Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-07

MR LAX: That's also not quite correct, because his evidence was that when he got there and he realised the nature of the training they started asking questions of Mr Luthuli and then Mr Luthuli was forced to explain to them the real purpose of their training and they then covered it up by referring to the private security company that was training them, that whole side of the thing, so there's that whole side of it as well.  So that's been his
 /evidence so far.
3B evidence so far.

MR DE VOS: I'm referring to paragraph 3 of his statement that was handed to us, where it is stated - he's telling about the man that he spoke to, "And he told me there were vacancies in the KwaZulu Police and they had received instructions from the President of the IFP to recruit loyal and faithful supporters of the IFP for KwaZulu Police.  At that stage I did not know exactly what the job entailed, save that it was a job for the KwaZulu Police."  That's the basic departure point of his evidence.

MR LAX: Yes, but that changed when he got to Caprivi and that's common cause at this stage.  Everyone understands that.  That's been the evidence so far.

MR DE VOS: Yes, but what happened between him and Mr Luthuli does not necessarily imply that it came from the SA Defence Force instructors.  That's the point I'm working towards.

YASMINE SOOKA: Mr de Vos, put that to him then.

MR DE VOS: Mr Mkhize, what transpired between - at that nightly meetings when Mr Luthuli discussed various things  with you and told you certain things does not necessarily imply or mean that the SADF - South African Defence Force instructors who were present at that base knew what Mr Luthuli was telling you.  Will you agree with that?

WITNESS:   Which instance are you referring to, when I was speaking to Mr Daluxolo Luthuli?  Where and when?  I don't  understand what you're talking about.  Which meeting are you referring to between me and Mr Luthuli?

MR DE VOS: Mr Lax has just referred me to your evidence where he says that you explained that Mr Luthuli explained to you while you were up there the real purpose why you were

MR DE VOS: /being trained.

MR DE VOS: 3B being trained.  Did you hear that?

WITNESS:   The objective or main aim of the training was always explained to us by the instructors.  It was never hidden from us as to why we were being trained.  They told us that we were being trained to fight the ANC.  I did explain that and I think I did clarify it.

MR DE VOS: Can you help me with another thing?  If I understand you correctly, you were also told to hide from the police - you were told you should hide from the police, the police shouldn't find out about your identities and things like that.  Is that correct?

WITNESS:   I've never said that.

MR DE VOS: In Caprivi.  You did say it.

WITNESS:   There were no police at Caprivi so there was no need to hide anything.

MR DE VOS: Sorry, maybe we misunderstand each other.  I thought you said you were trained up in the Caprivi - you were trained, you were told, "Look, when you come back to KwaZulu you should not be detected by the police.  You should hide".  Is that right?  Is that what your evidence was?

WITNESS:   How were we were going to survive if our names were not known, because we were living and working within our own communities?  What I said was the secret with regard to the training, not with regard to identities.  Maybe Luthuli is the one who spoke about the changing of the names, because the instructors changed their names to JJ, Kloppies, as well as Kevin.  I never talked about our own identities being changed.

MR DE VOS: Maybe there was a misunderstanding.  In other words, you should keep quiet about the fact that you received training in Caprivi.  That was the main purpose why - it shouldn't be disclosed?  Is that right?

WITNESS:   Yes, that was a secret.  That is the place at which we underwent the

MR DE VOS: /training, as

MR DE VOS: 3B training, as well as the aims of the training.  These were the most important things.  Even the type of kind of training that we received when we were at the Caprivi Strip.  These were the two main things that we were supposed to keep out of the reach of other people.

MR DE VOS: [Break in recording] ... there's no question about the fact that your training was legal because at one stage Brigadier Mathe also visited you up there.  Am I right?

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr de Vos, that doesn't make it legal, with all due respect.  The fact that the General might have visited them there doesn't make the training legal at all.

MR DE VOS: We've been through this the whole year last year.  There's a court finding on this point.  It is legal.  There is nothing prohibited in this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Stewart.

MR STEWART: Mr Chairperson, there is no reason why this witness should be expected to be an expert in law and know whether something is legal or illegal because of the presence of someone there or not.

MR LAX: Mr de Vos, maybe it would be helpful to really get to the point.  What are your clients' version?  Are they saying it was perfectly lawful, etcetera?  If that's the case, put it to the man.  We don't have to go round and round in circles and then try and put the sucker punch, so to speak.  [Break in recording] ... a number of times.

MR DE VOS: Yes.  Mr Mkhize, the safety of KwaZulu/Natal and the protection of the people here in a certain sense still lay with the South African Government in terms of the Acts of that time, and I put it to you that the whole

MR DE VOS: /training up

MR DE VOS: 3B training up in the Caprivi was legal.  It was lawful.  They were entitled to give you this type of training.  What do you say about that or can't you comment?

WITNESS:   I've got absolutely no comment.  I think you know more about the South African law, but I can just be brief and tell you this that it comes as a surprise to me as to why we had to carry AK-47s in South Africa, because, according to my knowledge, as well as the police training that I received, was that such ammunition was not allowed at this time.

MR DE VOS: Yes, Mr Mkhize, I put it to you your training was lawful in the sense that the aim of the training was in a protective sense.  In other words the whole aim of your training was to give protection to certain people in Natal and may I add the next aspect, the AK-47s you're referring to was handed to you at the time when you were in the KwaZulu Police.  It was handed by the police to you - KwaZulu Police, not by the South African Defence Force.   What do you say about that?

WITNESS:   It's not like that.  I deny that.  I've never said that the Police Force gave me AK-47s.  I'm referring to the AK that I was given during my training in Caprivi, but in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act the AK-47s were not allowed to be carried, whether you were rendering defence or you were on the offensive side.  I want to know whether that law had changed at some stage.

MR DE VOS: Mr Mkhize, the long and the short of the story is the South African Army can train anybody with the arms they've got available.  It does not fall for that purpose under the Arms and Ammunition Act.  Do you understand that?

WITNESS:   You say that we were trained to protect.

MR DE VOS: /

MR DE VOS: MR NTSEBEZA

MR DE VOS: 3B

MR NTSEBEZA: Is that your client's instruction?

MR DE VOS: That's my client's instruction.

MR NTSEBEZA: Let me get that clearly for the record.  Are you instructed on the clients' version about what arms they were instructed about?   He has said to us the way they were given only AK-47s there.  Now are your instructions that only AK-47s can be used to train people or were available at the time, which is why those were used?  Are those your instructions?

MR DE VOS: That's not my instructions.

MR NTSEBEZA: What are your instructions?