Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-10-28

CHAIRPERSON: Our understanding is that we were here to deal with the Heidelberg Tavern massacre.  When we look at the application form we find that reference is made therein to other matters in respect of which he believes he has applied for amnesty and counsel - the leader of evidence, is also here to deal entirely with the Heidelberg Tavern case.
	There seems to be a decision that has been taken or rather there's some contemplation of a decision that matters which originated in the Eastern Cape will be dealt with on a regional basis.  I don't know very much about it yet but I have no doubt that matters relating to what happened in the Eastern Cape will be heard just as matters relating to other parts of the country.  
	For present purposes we'll just confine the hearing to the Heidelberg matter and maybe we'll be able to position - the Amnesty Committee has been inundated with applications, sometimes their cross-referencing may not have been up to date and that might cause some difficulties.  But I think that for the time being let us just concern ourselves with the Heidelberg matter.

JUDGE WILSON: With respect Mr Chairman, I feel very strongly that the credibility of the applicant may well be affected by other matters he has been involved in.  I do not think it necessary for the applicant to deal with them here but I do think that the Amnesty Committee should be notified that these files are available.
	I'm not blaming the applicant for not leading evidence about other matters but I think counsel will agree that if someone is saying: "I was ordered to do this, I knew nothing about anything, I just did it blindly" - if one finds he's done it 15 times before, it gives a slightly different picture and it is for that reason that I think the Amnesty Committee should - the officials responsible should notify the Committee hearing an application that the applicant has made application in connection with other matters.

NORMAN ARENDSE: At least Mr Chairman we've referred to them - we've done slightly better than the officials here, we've referred to them in the statements at least, we haven't dealt with them fully.  I agree obviously the issue of credibility is as wide as you can get and yes, it may be relevant what their roles were in other matters.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior, whatever you've heard now is a matter which you will see to it is taken further in the office where the administration is done and all matters concerning the applicant are gathered together so that at an appropriate time those matters can be set down for hearing.

MR PRIOR: Chairman, I will convey that to the secretary.

CHAIRPERSON: In the meanwhile will you confirm your activities or your questions to this particular application because I don't think that we should go into any detail about what happened in the Yellowood Hotel if that application is going to be considered on it's own at some other stage.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.   I want to turn finally to an aspect which has been raised by two of the victims, in particular Mr Palm and Mr Fourie and which was also referred to in a press report from the PAC member of Parliament, one Kallifile - it looks like Cinzana ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: When was that dated?

MR PRIOR: Unfortunately Mr Chairman, it's not very clear, the 20th of September - it looks like 1996, where - let me just lay the foundation.

ADV SANDI: What page is this Mr Prior?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, this was brought to my attention - this particular clipping, at the luncheon adjournment and we made copies of that particular press clipping and it's simply to lay the foundation for my question.  The member of Parliament called on Mr Sydney Mufamadi to conduct an immediate investigation into allegations that security police had planned the 1993 St James Church massacre and had actually supplied the arms used in that attack.
	There was a further allegation that agents of the apartheid regime had infiltrated APLA and had identified the church as a target and had in fact supplied the weapons for the raid.  Now following on from that and by the same yardstick the victims as I've mentioned, Mr Palm and Mr Fourie, have engaged me and have - to ask certain questions regarding this aspect.  
	As far as you are aware, can you say whether there was any infiltration into APLA especially in the Western Cape and especially in Cape Town at the time or shortly before the Heidelberg attack?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: If I understand your question clearly, I'm a soldier of APLA, I cannot answer your question because I am just a soldier.  I don't know about infiltration to the PAC.

MR PRIOR: From hearing your evidence and the evidence of Mr Gqomfa, it appears that your activities in Cape Town round about November and December 1993, were conducted in such a manner that very few people knew of the actual involvement, in other words about the actual attack, is that correct?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: The fact that there were too few people - it is not clear to me, please elaborate.

CHAIRPERSON: What does that question mean: "Very few people were"?

MR PRIOR: "Aware of the actual attack" - I don't want to use that expression on a need to know basis Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean the planning of the attack?

MR PRIOR: The planning and the execution of the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRIOR: It was broken up into various components that for example, the people that supplied the weapons didn't know what targets were to be attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the evidence we have up to now.

MR PRIOR: Yes.  Do you agree with that?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: I have a problem with this question, I don't know how to answer it,  it's not clear to me.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that the evidence seems to be that only a few people knew precisely what targets were going to be attacked, that is correct isn't it?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: What do you mean when you say that not many people were told about this?  We were sent here by a member of the High Command, I don't know whether he was supposed to tell everyone that he'd sent soldiers to the Western Cape.

CHAIRPERSON: That indirectly is the answer.

MR PRIOR: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That knowledge was confined to a few people.

MR PRIOR: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, leave it at that, we've got that evidence on the record.

MR PRIOR: Yes, thank you.  You were arrested on the 4th of January, is that correct - at Elliot?  Is that correct, you were arrested at a road block at Elliot?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: Correct, Sir.

MR PRIOR: Together with Mr Mabala?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: Correct, Sir.

MR PRIOR: Is it correct that the police came straight to you?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: Correct, Sir.

MR PRIOR: So would you agree with me that they seemed to know who they were looking for?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: They identified us according to our clothing, they did not know who we were as such.

MR PRIOR: And the clothing you were wearing wasn't the clothing you had on during the attack of Heidelberg, is that correct?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRIOR: You don't know who gave the police that information?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: I don't know Sir, and I don't want to speculate.

MR PRIOR: And the weapons that you used in the Heidelberg attack, did you ever use them or see them again?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: I never saw them again.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.  Mr Chairman, again the request was made - and I think two of the families, a Mrs Langford wanted to ask one or two questions and a Mrs January wanted to ask a question with permission of the Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

JUDGE WILSON: May I just interpose something quickly?  What paper does this come from, do you know - the cutting you've just given us?

MR PRIOR: I understand from my investigator that the reporter writes for the Argus.

JUDGE WILSON: The Cape Argus?