Amnesty Hearings — Palm Ridge — 1998-11-30

LUCKY SOKO: That is correct, Sir, that is what I am referring to.

MR SIBEKO: Are there any other incidents wherein you were involved where people might have been injured or died as a result of any shooting or stabbing or hacking, now that you are the first on to have carried an axe throughout?

LUCKY SOKO: No, there are no other incidents, that is about all.

MR SIBEKO: Will I be correct to state that you are applying for amnesty for your involvement in removing the late Mbuso from the late Gregory's place and the assaults that you made and your involvement in the group which went to the hostels, although nothing happened?  Is that what you are applying for amnesty for?

LUCKY SOKO: That is so.

MR SIBEKO: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SIBEKO

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Mr Chairman.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Panel?

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Chair.
	You did not take part in the killing of Mbuso but you did assault him, what did you assault him with?

LUCKY SOKO: I assaulted him with fists, I also kicked him.  I did not have any weapon with.

ADV SANDI: Why did you assault him?

LUCKY SOKO: The person that he killed was amongst my peer group, he was actually my neighbour so I felt aggrieved.

ADV SANDI: When you heard that he had been killed, what was your attitude to that?  Did you feel that those who had killed him had done a good thing, did you agree with that?

LUCKY SOKO: After he had been killed I did not really feel bad, I felt that he was getting a taste of his own medicine.  I did not feel aggrieved.  He had killed a person so he had it coming to him.

ADV SANDI: Is that to say that you agreed - it was your attitude that those who had killed him had done the right thing, is that correct?

LUCKY SOKO: That is so.

ADV SANDI: Are you able to point out any political objective which would have been achieved by your group in killing Mbuso?

LUCKY SOKO: Could you repeat your question please?

ADV SANDI: What did you think was going to be achieved by killing Mbuso?  Do you have an answer for that?

LUCKY SOKO: I do not have an answer.

ADV SANDI: You say the person he had killed was your neighbour, if this person was not your neighbour would your attitude have been the same?

LUCKY SOKO: Could you please repeat your question?

ADV SANDI: I asked you why you assaulted Mbuso and I think one of the reasons you submitted was that the person he had killed was your neighbour, not so?

LUCKY SOKO: That is correct, I said that.

ADV SANDI: Now I am asking, if the person who had been killed by Mbuso was not your neighbour, would your attitude have been the same about Mbuso?  Would you still have felt that he should be killed?

LUCKY SOKO: Are you saying if Mbuso had killed another person besides the person that he killed, is that what you are saying?

ADV SANDI: Yes, if he had killed a person who was not your neighbour, would your attitude have been the same?

LUCKY SOKO: If that person was a member of the SDU, I was going to feel aggrieved because that blanket policy of and eye for an eye would or should have also applied to him, that is if the member was an SDU member.

ADV SANDI: This person who was killed was Greg Mkwanazi, were you very close to this person, was he your friend in the SDUs?

LUCKY SOKO: Yes, he was a member of the SDU and a friend also, we grew up together.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Mr Soko.  Thank you, Chair.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, Chair.
	To come back to the question of the political objective.  What do you understand this rule to be trying to prevent, a killer must be killed, why did you have this rule?  How did this rule or policy help or what did it seek to prevent?

LUCKY SOKO: Such a policy helped us not to lose a lot of our members, especially the SDU members.  We laid this rule down so that there could be some semblance of order and there should be a framework within which we worked as SDU members not to kill each other, to prevent that so that people could be prevented from killing each other.

ADV GCABASHE: Also presumably to avoid third parties from infiltrating the SDU group to stop other people from coming to cause havoc within the group?

LUCKY SOKO: That is so.

ADV GCABASHE: Now would you say this falls broadly within that whole idea of the political objective of the group?

LUCKY SOKO: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: The date of the incident is given in your application as the 8th of October 1993, do you confirm that?

LUCKY SOKO: I'm not sure about the date.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it around this date that I've just mentioned to you now, is it around the October of 1993 when this incident happened?

LUCKY SOKO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you at any stage as a member at the SDU carry a firearm?

LUCKY SOKO: Yes, I did at some stage during the street patrols.

CHAIRPERSON: What kind of firearm was that?

LUCKY SOKO: AK47.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that one of the section's firearms?

LUCKY SOKO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And do you accept that possessing that firearm was illegal?

LUCKY SOKO: Yes, I do accept.

CHAIRPERSON: And are you also asking for amnesty in respect of that, possessing that firearm illegally?

LUCKY SOKO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you carry the firearm in 1993, or let me put it this way, did you start carrying the firearm in 1993?

LUCKY SOKO: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And till about when did you have the firearm?

LUCKY SOKO: During the very same year, 1993.  We never had a full possession or fulltime possession of the AK47s, they used to rotate amongst us.  I don't know what became of the gun.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the gun normally under the control of your commander?

LUCKY SOKO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Sibeko, any re-examination?

MR SIBEKO: None, Mr Chairman, thank you.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SIBEKO

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Soko, thank you, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for lunch until 2 o'clock.  We are adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS