Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-16

MR RICHARD: I put it to you that one of the reasonable reasons why the late Sicelo could have been curious about your movements is that he might have had suspicions as to whether you were an informer or not, and he wanted to check up on you, and that it went further, that once you were aware that you were being checked up on your status as an informer for the South African police would have been compromised.  And therefore you killed him.

MR DUBE: That is not true.

MR RICHARD: But then why won't you deny or admit that you were an informer?  You've already refused to answer the question, it's too late now.

MR DUBE: I explained before that I've never been an informer.  That is all I'm prepared to say.

CHAIRPERSON: The question has changed somewhat, as I recollect it.  What was put to you originally was that you worked with the security police, and my recollection is that you denied having done that.  It wasn't at that stage an informer it was specifically that you had worked with the security police, and you have denied that.  That is so, isn't it?

MR DUBE: Yes, I do deny it.

MR RICHARD: Were you ever a double agent?

MR DUBE: I think I've responded to your question.

MR RICHARD: Were you ever a double agent?

CHAIRPERSON: I understand, and I speak subject to correction, the purpose of this questioning is not in the abstract to show that you worked for the police or were a double agent, but it goes further than that.  It's to provide a motive for you having arranged the killing of the deceased.  It is directly linked to the deceased in that it seems that it is going to be argued that your working with the security police, there was a danger of this becoming known and for that reason you arranged the killing of the deceased, also for the purpose of enhancing your reputation in the area.  Do you understand that is, as I understand it, why counsel is asking these questions.  It is linked to the death of the deceased and I think that is why your attorney hasn't objected.  This is not just an abstract attack.

MR KOOPEDI: May I interpose Chairperson?  I believe somewhat of this question was answered, in the sense that I recall the applicant saying that, in replying my learned friend, that wherever you got that information, that is also where you should have got an information that I was deployed there.  These are, these were his words.  So in a certain sense I believe the question has been answered and I am not sure why is the question taken further.  And, you know, for what it is worth, I should comment that it appears my learned friend's questioning is now corroborating the fact that Sicelo was surveilling the applicant.  Yes.  That's what I wanted to say.

ADV SANDI: Just to put my understanding of his response to your questions on record.  I think he, as I understand him, he denies that he killed the deceased for the reasons you are suggesting to him.   He's denying that.  Unless you want to take it further.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us proceed.

MR RICHARD: I would like to understand Mr Dube, what your legal representative means when he says you were deployed there.  It is correct, you did use that expression.  What do you mean by deployed there?

MR DUBE: That's one other thing I will address once again, I will go back to the words I have used earlier on that I am not going to attempt to answer any question outside the issue of Sicelo, because I am sitting her applying in, with regard to Sicelo's issue.

MR RICHARD: ...(indistinct) not an answer to my question, what do you mean by the word deployed?  Who deployed you?  When did they deploy you?  Where did they deploy you?

MR DUBE: I will like to emphasise the fact that I am not going to answer any question outside Sicelo Dhlomo's issue.

CHAIRPERSON: I've endeavoured to explain to you that a great deal of this may be inside that issue.  Your counsel has referred to your use of the word deployed.  I regret I do not  have a note of precisely where you used it.  The question is simply what you meant by the word deploy.  Now that would be in the context in which it was used.

MR RICHARD: What do you mean by the word deploy?

MR DUBE: Deploy varies.  I will take a person, this is an illustration he is giving, for the purpose of this illustration I will take two opposing groups that are fighting each other.  You will know that you will take the people to the front line, deploy them in such a way that you get their plans as to what has to be discussed revolving around that subject, what do they have in mind regarding you.

MR RICHARD: I understand now that you understand the meaning of deploy.  Who deployed you where?  When?

MR DUBE: I will emphasise again or I will reiterate the fact that as I have tried to give you the answer to your question.

MR RICHARD: When your legal representative used the phrase you were deployed, I wanted you to explain what was meant.  I don't understand what is meant or what your answers to my questions mean.  Who deployed you, where?  In relation to the questions that I've asked relating to the security police.

MR DUBE: As I said earlier on that deploy may vary.

ADV SANDI: Mr Dube I think this is a very simple question.  Were you at any stage ever deployed by anyone, and if yes, who was that, and where was it that you were deployed?

MR DUBE: With regards to what, if I may ask?

CHAIRPERSON: The question is a simple one.  Were you deployed by anyone in the political field in the context we are talking about, and if so by whom and where and when?

MR DUBE: What I will explain, or I will attempt to explain here, is that each time I refer to deployment I mean varying situations.  One is able to take a person that he works with, or I will take a person that I work with and deploy that particular person to the enemy side so to be able to get information and their plans and their activities, their events.  So this deployment I referring to now relates to that effect.

CHAIRPERSON: So did someone take you and deploy you to the enemy side to get information?

MR DUBE: I think I have answered this question, because I said earlier on, no.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson may I intervene here.  I wish to say that you know we've consulted on this very aspect for a long time, and from the consultation I realise why the applicant will be hesitant to respond to these questions.  May I be allowed to explain to him what is, you know, what is it that he can let out?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR RICHARD: None at all.

CHAIRPERSON: How long with it take?

MR KOOPEDI: I don't think it will be long, you don't need to adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR KOOPEDI: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: May the speakers switch on their microphones?

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR RICHARD: Mr Dube what is your answer?

MR DUBE: The answer is, in this deployment I'm talking about I'm referred to, this happened in 1991 or took place in 1991, if my memory serves me right, it could well have been around, I don't quite remember the time but it happened around 1991.  It implicates many people that I'm not in a position to disclose their names at this point in time.  This is why I am not in a position to discuss any name or to disclose any name for that matter in relation to this question, so that I don't see any relevant in 1987.  There's no correlation in the two things that occurred in these two years, 1987 and 1991.

MR RICHARD: Mr Dhlomo there were suspicions, Mr Dube, there were suspicions in 1987 as to whether you were an informer or not, and there was debates in the Dhlomo household about that issue, and it then transpires that you were, as you say, deployed at some other point in time.  It's only a matter of definition as to when you were an informer.  The suspicion is there at all times.  That's the relevance.  So, when you say that you were deployed in 1991 I take it that at that stage you were working with the security police.