Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-19

MR RICHARD: I am reading from my typed script.  Then from there on, I proceed to extract the second list and that the list of other factors that I submit, have been established.  	It is a somewhat more lengthy list which goes to some 17 points.  I will proceed.  The first is that the deceased was a member of the Soweto Students' Congress, SOSCO, certainly in 1986 and at that time, was a well-known political activist;  the second point at the age of 15 in and during the period June 1986, he was held in detention under existing legislation.  I refer to page 49 and 50 of the TRC bundle, but since I hand it in, I won't go through that.
	Again on the 6th of December, he was acquitted on a charge of attempted murder, alternatively public violence and arson;  fourth, that Dhlomo was charged with possession of a firearm and subsequently received a five year suspended sentence;  my typing is erroneous here, I say suspended statement.
	Paragraph 5, the fifth point, in March 1987 and in subsequent months, Sicelo Dhlomo conducted several interviews with the foreign media regarding his political activity, his experiences in detention and other related matters.  Sixth point, again in March/April 1987, Dhlomo participated in the making of the documentary Children under Apartheid.
	Then the October incident is the seventh point.  On 12 October Dhlomo was detained briefly by members of the Security Forces in Soweto.  Eight, between October 1987 and January 1988, Sicelo Dhlomo worked as a volunteer on a continuous basis at the offices of the DPSC in Khotso House, Johannesburg.
	Nine, during this period Dhlomo was staying with Joe Tsawela at his flat in Hillbrow and occasionally visiting his family in Soweto.  Also during this period, to return to that point, Clive Makhubu and Sipho Humphrey Tshabalala were seen at the offices of the DPSC, visiting Dhlomo.
	In December 1987, the television documentary was broadcast.  On 20 January, Dhlomo was arrested at the DPSC offices in Johannesburg, in connection with his participation in the documentary and released later that day.
	The purposes of the detention, was to obtain a statement, as is documented in the news clipping from Dhlomo to discredit the bona fides of the documentary Children under Apartheid, TRC bundle page 63 and the statement made by the deceased, to the South African Police at John Vorster Square, which is contained in the docket.
	Fourteen, on 23 January 1988, Dhlomo left for Soweto with his firearm and on Tsawela's evidence, two handgrenades and had R1 000 to R1 500 on him.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't leave with that, he was given that?

MR RICHARD: Was handed between R1 000 and R1 500 to pass on to Joe Tsawela by the late Sophie Masithi.
	The money that was in Dhlomo's possession, was never accounted for.  That is the best, the furthest we can take it.  On 24 January, Dhlomo meets up with Sipho Tshabalala whilst wearing red shoes, red socks, grey black trousers and a red T-shirt and has with him money, his diary, a cassette walkman which he wears on his hip.

CHAIRPERSON: Does he have the money with him?

MR RICHARD: Well according to Tshabalala's statement which is only partially true.  The last point from this category is that the cassette walkman was loaned to DPSC workers, Joe Tsawela, Ntombi Masekeri and a witness that we hadn't called.
	Then the next list of matters is what cannot be accepted.  The first I think we have already covered and that is that the deceased, Mr Dhlomo, was a police informer.  There is no evidence.
	The next, it is obvious that no honest and genuine effort as alleged by some of the witnesses, was made to communicate with Dhlomo during the period of his supposed disappearance.
	The third point, Mr Dube alleges that Dhlomo confessed to the allegation, which is not typed, that he was an informer.  This cannot be corroborated by anyone else.  I don't agree and I submit that Mr Dube's evidence cannot be accepted in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: But he told the woman a couple of days before that he had agreed.  He might have told Dube exactly the same thing and that is maybe where the whole problem arises.
	Dube took it one way, the deceased meant it another way, because we have heard that he came back, he told this woman and other people there, that he had agreed to be an informer.

MR RICHARD: It is quite correct.  On Ntombi Masekeri's evidence, she accepted the addition that the purpose of making the admission was to get the police off his back, for whatever reason.
	On other occasions in that list, similar statements have been made, that he had done the same.  What I argue on that point is if that had been Mr Dube's case, why did he need to fabricate all sorts of other points on which to corroborate himself or to corroborate his opinion?  He didn't make out that case at any stage at all.
  	The fourth point is that we need not ask ourselves to accept, is that there was a sufficiency or adequate evidence to justify the cell taking disciplinary steps against the deceased.  We have been through the matter of what evidence did he have, how long he had been out of contact and if he was an informer, which I submit there was no substantial evidence of.
	The fifth point, they had no alternative but to take immediate action to kill Mr Dhlomo.  Mr Dube's and Mr Makhubu's behaviour was completely inconsistent with the bona fide belief that Mr Dhlomo was an informer and that they were in imminent danger of being trapped as a result of the alleged transmission from the so-called transmitter.
	The next thing that I submit cannot be accepted, there is no basis for it, that the shooting of the deceased was a bona fide MK operation. 	Next point, that this assassination was or is sanctioned by the ANC or MK.  I have had reference to the ANC's submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, dated 12 May 1997.  The written submission set out in Appendix 4, does not make any reference to this particular event.
	The next point that I don't believe we need to accept is that there was any necessity at all for all four members of the cell to be present at the execution.

CHAIRPERSON: That is really one of the most difficult ones to understand, isn't it?  It is common cause that the other two were summonsed and brought there merely to be spectators and then immediately they say, we won't tell anybody about this.  Why bring them there at all?

MR RICHARD: It is absurd.  I cannot see how this Committee can be asked.  And then the next point where I criticise, Mr Dube relies on various theories to justify his decision.  The first one ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: How much longer are you going to be?

MR RICHARD: Another five minutes.  The surveillance, this is supposedly corroborated by Mr Makhubu but not by Mr Tshabalala or Mr Zungu.  In this regard I believe that the fact that somebody is seen in and around Soweto and two people see each other, hardly translates into surveillance.
	The next point is the alleged arrest with a Makarov pistol and a handgrenade.  This simply didn't happen and there is no evidence that Mr Dube advanced to substantiate his belief that it happened.
	The transmitter radio is the third leg of his argument.  Masekeri and Tsawela all confirm that Dhlomo wore a walkman portable radio on his hip as might any teenager.   Tshabalala goes further to say that he was wearing this on the day of the discovery of the so-called transmitter.
	Of all the applicants, only Dube saw the device before it was smashed into pieces.  Makhubu claims that he saw the pieces, but confirms that he could not take it any further.
	I believe that this theory is nothing more than a red herring to cover up ...(intervention)