Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-05-20

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, I keep saying that, you shot at him with the intention of killing him, shot at him with a machine gun, is that so?  And you refer to two or three shots, there were considerably more than that, weren't there?

ZWELITSHA MKHULUTHA: Yes, since I have told you that we were using an automatic machine gun, I cannot actually tell how many bullets and how many rounds.

JUDGE WILSON: Who was using it?

ZWELITSHA MKHULUTHA: It was Maliqole.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr  Mkhulutha, is Mr Ngxobongwana still alive?

ZWELITSHA MKHULUTHA: No, Ma'am.

SISI KHAMPEPE: (indistinct)

ZWELITSHA MKHULUTHA: Mr Ngxobongwana was killed by some of our members, the SDU's.

SISI KHAMPEPE: And when was he killed.

ZWELITSHA MKHULUTHA: If I am not mistaken, I think it was in 1992, December 1992.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you say by some of your members?

ZWELITSHA MKHULUTHA: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: What did he say?

ZWELITSHA MKHULUTHA: I have a request, there is something else that I would like to get clarity on.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do.

ZWELITSHA MKHULUTHA: I want to explain that I made a statement initially, in a form that was written in Afrikaans and then I attached this document in that form which explained everything that we did as the SDU's and the killing of Mr Ngxobongwana and the other town councillors who were Goniwe and the others and the people who were attacking and the explosives.
	The attacks that we made to the police premises and the explosives, but now I am not sure, I don't know who actually - whether you were told about this but Mr Steyn signed form this before the end of the case.
	Because we didn't know that, we thought that if we are here, you are going to get all that information and some of the things that we have mentioned here, are also mentioned in that document, so I wanted the TRC to get that information.
	If you don't know anything about that, I wanted you to know that I actually took an initiative to write that document because even when they were attacking, I was the leader.  Even the attack at the Nyanga East, I was the one who was actually leading the group.  I don't know whether you got that information.
	But I am not sure how does the TRC work, but we are prepared to explain all those things.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that document given to the TRC?

ZWELITSHA MKHULUTHA: I think it was in 1996, but I can't remember the month, but the form that I attached on, Mr Steyn with Mr Thyido, signed.  Mr Steyn is from Brandvlei prison.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you throw any light on all this, Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: Unfortunately not, I have never seen such document.

CHAIRPERSON: ... to the TRC, they are not usually referred as a matter of course to you?

MR BRINK: They are referred to the Amnesty Committee if they are addressed to the TRC, but they clearly relate to amnesty and they would normally be sent up to the 10th floor.
	But no such document has ever been brought to my attention.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps his counsel will know.  Do you know anything about it?

ADV MATHANA: I have no personal knowledge of such documents Mr Chairman, except that he informed me about that.  He said that they had been addressed to the TRC, I have no personal knowledge of them.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Mkhulutha, who is Mr Steyn?

ZWELITSHA MKHULUTHA: Mr Steyn is the Chief in our section in Brandvlei prison.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Are you saying you first completed an application which was in Afrikaans, in which you annexed the document you are referring to?

ZWELITSHA MKHULUTHA: I made an application, I got the response from the Truth Commission saying that he was actually refusing my application because it was vague, but I thought there was a lot on my mind, I can try and prepare a document and then I sent it and then I received a form that was written in Afrikaans where it was actually telling me to explain again.
	And then I explained about my sentence and then I also prepared this document and attached it there so that the TRC can try and select the information that they need, but there is a lot of things involved, so it is not very easy for me to write them down.
	There was also a cassette that was taken from me.  I wanted to tell the comrades to write down and seek for amnesty and tell the Truth Commission everything that we did.

JUDGE WILSON: Who took this cassette?

ZWELITSHA MKHULUTHA: It was taken in prison, but I saw Mr Thyido now in possession of this cassette.  Now, even now, this cassette is here.

JUDGE WILSON: Who is in possession of it?

CHAIRPERSON: The first applicant.

ZWELITSHA MKHULUTHA: It is with Mr Thyido, the one that is sitting next to me.

CHAIRPERSON: He is in possession of the cassette?

JUDGE WILSON: So he says.  You say he is in possession of the cassette now?

ZWELITSHA MKHULUTHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is counsel for the applicant aware of it, do you think that it is important for your client's case that what they are talking about, is placed before us as evidence or not, that is your decision.

ADV MATHANA: Mr Chairman, I have not listened to the context of the tape, but during my consultation when he mentioned some other incidents, I came to the conclusion that they were not related with this present one because it was separate acts committed on separate dates, separate venues, separate victims, under separate circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: For which they are not seeking amnesty?

ADV MATHANA: For which they are not seeking amnesty as far as this application is concerned.

JUDGE WILSON: No, but are there other applications, do you know if he has made an application on some other application in respect of amnesty for these other events?

ADV MATHANA: I am not aware that he has made any other application, except as he has just tried to explain that he says that he - as he was applying for amnesty with respect to this particular one, that he thought that if he could annex the others as well, that they were going to be handled together.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you take final instructions now as to whether what we are required to do?  What is it that he is seeking amnesty for, is it quite clear in your mind that the only amnesty he is seeking at present or at all, are the matters that are set out in the application forms before us?

ADV MATHANA: Very well, if we could adjourn Mr Chairman, I will take instructions.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION

MR BRINK: ... being made and I don't know, Mr Mathana might be able to sort that out for us, if they had been made, I can check with the data base in a matter of minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Applications for amnesty, not merely a document in support of the present application.

MR BRINK: No, if other applications had come in, if they haven't come in because they haven't been sent and then (indistinct), but if the contention is they have - he has sent in other applications relating to other matters, then I can check that.

ADV MATHANA: Thank you Mr Chairman.  According to my instructions no separate applications have been submitted in respect of these separate incidents and they were not submitted because they were under the impression that if they made one application and substantiated that - if they submitted one application in support of it submitted the information relating to the other incidents, it was going to be enough and that on the date of the hearing, the Committee was going to consider all of the incidents.	That was their impression and that is why they failed to submit applications in respect of those independent acts.
	But in so far as this particular application is concerned, they are not going to be of any help.

CHAIRPERSON: All that information is collateral and is not directly concerned with the issues that we are concerned with in this application?

ADV MATHANA: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We must proceed with the applications that are before us?

ADV MATHANA: Yes, Mr Chairman.