Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1998-08-12

MR BERGER: I am sorry Chairperson, I didn't hear what you said.  Just for the sake of the Interpreters,  Chiefdom means an area under control of a Chief or some leader of some description.
	Mr Khanyile, in other words, what I am putting to you is that Mr Themba Khosa who ordered the attack, that he was not acting on behalf of the IFP at that time, he was acting for his own motives and not in the furtherance of IFP policy.

CHAIRPERSON: Wait, let me break down this statement, there are two questions to it.  The first one is that, Themba Khosa ordered the attack on Boipatong, do you agree with that statement?

VINCENT KHANYILE: I don't agree with that.   I was still going to ask him as to where did he get that information.

CHAIRPERSON: The second part of the question is that in ordering the attack on Boipatong, Themba Khosa was not furthering the aims of the IFP, he was doing it for his own personal gains?  What is your answer to that question?

VINCENT KHANYILE: It put me in a difficult position to put this question.

MR BERGER: Why?

VINCENT KHANYILE: Mr Berger as I am giving evidence here, I never mentioned the name of Themba Khosa as one who is involved in the attack.
	It surprises me that you are asking me a question in that fashion.

MR LAX: Mr Khanyile, just comment on what he put to you, as Judge Ngcobo explained, you either agree with it or you don't agree with it.  Let's not get bogged down in an argument please.

VINCENT KHANYILE: I can't comment, I don't know.

MR BERGER: Mr Khanyile, were you aware at the time of the attack, that there were people in Boipatong who were not supporters of the ANC?

VINCENT KHANYILE: To my knowledge, I used to know that all the people, the residents of Boipatong, were ANC members.

MR BERGER: In fact, according to Mr Themba Khosa, there were leaders of the IFP in Boipatong at the time of the attack, did you know that?

VINCENT KHANYILE: No.

MR BERGER: Further according to Mr Themba Khosa, some of the deceased who died in your attack, were members or supporters of the IFP, did you know that?

VINCENT KHANYILE: If that was the case, we would have been informed and we would have gone to their funeral, therefore I say I do not know about that.

MR BERGER: What were you chanting as you rampaged through Boipatong?

VINCENT KHANYILE: We were just - we last chanted at the stadium, shouted Usuthu.

MR BERGER: Is it correct that Usuthu is a typical battle cry?

VINCENT KHANYILE: Even if there is no battle, when we are armed with traditional weapons, we normally shout this chant.

MR BERGER: What does it mean?

ADV SIGODI: Mr Berger, may I ask where is this line of questioning taking us, of what significance is it going to be?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, sorry through the Chair, we are busy putting together a memorandum as we promised the last time, to set out the facts which we intend to place before the Committee and if there are any facts which are in dispute, we will then lead evidence on that.
	One of the paragraphs in that memorandum mentions that as the attackers were moving through Boipatong, they were chanting Usuthu.

ADV SIGODI: That is why he does agree but he is also saying that they were at war, and if it was at war and you are saying that this was a war cry, I mean where does it take us in getting at the truth?

MR BERGER: I was just taking up on the point he said, it wasn't chanted in Boipatong, he said it was chanted at the stadium.  I want ...

ADV SIGODI: What difference will it make to the hearing as a whole?

MR BERGER: I was just trying to remove this as a dispute in our memorandum, but I can leave it there.
	Mr Khanyile, what was the point of stealing property and destroying property in Boipatong?

VINCENT KHANYILE: According to our own tradition or custom, if there is a battle, you normally if you conquer, you will eat whatever you find, whether it is cattle or goats.  Whatever you find.

MR BERGER: Would I be correct then to say that if there is a battle and one of the objectives of destroying the enemy is to leave the enemy in poverty and to at the same time, to enrich the estate of the victors?

VINCENT KHANYILE: With reference to goods, when I went out of the hostel in 22 July 1990, I got out wearing a tracksuit.  All my property was left in the hostel.
	I am trying to explain that it is normally the case that when we attack people or we get attacked, you normally take something to show that you won the battle.

MR BERGER: I think from your answer, that you are agreeing with me, but I don't want there to be ambiguity Mr Khanyile.
	You left KwaMasiza with the clothes on your back, is that what you are saying?

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't understand this witness to say when he left Boipatong, he had ...

VINCENT KHANYILE: What I said yesterday is that I did see people carrying goods.  I wasn't staying at KwaMasiza, I was staying in the hostel in Sebokeng.

CHAIRPERSON: He is referring to Masiza hostel.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I was going back, but it has been confusing, so I will state the point.
	Correct me if I am wrong Mr Khanyile, but when you left whichever hostel you were chased out of, I am now going back - you mentioned the 22nd of July 1990, you left with no possessions, am I right?

VINCENT KHANYILE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: And traditionally when there is a war, what you are saying is that one of the objects of the war is to destroy the enemy and in destroying the enemy, you leave the enemy without possessions, and that is why you take possessions from the enemy and in so doing you enrich the estate of the people who win the war.  Do I understand you correctly on that?

VINCENT KHANYILE: I will say even if that is not one of the aims that you should take goods from the enemy, but it is normally the case that when we fight, it is not the goal but it is the kind of thing that normally happen in a situation like that.
	With reference to impoverishing others and we gaining, I will say I also suffered the same consequences.

MR BERGER: I asked you why property was destroyed and stolen in Boipatong and your answer was that is what always happens in a war.  Do I understand you when you say that you were referring to what happened historically?

VINCENT KHANYILE: Mr Berger, I have tried just now to explain.  I don't know if you understand me.  I said this is not a written rule that every time when you fight, you should take goods or cattle or anything, but it is a usual thing that happens in our tradition, that when you fight you take goods.
	Even if at some times the goods are not normally taken, but usually it happens that goods are taken.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Khanyile, talking about tradition, is it not so that usually when there is battle, women and small children will be saved, they wouldn't be attacked and killed, in fact they will be taken back by the victorious party?

VINCENT KHANYILE: The olden days' wars were different to our today's wars, today even women are involved in the war.
	Therefore we can't compare wars of those days and the wars of today because when people are attacked and killed or thrown at with stones, you find that women are involved, therefore it is different to those olden days.

MR SIBANYONI: But in so far as taking the property or destroying it, you are prepared to compare the type of your attack with the olden wars?

VINCENT KHANYILE: I wasn't trying to say that was the goal, I was just giving an example.

MR BERGER: Would I be correct to say that on what you have said, that the purpose of a war historically and the war or the attack on Boipatong, was to destroy the enemy both physically and economically?