Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-09

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.  Chairperson, we have a problem now for the proceedings to carry on because one of the applicants, Mr Michael Armoed, who is in prison has not yet been brought to the hearing by the South African Police, Boksburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Is there any reason why he's not here?  I gather that on Friday he was taken back to the Johannesburg Prison?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, when we enquired from the police they said they took him back to Johannesburg Prison on Friday because the original arrangement was that they are going to keep him until Friday.

CHAIRPERSON: That is despite the announcement that was made by this Committee that the matter will proceed today?

MR MAPOMA: It looks like despite that announcement, Chairperson yes, but be that as it may we have made some arrangements with them now to go and fetch him as soon as possible from Johannesburg and bring him here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what time did they leave?

MR MAPOMA: I think they left at about nine a.m. because that arrangement was made with them, at about nine or some few minutes after nine.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Madasa?

MR MADASA: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman I'm of the opinion on behalf of the applicants that it is desirable that the applicants be present throughout the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: We're talking about one applicant here not applicants.

MR MADASA: Mr Armoed to be present during the hearing especially when there's evidence being led against him from the witness who is now testifying.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson if Mr Madasa feels strongly about the point I won't be able, Chairperson, to object to his sentiment.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is desirable that when evidence is led against an applicant he should be present so that he can hear what the witnesses have to say often concerning his role in any activity in which he is implicated.  However I think it is highly undesirable that this committee should be having constant problem with the applicant being brought to these hearings, I cannot understand why the applicant could not have been here at about half past nine.  Now do I understand why the applicant had to be taken back to prison when an announcement was made by this Committee that these proceedings will continue today?  Mr Mapoma would you please take the matter up with the Station Commander and find out precisely why is it that the applicant was taken back to Johannesburg Prison when we had indicated that these proceedings will continue today?

MR MAPOMA: As the Chairperson pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Well in the circumstances we will have to wait until Mr Armoed arrives at which stage we will then continue with the evidence of Mr Lekabe.

MR MAPOMA: Yes I understand sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well we will rise and reconvene as soon as the applicant is here.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Notwithstanding the assurances that we were given earlier on, that the police had left at approximately 9 o'clock to go and fetch the first applicant, it would appear that the police only left for Johannesburg at approximately half past ten and I gather that there would be some delay before they return with the applicant.
	It seems to us that in the interest of progress these proceedings should continue and what will happen is that when the first applicant comes to join the proceedings, Mr Madasa, who represents all the applicants, will be able to tell the applicant what evidence, if any, had been led against him and thereafter take instructions from the first applicant so as to dispute 
whatever piece of evidence he might want to dispute from this witness.  If the witness has already stood down by that time, the witness will be recalled to whenever Mr Madasa to put those questions to the witness.  We are of the view therefore that the proceedings ought to proceed.  Yes Mr Madasa, you were still busy cross-examining the witness.  Mr Lekabe may I remind you that you are still under oath?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Madasa would you please proceed with your cross-examination?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MADASA

MR MADASA: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	You remember when I asked you about the stayaway you agreed that you disagreed with Manyala about the stayaway?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MADASA: Would that be the - what was the date of the stayaway?  Was any date given to that?  I think I said August.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it August?

MR MADASA: Was the stayaway in August?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: Chairperson, I don't remember the date but I remember that we had a dispute about the stayaway.

MR MADASA: Is it correct that the stayaway was called so that a March could be organised for the release of ANC Youth League Members who were arrested.

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: That is correct.

MR MADASA: So Manyala was organising a march for the release of your own members, is that correct?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: That is correct.

MR MADASA: Is it correct that in the ANC Youth League you, at Mololeke, you were the ringleaders so to speak of that Youth League?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: I want you to clarify your question, sir.

MR MADASA: Were you the most influential leader within the ANC Youth League at Mololeke?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: That is correct.

MR MADASA: Now you agreed that you worked together with the SDU, you wanted them to teach you discipline.  Now my question is how long did you remain part of the SDU?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: Chairperson, I don't remember the duration of relationship up to a point where we had a dispute.

MR MADASA: On Friday you also told us that you separated with them because they were involved in killings, remember that?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: That is correct.

MR MADASA: What were the other reasons that caused the ANC Youth League and the SDU to have disagreement besides the killings?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: As you've put this question now, I have documents which verified people who were taking sides in Mololeke.  They were taken by members of SDU and they were given to their friends.  I hope that if this Commission will allow me, I would pass over these documents.

MR MADASA: Now, is it correct that you had problems with the fact that the SDU members were not, so to speak, born and bred in the Township?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: Will you please clarify your question?

MR MADASA: Did you not have a problem with the fact that the SDU members were people who came from the rural areas?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: No chairperson it's not like that.

MR MADASA: The applicants say you did not like them for that reason and other reasons of course.

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: As I've already explained that what they're saying is a lie.

MR MADASA: Do you know that the SDU had a flag that was made by the Civic as a symbol of their recognition at Mololeke.  Do you know that?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: No chairperson, I don't know that.

MR MADASA: Did you have a flag that was made by the Civic?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: May you please explain your question, what do you mean, who was the flag belonging to, ANC Youth League or SDU?

MR MADASA: ANC Youth League.

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: Yes we had an ANC Youth League flag.

MR MADASA: After you had separated with the SDU did you assume a new name?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: No chairperson.

MR MADASA: Did you form a new SDU or you patrolled as Youth League?

LETUSANG RAYMOND SHARON LEKABE: As I've already explained Chairperson, that Mololeke Community raised concerns about what is happening. Members of the SDU were supposed to put down their arms up to the point where the correct SDU unit has been formed.

MR MADASA: My question is did you formerly form a new SDU which was known as an SDU?