Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-06

ADV DE JAGER: That is the comrades of Port St Johns who have got names.  I am asking you about the name, don't dodge the question every time, tell us the truth.  Who told you that?

LUNGILE MAZWI: It was Pumelele Hermans and Fundisile Guleni.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, why didn't you give us that information in the first place, why should we drag it out of you?  You are aware that you should make a full disclosure here, otherwise we can't help you.  Please answer the questions and give us the truth now.

LUNGILE MAZWI: I apologise for that, but it has been difficult for me to understand questions at times, because English is not the same as Xhosa.

CHAIRPERSON: It has been translated to you Mr Mazwi.

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes, that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: And this is not the first time that you have been asked where you obtained that information.  Not so?

LUNGILE MAZWI: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me put it to you this way and I want to be as  fair as possible to you.  The law compels us to grant amnesty when certain requirements are complied with.  One of those requirements is an applicant making full disclosure of what occurred in an incident for which he applies for amnesty.
	A failure to do so, equally compels us to refuse the application.  Do you understand?  I am being quite fair to you now.  If we are not satisfied as a panel that you are disclosing everything properly, then we will be forced to refuse it.  Be forewarned.

MR SMUTS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Mazwi, did you or any of your colleagues make any effort whatsoever, to discover whether or not the people you were set to ambush, were bona fide holiday makers on a fishing trip before you set the ambush?

LUNGILE MAZWI: No sir, we didn't.

MR SMUTS: Do you accept today that they were indeed holiday makers who had gone on a fishing trip?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes, I wouldn't deny that.

MR SMUTS: Do you accept also that far from being rightwing infiltrators, this party included people who were open and expressed opponents of the regime of the day?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I wouldn't accept or deny that, because I am not aware of that.

MR SMUTS: At the time when you set the ambush, did it matter to you at all who it was that you were awaiting and who it was that you were going to try and kill?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you talk about names and addresses or ...

MR SMUTS: In general.

LUNGILE MAZWI: Can you please explain sir.

MR SMUTS: Once you had decided to set the ambush, was it of any concern to you what the reason for the presence of those people were, what the political persuasions of those people were, whether they were adults of children?

LUNGILE MAZWI: We didn't notice that.

MR SMUTS: Did you care?

CHAIRPERSON: If it was someone who you knew was a holiday maker, would you have proceeded with that then?

LUNGILE MAZWI: No, we would not have proceeded.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you then proceed with that that day?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Because we did not know, we were not sure that they were holiday makers or not.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you think they were?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I thought that they were one of the people that were causing problems in that area.

MR SMUTS: Why didn't you find out whether they were amongst those people before you decided to take their lives?

LUNGILE MAZWI: We didn't have that time sir.

MR SMUTS: Why not?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I think it was the situation that caused that, that caused us not to have time for that.

MR SMUTS: Mr Mazwi, the evidence we have heard is that the reconnoitring party went down to find out what was going on sometime between ten and eleven in the morning, is that correct?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I am not sure about the time sir, but there were people who went there to reconnoitre the place.

MR SMUTS: Mr Maxhayi's evidence was that it was between ten and eleven in the morning.  Was it in the morning?

LUNGILE MAZWI: It might happen that he did have time, I did not have time with me.  I wouldn't say that is not the case.

MR SMUTS: The other evidence is that the shooting was at sunset, there has been an estimate of half past five in the afternoon, would you agree with that?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes, that is true, it was during sunset.

MR SMUTS: What precluded you between ten and eleven in the morning and half past five in the afternoon, from seeking to find out from the people who were at the camp, the identity and the reason for the presence of the people whom you were waiting to ambush?

CHAIRPERSON: Identity in as what?  Names and addresses or whether they were in fact these rightwingers?

MR SMUTS: Mr Chairman, can I rephrase the question, what precluded you from seeking information about the people whom you were waiting to ambush, so as to ensure that the people that you were waiting for, were in fact those whom you were targeting for an attack?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I wouldn't say what stopped us, but the way things were, I don't think that we would have time to investigate, because a lot of us did not know the place in the first place.

MR SMUTS: Is that the best answer you can give us for failing to make any enquiries?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smuts, just excuse, I don't follow the question.   Having been told by the reconnaissance party together with those who purportedly had the first hand information, what was occurring there, is it to be expected that those people who came from outside the area, to make further investigations or would one accept that they bona fide accepted the information that they received, rightly or wrongly?

MR SMUTS: Mr Chairman, these people were about to take the lives of people they didn't know.  They were in a holiday area, in a holiday season.
	Their information was that the people they were waiting to ambush had gone fishing.  The question is quite simply addressed to whether they made any effort to access or to inform themselves from those who were present and knew something about the people, whether these were rightwing infiltrators from Port St Johns or not?

CHAIRPERSON: I quite follow your reason.  I am just asking as to the wisdom of the question.
	Here we have an applicant who says he went there on an operation.  That perhaps he did not follow up what we consider he should have done in the comfort of this hearing, he relied on the information that he got.  The negligence of failing to make further enquiries, is that of any moment?

MR SMUTS: Yes, with respect Mr Chairman, it is of extreme importance.  It goes to the good faith which the applicant is required to establish before he can qualify for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: It follows from your argument then that they should not have relied on the information.

MR SMUTS: It is a question which can be addressed in argument Mr Chairman, but with respect, there is no evidence yet that the informers told them that the people they were to ambush, were in fact the enemy who had been identified.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR SMUTS: Mr Mazwi, in what capacity did you participate in this so-called operation?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I was just standing next to the car and I was protecting those who were not armed.

MR SMUTS: Sorry, let me try and be more clear.  Were you there in your capacity as a member of the African National Congress, or as a member of the Communist Party or in what capacity was it that you were there?

CHAIRPERSON: Or a member of the Self Defence Unit?  All three or any combination of the three?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I was there because I was a member of all those organisations, but I was under ANC Youth League and SACP and the SDU's.

CHAIRPERSON: That decision to do what you people did, was that a decision made under which flag?

LUNGILE MAZWI: We made this decision as the SDU's.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you obtain or try to obtain authority from any of the other organisations of which you were a member or not?

LUNGILE MAZWI: We didn't try to obtain authority sir.