Amnesty Hearings — Pinetown — 1998-10-23

MR LAX: Just one small question Mr Chairperson.  You have just confirmed to Mr Sibanyoni that you really weren't sure that he was, you suspected that he was the person who sold out Mduduzi, but you weren't sure.
	Why then in your form, at page 5, do you say the whole community knew?  Sorry, not at page 5, I beg your pardon, page 3,  everybody in the community knew that Msani had sold our brother out.  Why do you say that, it is such a certain statement.
	Everybody knew he had sold our brother out, when in fact you didn't know at the time?  Just explain that for me please.

NKOSINATHI IMMANUEL NTULI: As I said before, some people did know, that is Ndlandhla was believed to be the one who had contacted the Police.  I can say some people in the community knew about it.

MR LAX: You are saying everybody, not some?

NKOSINATHI IMMANUEL NTULI: The rest were told in a meeting.

MR LAX: Yes, but that meeting happened after he died, and this is before he died.

NKOSINATHI IMMANUEL NTULI: Yes, both meetings took place after his death, but some people had this knowledge before the meeting, that is people who were close to the comrades.

MR LAX: I am not going to waste time, the way you have written it here, is that everybody in the community knew that Msani had sold the brother out, the comrades then planned to kill him.  It was after everybody knew, that they planned this operation and that doesn't tie in with your evidence.
	Do you understand?

NKOSINATHI IMMANUEL NTULI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any questions arising Mr Mchunu?

MR MCHUNU: Yes Chairperson, just a few.  In fact, it is a point which has been coming up quite a number of times before, and I want, I think it will do justice for us to clarify it properly.
	Mr Ntuli, did you write this statement yourself, or did you fill this form yourself or did you get somebody to help you fill the form out?

NKOSINATHI IMMANUEL NTULI: There were people who came to the prison, people from NICRO.  I asked my mother to request them to come to the prison, so that I could apply for amnesty and one of those people filled the form for me.

MR MCHUNU: In what language were they talking to you, or was that person talking to you?

NKOSINATHI IMMANUEL NTULI: We were using Zulu.

MR MCHUNU: And he was reducing that into writing in English?

NKOSINATHI IMMANUEL NTULI: Yes, he translated it into English.

MR MCHUNU: Did he later on explain it to you or did he reread it back to you?

NKOSINATHI IMMANUEL NTULI: On the day that they arrived, the prison normally closes at three o'clock, and this person came late and some of the things he wrote, on a piece of paper, and he said he would complete the form later, because he had come late to the prison.

MR MCHUNU: Would you say that this statement truly represents or truly represent what you stated and the events as they occurred?

NKOSINATHI IMMANUEL NTULI: There are some things that are a true reflection of what happened.  Some of the things are not true, because for example this statement that the community knew about it, is not true, because I did say that some people in the community knew about what Ndlandhla had done.
	With regards to informers, this is something that was not mentioned to everybody in the community, because of security measures, this was something that would be discussed amongst the comrades already.

MR MCHUNU: I have also heard you say in response to the questions from the Chair, that you stabbed him so many times, that it could be 25, but I thought I also heard you say that there were other people who also arrived later on, and they could have assaulted him?  Am I right?

NKOSINATHI IMMANUEL NTULI: Yes, I left the scene, such that there is one person whom I remember.  When he came on the scene, he was already armed.
	He came to enquire what was happening, he thought that they were being attacked.  I left the body there and there were people around, quite a number of them.  The one person that I remember is that one elderly man who was armed.

MR MCHUNU: Thank you Chair, I've got no further questions.

MR MCHUNU: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Thank you Mr Ntuli.  That is the conclusion of your testimony.

<UNKNOWN>: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mchunu?

MR MCHUNU: I've got no further witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you in a position to argue now Mr Mchunu?

MR MCHUNU: Yes, I can.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, I can.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, my instructions are to apply as I quite did at the beginning, for the granting of amnesty on the applicant, in this matter.
	The applicant, I submit, it does appear from his evidence that whatever he did, he did not do for any personal gain, for any particular other reason, other than the furtherance of the objectives of his organisation at that time.
	At that time circumstances demanded that whoever was in the position of the applicant,  should actually perform what the applicant did.
	The motive of the applicant was really to rid the community of people who were suspected or who actually were known as informers of the Police, or of the adversary party.
	If we have reference to the provisions of Section 23(b), which I may with the leave of the Chair, read quickly, the context in which the act, omission or offence took place and in particular whether the act, omission or offence was committed in the course of or as a part of a political uprising, disturbance or event or in reaction thereto.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that Section Mr Mchunu, we have dealt with it before, deals with the situation where you've got a political rally let's say and things go array and there is a problem, a sort of instantaneous, unplanned problem that occurs.  It doesn't relate to the whole 30 year period of the struggle that the Act covers.
	It is more the situations that arise in a political context, which lead to people to perform acts which they wouldn't have otherwise have performed, save for that flare up of a situation.

MR LAX: Like for example, there is a rally and a Policeman suddenly arrives on the scene and the crowd goes crazy and they start stoning the van, because of the provocation that that sometimes entailed for example.  There wasn't any premeditated plan to do that, it just happened on the spur of the moment.
	That is what that is really designed to deal with.

MR MCHUNU: I stand corrected Chairperson, but be that as it may, then I would still submit Chairperson, that it is still covered by (a) which deals with the motive of the person who committed the act, omission or offence.  His motive, he has quite stated in his evidence, that he had no ill feeling whatsoever against Mduduzi per se as a person, he had no personal grudge.  He knew him quite well and Mduduzi, no, not Mduduzi, sorry, Mr Msani, he knew Mr Msani quite well.  He never hated Mr Msani for any other reason and the motive here was to take the deceased and have him explain account for what they believed he was.
	Immediately thereafter there was, there was a struggle on his part, to actually run away and whilst in that process, the suspicion which they had, grew further to the effect that ...

CHAIRPERSON: I mean one can imagine the situation.  If I am sitting in my taxi and four people climb in and there is a whole crowd outside, and they say look, we have a problem arising out of the death of our friend, and we've got a few questions to ask you surrounding his death, even if I had nothing to that death, I would be extremely frightened by that situation, particularly during those times and circumstances where everything was so volatile and we through bitter experience know that life was cheap.
	So the running away could be seen objectively as a reasonable step taken by any person to run away from that situation.  It doesn't necessarily mean that he was an informer.