Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1997-04-09

PHINEAS NDLOVU: To my knowledge, no, M'Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Ndlovu, wasn't the whole object of your comrades, as you have stated it on page 5 of your application, there was - to create a revolutionary people's war and in the November of 1985 issue of Sheshaba, the monthly journal of the African National Congress
stated that:
"From the perspective of the underground activity, a very important factor is the systematic assault on and elimination of policemen resident in the townships, stooges and informers."
And then you continue and say you reacted to this command.

PHINEAS NDLOVU: That is true.

ADV DE JAGER: So didn't you intend to kill policemen, for instance, living there, and stooges and informers?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Yes, we did, M'Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: And wasn't Hendrik an informer, according to you?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: He was, we perceived him as an informer, M'Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you want to kill him?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Yes, ultimately that was what we should have, we must have done.

ADV DE JAGER: And his family?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: His family had nothing to do with it.

ADV DE JAGER: So and his family's property?  Did that have anything to do with it?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: M'Lord, it was a general norm that where, even when - even knowingly that I made the - someone who is not responsible for the household of my own, of my parents, but when I have crossed the line or ultimately regarded as having informed on people in their progressive struggle, I would be punished that way too.   My household would be burnt. If I were a cop, my wife and my kids as well, their lives were in danger.

ADV DE JAGER: Was there any differentiation about policemen or would any policeman be killed?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Any policeman who was rendered to be an enemy of the people, because they were working for the white system. On those bases there was no discrimination, should I say, of who it was. Unless of course, it is known that it is someone from outside and he is working for this side, but all cops were rendered to be people who are assisting to enforce the apartheid.

ADV DE JAGER: And should be eliminated?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Yes, M'Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: You said you went, the argument started about change.

PHINEAS NDLOVU: That's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And what in fact was then, how did it develop, how did you come to accuse him of something else?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: It is the utterances, M'Lord, of Hendrik, that led to this being unveiled.

ADV DE JAGER: So the policeman walking out and being there, that didn't trigger off the thing, it was a later argument?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: We were, we were shocked by this but we really didn't question this until such time as he himself boasted and become over pompous that he knows our hide-outs, in the cars that we sleep in and our description, they know who are we.  And that in itself provoked us to an extent that we should see that it really isn't just a matter that should be left hanging.  We need to deal with this once and for all.  So as to show others as well that informing on us, it is punishable by the sentences that are very severe.

ADV DE JAGER: But what was the sentence in this case, the severe sentence?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Was to burn down the house that Hendrik grew in.

ADV DE JAGER: And was there a sitting of the people's court to come to that decision?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: No, the people's court had not sat, it was a decision that we take as leadership.

ADV DE JAGER: So without a court ...(intervention)

PHINEAS NDLOVU: And there are cases - excuse me?

ADV DE JAGER: Without a court sitting?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Without the court sitting.  There are instances, M'Lord, where there is no necessity of coming to a court of
that nature.  We usually take initiatives as people who have been vested with power to deal with a situation like this, as they arise.

ADV DE JAGER: Were there any other persons present in the cafe when you had this argument?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: M'Lord?

ADV DE JAGER: Were there any other persons present in the cafe when you had this argument with Hendrik?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Yes, there were several people, but I can't recall who were they.

ADV DE JAGER: Some of his family or his gang staying with him?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Yes, his gang members were outside and the other members who usually work in the shop and those who would come to buy.

ADV DE JAGER: Were there any of the people sitting over there, present?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: No, M'Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: But you say opposite this place, so I presume, you know the people working there and you could give their names to us?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: M'Lord?

ADV DE JAGER: You could give the names of the persons in the cafe, you were staying there, just opposite the street.

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Give names?

ADV DE JAGER: Ja.

PHINEAS NDLOVU: I don't understand the question.

ADV DE JAGER: Where - how far from the cafe did they live?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: I should say two to 300 metres.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.  Did you know the people working with him in the cafe?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Yes. Not by names really, but by the virtue of being in the same location together, we know who works there, but I don't know their location, their place where they stay and what-have-you.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR CURRIN: If the Committee needs you to help them in any way in identifying any person who may be a witness, would you be quite willing to render your assistance?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: A witness?

MR CURRIN: If, for example, the Committee feels that there may be people who were present at the time, who may be of assistance to the Committee, would you be willing to assist in identifying people that could testify at this hearing?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: I am willing to.

MR CURRIN: If I understood your evidence correctly, about Hendrik, in the context of consumer boycotts, were you saying that Hendrik was a businessman?  He did business.

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Yes, he did business.

MR CURRIN: So consumer boycotts were not in his interests?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Not at all.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Ndlovu, can I get some clarification.  Were you against Black business people conducting businesses in Black townships?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: No, that is not the case, but however, it should be noted that people who were bringing product, it is people that we were enforcing this consumer boycott on.

SISI KHAMPEPE: So you were basically opposed to trucks coming into the location to make deliveries?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: Yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: To Black entrepreneurs who were conducting businesses in Black locations?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Why was that?  Where would they get things to sell otherwise?

PHINEAS NDLOVU: M'Lord, there had been strikes that were waged by workers in fighting for a living wage, that would ultimately give their families better living conditions, that would afford them luxury that our other counterparts were having.  And they needed our support in so doing.  By preventing the product to go and by workers putting tools down, that would eventually hit hard on the owner or the management thereof, of those companies, and they would have no option but to settle down and negotiate a dispute with the workers amicably.

MR CURRIN: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CURRIN

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black, what is your position now?

MR BLACK: My position is that the name of Hendrik Masupa has arisen during the course of this evidence for the first time. I have in the short adjournment been in contact with Mr Masupa's employer, and every attempt is going to be made to get him to attend the hearing.  I would like to first consult with Mr Masupa before putting questions to the applicant.  And I will use, while waiting for Mr Masupa, I will also consult further with the victims.