Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-04-12

CHAIRPERSON: Can the witness not get a permanent mike that is on all the time?  Just press that button, but don't press it all the time just leave it like that.
	How were you going to explain to the IFP that you committed all these crimes in its name, for its benefit, but nonetheless against its policy?

MR MVELASE: I was going to apologise very strongly to the IFP because yes, it was not their policy that people be robbed.

CHAIRPERSON: So why embark on the robbery then, if you know the IFP is not going to like this?  Why commit it?

MR MVELASE: It is because the needs of the IFP were such that I personally wanted to meet them such as donating when we were going to rallies and even in the event of the death of one of our members.

CHAIRPERSON: How were you going to explain to the IFP that you did something contrary to the policy of the IFP?  Why commit the robbery when you know the IFP is going to say "we don't want this money, our policy is not to rob and to murder"?  You knew that was going to happen, why do you then commit the crime?

MR MVELASE: That's the reason why I am before this Committee, to say that I am here because I broke the policies of the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: No, we are not here to excuse you for breaking the IFP policies, that the IFP must do.  I want to know from you, why did you commit these crimes, that's what I want to know.

MR MVELASE: I committed the crimes in the name of the IFP because I wanted to meet the needs of the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: But you knew the IFP is not going to accept it, they would punish you, if nothing else.  You knew that.

MR MVELASE: I was going to apologise very strongly to the IFP for violating their policies as much as I am apologising now.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you decided, you were going to do something against the policy of the IFP and you would apologise for it?  Is that what you say?  That was part of the plan, do I understand you correctly?

MR MVELASE: No, that was not part of the plan but this was Wiseman's idea and he is one who could explain in detail in case we were questioned about it.  I personally was prepared to undertake an apology for myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was that lady killed?

MR MVELASE: She was killed by mistake, a mistake that was committed by Sampson Manqele.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not have the intention to kill her?

MR MVELASE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

ADV SIGODI: So, do you know how many arms or ammunition the IFP had at the hostel, did you have any knowledge about that?

MR MVELASE: No, I did not have that knowledge.

ADV SIGODI: Then why did you see the need to go and rob in order to get money to buy arms if you did not even know how many arms the IFP had in the hostel.

MR MVELASE: It was a way, or should I say I personally did not have a firearm, for example, a firearm which I could use in the event of a conflict breaking out.

ADV SIGODI: But you did not know how many arms that the IFP had, maybe the IFP had an abundance of arms.  What reason did you have to believe that the IFP needed arms?

MR MVELASE: Others, or should I say some of the people who accompanied us to the robbery did not have firearms and that is one of the reasons that made me believe that there was a need for firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: But you took that decision to rob that lady before you saw the arms.

MR MVELASE: Would you please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that when you went on this venture to rob this lady, not all of you people had firearms.  That was proof to you that there was a need to effect or do this robbery so that you could buy more arms.  You recall saying so?

MR MVELASE: No, that is not so.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) that when you went to rob, some of you didn't have firearms and that showed you that there was a need for firearms amongst the ranks of the IFP, didn't you say so?

MR MVELASE: I am saying that most of the members of the IFP did not have firearms, that is why I am saying that I cannot testify as to the amount of firearms that the IFP had.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you or did you not testify that the day you committed this robbery not all the participants in the robbery were armed, do you recall saying so?

MR MVELASE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That indicated to you that there was a shortage of firearms amongst the IFP members, not so?  That's what you testified?

MR MVELASE: I am saying some did not have firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall saying that the fact that not all had firearms showed you that not all IFP members had firearms and that you required more firearms.  Did you not say so?

MR MVELASE: Please repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: I am telling you, you said so a couple of minutes ago, that when you went out to rob this lady, not all of you were armed and that indicated to you that there was a necessity to commit this robbery because not all people belonging to the IFP were equipped with firearms.  That's what you said.  All I want to know is do you recall saying so?

MR MVELASE: You see, the majority of IFP people did not have firearms that I would have been able to see whether they had many or less, so I had no idea of that.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairperson, just a further matter.
	Mr Mvelase, can you just very, very briefly, what exactly did you do when the deceased was killed, what was your role in all this?

MR MVELASE: The role I played was to point at the person in the victim's company with a firearm, a certain man, a white man.  As I was still pointing at him with my gun, I heard a gunshot immediately that I thought was shot by one of the people in my company because it was clear that that could have been the possibility and I saw a person lying down on the floor and immediately, I fled.

CHAIRPERSON: Did I understand you correctly that you were also armed at that time?

MR MVELASE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just clarify something, maybe I'm not hearing properly.  Earlier in your testimony you said you were not equipped with a firearm, did you not say so?

MR MVELASE: No, I don't recall saying that.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chair, if I may, I believe if I understood the applicant correctly he said that
"Some of the people in our company was not ..."
I also understood it that he never said that he himself was not armed, but he said:
"I noticed that some of the people accompanying us was not armed"
... maybe specifically implying that he was indeed armed.  Thank you Mr Chair.
	Mr Mvelase, is there anything else you could have done in that particular situation?

MR MVELASE: One possibility - oh yes, there was something I could have done.

MR CLAASSEN: What do you mean by that?

MR MVELASE: I could have got myself temporary jobs and worked part time, get a wage for the day, something like that.  That could have been one other way but that was not quite clear.

DR TSOTSI: Mr Mvelase, do I understand you to say that you were the first to pull out your gun and point at this white man?

MR MVELASE: Yes.

DR TSOTSI: So, and the others followed, the others then also pulled out their firearms?

MR MVELASE: Sampson was the next one.

DR TSOTSI: Yes, and you actually saw Sampson pointing his firearm at the woman, is that right?

MR MVELASE: Yes that is correct.

DR TSOTSI: Now, if you did not want to kill the woman, why didn't you stop him?

MR MVELASE: It wasn't that easy because it was unexpected.

DR TSOTSI: I don't understand that.  I mean you had your firearm already out and there he was, you saw him pointing a firearm, surely you could have stopped him then, either by holding his hand or putting away his firearm or ... What is it that stopped you from stopping him from using the firearm?

MR MVELASE: As I explained, that wouldn't have been that easy, I was also shocked by that act.

DR TSOTSI: What was the difficulty about it.  If you saw him pointing a firearm at the lady before he shot her, weren't you near enough to have grasped the gun from him or to have dropped him?