Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-19

MR KOOPEDI: You have to a very large extent, taken by address to you.  I will nevertheless proceed and please bear with me where I repeat what you have said Chairperson.
	The first applicant stood in a position of authority to all the other three applicants.  He was their mentor and their commander and their involvement in the killing of Sicelo was merely following an order issued by their commander.
	As for the last two applicants, the ones you have just referred to Chairperson, on the day in question, they were just phoned by their immediate commander who ordered them to be on standby and soon thereafter, he came and fetched them, taken them to a place which was familiar to them, a place which they had used for meetings previously.
	According to the evidence before you, within a minute of their arrival at this place, Sicelo was shot.  It was only after that event, that a brief explanation was given to them by their Overall commander and were further ordered to keep this matter a secret.
	No action on their part, could have spared Sicelo's life.  At no time, in their presence, was Sicelo's execution ever mentioned.  However, in the light of the information furnished to them by their Overall commander, the order issued to keep this matter a secret and their subsequent elaborate cover up, they associate themselves with this killing.  It is purely on those basis that they apply for amnesty for the killing of Sicelo Dhlomo and come before you.
	The second applicant, I believe his situation is also not very different.  He was also told by his commander that Sicelo was a police informer, shown some broken device and told it was a transmitter, a radio transmitter and it was on the spot decided by the commander, that is the first applicant, that Sicelo must be executed.
	It was as you were told, not a joint decision.  From the moment this decision was made, all the relevant disclosures before you, with regard to the second applicant, his going to fetch the other two and the pulling of the trigger, indicate that he was also merely following orders.
	The first applicant, his situation is somewhat different and perhaps problematic.  If there is any blame to be laid, this blame may be put at his door, and perhaps I should briefly deal with the problems.
	The first thing I want to deal with his whether the applicant was empowered by his organisation, to make such a drastic decision.  If one looks at the fact that he was a commander, instructed to form a Unit and arm these Units for operations against the government, this will lead us to whether he needed approval or to act on orders with regard to matters of safety of his cells or Units.
	I respectfully submit that his mission into the country, carried an implied mandate that he should at his discretion act in the best interest of his Unit, in terms of protecting them, and possibly to kill if this will ensure the safety of his activities.

CHAIRPERSON: In that connection, doesn't one then have to evaluate carefully what he says and why it is necessary to kill immediately?

MR KOOPEDI: I don't follow Chairperson.  He would have us believe that the deceased had disappeared completely for some three months, had not been heard of at all by them.  He had had no dealings with the undercover Unit, he arrives there on the Sunday, they discover he is an informer and kill him immediately.
	Not to prevent him giving any information, he couldn't have given over the previous three months.

MR KOOPEDI: If I am to proceed Chairperson, during those troubled times, any person identified as an informer, was summarily killed.  This is common cause, Chairperson.
	Whether that would be correct or not, it is not for me to say.  However, I wish to say that there is no evidence before you that other than suspecting Sicelo to be a police informer, there could be any other reason for making that order to kill Sicelo.
	I wish to hasten also to say whether it is correct that he was an informer or not, the fact that Sicelo was, there is a fact that there was a bona fide belief as the applicant said, that he was an informer.

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn't one rather suggest, shouldn't you suggest that we don't accept the fourth applicant, Mr Dube's evidence as being factually correct?  That we bear in mind that he is telling us about something that happened nine years ago?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, my intentions were to come to that.

CHAIRPERSON: He may be totally confused about what he is telling us.

MR KOOPEDI: Precisely.  It is as if the Chairperson was privy to my notes here.  I will go to that point immediately that it is a fact that this matter happened a long time ago.
	It is also a fact that the first applicant had about 20 Units in the PWV area, it is also a fact that this matter happened a long time ago.  It is my submission therefore, that it is possible that there are certain mix ups in terms of remembering certain things.
	In cross-examination, my learned friend said to the first applicant that Mrs Dhlomo will come and say that the applicant, that is the first applicant, known as Pat at that time, was an informer, and she, Mrs Dhlomo intervened when some people wanted to kill him, that is the applicant.
	It was further put to the first applicant that this would be the reason why he would want Sicelo to be eliminated, because Sicelo could have found out about Dube.
	This witness was not called, there is no other evidence before you that leads us to that assumption that the first applicant could have been an informer at that time, and I would request that this should be disregarded as a possible motive.
	There is also a theory that Sicelo had money on him and could have been killed for that money.  We have heard that this was about R830, the amount changed to 
R1 200, it further changed to R1 500.  There is however no evidence that on this evening, he had this money with him.  I would also request that that suggestion or any insinuation in the fact that he may have been killed for this money, should be disregarded.

CHAIRPERSON: Again, having regard to the unfortunate circumstances that existed and still exist in our country, the mere fact that a man has money on him, and it isn't found later, is not necessarily indicative that the person who killed him, must have stolen the money.
	Unfortunately a number of other people have the opportunity to search the corpse and take things from it later?  All we know is that nobody ever declared the money.  Where it went to, we don't know, even if we do accept he did have money.

MR KOOPEDI: And finally, finally for now Chairperson, as I will be making written representation, finally, I believe that I would urge this Committee that in applying your minds to this matter, I would ask you to refer to the decision in application 0812/96 by the Honourable Ngoepe J, de Jager SC and Ms Khampepe as she then was.
	To a large extent, there are similarities between this application and that application.

ADV SANDI: Who was the applicant in that application, if you can help us?

MR KOOPEDI: Excuse me.

MR RICHARD: That was J. Nkuna.

MR KOOPEDI: I didn't hear the question.

ADV SANDI: The applicant, you have just given us the reference number of the decision?

MR KOOPEDI: It was an application by J. Nkuna, C. Nkuna and D. Skosana.  That application had or still has similarities with our matter here.  It concerned a matter where people within the same liberation movement, like we have in this instance,  had attacked each other, the one from the one side, attacking the other side.
	That application also has a number of inconsistencies in the type of evidence that was given and it is my belief that by relying on that decision, this will assist you to come to a fair and just decision.  I will rest for now.