Special Hearings — Political Party Recalls — UNKNOWN

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: We were not relying simply on confessions. I think that Comrade Poliso made an honest statement to the Motsunyane Commission and acknowledged that he had been party to such practices in '81. I would like to emphasise that the '81 incident was an incident of immense importance to the survival of our struggle. The agents who were uncovered, were people who had been sent by the enemy as far back as 1976, with the instructions to infiltrate our movement. One of them proved in the camp situation in the early part, to be exemplary in his conduct. It was precisely because his conduct began to - suddenly saw an aberration that we began to be suspicious.
So what we were facing as we began to uncover this plot, was what seemed to be an extremely serious threat to the survival of our organisation. It was the first evidence of such an incursion. I believe that Comrade Mzwai in Luanda was reacting on that understanding. So that is the context.
I don't believe that we relied solely on the confessions. We relied, as I say, on other material evidence.
In the case of one, I raised the question of tapings, cassettes, of the briefings that we were giving in Lusaka to cadres returning home. In the case of another I can instantly recall, the bunch of tickets, because he occupied a central position in Lusaka airport despatches of cadres throughout going home, travelling abroad, going to other forward areas. So he was privy to that sort of information, and it meant that this infiltration had reached the high level where a person could become the commander of a camp and now being specially prepared as a special unit to be sent home, it meant that people at home in large numbers would be in danger, all our forward area structures and command structures would be in danger, and our entire leadership would be in danger. This was the threat we faced and as we began to get more information, it began to look larger and larger. So we acted in that context. And the confessions played a role. I think our experience has shown us, our training told us, that confessions forced from people could not be relied on.
But you will notice that even our screening procedures by 1981 had begun to become more sophisticated, and those had given us a clue to interrogation methods that would give us reliable information. But Comrade Mzwai in his statement to the Motsunyane Commission says that what we were faced with from his point of view, was a threat that was immediate and massive. That is the context in which his conduct was explained. But I do not think that we relied ... (microphone switched off).

MR VALLY: Would you justify torture in the circumstances you have mentioned?

CHAIRPERSON: Has he been sworn in?

MOUNTAIN XHOSO: (Duly sworn, states).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MOUNTAIN XHOSO: I wanted to add, in particular, on Comrade Mzwai Poliso issue. I think Mr Vally, if you notice, on the very same page, page 22, the "at any cost", referred to by Mzwai Poliso is referring mainly on specific cases. Here there is mention of a Keith McKenzie, that we needed have information at any cost at that particular time, because Keith McKenzie had been involved in a number of deaths inside the country, until he was later led out of the country. Whilst comrades were busy trying to interrogate him, the car he had used to cross from South Africa to Botswana exploded and it killed a number of Botswana citizens. Then the comrades had to get information from him as soon as possible, and at any cost. That's what Mzwai is referring to. It is not referring in general to all cases, but to cases whereby we know that this person is involved in certain activities, and he knows but he doesn't want to come up with further information. That is what I wanted to add.

MR VALLY: My question still remains, would you justify torture in the new circumstances?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Sir, as a recipient of torture, in 1964, I could never justify the use of torture.

MR VALLY: Let's go on to the next tribunal. We have had ad hoc tribunals. The next tribunal we refer to is the military tribunals. The military tribunal was established after what was referred to as the Pango Mutiny. Would that be correct?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: That's correct.

MR VALLY: How was this tribunal constituted?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: That seems to be in the confidential document about the tribunals. If we can just look through that. Chairperson, may I ask Mr Vally, in the confidential documentation the names don't appear.

MR VALLY: I see a document here which talks about the military tribunals, tribunals' composition. I will just read the positions
"The Chairperson representing the HQ, representing the region, representing the region, representing the recording department, representing the commissariat."
Is that the document? The names are there.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: To trace the document in the file that I have just been handed - could you read out the names?

MR VALLY: I do have the names, but it is your confidential document. I don't know.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Oh, I see. Could somebody just give me sight of that document so that I could quickly find it on this file.

MR VALLY: Well, let me pose my question there, were there any legal people on this tribunal? Once you see which document it is.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: No, Sir, there were no persons with legal training on that tribunal of '84.

MR VALLY: Were they all military personnel?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Revolutionary Council, they would have all have undergone military training, but they were deployed in different tasks. For example, the very first name was at that time chief representative in one of the neighbouring countries.

MR VALLY: How was (microphone switched off ...) weighed up in this tribunal? What was the burden of proof required?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: In 1984, Mr Chairperson, was the mutiny. This was the tribunal established around the mutiny. And therefore the evidence would have related to witnesses of what had happened during the mutiny. I think that our main submission, if I may just look at page 22, then talks of the number of witnesses that were called before the tribunal. There are 66 people who testified before the tribunal.

MR VALLY: Sorry, which page are you looking at?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Page 21 of the further main submission that we have made today. Immediately after the paragraph where it says -
"The military tribunal was appointed."
The next paragraph says
"66 people testified, of these the tribunal recommended that 16 mutineers should receive the death penalty, while others were either recommended for demobilisation or acquitted and referred to the camp disciplinary committee to face lesser charges."

MR VALLY: Was the evidence required on a balance of probability beyond reasonable doubt or some other test?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Sir, I wasn't present at the tribunal, but as a member of the Revolutionary Council we would have required beyond reasonable doubt.

MR VALLY: Were any of these people allowed legal defence?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: I don't recall at that stage that we had reached the point where we began to provide legal defence. I think that legal defence then became, we began to provide for that shortly thereafter.

MR VALLY: How was the severity of punishment decided? Who decided and on what basis was the decision made who lived and who didn't?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: That, the question of the punishment, the sentence, was at the discretion of the tribunal members, based on the nature of the offence and their level of involvement in the mutiny.