Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-06-15

CHAIRPERSON: But assuming he had stolen the money, Mr Sawuti's theft of the money are you saying is not political?

MR NOMPOZOLO: Yes, that's what I'm saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now do you want him to comment on that?

MR NOMPOZOLO: Yes, that he knew that time that the action of stealing money by Mr Sawuti was not a political action.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what has it got to do with his application, what Sawuti has done and whether Sawuti was actuated by a political motive or not, how does that fit into this?

MR NOMPOZOLO: Because Mr Chairman, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't Sawuti's motive totally irrelevant to this application?

MR NOMPOZOLO: Yes Mr Chairman, but what Sawuti has done was the cause for them to go and take Sawuti, therefore what Sawuti had done had nothing to do with politics, therefore what they were doing was not politically related.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that's a different question.  I would have thought that what Sawuti's motive was is totally irrelevant to this application.  What their motive was in confronting Sawuti, would obviously be relevant to this inquiry here before us.

MR NOMPOZOLO: I was driving to that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, why don't you put that to him?  Why don't you leave out Sawuti's motive because that doesn't seem to be relevant at all?  Why don't you ask him what their motive was, whether their motive was political or not?

MR NOMPOZOLO: Actually, Mr Chairman, I wanted to put it to him what their motive was because we are saying that it was not political.  The fact that Sawuti might have stolen money is not political.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well you might have dealt with that before, but why don't you ask him directly whether their motive in confronting Sawuti was political or not?

MR NOMPOZOLO: Because Mr Chairman, once I put it like the Chair is suggesting, all what the witness is going to say is going to go right round and give a lengthy answer whereas I am getting to a point where I'm going to put it to him that the fact that Sawuti has stolen money for argument sake does not amount to a political related action from their side to go and fetch him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Now that is exactly what I'm saying.  Why don't you put it to him?  Why don't you then put it to him that your case is that their conduct in confronting Sawuti, was not political?

MR NOMPOZOLO: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR NOMPOZOLO: Now, even Mr Tyali, even if we can take your case and say indeed Sawuti had misappropriated funds, but by going to him and confronting him about that is not politically motivated, or political related.  Am I correct?

DR TSOTSI: Isn't what is or is not political going to be determined by the Committee?

MR NOMPOZOLO: Thank you.  That is so but the problem is that I have to put it to him, so that he can answer to that.

DR TSOTSI: Yes you have put it to him that what he did was not political.  He says it was political.  What further can we do now?  You are cross-examining now, it would be in order to show that in fact the action was political, isn't that right - was not political?

MR NOMPOZOLO: To show that it was not political.

DR TSOTSI: Yes, but I'm saying the Committee has to determine whether or not an act is political.  It is not the witness that has got to determine that aspect of the matter.

MR NOMPOZOLO: I had thought that it's my duty to elicit on behalf of my client that what they did was not political.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what my colleague is putting to you is that it's really argument.  You're putting argument to the witness.  The witness, his case as I understand it seems to be that they were acting with a political motive.  You're saying they were not.  There's obviously a dispute between the two of you and as my colleague puts it to you, that is something that the panel will have to decide on eventually so it doesn't take your case any further to put what is really a matter of argument to the witness.

MR NOMPOZOLO: Thank you Mr Chair.
Now, lastly Mr Tyali, is it correct that you were not part of the decision-making that Brig Gqozo will be removed on that day, you as an individual?

XOLINI TYALI: We were heavily affected by Gqozo's regime as the police.  Even if that was discussed or decided upon in my absence I wouldn't say no.  I got very excited when I heard that the aims of the meeting was to remove Brig Gqozo.

MR NOMPOZOLO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Nompozolo.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NOMPOZOLO

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Collett any questions?

MS COLLETT: No Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, any questions?

MR MAPOMA: Just a few.

MR MAPOMA: Mr Tyali you have just said that when you heard that the intention of that meeting was to remove Brig Gqozo, you got excited.  When you heard that he has in fact resigned, when you heard it during the night that Brig Gqozo had resigned, did you believe that?

XOLINI TYALI: I never believed that because it came to me as a rumour.  I only believed it when I heard it over the news in my house and I heard that Brig Gqozo said he has resigned.

MR MAPOMA: When was it that you heard in your house?

XOLINI TYALI: The following day.

MR MAPOMA: Now when you went to fetch Mr Sawuti and others, is it correct that you were still not in the belief that he has in fact resigned?

XOLINI TYALI: I heard that as a rumour from the people who said they got that from him.  I couldn't believe that and I didn't go there to fetch Mr Sawuti because Brig Gqozo had resigned, but I was doing that per instruction.

MR MAPOMA: Now this probing which was being made about the embezzlement of money and corruption, to your understanding, did it have anything to do with Brig Gqozo?

XOLINI TYALI: Sir, as I've already said, the main objective there was to remove Brig Gqozo but it just happened that some work related issues were discussed in that meeting.  Issues that just came and the police were interested in knowing how far did the case go, that is when we were told to go and fetch the people who were implicated.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.  Thank you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Has the panel got any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: No questions thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Any re-examination?

MR OBOSE: Yes, just one point Mr Chairman.

MR OBOSE: Mr Tyali, I just want you to explain about the guarding of the premises.  As far as you could establish at what stage were these premises guarded or from what stage, that is the police college?

XOLINI TYALI: Sir you want to know on that particular day, or the normal procedure because there are two things here.  On that particular day the police were on guard and the students who were training to be police were removed and they were taken to the bungalows, only the police assisted the soldiers because there was a rumour that the stability unit and S A D F would come and attack the police at the college.  I am not sure if your question is answered.

MR OBOSE: Now when this news was received that Brig Gqozo has told some members that he has stepped down, I would imagine that this was related to the people in the hall and the general mood in the hall was it one of say oh thank you, we can now go home, we're happy, or was there some feeling that we should still remain until further notice?

XOLINI TYALI: According to what I saw, the mood did not change but we continued collecting all the officers.  There was no change in the mood and no-one said we must go home because Brig Gqozo had stepped down, but it was made mention, the fact that he would be addressing the people in the stadium the following day.  I think that is why the police had to remain there because they were so much interested in seeing him addressing the people at the stadium.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Obose.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR OBOSE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tyali, thank you, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED