Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-04-15

MR PRIOR: I want to suggest to you by that then, I think one can conclude that he was fearful of his life, or do you not agree?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I do not agree.  He was not in danger.  It is because of the explanations that we gave him, I think I told you already that if a person was an African, we explained the whole situation to him so that he can understand fully, the reasons why his car is chosen to be used by us.

MR PRIOR: And finally Mr Dingane, Rev Dingane at page 37 of the bundle, he was also threatened with a firearm.  That was the Nissan Langley at paragraph 3 of his statement, is that also correct?
	That seems to be a week before the Yellowwoods Hotel attack proper?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, it is a week before the Yellowwood Hotel attack.  The owner of the Langley saw the guns that we had, but he was not threatened.
	He was also given the explanation as we all do to others.

MR PRIOR: Why was it necessary to produce firearms at that stage?  Was it to intimidate the owners of the vehicle?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: No, it was not to threaten the owner of the car, or to make him uncomfortable.  It was part of the evidence when giving him the explanation he would see that it is true, these people have a mission.
	The next day he would open, he would switch on the radio, listen to the radio, read the news.  That is what I even told you earlier on, that we even asked people to give us their telephone numbers so that at the end of it all, we call him to tell him where the car is, so that he doesn't spend too much time looking around for a car.

MR PRIOR: Did you phone Mr Dingane, Rev Dingane and tell him where his car was?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Unfortunately we did not get the telephone numbers from him.  I don't know whether we asked for that numbers.

MR PRIOR: Finally on this aspect, I want to just put to you what he said in his statement, no doubt your Attorney has taken you through his statement.
	In paragraph 3 he says the firearms were pointed at him, and again in paragraph 5, he said he was told that he must make no mention of being robbed of his vehicle, and if he did mention that, that is obviously to the Police, that he had been robbed, they, referring to his assailants would kill him.  Can you comment on that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: He did not tell you the truth when he did this statement.  What happened when his car was taken, was that we explained to him who we were.
	We told him that we were the PAC military wing, APLA, and we told him the reason for taking his car.  I remember very well when we took him out of the car, one of us took out a R5-00 to give him, so that he is on time.  We told him, we said please report your car tomorrow morning after the attack has been completed.
	It is not true what he is telling you here in his statement.

MR LAX: Just one thing, so how do you say, how did you stop him, how did you approach him and stop him, tell us in your own words.  You remember this thing very well, tell us in your own words, how did you stop him and approach him?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The owner of this Langley, we were at one of the units in Mdantsane, but I do not remember the unit number.
	He was parking in a street, maybe he was going to get into one of the yards.  When he opened the door, there was someone next to the door, and he ordered him to sit next to the driver's seat.  Then the two of us got into the back and then on the way, he was given an explanation.

MR LAX: But you see, let me read to you what he says.  He says I was travelling by myself in my red metal bronze Nissan Langley, he gives the registration number.  I travelled from NU8 and reached the last set of robots.  As one exists Mdantsane via Fort Jackson, the robots were red and I stopped my vehicle.
	While waiting at the robots, three males approached me at my driver's door.  The door was opened and they were pointing firearms at me.
	They told me to get out of my car.  While I was still asking them for what, they then said I must move over.  I moved over into the passenger seat.  The same one who had been talking to me, told me to get out of the car, took a position behind the steering wheel.  The other two got into the back seat with guns, pointed at me.
	That is a very different version of what happened to what you have just told us.  Is he lying?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I repeat before this Commission, that he is not telling the truth.
	He was parking the car.  I don't know whether he was going into one of the yards on the left or on the right side, he was not stopped at the robots.  It was within one of the units in the township.  I have already told you that I do not remember specifically which unit it was.

ADV SANDI: Are you able to suggest any reason as to why this person could be lying about this, he doesn't know you, why should he distort what has happened, why should he lie about this?
	Are you able to suggest any reason?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir, I am thinking he was just extending the evidence against us.  He didn't just want to tell the truth of what happened on that day, that is what I think.

MR LAX: But you see, there is one other problem we have. You said earlier in your evidence you always took the phone numbers, if they had a phone, so that you could phone them, but you somehow, this man had a phone, you even offered him money, but you didn't take his phone number, how were you going to get his car back to him?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I explained that it might have been a mistake, it didn't come to our minds to take his telephone number at that time.
	We normally explain to people.  It was just his bad luck, maybe we dropped him off at a certain point before even taking his telephone numbers so that we can call him back.
	All this happened so quick, we were in a hurry, so that the job can be finished.  I don't know whether I answered you.

MR LAX: Carry on please.

MR PRIOR: I have no further questions Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR PRIOR: .

MR LAX: Mr Mtembu, any re-examination?

MR MTEMBU: Just one aspect Mr Chairman, thank you.  Mr Diaho-Monaheng, would you explain to the Committee on the orders that you would received as members of the APLA unit?  Explain to them how these orders worked, from the person who receives them, until the time when they are actually executed.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir, with regard to instructions for the Yellowwood Hotel attack, they did not come straight to me, I took the instructions from the Commander of the unit.
	He said there is a place that has to be hit, between either Friday or Saturday.  This is a place ...

MR MTEMBU: Can I just stop you there, you didn't understand my question.  I just want you to tell the Commission in general how the orders worked within APLA, in general.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I was once given orders, your seniors will call you, they will say listen, you are going.  If there are any telephone numbers, they will give you the telephone number and they will tell you who the contact person is.
	When you arrive at a certain place, there is someone to meet you, who will further explain to you what you should do or where you should go.
	That is where you get all the instructions from above.  I don't know whether I answered your question sir.

MR MTEMBU: Are you allowed any leeway to question them or not?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: There was no other way sir.  If you were an uncommitted soldier, you would ignore or not listen to orders, but if you were committed  to fighting for a just cause, which is the freedom of the people, you would not stand against orders.

MR MTEMBU: What would happen in a situation where the orders turned out not to be accurate and you would not pursue your mission?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The person who issued out instructions, would take a decision as to what to do.  I don't know whether I answered you.