Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-05-19

UNKNOWN: Have you finished?

TWOBOY JACK: I am finished.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.  That is the evidence for this applicant Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, are there any questions you wish to put to this applicant?

MR BRINK: Just one or two Mr Chairman.  You tell the Committee about the members of the Internal Stability Unit entering houses at night, were these men in uniform or not?

TWOBOY JACK: They were dressed in uniforms.

MR BRINK: At your trial a Mr Wakefield gave evidence, do you remember who he was?

TWOBOY JACK: I do not remember him clearly.

MR BRINK: You see I refer to page 51 of the bundle which was the judgement relating to sentence Mr Chairman.  You see Mr Wakefield apparently gave evidence and when sentencing you the Magistrate had this to say and I am translating it from Afrikaans.  Mr Wakefield who is active in the Mitchells Plain area where this case came from, is of the opinion that the allegation that the whole or the greatest part of the Khayelitsha community was against the police, was a complete myth.
	In other words what he was saying is according to him, it was not true that the bulk of the community was opposed to the South African Police, what is your comment on that?

TWOBOY JACK: I disagree with him, the general community didn't want the policemen because of their bad deeds committed on the community, they kicked their doors, they were disrespectful, they were killing people and if you attempted to run away, they would shoot you, they would wake children
in the middle of the night, they were committing a lot of atrocities at that time.   The community in general didn't want them.
	Even the community that are present here today, can be a witness to that.  Thank you.

MR BRINK: Yes, thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: The only question I have should perhaps be directed to his council rather than to the applicant.  He started off his evidence as recollected saying he had been sentenced to 14 years imprisonment.

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

TWOBOY JACK: I was sentenced to 14 years and two months.

JUDGE WILSON: I am talking about the offences for which he is asking for amnesty, they were 13 years, weren't they?  If you look at page 391, page 56 of the record, do you see that?  These are the sentenced imposed on accused 1 who is the present applicant.
	Now the ones he is seeking amnesty for, relates to counts 6 to 13, 16 and 18, the attempted murder counts and the possession of weapons, counts 22 and 23.  So that is a total of 13 years, 10 and three,  the other offences, he is not asking for amnesty for.

UNKNOWN: I may have made a mistake in my calculations, thank you.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, I understand from my colleague that the Mr Wakefield who I mentioned, whose name appears in the judgement which I made reference on page 51, happened to be the Prosecutor in this case, not a witness.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Thank you Mr Brink, about that.  We had actually taken note thereof.  Mr Jack, you have stated that
the intention of SANCO was to get rid of the police, the ISU from your township, was there any plan which was specifically devised by SANCO in order to carry out the intention of getting rid of these policemen?
	Were you advised as SDU members by SANCO what you would have to do to assist SANCO to get rid of the police from the township?

TWOBOY JACK: Yes, we were told.

SISI KHAMPEPE: And what was the advice from SANCO?

TWOBOY JACK: We were to protect the rights of the community against the policemen who were reigning in a terrible manner in the community.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Were you told that you were to attack the police when you saw them on sight, when you saw them in the township?

TWOBOY JACK: Yes, that was a decision taken because they themselves were attacking, therefor we could not fight them back with stones or bare hands.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Who took the decision?

TWOBOY JACK: It is SANCO leaders.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you draw a distinction between Koevoet and ISU, did they wear different uniforms?

TWOBOY JACK: When they arrived here, there was somebody who came to inform us  who said that they will be dressed like the Stability Unit members so that we shouldn't be able to tell the difference.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any re-examination or any other questions you wish to put to this man?

UNKNOWN: No, re-examination sir, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling the next applicant now?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, the procedure is going to be exactly the same in respect of the second applicant as in the case of the first applicant.  A statement has also been prepared in Xhoza, as a matter of fact as the two applicants had been operating together, carrying out, virtually the same operation, their statements are virtually the same.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it not be appropriate for you to put that to the second applicant, and ask him whether he confirms what has been said by the first applicant and ask him if there is anything else he wishes to add?

UNKNOWN: That will be more appropriate, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you swear him in please.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Phakamisa, please stand.

MSHLABUNSIMA MAXIM PHAKAMISA: (sworn states)

SISI KHAMPEPE: You may have a seat, you are sworn in in full.

UNKNOWN: May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.  It is correct, is it not, that you have prepared a statement in which you have set out the act for which you were charged and convicted and you set out also the circumstances under which  you performed the said act and also the objects  for which you performed the said act.

MSHLABUNSIMA MAXIM PHAKAMISA: That is correct sir.

UNKNOWN: The statement which you have made is dated 19 May 1997 and it is virtually the same as the statement that was made by your ...

MSHLABUNSIMA MAXIM PHAKAMISA: Excuse me sir, I want to tell me about 1997?

UNKNOWN: The statement was made on the 19th of May 1997?

MSHLABUNSIMA MAXIM PHAKAMISA: Yes, that is correct.

UNKNOWN: And that the statement is virtually the same as the statement made by the first applicant, Two-Boy Jack, is that not correct?

MSHLABUNSIMA MAXIM PHAKAMISA: That is correct sir.

UNKNOWN: Now, do you confirm the statement as was read out by Two-Boy Jack as being applicable in your application as well?

MSHLABUNSIMA MAXIM PHAKAMISA: There is a difference because it is different.  Things that took place at different time.

UNKNOWN: Besides the fact that you were arrested at a different place than Two-Boy Jack, is his statement relating to the act itself, is it the same as ...

MSHLABUNSIMA MAXIM PHAKAMISA: There is no difference, it is the same, the statements are the same.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, can you place on record when were you arrested?

MSHLABUNSIMA MAXIM PHAKAMISA: I was arrested in July, on the 22nd of July 1992.

CHAIRPERSON: And where?

MSHLABUNSIMA MAXIM PHAKAMISA: I was arrested in  a place where we were, I was put in a police van.

CHAIRPERSON: You are not telling me where, I want to know where it was?

MSHLABUNSIMA MAXIM PHAKAMISA: It was in Khayelitsha where we were fighting with the police.  I was arrested there.  I was arrested next to that, in that shack where we held our meeting.  We wen tout from that shack, but I came back again, that is when I was arrested.
	That was in the L Section in Khayelitsha.

CHAIRPERSON: And was the sentenced imposed on you, the same as
that imposed on Two-Boy Jack?

MSHLABUNSIMA MAXIM PHAKAMISA: I was sentenced to 14  years with two years suspension, so my actual sentence was 12 years.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it for the same offences for which he has been found guilty or was it different offences?

MSHLABUNSIMA MAXIM PHAKAMISA: I don't know anything else about him, but the only case that we were charged for, was the one of shooting, we were together in there, I don't know about the other one.