Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-17

CHAIRPERSON: This Committee is now in a position to give its decision in respect of the application of Mr Vusi  Sidney Mononi.
	This is an application in terms of Section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995.  Mr Mononi applies for amnesty in respect of the following convictions:  the murder of Mr Mofumani Bernard Mathonsi, the attempted robbery of Mr Mathonsi's firearm, contravention of Section 2,36 and 32(1)(b) read with Sections 1, 39 and 40 of the Act.
	He further applies for amnesty in respect of the robbery of a firearm from Mr Mathonsi.  All these offences were committed on 11 August 1993 at or near Diepkloof in the district of Johannesburg.
	The applicant alleges that he and four other members of his SDU, were patrolling in the vicinity of Mandela Squatter Camp when they saw two uniformed policemen.  Their Commander, one Winki ordered that they should approach the policemen in order to disarm them, and take their firearms.
	It is common cause that the applicant was a member of the SDU and that the SDU's engaged in such activities in order to arm themselves with a view to defending their communities during the political conflict of the time.
	We are therefore satisfied that the applicant complies with the requirements of Section 20(1) of the Act with regard to his convictions.
	However, with regard to the act of robbery of Mr Mathonsi's firearm, we are not satisfied that this firearm was in fact removed from Mr Mathonsi by the applicant or his comrades at all, and accordingly refuse amnesty for this act.
	The Amnesty Committee is of the opinion that the relatives and dependants of the deceased, Mr Mofumani Bernard Mathonsi as well as the victim, Mr Nkuna, are victims as defined in the Act and are accordingly referred to the Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation for consideration as such in terms of Section 26 of our Act.
	That is the decision Mr Leopeng.  AMNESTY IS THEREFORE GRANTED IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING offences:  the murder of Mr Mofumani Bernard Mathonsi, the attempted robbery of a firearm belonging to Mr Mathonsi and in respect of contraventions of Section 2,36 and 32(1)(b) read with Section 1, 39 and 40 of the Explosives Act.  Thank you.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair.  Madam Chair, may I be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may be excused.  May we also take this opportunity to extend our appreciation to the members of the Correctional Services and in particular the Johannesburg prison for having accommodated us with regard to keeping Mr Mononi here until this hour.  We are aware that we had been requested to have Mr Mononi taken back to prison by no later than half past three.
	We however, wish to bring to the authorities all Prison Authorities that this Committee sits usually from nine o'clock till half past four.  We however appreciate the fact that you were able to accommodate us because the time is now quarter past five.  We thank you.
	I think your Counsel will explain to you the procedure that the Committee will now have to follow in order to have this decision communicated to the Commander of the prison where you are being kept.  This decision will have to first go to Cape Town, which is our Head Office and our Executive Secretary in Cape Town will then cause this decision to be communicated to the Head of the Prison.  The Executive Secretary will also have to publish in the Government Gazette the content of the decision, particularly with regard to the types of offences for which you have been granted amnesty and the names of the victims in relation to which amnesty has been granted and then you will be able I think, to leave prison.
	However, your Counsel will make this explanation to you.

MR LEOPENG: ... and he was very grateful so apparently that has not been translated to the public.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: When we adjourned, you were still in the process of putting questions to Mr Khumalo.  You may proceed Ma'am with your questions.

BONGA KHUMALO: (still under oath)

MS THABETE: (continued)  Madam Chair, I have decided to leave the aspect that I was cross-examining him on, I will move on.
	Mr Khumalo, in your evidence you said that you were placed in the township because there was a situation where the comrades or the SDU's were ungovernable, people were being killed because, mainly or solely because they were IFP members, is that correct?

BONGA KHUMALO: Yes.

MS THABETE: And then you were brought in into the township to try and change that situation, is that correct?

BONGA KHUMALO: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETE: My question is what was your role going to be in relation to the Commanders in the township, how were you going to change the situation where people were killed solely because they associated themselves with certain political organisations or IFP to be direct?

BONGA KHUMALO: What happened was that as an organisation, we decided that all the SDU's which claimed to belonged to the ANC, should be known and be accountable to the organisation because there were many Units which were not known, where they belonged to.  There were firearms around, so that it was a way of trying to eliminate those problems.

MS THABETE: So did you manage to eliminate the problems where people were just killed, just because they associated themselves with a certain organisation?  Would you say you managed to overcome that problem?

BONGA KHUMALO: Yes, I would say I managed.

MS THABETE: How did it change?  Did the fact that people belonged to let's say were associated with the IFP, were they not killed any more, is that what you are saying?  How did that situation change?

BONGA KHUMALO: The IFP was seen as an enemy in the township, and at the time, there was no way in which a person who associated with the IFP, could be left alone.

MS THABETE: I don't know whether you are not understanding my question or I am not understanding you.  I thought that your evidence was that before you came, people would be killed merely because they associated with certain organisations, but you were brought into the township to change that situation.  What I am asking is, how did that situation change?
	Does it mean that people were no longer killed merely because they associated with the IFP?

BONGA KHUMALO: I did explain that a person who associated with the IFP, was known as (indistinct).  There was an order that (indistinct) must be killed.
	A person could belong to any other organisation like the PAC, etc, we were just fighting against the IFP.  I did not stop people from killing other people, but what I am saying here is that wrong people should not be killed.

MS THABETE: Were you ever involved in any other activity or in any SDU activity with Mr John Radebe, the applicant?

CHAIRPERSON: You may rightfully refer to him as Mkondo, he knows him better if you refer to him by that name.

MS THABETE: My question is were you ever involved in any SDU activities with Mkondo?

BONGA KHUMALO: No, I cannot recall any joint venture.  I do not remember having a direct venture or operation with him.  I cannot recall really.

MS THABETE: It is because on page, I don't know whether I am allowed to do this Madam Chair, I would like your guidance, in page 148, paragraph 6, Mr Radebe states that when they were hunting for Maletsatsi to be killed, you were one of the people who was there with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Just put it to him what Mr Radebe has said in his affidavit and refer Ms Moloisane to the necessary page and paragraph and line.

MS THABETE: It is page 148, we can start from line 4 where it reads during hunting, I was with the following comrades.  He is referring to the hunting of Maletsatsi who had to be killed.  He says he was with Godfrey Sheya, Fidel Kenneth Skosana, Oupa Keswa and Bonga Khumalo.  What is your comment on the statement?