Amnesty Hearings — Sebokeng — 1998-07-13

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: Yes sir.

MR MALINDI: Could you please look at page 20 of the bundle, under paragraph 20.3, the question is
"Give particulars of the issues discussed during this meeting."
And you will see at paragraph 19 that this question is in reference to a meeting held a week prior to the attack, and on page 31, your answer under paragraph 20.3 is as follows:-
"The issues discussed at this meeting was that everybody was tired of what was being done by the Comrades to our people, that is they were necklacing our people and burning our people to ashes, that is the reason why they decided to attack the residents of Boipatong."
This meeting, is it the same meeting that Themba Khosa and Dlamini was sent by a minister from Ulundi were present?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: I don't remember, sir.

MR MALINDI: Could you please look at page 29 of that bundle, at paragraph 17.1.   You mention Mr Vanana Zulu and Mr Mkhize as the people who made a decision to attack the community of the Vaal, that is Boipatong.

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: Yes.

MR MALINDI: Mr Zulu, one of the people who gave you instructions, as you say under paragraph 11 of your amnesty application, are you including him as a third person, or not?   If you look at page 3 of that bundle, paragraph 11 of the amnesty application, you mention Mr Mkhize and Mr Quanqua as giving instructions, my question is, in view of what is on paragraph 17.1 on page 29, are you adding Mr Vanana Zulu as the third person who gave you instructions?

MS PRETORIUS: Mr Chairman, I just have one problem with Mr Malindi, my learned colleague here, is he asking the questions on behalf of the same victims, or is he asking the questions on behalf of different victims, because if it's the same victims, it's my contention that the applicant cannot be cross-questioned by two people regarding the same victims.   If it's different victims, I have no problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I assume that Mr Malindi is representing different victims, whose names would be handed up in due course.   Is that the position, Mr Malindi?

MR MALINDI: It is indeed so, Mr Chairperson.

MS PRETORIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALINDI: Mr Mthembu, is Mr Zulu the third person who gave you instructions or not?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: Yes sir, that is correct.

MR MALINDI: Was Mr Zulu present at the meeting of the 17th of June 1992?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: I do not remember that very well, sir.

MR MALINDI: Please look at page 8 of the bundle, paragraph 8... (intervention).

MR BRINK: Which paragraph are you saying?

MR MALINDI: I think I'm wrong about the paragraph, Mr Chairperson may I just try to locate it quickly?

MR BRINK: Thanks, no, because page 8 doesn't have a paragraph 8 on it.

MR MALINDI: Yes, it doesn't, yes.   Excuse me.

MR BRINK: Paragraph 8 is on page 6.

MR MALINDI: Page 10, Mr Chairperson, paragraph 16.  You will see at paragraph 14 that you are talking about the meeting of the 17th of June 1992, and then at paragraph 16, the second line, you say
"Vanana Zulu was not present."
So he could not have been at the meeting of the 17th and given you instructions, isn't it so?

MR BRINK: Be given what instructions?

MR MALINDI: That they should attack Boipatong.

CHAIRPERSON: I think in putting the question to the witness, please bear in mind that this issue was canvassed earlier on, and then in paragraph 17 there's reference to the one that you've just put to the witness, and that is 17.1, where he says
"To the best of my knowledge Mr Vanana Zulu and Mkhize made the decision to attack the Vaal community."

MR MALINDI: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: And then later on, at paragraph 17.3, then he talks about Mr Mkhize agreeing with Mr Quanqua to attack the residents of Boipatong.   Continue.

MR MALINDI: As the Chairperson pleases.   What is your recollection, was Mr Zulu present at that meeting of the 17th of June, or not?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: I think it is as written that Mr Zulu was not there at that meeting, he was not at the meeting.

MR MALINDI: What is written at paragraph 16 on page 10, that he was not at the meeting?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: Sir, I think you are like Mr Berger, I responded to this question when Mr Berger asked it and I've already said that he was not there, he had gone home.

MR MALINDI: And members of the Committee will stop me, seeing that they have not stopped me yet, do you confirm that what stands on paragraph 16 on page 10 is correct or not?

CHAIRPERSON: He's just confirmed that that is correct, he was not, you're saying he was not at the meeting, Mr Mthembu?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: I have explained, sir, that Mr Zulu was not present.   I don't know how many times he wants me to repeat this.

MR MALINDI: Now can you tell the Committee, where did Mr Vanana Zulu and Mr Mkhize make their decision that the Vaal community should be attacked?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: I would not know where they discussed this.

MR MALINDI: Last question now, Mr Mthembu, on page 13, paragraph 18, the last sentence you say
"Vanana Zulu knew about it, but he went to his family",
and I will take this to mean he knew about the attack on Boipatong.   How did he come to know about it?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: I meant he knew about the attacks we suffered at the hands of the community of Boipatong.

MR MALINDI: No, Mr Mthembu, if you look at the first line on paragraph 18, the reference is to the attack on Boipatong and you say Vanana Zulu knew about it.   How did he come to know about it?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malindi, could this last sentence not be referring to the second sentence?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, I submit that in the context of this paragraph, it refers to the attack on Boipatong and that all residents of Boipatong... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: But does it lend itself to that construction only?

MR MALINDI: It may be ambiguous, it may be - Chairperson, my learned leader refers me to the question which Mr Mthembu was referring to, which is on page 20.

CHAIRPERSON: But this sentence, because it seems to me it may well be capable of being, you know, of meaning that he may have known about the meeting or he may have known that the residents of Kwamadala Hostel were afraid of Quanqua and that they were forced to attend the meeting and that's why he went home.

MR MALINDI: No, it is capable of, it's quite capable of being a reference to that first sentence or the second sentence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MALINDI: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MALINDI

MR STRYDOM: I have no questions, thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR STRYDOM

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination, Advocate Pretorius?

MS PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, I just think my learned friend, Mr Da Silva may have questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I beg your pardon.

MS PRETORIUS: I'm sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon.   They are, unless one looks at them, one might not notice that they are present.

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairperson, I don't know when the Committee intends rising, I... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Once you've finished your questions and the others have had the opportunity to re-examine.

MR DA SILVA: As it pleases the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: For the record, would you state your name and who you appear for?

MR DA SILVA: My full names are C A da Silva, I have been briefed by the attorney Armien Kluth on behalf of the South African National Defence Force.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.   Yes, Mr Da Silva.

MR DA SILVA: As the Chairperson pleases.

MR DA SILVA: Mr Mthembu, you gave an explanation about how the attack took place on the 17th of June 1992.   I understand from your evidence that at a stage you moved away from Kwamadala Hostel and you crossed underneath a bridge, that is your evidence, is that not so?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: Yes sir.

MR DA SILVA: Was there a specific reason for crossing underneath this bridge?