Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1999-02-23

MR SITHOLE: I asked as to what was wrong, why was I being attacked, and they said it was a shebeen matter.  And I wanted to know what happened at the shebeen and they said they didn't know, and I said, why then are you attacking me when you don't know, and they did not answer.  And I said to them you should go back to the office to try and find out why you are attacking me and then Justin said, yes, Sithole is correct, we should go back and find out.  I am talking about the Justin who is still around.  They then left.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Mr Sithole I put it to you that what you said when they confronted you is.  "...Why are you killing me."

CHAIRPERSON: My note says, "...I asked why they were trying to kill me?"

AZHAR CACHALIA: What you said is "...why are you trying to kill me?"

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I did ask that question as to why you are attacking me, why are you killing me, and before you kill me I would like to know what it is that I have done, and they said it was a shebeen matter.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's just a question of semantics.  Why are you attacking me, why are you trying to kill me, and also I know just from experience in matters of this nature they often refer to attacks as being tried to be killed.  And it's a question of interpretation as well, so I don't think it's such a, it's not such a big bull point that he said why are you trying to kill me in evidence-in-chief and now he says why are they attacking me.

AZHAR CACHALIA: I'll defer to the experience that the Chairperson has in this matter.  I thought it was quite a serious matter when a person is saying why are you killing me or why are you trying to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's essentially a question of interpretation.  I think that can be confirmed by my colleague here.

AZHAR CACHALIA: In fact Mr Sithole, not a single hand was laid on you on that day.  Is that right?

MR SITHOLE: I shielded myself as I was being attacked.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Please tell us how you were attacked?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to go through this whole thing again about stones being thrown and gunshots at Magwaza's house?  You know we've had that, we know about what he said.

AZHAR CACHALIA: No sir, attacked, he was attacked here when he came out of the shack, not at that time, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: No then I think you must be, because otherwise he's I'm sure about to relate this whole what we've heard several times already.  He didn't say he was attacked outside his house.

AZHAR CACHALIA: He says he shielded himself when he was attacked sir.

MR LAX: Mr Cachalia you put the question very loosely to him I'm afraid.  You've said to him are you saying that during this whole day not a single hand was laid on you.  He then replies during the whole day, and now you want to narrow it to the issue outside his shack.  It's really not fair.

AZHAR CACHALIA: My apologies.  Mr Sithole in fairness to you, were they trying to attack you that day outside your shack?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, they were trying to attack me inside the shack, because they came to the shack and peeped round the windows and I realised that I was being attacked.  And when  I left and when I came out I saw them and I started asking why I was being killed.

AZHAR CACHALIA: But at that stage nobody had laid a hand on you.  Is that right?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, at the time nobody laid his hand on me.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Did you try and shield yourself at that time?

MR SITHOLE: I only shielded myself after we left Magwaza's place.  That is when I started shielding myself.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Not outside my shack.  Sorry, we'll carry on.  By the way, just to digress for a moment, there was evidence that you had given that you wanted to, that the IFP was going to arrange for busses to take you to Durban where you were going to attend a meeting with chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi.  Is that correct?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.  But it was not chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi that we were going to meet, but instead the prince.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Sorry, you were going to meet somebody else.

CHAIRPERSON: He said the prince.

AZHAR CACHALIA: In your affidavit you've referred to the king.  Is that the same person we're talking about, sir?

MR SITHOLE: We're talking about the king, not the prince.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Thank you very much.  I think we might have had some problems there with the ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Just for the record Mr Cachalia.  In his evidence-in-chief he clearly said they were going to a meeting to meet Buthelezi.  There's no question about that.  But I'll leave it at that.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Thank you Mr Lax.  It is incorrect when you said that you were going to meet chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, you were in fact going to meet with the king or the prince or whatever it is translated to.  Is that right sir?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.  The king is the king.  Buthelezi is Buthelezi, he's the chief.  I spoke about the king.  I did not mention Buthelezi.

ADV SIGODI: The applicant had said umtwana, and that umtwana will not be isilo, that's what he had initially said in his evidence-in-chief.

CHAIRPERSON: What is Umtwana, prince or king?  Nothing's coming through.

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I realise that.

MR LAX: Sorry, just to follow up on the Chairperson's question to you Ms Interpreter, what is the difference between umtwana and isilo?

MR SITHOLE: Umtwana is the prince, isilo is the king.

MR LAX: Thank you.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Mr Sithole, irrespective of the nuances of interpretations, I am saying that in your evidence-in-chief you had said that you were going to visit, you were going to a meeting with chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi.  And now we're not talking about princes or kings or anything, we're talking about a particular person, as was interpreted to us, as I heard it through my, you talked about chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi.  That was incorrect is it?

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Cachalia.  The interpreter is explaining to us that he used the word umtwana, and from that she deducted he was referring to Minister Buthelezi, as opposed to using the word isilo which would have implied the king.

CHAIRPERSON: So that was the interpreter said that, not the witness as such.  The interpreter said it, after the witness had used the word umtwana.  It was interpreted to mean Buthelezi whose not the king but more of a prince.

MR LAX: In other words he never used the word Buthelezi at all.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Yes, I'll accept that.  Thank you for assisting in the matter.  Thank you very much.  Mr Sithole, this shebeen matter that Mr Lax questioned you about during your examination in chief.  You haven't been very clear as to what in fact happened.  Can you try again to tell us what was this shebeen matter that was the question of the conflict on the Friday?

MR SITHOLE: I don't know the shebeen matter on Friday.  I only know what happened on Saturday so that when I asked why I was being attacked they told me it is a shebeen matter.  And when I enquired as to what happened at the shebeen they said they did not know.

AZHAR CACHALIA: You're quite correct Mr Sithole, it was on a Saturday and not the Friday.  I want to put it to you Mr Sithole that what in fact happened is that members of the IFP went to the shebeen of Mr Maloitse and that there was a dispute that arose there and members of the ANC were called because members of the IFP were assaulting and harassing the patrons of the shebeen.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know anything about that?  That's just what's being put to you.  If you don't know anything about it just say so.

MR SITHOLE: No, I know nothing about that.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Mr Sithole, when we talked about the distance that the ANC were from you, your initial answer was that they were on the other side of the road, as it was interpreted to us.  Just prior to the shooting for completeness sake.