Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-08-05

MR WAGNER: Can I come back to the exact particulars of this operation.  This whole idea of first a small bomb and when there's a number of policemen at the scene, the second more powerful bomb with a specific and I must state it, with a specific intent to kill as many of them as possible, was this the first time that the ANC used these tactics?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: I don't think I'm (indistinct) in fact to speak that on behalf of the ANC, I don't know if that is (indistinct).

MR WAGNER: Was the attack aimed at the building, the Magistrate's Court or at the individual policemen at the scene?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: The police were the target.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke are you aware that the majority of the policemen killed and injured in this instance were merely doing administrative work within the Magistrate's Court building and specifically the son of my client, he was working as a Court Orderly, nothing more than that.  Are you aware of that?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: So are those kids in fact killed in Soweto, they were just merely students.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke can you please refrain from the political statements you're trying to make all morning.  Answer my question?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: That does not matter.  The police were defending apartheid and they were up in arms and those were para-military forces as far as we were concerned and they fall within what the ANC describes as legitimate target.  As where in fact that person was deployed at that point in time, it is immaterial.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke how does a Court Orderly defend apartheid?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: It is also very difficult to tell how many times that Court Orderly was sent to the townships.

MR WAGNER: Please answer the question.

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: For the mere fact that person is wearing uniform and he's defending apartheid, irrespective of whether he's deployed in court or any other place, is that man, those people are carrying weapons and as far as I'm concerned, anybody here in this country who was up in arms tried to deny us the (indistinct) this new dispensation that we are enjoying today was a target and falls within the category of the (indistinct) described by the ANC.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke in your evidence in chief you said that the people killed in this incident were the very same people who went into the townships killing innocent children or youngsters I think you said.  Now I put it to you that that is completely incorrect, specifically on behalf of my client.  Her son never did that.

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: The fact of the matter is he was a policeman.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke I've heard in previous hearings that your organisation, the ANC, specifically regarded the Security Branch of the South African Police as your enemy.  Is that correct?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: I think you are not correct when you say specifically, the special branch were part.

MR WAGNER: But the thrust of your anger, of you feelings were directed at the Security Branch of the South African Police.  That's how I understand the evidence in previous hearings.  Do you agree?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: No I don't agree with that.  The thrust in fact of the main effort was to deal with the police, in general the army or those people that the ANC in fact defined as legitimate targets.  The ANC never specified to people that they must differentiate between a Court Orderly and a policeman because policemen are policemen.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke I have to ask you this.  Why didn't you and General Nyanda have the guts to attack people who could defend themselves?  As a military man, why didn't you do that, why did you elect to commit this crime, to kill people in this fashion, where they've got no way whatsoever of defending themselves, whether they're policemen or I don't care.  Why decide on this way of killing innocent people?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: The police were part and parcel of this conflict.  And they were part of the repressive machinery in this country.  According to the (indistinct) of guerrilla warfare, you hit at your enemy when he least expects you.

MR WAGNER: Does that mean you attack someone who can't defend himself, is that your policy, is that what you ask us here today to accept?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: If they're police in fact they were carrying arms, people who are carrying arms and fail to defend themselves in a battlefield situation it's too bad for them.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke what did you aim to achieve by this operation?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: To pump some sense in those who were defending apartheid, that what I tried to defend is indefensible.

MR WAGNER: And who would that be?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: Starting from apartheid politicians or infrastructure, that is the government of the day and even those that were misled by the previous government, that they were better than others and they've got something to defend as far as the status quo were concerned.

MR WAGNER: Now Mr Shoke if you want it, as you put it, to pump some sense into the politicians, why didn't you attack them?  Why innocent people at the Court, I still don't understand that?

MR SANDI: Sorry Mr Wagner, just to ensure that I follow, when you talk about innocent people are you talking about the police who were killed at this incident or the civilians who were caught up in the fire?

MR WAGNER: Mr Chairman I'm referring to both categories.  Specifically I'm referring to my clients.  I put it to this witness my clients were innocent people who were unable to defend themselves.
	The question was why didn't you attack the politicians directly then?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: I think I've got a problem with you Mr Wagner if you describe a policeman in South Africa during the apartheid era as someone who is innocent.  Maybe you need to take a (indistinct) into any township here, aware now, you'll have the opportunity to interview the victims of police brutality and get to know (indistinct) in fact police really are indeed innocent.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke I'm not going to labour this point, all I'm telling you is the son of my client was never in a township, he was an innocent young man brutally killed by you and your colleagues.  The question was why didn't you attack the politician if you wanted to pump sense into their heads?

DR TSOTSI: Mr Wagner you keep on repeating this question.  Wasn't it ANC policy to fight against those who were the props of apartheid, including policeman, and wasn't the son of your client an informed policeman?  I'm sure there are degrees of involvement of the police and the army in the struggle, some were who were not as deeply involved in the actual fighting (indistinct), but (indistinct).  I'm not saying there's any justification in killing the son, it's just because you keep on repeating this question as if there is no policy.  The policy of the ANC has been stated here as the policemen and they are legitimate targets.  So I just wanted to try and clarify how you get over that definition or are you saying that the definition itself is wrong, the police - the ANC should not have agreed to kill all policemen indiscriminately ... (end of tape)

MR WAGNER: ... and how the mind frames of the murderers of her son work.  That's why I'm asking these questions.

DR TSOTSI: (Inaudible).