Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-16

MR RICHARD: If I can point to an act which the applicant or applicants involved themselves in, and for which they haven't applied for amnesty, whether it relates to this specific act or any other act or which they have applied for amnesty, the fact that they haven't applied for amnesty for everything immediately disqualifies them for the amnesty on the basis that they have not made a full and complete disclosure of what they have to declare.

ADV SANDI: I'm not sure if I agree with you, but anyway that can be argued.

CHAIRPERSON: Your problem is, have you any better evidence than Mr Mamasela's statement?

MR RICHARD: Well, I have the debriefing notes of Mr Mamasela.  They were taken in 1994 by the Independent Board of Enquiry, and if we go through the various notes, Joe Mamasela has substantially proved truthful in most of the stories that he did say in this debriefing statement.  However,

CHAIRPERSON: You have put them to him.  Could you perhaps repeat ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speakers mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you perhaps repeat them so we and his counsel can have an opportunity to list them and his counsel can then if necessary take further instructions from his client.

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct) is that he is allegedly responsible for the first one, Ellis Park car bomb, secondly the Hallmark car bomb, thirdly the Witbank car bomb, and thirdly, as at 1994 working for the security police.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's one other bomb which may be perhaps more relevant if we ever get to commence the Ellis Park bombing again, than it is to this one.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson if I may respond to this.  I believe that much as an applicant has to give full disclosure for him to get amnesty, but this should relate, the full disclosure relates to a particular matter that is under discussion.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, I further wish to say that in as far as my learned friend is asking questions which relates to other matters which are still the subject of amnesty hearings, I object to that and will advise my client not to answer those questions because this may prejudice him in the coming amnesty applications, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which is the intention.  Which is why we do not give decisions until we have heard all the applications.

MR KOOPEDI: But like I said ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The applicants cannot come and skate through one application and then later be shown in a subsequent one they have been lying, and if this, but the purpose now, he has put the question, is being denied, and I don't think we should take the matter further at the present time.

MR RICHARD: It doesn't serve any purpose to take it any further, but now from what I have said, do you deny working with the security police at any point in time?

MR DUBE: What I will say, wherever you got that information from, were you informed that that was part of my deployment by the ANC?

MR RICHARD: I have information that you worked with the security police.  Is that wrong?

MR DUBE: That is not correct.

MR RICHARD: In what way is it incorrect?

MR DUBE: Mr Chairperson, I would like to consult with my lawyer.

MR RICHARD: I have no objection to you consulting with your lawyer, but I would also say that my next question is, you told Puleswane, a TRC investigator, exactly what I am telling you now.  It's your admission that I'm putting to you.  I will lead his evidence later.

MR DUBE: What I will say is that I do not have a response to your question but I would like to see my attorney.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, if I may be given a half a second, we do not need to adjourn for this.

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn't the question be phrased somewhat differently, to indicate that you propose to lead evidence that he worked with the security police and that he now has an opportunity to deal with that if he wishes to.

MR RICHARD: Very well Chairperson.  I will lead evidence at future points in the hearing that you worked in conjunction with the security police.  Do you have any comments, or do you want to amplify, or explain anything in relation to the proposition?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to put a date to that?

MR RICHARD: I don't have a specific date to put.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm implying was it before or after 1994?

MR RICHARD: Prior to 1994.

MR DUBE: What I can say is that I do not see a reason why we should involve these other matters because I have already mentioned that I've applied for amnesty in regard to Ellis Park and Witbank bombings, but with regards to these other matters that you are asking me I do not know anything and I do not have a response to them.

MR RICHARD: If I look at volume 3, chapter 6, of the TRC report, dealing with Transvaal and covert actions, the Commission there finds there was evidence before the Commission which showed that infiltrators were both involved in what they terms credibility operations, whereby the infiltrator would be actively involved in an operation, i.e., bombing, killing, etc., which in turn would provide them with credibility and show the people that they were, with whom they were working, that they were bona fide.  See paragraph 364 which directly implicated the Soweto security branch in this particular behaviour.  Now, what better method of getting credibility in your area than killing a supposed informer?  That's the proposition I'm putting to you.  Do you admit or deny it?

MR DUBE: I have no response to that.

MR RICHARD: In other words you refuse to answer the question.

MR DUBE: What I've said is that I'm here, appearing before this Committee because I seek amnesty for the incident of Sicelo Dhlomo.  Therefore the questions that I would be able to answer would relate to Sicelo Dhlomo's issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Could perhaps be put more directly in the form of a question, that what he is suggesting to you is that you, the reason you have given for killing the deceased is a false one, and that you organised his killing for the purpose of getting credibility for you in the area while you were working for the police as an infiltrator.  That is the question, is it not?

MR DUBE: Firstly, I believe that it is the first time that people become, actually become aware that I was involved in MK operations, or that, most of them do not know me.  What I can say is that I was not seeking popularity.  I did not do this for my own benefit.  I was actually fighting for this country.

MR RICHARD: What I do not, Mr Dube, is that you have not denied that you worked for the security police on a date prior to 1994.

MR DUBE: What I put to you was that I do not have knowledge regarding that, I also said your sources of information where it was explained to you, was it explained to you that it was part of my activities as directed by the organisation?  And lastly, there is no other question that I would like to respond to unless it is directly linked or has to do with the issue of Sicelo Dhlomo.

MR RICHARD: It is for the Committee to decide which questions you will or won't answer, not your choice.  My question put directly is the following.  If an investigator while employed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission says that you said to him that you worked with the security police, would he be lying, yes or no?  You haven't answered that question.

MR DUBE: I have made a request before that I should not respond to questions that are outside the issue of Sicelo Dhlomo.

MR RICHARD: No-one has objected to my question.  The Committee has not excused you from answering the question.  I believe that your refusal to answer the question can be the basis of only one inference and that is that it is true, that you did tell the researcher, the investigator, that you were at one stage an informer.

MR DUBE: I repeat, whatever is outside the issue of Sicelo Dhlomo I would not like to respond.