Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-07

WITNESS:  Yes, I do know that we were divided in the middle.  There were some for counter-mobilisation, defensive, as well as offensive and VIP guards.  I am well aware of that.

MR VISSER: Let me ask you specifically.  Do you say that in your opinion you were sent to the Caprivi to be trained as hit squads?

WITNESS:   That is true.

MR VISSER: /All 200 of

MR VISSER: 2B All 200 of you or only the offensive group?

WITNESS:   All the 200 who were sent to Caprivi.  There isn't even a single one of them who is not capable of killing and there isn't a single one who hasn't been specifically trained to do the same job that I was doing.

MR VISSER: So I understand your answer to mean you were all really trained as hit squad operatives.  Am I correct in assuming that?

WITNESS:   That is correct.

MR VISSER: Will you please explain what the purpose then was to divide one group into a group called, "Offensive unit"?

WITNESS:   I have already explained.  I think I said that yesterday.  I think it was mainly for flexibility, so that if you come across a situation that needs you to be well-dressed and be a gentleman and mobilize people or be a public speaker you can be able to do that, as well as canvass members for your political group and if the situation called for you to represent your group when there are newspaper reporters, you can be able to answer certain questions or specific questions that tend to favour your political group.  And with regard to the intensive training that I referred to yesterday, it was done to equip the people with the necessary knowledge so that they could be able to counteract certain situations that they found themselves in, so that they could be able to defend themselves and fight, and protect themselves as well as other members of that group if they were needed to do that.  That is the defensive.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, I didn't ask you to go through the whole evidence again of explaining the different groups.  I'm simply asking you one question.  What is the purpose of having had an offensive group if there was no difference

MR VISSER: /among the

MR VISSER: 2B among the various groups as far as your main purpose was concerned, and that was to be hit squad operatives when you came back?

WITNESS:   If you are asking me specifically with regard to the offensive I will not be able to answer that question because I was not trained to be on the offensive side.  I was on counter-mobilisation.

MR VISSER: Yes, that's indeed the best answer you could have given.  You were a member of the contra-mobilisation, Mr Mkhize.  We know that.

WITNESS:   I wish to explain something.  Counter-mobilisation is something that I did or went through for one month - only one month - and that was my last month of the training in Caprivi, and out of the six months that I was being trained in Caprivi I spent the other five months being trained, so you can ask yourself as to what I was being trained to do.

MR VISSER: For the evidence that you were sent, all 200 of you, to be trained as hit squad operatives to make any sense, Mr Mkhize, I'm putting it to you would be that when you came back that the 200 of you would have immediately commenced with your hit squad activities.  Don't you agree?

WITNESS:   Could you please repeat the question?  I don't think I understand you.

MR VISSER: Let me put it in another way.  How many of the 200, according to your knowledge, participated in hit squad activities?

WITNESS:   I do not have that knowledge, but according to me during that situation, that is the fight between Inkatha and the African National Congress, that number was far too small.  It was minimal.  Inkatha was supposed to train a lot of people if they were to fight the ANC.

MR VISSER: Well, the suggestion on the papers had been made

MR VISSER: /that apparently

MR VISSER: 2B that apparently ten of the offensive unit might have participated in hit squad activities.  I'm speaking under correction, but I'm referring to Mr Varney's document, Mr Chairman.  It referred to the figure of 33 members, which was later reduced to ten, he says.  I should have perhaps asked him for clarification, but that's the inference I drew.  But let us assume that it is 10.  Would that be a figure that you would agree with?

WITNESS:   I have absolutely no knowledge.  I don't know how many there are and I cannot answer that.

MR VISSER: Let's put it in another way, Mr Mkhize.  When you were requested or ordered to start a hit squad activity, the strange thing that happened is that you chose people who were not Caprivi trainees.  Is that correct?

WITNESS:   Yes, it is true, but I did explain the reason before this Commission as to why I did that or what made me do that.  Whether you accept it or you do not I do not think that concerns me, but I have specified the reasons that made me find myself in that situation.

MR VISSER: Mr Mkhize, you are not seriously suggesting that the other 199 members were all womanizers and drunks?  Are you suggesting that?

MR WILLS: With respect, Mr Chairperson, if I could interject.  My clear recollection of the evidence at that point in time was that Mr Mkhize referred specifically to the Caprivi trainees other than himself who were stationed at the Esikhaweni Police Station.  He alluded to a conversation with Luthuli, saying that they must bring Caprivi trainees in from another area.  He was specifically referring to those at Esikhaweni Police Station, not the other 199.  His subsequent evidence was
 /to the effect
2B to the effect that later as he was - he used the word, "Promised" a certain other Caprivian by the name of Zweli Dlamini, who was sent, came to join them.  On that basis I think the question is unfair.

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Visser, if you would ... [break in recording] ... so we can see exactly what you're getting at.  Just put it directly.  I mean, you know, circles within circles doesn't work in this kind of forum.  So ... [break in recording].

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I was thinking rather that I was putting it to him directly.  The fact of the matter is that in practice on your evidence the hit squads that we found operating were not Caprivi trainee hit squads.  They consisted, inter alia, of Caprivi trainees, but they were not exclusively Caprivi trainees.  Isn't that correct?

WITNESS:   Yes, Mr Visser, I did explain it to you.  When I initially explained I said not all the people within the 199 were deployed at the Esikhaweni Police Station.  They were all over KwaZulu/Natal, and maybe the people I'm referring to were Caprivi trainees, but they were stationed at Esikhaweni.  There could have been 3, and the 199 that you are referring to could have been deployed in other areas, but I'm speaking with regard to the 3 people that I know of.

MR VISSER: Mr Mkhize, I want to put it to you.  I'm not sure whether I'm coming through, Mr Chairman.  I want to put it to you that I'm also confining it to the Esikhaweni hit squad, which you testified about, and on the basis of your testimony I'm going to suggest to you that the reasonable inference to be drawn from how your squad was made up is that you would have done what you did whether you went for

MR VISSER: /training or

MR VISSER: 2B training or not.  Isn't that the truth of the matter?

WITNESS:   Where would I have acquired the skills from to do the job that I have explained to this Honourable Commission, had I not been trained or specifically trained?

MR VISSER: May I answer your question with another question?  Where did the persons who had not been trainees, where did they receive that training from?  It's easy to fire a firearm, Mr Mkhize, anyone can do it.