Amnesty Hearings — Pinetown — 1998-10-21

M R NDLOVU: Mr Ngobo was an ANC supporter.  If he had the information about us, we would have not left him behind when we went to commit the crime because even Mr Zondo who transported us to Durban was not told everything about the crime because we did not trust him completely, therefore we would have no reason to leave him, Mr Ngobo, in Pietermartizburg when we went to commit such a serious crime.  I was also surprised and confused as to where he got that information that he testified on in court.
Well in the trial he gave a reason why he didn't go with, that he didn't feel good about the operation and he gave you guys an excuse about why he shouldn't go.  You remember that?  He said he had to cook food and just didn't want to come.  Anyway let's leave that.  Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Just very briefly Mr Ndlovu, when you proceeded on the operation were you armed?  You yourself?

M R NDLOVU: No, I did not have any gun in my possession.

CHAIRPERSON: What sort of weapon did your brother Tabani have?

M R NDLOVU: He had a shotgun.

CHAIRPERSON: A shotgun?

M R NDLOVU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: A short gun or a shotgun?

M R NDLOVU: Shotgun, pump action gun.

CHAIRPERSON: A pump action shotgun?  Did it spray when it shot or did it shoot a bullet?

M R NDLOVU: He shot the deceased at close range because the bullets that were used were SSG's.

CHAIRPERSON: Now could you just give an indication in this room as to how far away he was from the deceased when he actually shot him?

M R NDLOVU: It might have been just about Mr Mpshe's distance away.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you agree that's plus minus 5 paces and they were running at the time?

M R NDLOVU: Yes he was running.

CHAIRPERSON: And did the deceased at any stage attempt to fire at you or your brother?

M R NDLOVU: He had his gun on his link and he was still trying to aim or to get it off his arm but my brother shot him first.  If he had not carried the gun over his shoulder maybe he could have managed to shoot but because he had it on it's link and because he didn't expect this to happen he had the gun on it's link or his shoulder.

CHAIRPERSON: What sort of gun did he have, the gun that you took from him?

M R NDLOVU: An HMC 9 mm parabellum, a sub-machine gun.

CHAIRPERSON: A police issue?

M R NDLOVU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you or your brother use that firearm at all after the incident?

M R NDLOVU: No it was never used.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr de Klerk, do you have any questions arising from questions that have been put by members of the panel?

MR DE KLERK: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: No questions Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Thank you Mr Ndlovu, that brings your testimony to an end, you may stand down.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Klerk?

MR DE KLERK: That's the only evidence I'm going to lead.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Mpshe?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I'm leading no evidence Mr Chairman thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Ndlovu?

M R NDLOVU: I would like to convey a message that I wish to reconcile with the deceased family.  Everything that I did was not for personal gain, I did not have any grudge with the deceased but it was because of the political situation at the time therefore I would like to apologise to the victim's family.  Even if I do not get amnesty, I would like them to accept that it was the situation and I pass my sincerest apologies.  I am also a victim because I lost my family members, my mother, my sister and my brother.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you very much Mr Ndlovu, we can understand your distress.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Klerk are you in a position to address us?

UNKNOWN: That's right Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DE KLERK: Firstly, Mr Chairman, it is my opinion that the applicant should receive amnesty.  Firstly, this matter happened quite a while ago and surely there will be some questions asked about exactly what happened and exactly how it happened.  That is something that we would expect in circumstances like this.
	It is clear that from the beginning when the applicant applied for amnesty he gave the same story and the golden thread came through until today.  It may be asked yes, why did Mr Ngobo testify regarding this matter if he weren't there but the same question may be asked why didn't the applicant implicate him then because there's no gain for him or loss for him to implicate Mr Ngobo at all.  Especially if he knew, very well, that according to him Mr Ngobo implied or testified in a certain way, falsely at the court in the sense ...[indistinct]

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that there was good reason for him to implicate him, to explain the contradiction between Ngobo's evidence and the applicant's version here?

MR DE KLERK: That's correct, Mr Chairman.  It is my opinion that after this whole incident, if he tried to lie and tried to tell a different story of what happened, he would have come to the Commission and say but Mr Ngobo was there, he was one of the perpetrators in this whole thing but he doesn't do that so it seems that in my opinion and this is the problem with these sort of questions, the Commission and anybody that thinks about it, must speculate and that's where the danger comes in.  We cannot sit here today and say definitely what Mr Ngobo said during the trial was the truth.  We know that criminal courts are not courts of truth, it's courts of process.

CHAIRPERSON: Could be courts of truth but ...[intervention]

MR DE KLERK: I'm talking about ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What you've saying in reality is probably closer to the mark.