Amnesty Hearings — Umtata — 1998-04-21

MR NOTUNUNU: That is correct Honourable Chair, that is when the surveillance took place, but I must submit sir, with respect, that he later on clarified that.  Far before we came, or a week before we came to the funeral in Umtata, we already took some kind of a decision about our not being happy with what the army had done.
	The actual endorsement of the act which, thank you Honourable Chair, but the actual endorsement of the act they committed on that day, was taken the very day of the funeral.  Then I think that that was clarified.
	The other thing Honourable Chair, I want to bring before this Panel is that the question of surveillance, he had indicated that they were very much familiar with Bongweni police station, they were very much familiar with the Bongweni police station, so that of course they did as he had indicated, that they did some surveillance on the day in question, and had found that there were two policemen etc, etc.
	But the point I want to make Your Honour, is that what might have been the position in so far as Mlungisi Nyembezi is concerned, in so far as the evidence of Mlungisi Nyembezi was concerned, was that one would say he was not that very much intelligent in answering questions or in putting the story, but at the end of the day, one needs to ask one big question, could one say that there was no full disclosure of the events of that day, simply because the witness would be asked that question, but answer the other question, the one which has not been put to him.
	My answer thereto sir, is no.  The disclosure has been there, they have told this Honourable Panel how they had gone into the police station, they told this Honourable Panel how the policemen had cooperated with them.  They told this Honourable Panel how they sat with the policemen in question at the rear of a bakkie, with those two policemen not tightened, fastened.
	This to us, my argument Honourable Chair and Honourable members of the Panel with respect, is something which shows in fact what Mlungisi had really said, that those people had seemed to cooperate with them.
	I cannot in any way find a situation where you would be abducting somebody and you would not tie that somebody if you really had some bad or some wrong intentions in so far as that person is concerned.
	This to me in indicative of what they said, that they had in fact cooperated.  There has been those buttons which are alleged to have been found outside.  I just don't want to waste the time of the Honourable Panel on that, because it is not clear to whom those buttons belonged.  Whether those buttons were the buttons of the jackets of the police in question.  The mere presence of a button at a police station, does not necessarily mean or suggest anything or as my learned friend had suggested that there might have been some struggle, that is not the position.
	Also the question of there being some cartridge which my learned friend said was found.  That again does not take the case, or does not have any effect on what has been said by Ntikinca.
	An empty cartridge at a police station, 30 metres away from the front of the police station, that is no big deal, that is no big deal.   No one can ever say that that cartridge was used on so and so and such and such a time, from such and such a firearm, so in so far as we are concerned, that is also not a big deal whatsoever.
	Coming again to the other admission, the other thing which they did not dispute as the applicants.  The injuries on the person of the policemen.  It is, there is evidence before this Honourable Commission that shotguns were there at this police station.  The one is the one which Nyembezi said he handed over to Luyanda and some rifles.
	I don't know, but it is common cause that a shotgun, when one fires from a shotgun or when one fires with a shotgun, then there could be some many bullet holes, which have been caused by such firing.
	As we are saying, we are also not making any big deal about the injuries which might have been found on the person of those who died.  But, if one of course was saying there was a contact wound, a shot wound which has been caused by contact firing, that would have made the difference in the whole story, but what I urge this Honourable Panel to take into account is that this was a rather free for all shooting.
	This shooting occurred at a time when these were not aware that there was in fact to be this shooting, as a result of which they responded to that shooting, and they have indicated that as the police, Luyanda and Nyembezi have said that, as the policemen were running away, they were running away shooting, and they fired, that is the applicants, they also fired at those policemen.
	It is my submission sir, Honourable Chair and Honourable Members with respect, there is no way one can say we have not in fact made a full disclosure.  This is particularly important in view of the fact that we are the people who were there, and we had in fact told everything which was there.
	I submit further, Honourable Chair and Honourable Members, that there are no improbabilities in this story of the applicants, there are absolutely no improbabilities.  When one takes into account the question of improbabilities, one needs to take the whole evidence, the evidence in its entirety.  One does not need to come up with one thing that this ought not to have happened, but one needs to take the whole evidence as a whole and this is important, it has also come as evidence before this Honourable Panel, that on this day it was, this occurred during the night, so that no one could really say I fired a shot which hit Mbhele for example on the buttocks or on the leg, or on the head, and the second shot was fired by so and so.  No one can really say that.
	If our non-disclosure are really much revolves and relates to that, then we are saying with respect, that we would then be required to disclosed what we do not know.  What we are expected to do here, I repeat with respect and I submit Honourable Chair and Honourable members of the Panel, is to disclose all ... (tape ends) ...  issue about the question of cornering, cornering.
	Honourable Chair, with respect have indicated that cornering means a situation where you sort of find a person, and you put him in a position where he could not escape.  I fully agree with that, but this cornering here was explained.
	This was cornering with bullets, coming from firearms which were carried by these people, we cornered them, we fired and cornered them.
	How, why do you say you cornered them, we cornered them because as we are firing at them, we could see that they were at a particular spot and we kept on pumping, firing at them, and we felt that we had cornered them, because there was silence from their side.  There was no more shooting from their side.
	We then felt that we had cornered them, that is what the witness had said in explaining the question of cornering.  This issue about cornering, Honourable Chair and Honourable members of the Panel, would have been very, very much in issue if for instance as I have indicated, there was some mention of some contact shooting of some kind.
	That these people were out to murder these people, because there has been for instance this contact wound, caused by contact shooting.  But as I have already indicated, the cornering in question has been explained that it is the cornering in terms of firing at those people at the spot where they were cornering them, cornering them by the bullets.
	Honourable Chair and Honourable members of the Panel, with respect, I don't want to waste the time of this Honourable Panel, but I submit that we have in fact complied with all the requirements of the Act and I pray that it may please this Honourable Panel, grant us our application as it pleases the Honourable Chair.