Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-02-17

CHAIRPERSON: ... of those present, that to meet the convenience of the lawyers engaged in this hearing we have agreed that we will adjourn not later than half past two this afternoon, but in order to ensure that the proceedings go ahead as smoothly and as rapidly as possible this means that we will take the short adjournment at half past eleven and we will not adjourn again till half past two.  There will be no lunch adjournment today, we will adjourn for the day at half past two.  So if you want to go and get food you must do so during the short adjournment which will be taken at half past eleven.  Right, shall we continue.

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: (s.u.o.)

MR RICHARD: (cont)
	Thank you, Chairperson. 
	Before we conclude your cross-examination I have a number of points to canvass, and I revert back to your training.  During the course of your training in Angola and wherever else, were you taught how to deal with infiltration into your cell and how to deal with it?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: Yes, I was trained.

MR RICHARD: What were you told to do, how were you told to handle it?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: The first point is that you should be certain ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: Sorry, could the interpreter repeat the question, repeat the answer?

INTERPRETER: He said the first point was that you should be certain, and he hasn't carried it further than that.

MR RICHARD: Mr Dube, when you say "be certain", be certain of what?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: I was still explaining.  It depends on how that infiltration occurs, but you should have certainty. For example, if a cell has been infiltrated you should be able to gather information with regards to that infiltration.  It also depends on the circumstances.  There is no standing rule with regards to the question of infiltration.

MR RICHARD: From your answer I gather that the first concern is to discover how serious the infiltration is, what information might have been dropped by the infiltrator and so on.

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: I do not quite understand the question.

MR RICHARD: I'm putting a simple scenario.  You are the commander of a cell or a group of cells, as in your case, you have reason to believe that you've been infiltrated, you find the infiltrator, isn't your next step to find out what the damage is, what information has been leaked, what's been told to the enemy?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: As I explained before, it depends on each and every situation and also the amount of sources from which one can gather information.

CHAIRPERSON: What I gathered from what you were saying was that the first thing you had to do was ascertain with certainty whether you had identified an infiltrator.

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: Yes, I did say that.

MR RICHARD: Now in this particular case, we've heard your evidence that you felt in your own mind that you were certain that you had an infiltrator.  Now my next question is, what other steps could you have taken to confirm your suspicion?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: At that time there were none.

MR RICHARD: Couldn't it have been that you could have kept him away from everyone, debriefed him, ascertained what he had told the police, if he were an informer?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: As I explained before, it would not have been easy.

MR RICHARD: So you took the option that you saw as the easiest, is that your evidence?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: I am not saying that was an easy option, but it was the only option.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you question him?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: As I mentioned before that I asked him if he was working for the police and he said yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  And did you ask him what he had told the police?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: I did not ask him that.

CHAIRPERSON: But surely it was of vital importance to know whether he had identified you to the police, whether he had told the police your proper name or your undercover name, whether he had told police the addresses that you visited?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: Yes, it was important, but the problem I had at the time was that I did not have sufficient time.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?  You now had this man, he had admitted he was an informer, he'd admitted he'd worked for the police, you had the rest of the cell to back you up, why did you not have sufficient time? - you had the whole night.

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: I say this because the uppermost thing on my mind was our own security.

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely, and that is why you had to question him to find out how your own security was threatened.

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: I repeat that the most important thing on my mind was our security and for those people who had been involved in accommodating us.  And the situation that prevailed then was different from what prevails today, because at that time very few people managed to assist us and help us.

CHAIRPERSON: I still don't understand why you did not question this man.  You had taken him away from the house where you'd discovered the radio, so you said, you were on the outskirts of town and you could now have found out whether he had disclosed the identity of the people who sheltered to you, whether the addresses were known to the police, whether you must change and not go back there.  Surely all this was vital to your security?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: I do not dispute that it was important, but as I said before, it did not occur to me at the time because at that time I was concerned mostly about our security.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears from what you have said in evidence, that you were concerned only with killing the deceased.  Now tell me, you had searched him, you had taken away a radio from him, you had destroyed it in his presence, he had admitted to you he was working for the police, is everything I've said so far correct?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he then peacefully walk down the road with you when you and you alone took him away?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: Yes, he walked with me peacefully.

CHAIRPERSON: And made no attempt to escape although he must have known by then that his life was at risk?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: I do not know.

CHAIRPERSON: He was a healthy young man?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: As far as I know, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yet you say he walked down the street with you knowing all this till you told him to sit under  a tree, he sat there perfectly peacefully till one of his friends walked up and shot him through the head.

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: No threats from you, no attempts from him to safeguard himself.

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: No, he did not try to escape.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I find that amazing, that this young man would have sat there after, according to you, he had made all these admissions, knowing the rest of the group were coming and just sat.  It seems - on the version you have given, it points rather more to a man being taken completely by surprise as to what happened.  Do you say that is not the position, that he knew he had been found out, he knew you had summoned the rest of the group?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: It is difficult for me to explain or to be able to explain why he behaved in that manner.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand that.  Carry on.

MR RICHARD: Right, the next point is, are you aware of any other situation or case within the MK where a commander of a unit ordered the summary execution of a sole member?  What did other people do in the same situation as you say you were in?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: I do not know anything of the sort, I do not remember.

MR RICHARD: So you're not aware of ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR RICHARD: So you're not aware of ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

MR RICHARD: So you're not aware of any other incident where an alleged informer was executed, yours is the only incident that you're aware of, is that your answer?

JOHN ITHUMALENG DUBE: Yes, that is what I'm saying.