Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1999-02-23

MR SITHOLE: They then ran away, and we remained behind and we got into a shack where we waited until the police came.  And people were arrested and I ran away.  People were arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sithole, I notice from the indictment in the trial that followed this incident in the Court, that four people were killed and a further seven people were injured at the incident that took place at Zevenfontein on that date, that's the night of the 12th of February 94.  You've mentioned one person that you saw falling.  What do you say about the fact that four people died and a further seven were injured?

MR SITHOLE: I cannot dispute that, that I shot them, but I could not tell whether the people that I shot died or not.  One person that I witnessed falling is the one person that was picked up by the ANC group and fled.  I do not dispute the fact that I could be the one who shot these people.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Sithole you were subsequently tried for these crimes, and also found guilty and sentenced on several of the charges.  Is that correct?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sithole in, after being sentenced and serving, you are currently serving a gaol sentence for your conviction on these crimes, you decided to bring an amnesty application.  Is that correct?

MR SITHOLE: That is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Magwaza do you recollect that, Mr Chair if I might refer the Commission, on page 8 of the bundle, you initially submitted an application, form one amnesty application, which differs from the evidence that you gave before the Commission today.  Is that correct?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sithole can you explain to this Committee what had happened and why did you do that?

MR SITHOLE: I heard the person saying he cannot write to the Commission because he had already made an appeal, so that if he is now writing to the Commission there would be a conflict.  So that it would be better to wait for the appeal results, after which this can be directed to the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand what you're saying is that when you were in Court, during your trial, your evidence was similar to what was contained in your first application, and you didn't want to move away from that in order to confuse, to compromise your appeal.  Is that what you say?

MR SITHOLE: There is something that I don't understand.  I think we were talking about Magwaza.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh sorry.

MR LAX: Mr Claassen you may have confused him.  You did refer to him as Mr Magwaza.

MR CLAASSEN: I wasn't aware.

MR LAX: I wasn't quite sure what you were, whether, what you were trying to do, but I remember distinctly.  You may have confused him then.

MR CLAASSEN: I was actually referring to him.  Maybe I could just ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think if you just repeat your question again and we'll disregard what has been said since then.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair.
	Mr Sithole, I'm sorry I referred to you as Mr Magwaza there.  The question was actually directed at you.  You indicated that you had made a previous, made a first application form one, which differs from your testimony before this Commission today.  Could you just explain why this had happened?

MR SITHOLE: I was not telling the truth in Court.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the question is, in your first application form that you filled in, you have said, you've put out a version that is not the same as what you've told us here today.  In the application to the Amnesty Committee.  Now what Mr Claassen wants to know is why did you say something different then?

MR SITHOLE: The reason is because I had lodged an appeal, and the legal representative who came to take this amnesty statement was such that I did not trust him.

CHAIRPERSON: Is what's contained in the first application similar to what you told the Court?

MR SITHOLE: Some things yes, are similar, and some no.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sithole that information contained in that first application, is that the correct version of events?

MR SITHOLE: It is the second evidence that is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: That is the version that you gave before this Commission today?

MR SITHOLE: That is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chair if I may just, I would just like to maybe clarify this issue.  Mr Sithole you were sentenced on the 16th of October 1996.  Is that correct?

MR SITHOLE: That is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: And you submitted your first application the 2nd of May 1997.  Is that correct?

MR SITHOLE: That is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: At that stage you were still awaiting a decision as to leave to appeal to your sentence.  Is that correct?

MR SITHOLE: That is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: And during June 1997 you received, you were told that you were not granted leave to appeal against your  sentence.

MR SITHOLE: That is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: Why did you, what prompted you then to submit a further application?

MR SITHOLE: I had already heard that I was not granted leave to appeal.  My only appeal therefore became the Commission.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sithole you very elaborately explained to this Committee all the incidents preceding this 12th of February when this actual incident occurred.  Could you just, and now you've also indicated that it's been difficult for you to estimate time, how long, if you could, before this incident, did you become a member of the IFP?

MR SITHOLE: I think it was a year, if I'm not mistaken.  And then this incident happened.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sithole, was this incident which you refer to, was this the result of any instruction given by anyone?  Was it a result of any planned act?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, this happened after an instruction.

MR CLAASSEN: Could you just clarify that?

MR SITHOLE: It was an instruction that was directed to me from the IFP.  An instruction to the effect that we should not go out and start attacking people.

MR CLAASSEN: Yes Mr Sithole, I'm not talking about that 'though.  I'm talking about the incident where the shooting occurred.  That occurred spontaneously, or was that orchestrated?

MR SITHOLE: No, there was no instruction that we should shoot people.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sithole could you have done anything else?

MR SITHOLE: There was nothing else I could have done, because even 'though I was thinking of fleeing, the river was overflowing and therefore it became necessary for me to protect myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sithole you said that you joined the IFP, you think about a year before the incident.  But if you take a look at page 23 of the bundle, that's your affidavit, paragraph 1.1, and I quote from it, you say
"...I joined the IFP long ago, since its inception and whilst it was still a cultural organisation."
Now what is the position?  What is the correct position?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.  I joined the IFP long ago, but here it is also true that I joined it a year prior to the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you trying to say that you joined this new branch that was opened by Themba Khoza and Humphrey Ndlovu that you described in your evidence?  What that about a year before the incident?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that's what I'm saying.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair.  Mr Sithole, your personal capacity did you stand to gain anything from what occurred there?

MR SITHOLE: No, there would be no personal gain, except to say that I am asking amnesty here following what I did.  It was not my intention to do that.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Sithole and how do you feel today about what had happened then?

MR SITHOLE: I feel very bad.  It was not my intention to fight the ANC.  We were oftentimes engaged in dialogues to sort out whatever problems there could have been.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair, I have no further questions for the applicant.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CLAASSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Claassen.
	Mr Draht do you have any questions to ask this witness?

MR DRAHT: No questions Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR DRAHT