Amnesty Hearings — Kimberley — 1997-10-27

LAURENS MBATHA: It was the time when I submitted the written application that you have of the amnesty, it is when I reported the whole matter to them.

PROF DE KOKER: Did you in that, roughly, three year period at no stage report to your seniors that you gave the command for this attack?

LAURENS MBATHA: The statement that is presently used within the file that I have, that is of the application of my amnesty, I think it is there if you can just go through. It is exactly the report that I have sent over that time.

PROF DE KOKER: What was the date that you sent that report?

LAURENS MBATHA: I cannot exactly say it, because it was faxed.  Unless if I can have the fax cover sheet.

PROF DE KOKER: More or less, roughly, a day after the event, a week, a month, a year?

LAURENS MBATHA: I think it was, I cannot exactly say it, but it was in the vicinity of that month.

PROF DE KOKER: That month referring to May or referring to a 30 day period?

LAURENS MBATHA: It was August, July.

PROF DE KOKER: So, this incident happened in May, you did not report it in May or June, but somewhere in July or August you did?

LAURENS MBATHA: As I have said, the situation was really chaotic at that time.  Yes.

PROF DE KOKER: Who was the report sent to?

LAURENS MBATHA: The last, when I sent the report through it was members of the Legal Department.

PROF DE KOKER: The Legal Department of Umkhonto weSizwe or the ANC?

LAURENS MBATHA: No, MK does not have its own legal department, we were using the ANC Legal Department.

PROF DE KOKER: So, you informed the ANC Legal Department about it and the statement that you furnished to them is the one that we have at our disposal now?  Is that correct?  What comments did you receive from Umkhonto weSizwe or from the ANC in respect of this incident?

LAURENS MBATHA: The question was that justice will have to take its course and they cannot stand on its way.

PROF DE KOKER: What did you take that statement to mean?

LAURENS MBATHA: I am sorry, because I think it will again take me out when I refer back to it.  It was at that stage where Smiles, I had to prepare Smiles to hand him over to the South African Police.  Hence, I said I do not want to go into a situation which will take me out from what we discuss now.

PROF DE KOKER: I am referring to your personal part in this attack.  You launched it, you originated it as Commander of Umkhonto we Sizwe in the Northern Cape yet after it happened you took quite a while to report it and then, apparently, not to Umkhonto we Sizwe, but to the Legal Department of the ANC.  What did you report to them, your own involvement or the fact that you are assisting Mr Smiles to make an affidavit to be submitted to the police?

LAURENS MBATHA: The statement, actually, that is there, it is verifying itself clearly.  I was explaining it with the essence that those comrades were inside, they were innocent, they knew nothing about that incident.  That is where I wrote the statement and explained exactly my role regarding Smiles.

PROF DE KOKER: Right, but Mr Smiles was not the only one who was guilty of the attack.  You had prime responsibility, because you gave the instructions.  So, what was their reaction as to your position?

ADV DE JAGER: (...Indistinct).

LAURENS MBATHA: Can you just repeat the question again please?

PROF DE KOKER: I understood, understand that statement as referring to Mr Smiles and what he did and what was planned, but what was their reaction in respect of your position and your liability?

LAURENS MBATHA: The reaction of the military HQ, are you referring to that one?

PROF DE KOKER: That and the Legal Department of the ANC.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Prof de Koker, are you asking him whether he was repudiated by the MK office as well as the ANC office for his action?  Is that what you are asking?

PROF DE KOKER: I am building up to that, but as far as I understand there was no direct submission made to Umkhonto we Sizwe, but it was made to the Legal Department of the ANC.  So, I am pursuing that.

LAURENS MBATHA: I think, perhaps, I should explain the situation what happened.  It was at that time, as I have indicated, where the present Premier, Mathews Phosa, with all the argument which was made this morning, in terms of Smiles should be prepared and to be handed over.  It was at that stage, because I had to submit a report exactly what has happened to indicate that those comrades were inside there were innocent.
	Hence, to show that it is a faxed message, he could see that it has coded messages.  Instead of the grenade we talk of an apple, because it was a faxed one, it is not, actually, a message that I had to send over personally, because five days after the incident, I think it is five days or a week, I happened, also, I was also picked up.

ADV DE JAGER: Can I just clear up something for my own mind.  Is this the, was this the fax sent, on page eight?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And was that, this fax sent during July, August of 1993, three months after the incident?

LAURENS MBATHA: The incident was on the 25th.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

LAURENS MBATHA: On the first of June I was picked up, stayed in detention for 28 to 30 days.  After my release, it was in July, hence I said I am not sure is it July or August exactly, the particular date, it was at that time where I received the instruction that the issue was negotiated at Pretoria ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: No, they, that was round about July, August?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Something like that, you testified.

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: But I want to know is this and have a look at it on page eight and nine and next to your application is a document, it is the Kimberley blast incident.

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: The Kimberley blast incident.  Could you have a look at that document.  Was that the document you have sent to the Legal Department of the ANC?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: But it cannot be, Sir.  Read the last sentence.
"I picked up the member who testified on the TRC on Tuesday the 12th of June 1996."
So, you could not have sent this in 1993.

LAURENS MBATHA: The one that I am, actually, referring to is, was at the time when the arrangement was made that Sipho had to be submitted, Smiles had to be submitted over to the police and, yes, this one, because I could see with this paragraph here, was, again, actually, written to the Legal Department.  What, actually, this one, it was the one that I was, actually, preparing now for my amnesty form.

SISI KHAMPEPE: But now have you not just stated, Mr Mbatha, that this document which is annexed to your application is the document that was sent by fax to the office of the, to the Legal Department of the ANC?  Have we misunderstood your testimony?

LAURENS MBATHA: No, actually, the mistake was from my side.

SISI KHAMPEPE: What is the document which is annexed to your application?  When was that document written?

LAURENS MBATHA: This one was immediately after when Smiles actually testified.

SISI KHAMPEPE: When he testified before the Human Rights Violations Committee of the TRC?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Now the statement that you have alluded to, that is alleged to have been sent to the Legal Department of the ANC, where is it?

LAURENS MBATHA: That one, it was the one that they acted on the basis that the comrade, because of what I have said, should be handed over to the police and those forms should be released, because I communicated it and I, actually, took it.  I faxed it there.