Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-04-15

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Each one explained when we reported to each other, that he got into the building.  I don't know whether I answered your question.

MR LAX: That is fine, you stick to your version then.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you finished now?  Did he also report that his firearm had jammed?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I do not remember.  I do not remember him reporting that his firearm jammed.

ADV SANDI: Mr Monaheng, we have listened to evidence in quite a number of APLA applications, we listened to you this morning, as well as Mr Madasi yesterday.
	Would it be fair to say that for a whole number of historic and political reasons which have been given by members of APLA, it was the policy of APLA to attack whites wherever they may be.  Would that be a fair statement to make regarding the policy of APLA?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Because our struggle was a struggle of war against the whites who were oppressing us, it was the policy of APLA to attack everyone who was our oppressor, as long as he was white.

ADV SANDI: Would it be fair to say that seemingly in the execution of that policy, no distinction was drawn as to whether those who were to be attacked, were civilians or no civilians?  Would it be fair to say that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: It was clear in the policy that the black people were oppressed by the Boers.
	It was the way of operating, that is attacking every Boer who had part in the oppression of the Africans, or anyone who benefitted from the oppression.

ADV SANDI: I will ask you to answer my questions very shortly, because we have listened to all the history, we do not require that you go through the history again.
	Mr Monaheng, would it be fair to say that as a matter of policy, you did not draw any distinction between an armed and an unarmed target, did you?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: There was no difference because we were oppressed by the Settlers, the Boers.

ADV SANDI: Now coming to the attack on the day in question at the Yellowwood Hotel.
	You had information that some of the patrons who were attending this Hotel, were from the Security Forces.  Would you have continued to execute your operation if you did not have such information?
	Let us suppose there was no such information, would you have continued to attack this people at that Hotel?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: If only the people who were found there, were the Boers, the oppressors, I would carry on with the operation.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Monaheng, that is all I wanted to ask you.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Diaho-Monaheng, you have actually got photo 2 in front of you.  I don't know if you can furnish an explanation about the cartridges found at photo 2, and the window of that vehicle that has obviously been shot at.  Do you know anything about that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I am looking at this photo right now, and I would not dispute that the bullet that hit here, might have been from my gun, because I was shooting from outside.
	When we were retreating to the car, our guns were still faced at the building that were attacked.  I think I answered your question.

ADV GCABASHE: I understood you to say that after you fired the .38 shots, that showed your comrades that you are now retreating, you didn't fire any other shots.
	Are you now saying that those cartridges might have been fired after you fired the retreating shots, what are you saying?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I would like the Committee to understand that the emotions were high during this attack.  We had a task to complete in a short time, I would not remember whether after firing the retreat, there were other shots, because our guns, firearms were still facing the direction of the building, so that anything that appears, we will be ready.
	I explained already that our attack was aimed at the people inside, and to destroy that place.  I am not disputing that it might have been me who shot here, or one of us.  Because the intention was to kill and to destroy the property.

ADV GCABASHE: But we certainly need some clarity on whether or not shots were fired after the retreat shots were fired from the .38 revolver, because you are now saying something very different.
	You did not say earlier, that you may have fired further shots.  I understand what you are saying, but that wasn't your evidence earlier.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Maybe I made a mistake there.  The reason for shooting the .38 as a retreat, was to indicate that we have to leave.
	Maybe thereafter there were other shootings, because the reason for the attack of this property was to kill and destroy the same property.

CHAIRPERSON: But the question was, that you said in your evidence a short while ago, that there was no other shooting after you fired the shots from the 38 revolver.  Which are we to believe?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I might have made a mistake when I gave my evidence, I am now explaining that our emotions were high, we had to operate in a very short space of time, destroying the place and killing the people.
	It might have happened that during those high emotions, ... (tape ends) ... that will be used to go away.

ADV SANDI: Can you explain Mr Diaho-Monaheng, what do you mean when you say the emotions were high?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I am saying when you go to a war, you go with strong emotions and you want to do things the right way.

ADV SANDI: Were you not afraid that you could be killed in this operation?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir, there will be those who die in the war, there will be those who get injured, other will survive.  I did not have any fear because I was fully committed to fight for the freedom of the Africans.
	I did not have any fear of dying.

ADV SANDI: Did you anticipate that one of you could be killed, I am not talking about your fear?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: We did not have fear that even one might die.

MR LAX: Can I just pick up on something here.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, I just want to finish off the point that I was talking to you about the motor vehicle and the shots that may have been fired after the .38 shots.
	First question, are you therefore saying that photo 2, the shots that were fired into that vehicle, were not fired deliberately, is this what you are saying?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Everything that took place at the place of attack, was deliberate.  Now to answer your question, I would say that they were shot deliberately.

ADV GCABASHE: I don't want you to misunderstand me.  Were you trying to damage this particular car, or was it just of your general action, the other deliberate?  You see I am just distinguishing between your act in relation to the bar, and the people there, and trying to damage this particular car as you left, I may not have been clear earlier?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I have answered already.  It was the intention to shoot and kill and destroy everything that was there.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, thanks and then the last aspect on the same point.
	Is it therefore correct for me to conclude that the shots we spoke about earlier, the ones on the building adjacent to the bar, the building in photo 3 and 4, that you say you did not fire at, isn't it possible that as you retreated, if you were firing shots, that you shot at that building?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I already indicated that I did not know the building which was referred to, but after perusing the photo's I realised that the bullet holes were on the building adjacent to the hotel, and I dispute that I shot it.
	But if they were on the building that we were attacking, then I would say they might have been from my gun.  Now, I do not know whether when we retreated, there were shots that went to that building.