Amnesty Hearings — Durban — UNKNOWN

NKANYISO WILFRED NDLOVU: I had an anger within me, yes.  I was angered because were being killed as IFP members.  I was also a victim of attacks but fortunately I was not injured.  I am not boasting about this.  What I am saying is that I got angered because of the attacks on us.  The IFP as such, however, cannot get angry but because it is made of us, the people, we get angry as individuals about what is happening to us.  Many people were angry but perhaps they did not get a chance to avenge their anger.

MR WILLS: Mr Ndlovu I want to turn to another aspect of this incident which causes me great concern.  I refer the Committee to the finding of the Trial Court at Page 60 and effectively what the Judge found, he found as a fact that they and by they, the Judge refers to you and your co-accused, the first applicant in this matter, that you did not believe that the people in the kombi were in fact ANC supporters.  Can you comment on that?

NKANYISO WILFRED NDLOVU: What did the Judge say? (Laughter)

CHAIRPERSON: I think to quote the exact words of the Judgment, let that be translated to him, this is Page 60, lines 3 to 5.

MR WILLS: Yes, if I could bear with the Committee, I think that I'd like to read from the bottom of Page 282 and complete the sentence.
"As the passengers were being transported in Mkhize's mini bus to Inkanyzine, the accused had no reason to think that they might be ANC supporters."

NKANYISO WILFRED NDLOVU: That is what was said by the judge.

MR WILLS: The  Judge went further and I quote;
"We find as a fact that they did not believe that they were."

NKANYISO WILFRED NDLOVU: No, the judge was mistaken there.  We are the IFP members and we could not have killed anybody who is not an ANC supporter.

MR WILLS: You see, why I tend to think that the Judge was very accurate in his assessment and his finding is that there is no mention in either yours or the first applicant's Amnesty application of the story relating to the mini bus taxi conveying ANC passengers.  Can you explain that?

NKANYISO WILFRED NDLOVU: Do you mean that the people in the kombi were ANC supporters?

MR MOTATA: May I ask for your apologies Mr Ndlovu.  With respect Mr Wills, the Judge formed impressions on the evidence given but if you were to put it as a fact that that's what the Record says, we don't have the Record of the evidence thus far, but only the Judgment and the opinion of the Judge and I think his answer is correct in the sense that he says "that is the opinion of the Judge."

CHAIRPERSON: The conclusion which the Judge drew, yes.

MR WILLS: Yes, but thank you Mr Committee member but I'm alive to that legal nicety.  With respect, what I'm driving at is that as a result of there being no evidence given by the applicant and his co-applicant in his written Amnesty application about this issue of the kombi conveying people, I'm suggesting to this witness that that opinion that the Judge gave was in fact a correct opinion.

MR MOTATA: I follow thank you.

MR ALBERTS: With respect Mr Chairman, the evidence at the original trial was in fact that they believed that they were ANC members.  This Amnesty application form is a very cryptic form.  It surely would not have given all the evidence he gave us today.

CHAIRPERSON: I think to simplify matters, irrespective of what the Judge said or did not say, the point that is trying to be made is that in your application form you did not say this.  Now he asks for an explanation why you didn't say this in your application form.  I think that's the question.

MR WILLS: That is indeed so.  Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In your application form, I think he better have his application form in front of him so that in fairness to him he may look at it.  We have a terrible copy but Mr Alberts do you have a copy that your client can have a look at please?

MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman I think my copy is a bit better.

CHAIRPERSON: He has a copy of his application form.  Precisely what is it that you say he has not put down in his application form.

MR WILLS: I don't see anything in the application form with respect Mr Chairperson about the incident.  The motivation, he seems to be giving at this stage, one of the motivations for the attack on this particular kombi was that it was an ANC transport mechanism and there doesn't appear to be anything like that in his application form.

CHAIRPERSON: In your application form you do not say that this kombi was used for conveying ANC people.  Is that what you're trying to say?

MR WILLS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Your application form, is that correct?

NKANYISO WILFRED NDLOVU: The problem with this form is that I was replying to the questions in the form as they were.  I therefore did not see a space where I could put this story.  But I am telling the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR WILLS: If the Committee will just bear with me very briefly.  I refer you to the Paragraph in the Zulu application form, the application form which you filled out and the question 10(b).

NKANYISO WILFRED NDLOVU: Yes I can see that.

MR WILLS: Can you look at the Section of your application form Section 10(b)?

CHAIRPERSON: That is Page 11 of the papers?

MR WILLS: Page 13, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you turn to Page 13 please.

MR WILLS: Can you see that you had left half a page empty there?  ...[intervention]

MR MALAN: Mr Wills, may I just ask, is this material to the application?  This is not a new version brought to us.  It is the version that was presented also at the trial time.  What are you really looking to achieve?

MR WILLS: With respect Mr Committee member, what I am trying to achieve is I'm just trying to get to the truth of this matter and it would seem to me that that would be such a material aspect of the political motivation behind this attack, that that would be one of the foremost aspects that would be put in the application form.
	You will be aware that the, both the Trial Court Judgment and the Appeal Court Judgment are riddled with comments by the presiding officers relating to the dishonesty of this witness and the first applicant and with that in mind, whatever happened, whatever they said in the trial, I'm not sure whether it was the truth.  What I'm suggesting is, had that been the truth, I am alive to the fact that it did come up in the trial but had that been the truth, I would have expected it to have been a foremost, an important thing placed in the application form.  I can take it no further than that with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: What is it that is not the truth.  Because if I look at the English translation on Page 21 of the answer to 10(b).  He says it was to protect the IFP members and to create a climate where they would canvas support freely without fear of ANC attacks.  The answer is given in his application form.

MR WILLS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you find wrong with that answer?

MR WILLS: No, I don't find anything wrong with that answer.  I'm being far more specific than that with respect Mr Chairperson.  What I'm suggesting is that this story, this specific story which one of my clients was in fact or testified on yesterday and was challenged on is in fact not the truth.  That's all I'm saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that's a matter for argument, isn't it?

MR WILLS: Yes.  Well I'm, it is a matter for argument.  I'm trying to create the evidentiary basis for that argument but I can take it no further than that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now I don't want to curb your, you see, put it to him about what the witness said yesterday that you would like him to comment on.  What it is that the witness said yesterday.  The witness said that he was the proprietor of this bus.  He was the driver on occasion when he wasn't at work and when he was at work others drove the bus.

MR WILLS: Yes.