask you, this church is it situated in what at some stage in our history would have been described as a White area?

MR ACKERMAN: The St James church?

CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR ACKERMAN: Yes, I would say that would be a factual position at one stage.

CHAIRMAN: And you say now the composition is 50-50 and at the time of the incident it was about 35/40 percent people of colour?

MR ACKERMAN: Correct.

CHAIRMAN: And if I keep on going back, it seems to me the percentage would be less and less, am I right?

MR ACKERMAN: Well, let me answer it to you like this. The church started in about 1968/1969 with five children. I was not there at the time. I can't answer for that. But certainly when I joined the church in 1979, they were already a mixed church, but certainly the percentage was not anywhere near 35 percent at the time, it was probably in the vicinity of about 10 percent people of colour in 1979. The church does not have borders, it is not a church with a predetermined border that says this is the church for Kenilworth, Wynberg, we were always a church without borders and attracting people that were interested to hear the gospel. Friends brought friends.

CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that, but my question then is, if I were to ask you whether going back with history with 50 percent, 35 percent and I keep on going back, if I were to ask you was there a time when it was 100 percent White, you wouldn't not be able to answer that question?

MR ACKERMAN: That is correct, I wouldn't, I wasn't there.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Would it be correct also to say Mr Ackerman, that it was to some extent by reason of the application of the Group Areas Act that in the past more people of colour could not attend the church?

MR ACKERMAN: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: You would not say that?

MR ACKERMAN: No. No, our church was always open, we never had any - from what I understand from our leadership, that prior to me joining, that there was never any discrimination practised. I understand at the time too, and it is a very dark time of our history, that there was still an area close by to the St James church, which was a so-called Coloured area and I think it would be reasonable to suppose, although I can't say for sure, that some of those people might well have attended St James church. But that would be conjecture from my side.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: But there was never any church policy contrary to that?

MR ACKERMAN: In fact the church policy was that of being open.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And that was from day one?

MR ACKERMAN: From day one. That is what Mr - Judge if I may be permitted to add, that is one of the considerations when I became a Christian that attracted me to this particular congregation, I came from an Afrikaans background, I attended the Dutch Reformed Church and I was unhappy with the political connection of the Dutch Reformed Church and that was part of my motivation to go to this particular church.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Now, you say or I understand that there was about 1 300 people in the church that evening?

MR ACKERMAN: Approximately.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And what sort of age groups was it made up of?

MR ACKERMAN: All age groups from - in the evenings children as young as six years old would come to church. We don't provide creche facilities in the evening, so approximately age five, six years old, right up to 80 and plus where they are still alive, it is customary that the children would leave at the commencement of the service after the singing of the first hymn or during that time, to a childrens' programme. Children up to the age of about 12 years old.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Would you describe it largely as a family service then, would that be accurate or not?

MR ACKERMAN: The evenings is always a gospel outreach service, where we preach the message of salvation of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you, Mr Ackerman, have forewarning of the attack in the sense of seeing anyone reconnoitre the church previous to it?

MR ACKERMAN: No, I have no knowledge of that.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: No knowledge of that? Could you describe the attack itself?

MR ACKERMAN: Almost halfway through the service, the last song item was taking place before the main preaching of the Word was going to take place, and almost at the end of the song item, the door burst open and I saw two gunmen, or two people come in, it all happened very quickly. I saw and heard shots being fired. I saw a grenade flying through the air and I - it was at that point that I ducked down together with the other people in my pew.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Where was your wife at that time?

MR ACKERMAN: My wife was sitting right at the door where the perpetrators burst in. We were sitting separate from one another because of the large contingent of Russians in order to spread ourselves amongst them, I did not mention that my wife and I actually headed up the outreach ministry to the Russians. We started it by the grace of God.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was the reaction of the congregation to the attack?

MR ACKERMAN: Immediately at the time?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: At the time of the attack?

MR ACKERMAN: Well, the immediate, as the attack was progressing was horror. My ears were zinging from the gunshots and then especially from the two grenade explosions. I was afraid. I had visions of the attackers walking up the isle and shooting the people between the benches as they were laying down. My concern was for my wife and my one son who was in the service. I knew my wife was sitting at the entrance. One part of me thought she can't escape, another part of me hoped that she had escaped. The attack certainly did not last more than a minute. When I got up and people, there were people screaming, but immediately after the attack, it was as if a deathly silence, apart from a few screams and groans here and there, settled on the church. And it was like a whoosh as the people went for the exit doors. I went forward to my wife, saw her still sitting upright. I thought that she might have survived, but she had not.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I take it that the injuries that you saw around you at the time, were quite horrific?

MR ACKERMAN: It was very horrific. Three benches in front of me the second handgrenade had landed and it had blown the whole bench apart. And I saw Dimitri Makogon laying there, as I now knew it was Dimitri. He was a bloody mess. I can't remember now that I actually saw his legs blown off, but it was just blood everywhere, so it was difficult to - and then my attention was more focused to my wife. In walking towards her, I had to step over the dead bodies of Russians, I knew them, I could identify them as Russians by their clothing and also by where they were sitting. One had his head blown open and blood was oozing out on the carpet from his head wound. Others were mutilatedly shot and were either dying or were dead already. There were about three bodies that I stepped over to reach my wife.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: And there were, I understand, all people of all ages and all race groups ... (tape ends) ... and were wounded in the attack?

MR ACKERMAN: Well all age groups, children 12 and older, because the under 12's had left the service, but yes, there were children. Mr & Mrs Harker's two boys, they are in their early teens, there was another teenager, the son of a Pastor, Richard O'Keele, he was about 17 and then people like my own wife was 45, I think at the time.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What, or can you say what it was that actually stopped the attack?

MR ACKERMAN: At that stage, I didn't know. I only learnt afterwards that someone had returned fire and that this had caused them to flee.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can you describe the effect of the attack on you yourself personally?

MR ACKERMAN: I think in a short sentence, it has devastated my life. Immediately after the attack and after I had taken my wife to the hospital and where she died about 20 minutes later, I returned to the church in search of my children and was reunited with all of them there. The more longer term effect of the incident has devastated me in the following way in as much as I soon after that event, went into depression which I did not recognise. It caused me to become progressively more unfunctional in my work, in my ability to show emotion. I was diagnosed as suffering from anxiety depression about a year later after I was already suicidal. I was hiding it, I was in a leadership position at the time of the attack. I had resigned from these leadership positions because I just felt I was not capable of performing them.And I was not getting help and I was hiding the fact that I was suffering from anxiety depression at that stage. In fact I didn't believe that I had it. It was only when I consulted a Doctor that he diagnosed me as such, that I confided in my Pastor and also in my employer of my true condition. I was placed on medication, it did not have a good effect on me and I stopped taking the medication. I instead sought counselling, Christian counselling. I also confided in my Chairman at work, where he on a continual basis monitored me and my ability to work.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I understand that you have since lost your employment as a result of the trauma you've suffered?

MR ACKERMAN: That is correct. That is correct. My condition deteriorated. The position that I held was that of Secretary of an Industrial Council, now known as a Bargaining Council for the clothing industry. It is a very demanding position. There were tremendous changes taking place in South Africa, it was the forum where the Unions and the employers would meet to negotiate. It was the forum where one of the most, the third largest Union in the COSATU fold, being SATU, came to do their negotiating business and with all the demands of the new South Africa, the changing-over, the democratisation process, the establishment of new health benefits and new Provident Benefits, it was a tremendous workload that I was in charge of and in the end I was unable to fulfil these tasks.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was the effect on your family?

MR ACKERMAN: Because of my emotional, not only because of my emotional stumping, but certainly my emotions had been stumped, I find it impossible to be angry with them. I should have anger, but I am not. I instead I am angry with my own family members. It is very difficult for me to say this, but I have a need to say it. I want them to hear it. I fight more with my children now than what I ever had before, and we fight about stupid things. I have never cried over the death of my wife other than have silent cries, but I have never had an emotional crying outburst. While Mr Makoma was testifying and he talked about his tortures and that he was suicidal, I could identify with that. I thought to myself and I wrote you a note to bring your cross-examination to an end, because what are we doing here? The truth yes, but I looked at the way in which he answered you and his anger. How on earth are we going to be reconciled? May I add one thing? I am sorry, while it is in my mind now. I went on record after the event to say that I hold no personal grudge, that I do not hate them and I stand by that. I also held out reconciliation to them, and I believe with all my heart because I've experienced reconciliation with God, through Jesus Christ, that it is available to everybody, including to them. And I held that out to them at the time and I still do so now.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Perhaps leading on from that Mr Ackerman, what has been the church's reaction as a whole, to this attack and what effect has it had on the church community itself?

MR ACKERMAN: In the aftermath of the attack, a super-natural calmness and presence was felt by our church, we couldn't explain it. We just realised that this was of God. I understand from Bishop Retief that international journalists came to him or a group of journalists, including international, came to him and asked him please explain to us what is going on here, why are you forgiving, why are you not filled with rage and bitterness and he said that we have always told you that the Christian message, the Christian gospel does have power, now you see it, now you are the witnesses of it, report that. That is what in the aftermath of the attack, what it was, what we experienced. It has not been easy, there has been hurts. There had been people that have sort of reactions varied, people that couldn't return to the church again, others that couldn't stay away. I for one couldn't stay away from, in the immediate days following the massacre, to return to where my wife had been shot down. It was a release to me to go there and to be where she was killed. And as the time unfolded and the Truth Commission started up and I heard the testimonies of my fellow Black South Africans, who had been subjected to the treatment that they had and parents and mothers, brothers, asked, telling where is my son, where is my father, and we know now that some of them were buried in a farm somewhere in the Free State, some were thrown in rivers in the Eastern Cape, because I know the value of going back to the place where it happened, I appeal to the agents of the government, whoever they might be, to come forward and to identify what they had done, where they did it, at least give them also the opportunity to grieve where it happened.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Would you like a moment Mr Ackerman?

MR ACKERMAN: Yes, please. Could my wife please pass me my jacket? I remarried two years ago. Thank you Advocate.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mr Ackerman, can you tell me, or tell the Committee do you think that in the political climate and having regard to the political developments that were going on at the time of the attack, that it in fact achieved anything or it was an appropriate attack in the circumstances, or justifiable in the circumstances?

MR ACKERMAN: Mr Bembridge, it is difficult for me to answer that because I am so subjectively close to the happening. In retrospect I can see now that the apartheid government was an evil government, that in some respects that the opposition to it was legitimate. I must tell you that in my own personal opinion, I think that the gravity of the attack and the fact that it was a defenceless church, people at worship, that I cannot under any circumstances condone that in terms of an armed struggle and I must stand with that answer.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Is there anything else you would like to say to the Committee at this stage Mr Ackerman?

MR ACKERMAN: Yes. May I address the applicants? May I ask the applicants to turn around and to face me? This is the first opportunity we've had to look each other in the eye and talk. I want to ask Mr Makoma who actually entered the church - my wife was sitting right at the door when we came in, where you came in, she was wearing a long, blue coat, can you remember if you shot her?

MR MAKOMA: I do remember that I fired some shots, but I couldn't identify, I don't know whom did I shoot or not, but my gun pointed at the people.

MR ACKERMAN: It is important for me to know if it is possible, as much as it is important for your people who suffered, to know who killed. I don't know why it is so important for me, but it just is. If you don't remember, I will accept that. I have heard you through your Attorney say and into the microphone, apologise and I have also heard your leadership extend an invitation to my church leadership which is still required, I think, to be considered, that they want to come to our church to offer condolences and they said that they would bring you along, whether or not you receive amnesty in a show of reconciliation. I would like to hear from each one of you as you look me in the face, that you are sorry for what you have done, that you regret it and that you want to be personally reconciled. You can speak in your own language directly to me, you don't have to worry about the microphone.

MR MAKOMA: We are sorry for what we have done. It was the situation in South Africa. Although people died during that struggle, we didn't do that out of our own will. It is the situation that we were living under. We are asking from you, please do forgive us. All that we did, we can see the results today.

MR MLAMBISA: I am also asking for an apology. As we were working under orders, we didn't know that this will come to such a place. We wanted to be where we are today. We were working under the orders. As the TRC is alive today, we hope that this will come to an end. I hope that you do forgive me, because I ask for forgiveness. Thank you.

MR MKHUMBUZI: I also want to say I do apologise to those people who were in the church at that time, while there was that shooting. We also thought that we would meet with the church members, those who were there. Even if we can also go to the church to show that we want reconciliation with them under the circumstances that we were, I also say please forgive me to everybody who is White and Black, who are in this new South Africa. Thank you.

MR ACKERMAN: I want you to know that I forgive you unconditionally. I do that because I am a Christian and I can forgive you for the hurt that you have caused me, but I cannot forgive you the sin that you have done. Only God can forgive you for that and I plead with you, when God saved me, he gave me something that I can't explain and that is love. A love for people, all people to have what I have. I can't explain it, He just gave it to me. When I look at you and I think of your Commander I think it was Vusi, that has died in an accident, I can only think that he had died without Christ, you still have a chance and I appeal to you, to return to the faith of your parents. I understand that you were all brought up in Christian homes. I appeal to you to go back to your parents, to ask them for forgiveness too and that you would consider the Christian gospel, Christ as the mediator, the person that can forgive you from eternal sin. You are going to have to consider that and I appeal to you to do it. Mr Bembridge, thank you.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman. We have nothing further, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BEMBRIDGE
CHAIRMAN: Mr Arendse, are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: Just one Mr Chairman. Mr Ackerman, can I just say from our side that during your moving testimony, that I think we were only beginning to appreciate what you have gone through and only in these brief moments, have we been able to share that with you. I just want to ask you one question, do you not think that reconciliation in respect of these applicants would be better served, by them being granted amnesty instead of them staying behind bars and serving out their prison sentences?

MR ACKERMAN: Mr Arendse I am too subjectively close to be able to make a valued judgement like that. It is my position that the sword has been given to the State, that it is their responsibility to decide. It has been my objective to get the truth, to get to the truth. If in this process, we have established that and I must leave that to the Committee to evaluate and to decide on, if they feel and it is for them to decide that, if they feel that the requirements that the law has laid down for these gentlemen to get amnesty, then they must give them amnesty. If they feel that they have not met the requirements, then they must decide and decide to refuse them amnesty. I and my family will abide by your decision, lady and gentlemen and I know too, that that is the official position of my church, that the church will abide by whatever decision is taken here today or will be taken as a result of today.

ADV ARENDSE: From what you've heard here today, are you personally satisfied that you've heard all the relevant facts that relate to what happened that day?

MR ACKERMAN: Mr Arendse, that is not my call. I can't, I am too subjective, I can tell you what my subjective answer is and my subjective answer is no, I don't think that I've heard everything. I think there might yet be something more, but is that because I want them to tell more, or is that because there is more? I am too subjective Mr Arendse. That is why we have a Committee. That is why we have people like you and Mr Bembridge, to get to the bottom of the truth. It is not me.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no other questions. Thank you Mr Ackerman.

MR ACKERMAN: Thank you. Mr Judge, may I thank you for the opportunity to, I am not sure whether I have overstepped the boundaries of this particular Committee in what I did with the applicants, in asking them to face me, if I have, I apologise, but I am sure that you can understand. Thank you very much for this opportunity. We need reconciliation.

CHAIRMAN: We understand Mr Ackerman. Thank you. Mr Brink, are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINKCHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Ackerman.

MR ACKERMAN: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED
ADV BEMBRIDGE: We have no further witnesses Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Bembridge, did I understand that you were in a position to hand in a written address to the Committee?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am unfortunately not yet in that position, no Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: My submissions are being prepared, but they are not yet finalised.

CHAIRMAN: When do you expect that to be ready Mr Bembridge?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It will possibly be ready later this afternoon, but given your indications that the Committee does not intend to sit past four o'clock, I don't know if it will be ready by that time.

CHAIRMAN: Will you be able to bring them in tomorrow morning or send them in tomorrow?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: That could probably be arranged.

CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, I could address you shortly alternatively hand up written submissions, but I am afraid it is not going to be until Monday.

CHAIRMAN: The matter is of great gravity and I think that justice should be done properly and if it means giving you a day or two to do it, the Committee would be prepared to do that.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Bembridge, likewise, if Mr Arendse has until Monday to hand in his written submissions, if you find it necessary to do so, you could also have that time to make your submissions available to the offices here by Monday.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I will do that Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Brink, is there anything further?

MR BRINK: Just one thing Mr Chairman. Co-member of your Committee, Adv De Jager, asked me to ascertain whether the applicant Makoma was assisting in his application for amnesty in respect of the police ambush which is referred to in his application, I understand that he is not.

CHAIRMAN: While we are about it, your clients are out on bail, two of them?

ADV ARENDSE: That is correct.

CHAIRMAN: What are the offences for which they are out on bail?

ADV ARENDSE: They are out on bail in respect of the St James incident, Mkhumbuzi and Mlambisa.

CHAIRMAN: In respect of the same offences that Mr Makoma was charged with?

ADV ARENDSE: And found guilty and sentenced, yes.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Brink, are you in a position to talk to us about the matter that was set down for tomorrow morning?

MR BRINK: I understand that Mr Mpshe is here to deal with that?

CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Mpshe, can you come forward please.

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, I am going to request for a postponement in tomorrow's matter Mr Chairman. First perhaps I must request that it be done today, even if the matter was scheduled for tomorrow. The reasons for the postponement Mr Chairman, are that a request has been made by both the legal representatives for the applicant, Mr Riaan Bellingham as well as the legal representative for the victims. I have their requests in writing. Mr Chairman, the second reason is that as a result of investigation that was conducted by our investigative unit, it has emerged that certain people are likely to be implicated and these people have not yet been informed accordingly.

CHAIRMAN: That has only come to light recently?

ADV MPSHE: Recently Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: Yes.

ADV MPSHE: And the Act enjoins us to inform the said people in terms of Section 19 of our enabling Act. Mr Chairman, I may further state that I have discussed the matter pertaining to the date with both Attorneys on both sides, and the dates agreed upon are the 13th to the 16th of October, current year.

CHAIRMAN: In Cape Town?

ADV MPSHE: In Cape Town Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: The name of the case?

ADV MPSHE: The name of the case it is Thabelo Johannes Mbelo, that is the first applicant. The second applicant Willem Riaan Bellingham, matter is number 3785/96 and 5283/97.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I further state that the lawyers on both sides have requested me to put this on record that they will not be available and they are not here currently, but they are aware of the postponement as well as the victims. When I phoned the lawyers yesterday, he was with them and he conveyed this to them. The only problem that we have is one, it is about one of the Africans, that is Mr Mbelo. Mr Mbelo has not been notified but attempts have been made. He is currently in the South African Police Service, we left three messages with a Mr Ruiter who said at four o'clock Mr Mbelo will be reporting at the police station and he shall inform him accordingly. We shall endeavour further to make sure that we talk to him personally. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: The matter of Mbelo and Bellingham is accordingly adjourned till the 13th to the 16th of October, 1997 here in Cape Town.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN: If there is nothing further, the Committee will now adjourn. Before adjourning, I must thank counsel on both sides who have assisted in making the work of the Committee perhaps a little less difficult than it is. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS. --------------------