Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-12

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: For the continuance with acts of terror and this division.

MR VISSER: For the purposes of Operation Butterfly?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: When were the arrests made of the persons who were later charged in the Ramlakan matter, can you remember?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Already before the 23rd December.

MR VISSER: Of which year?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: 1985.  The police were aware of the presence of certain of the people who were involved with Operation Butterfly.  They were technically monitored.

MR VISSER: What does that mean?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: We had authorisation to tap their telephones and one of the persons which we tapped was Dr Ramlakan's house as well as houses in Lamontville of a person by the name of Qonda Msomi.

MR VISSER: Please spell that?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Q-o-n-d-a M-s-o-m-i.

MR VISSER: Just to get you back on track, I interrupted you, we were talking of their arrests and you said before the arrests of 23 December there was tapping of telephones.  Do I understand you correctly?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, Chairperson, with the consequence that some of these people were already known to us and we were monitoring their activities and when the bomb exploded at Amanzimtoti on the 23 December 1985 and because of the tapping of their telephones we monitored a telephone conversation between Brazu and Swaziland and the house of Dr Ramlakan where they were congratulated in Swaziland for the act of terror on that day.

MR VISSER: The Amanzimtoti bomb?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, Chairperson.  Because we knew most of these people because of this technical ability that we had as well as informants who were in place and a full scale operation was launched that day and within two days we apprehended about 80 percent of the persons who were involved in Operation Butterfly.

MR VISSER: Including Mr Zondo?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Including Mr Zondo.

MR VISSER: And we know he was charged separately for the Amanzimtoti bomb incident?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Very well, these people who were apprehended and charged, were they released on bail or were they kept in prison?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No Chairperson they were all detainees under the Section 29 and we know what the regulation of Section 29 detainees and after they made their statement they were released in January 1986.

MR VISSER: What was the position with regard to Mr Bhila.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, Mr Bhila was detained under Section 29 until he was charged.

MR VISSER: Very well and on the 18th February in 1987 was acquitted by Judge Terion because of a lack of evidence?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was he in jail all of that time or was he out on bail or do you not know?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: I don't know.

MR VISSER: Could you try and find out for us because it might be relevant to some of the members.  Very well, they were arrested, Pumezo himself was he also acquitted with Bhila?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What was the reason why the two of them were acquitted, why was there no evidence with regard to them?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Vila Khate did not testify.

MR VISSER: So your evidence is that Khate was the witness who would implicate Zandile, Bhila and Pumezo in the Ramlakan case and when he refused to testify, Bhila and Pumezo was acquitted.  We do not speak of Dudu Buthelezi because she's not involved here.
	How many of the 12 persons who were eventually charged were found guilty in the Ramlakan matter?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Nine, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And for the assistance of the Committee I wish to refer, not to hand it in as an exhibit but just to refer to an extract of the judgement of Judge Terion.  From this matter on page 2632 of the record and there's a solitary paragraph that reads
"The ANC leaders therefore foresee and they accept and are reconciled to the likelihood that the ANC operations would cause the death of civilians.  In these circumstances it seems to us to be idle to argue that the ANC does not intend the probable consequences of it's conduct, namely the killing of civilians."
And at page 2639 his Lordship makes the finding on the evidence, that's the third paragraph from the top, page 2639:
"On the evidence therefore we find that the state has proved that the following of the explosions were caused by the ANC operators in pursuance of the aims of the ANC"
and then 8 incidents are set out Mr Chairman and his Lordship continues:
"the places at which the explosive devices were set off and the timing of the explosions as well as the type and the nature of the devices employed make it unreasonable to suppose that the explosions were caused by persons who were not operators of the ANC or for purposes which are unconnected with the aims of the ANC."
And it is the basis then from which, are we understanding the short term we had to look at judgment, where these persons were found guilty.
	Mr Chairman, I've reached the point where we are going to go to the incidents and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think we'll need a little rest before that.  We'll take the short adjournment now.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MR MALAN: Mr Visser, just before we continue, just to conclude the previous points made, Lula Melekhate, I understand he would have been the witness who would have implicated Bhila and Ntwene.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: (s.u.o.) Amongst others, he would have testified against them, yes.

MR MALAN: Would there have been other witnesses who would have testified against them?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: I cannot remember.

MR MALAN: Because if I look at the judgement and if I understand correctly, they were acquitted because no evidence was brought in against them.  Isn't that correct?  If you look at the - I do not know if we've marked this but it's the continuation on the 18th.  If you look at his judgement, page 2549.  It says
"Accused number 7 and 8, will you stand up please?  The state has not lead any evidence to connect either of you with any of the charges."
But there was a charge of terrorism against all of them.  So the State had no evidence against them?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And you said that the reason was because Khate didn't want to testify?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, yes.

MR MALAN: And then the inference one makes is that he was the only witness otherwise the State would have tried to use some of the other witnesses?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Now following that, why did Melekhate refuse, do you know?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: As far as I know it was because of intimidation.

MR MALAN: If you look at the charge sheet and you look at the list of witnesses who were exposed at the beginning of that case then you'll find a list of 72.  Some of your co-applicants in the Bhila issue referred us to witness 38 Ndwandwe, who would have testified?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Why is Khate's name not there?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson I cannot explain why not.  Maybe he was hid because he was a witness.

MR MALAN: You have no other explanation, do you speculate?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: I do not know, yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Chairperson I can help you, but I then have to testify.  If you see at the end of the charge sheet at the list of witnesses, I think this is Section 114?