bitter-aloe/trc-testimonies huggingface dataset:
Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 2000-10-09

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.  I don't want to decide anything now.  I want to give you an opportunity so that we know what your client's situation is and you're quite sure that he is as keen as we are to dispose of the matter and I'm quite sure it must be possible to find some way of dealing with it whilst we are here.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, will you excuse me for a couple of minutes?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Mr Rossouw, can you just indicate to us Mr Fourie's position, where he's employed, what does he do there?

MR ROSSOUW: Can I come back to you when I've taken instruction?  I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: And won't you also just ascertain what his role is in the audit that is being done?  We'll appreciate that.

MR ROSSOUW: I'll do that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll stand the matter down briefly, just to allow you an opportunity and as soon as you're ready, indicate to us and I'll give you an opportunity to deal with that.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, Ms Coleridge, which is the first of the matters that are ready for hearing?

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, we call on the applicant Mr Flores.
Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 2000-10-09

MR ROSSOUW: Right.  Mr Flores then, I don't know if you will be able to explain this, Mr Mosiane will testify that he went with another Askari to the church and they were taken there by black security policemen from the Witbank Branch and he will testify that when they got to the Church or the Church hall, a black plastic container, containing petrol was taken out and that was actually used to spread inside on the furniture and it was then set alight, which differs from the Russian Cocktails, as you've mentioned.  Could it be that another means was provided for the arson?

LEON WILLIAM JOHN FLORES: That is possible, as I wasn't with them entering the building, so it is possible, Mr Chairperson, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Mosiane will say that he definitely didn't throw a petrol bomb, as you've described.

LEON WILLIAM JOHN FLORES: It is possible, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And is it also correct that after the incident Mr Mosiane reported back to you?

LEON WILLIAM JOHN FLORES: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rossouw.  Has the Panel got any other questions before Mr Cornelius re-examines?

ADV SANDI: No questions from me thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Cornelius, re-examination?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair, I've got no re-examination.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Flores, you're excused.  Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chair, I've got no further witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case for the applicant?

MR CORNELIUS: That is the case for the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Ms Coleridge are you presenting any evidence in this application?

MS COLERIDGE: No thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, have you got any submissions on the merits of this?

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I don't know, but Mr Mosiane must still testify in relation to this incident.  Mr Mosiane must still give evidence in relation to the Witbank incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he the only other one?

MS COLERIDGE: He's the only other applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.  Yes, well, very well.  Let's then take his testimony.  Is he just testifying on the attack on the Church?

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, there's also an attack in Nelspruit that he's also applied for amnesty for, an arson attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he applying on this and some other incident?

MS COLERIDGE: That's right, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Well very well, perhaps we should proceed and hear both, it's probably expedient to also deal with his case in regard to the church matter before we hear you Mr Cornelius.  Very well.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  I then call Mr Mosiane.   He's prepared to give testimony in English, but his mother tongue is Tswana.  He'll testify in Tswana, I believe, Mr Chairman.
Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1997-06-11

CHAIRPERSON: For the record, we have now concluded evidence in respect of the applications of the Nkuna brothers.  We are now commencing a new application, that is the application of Mr D.M. Skosana, application number 3387/96.
	The Committee is constituted as it was in the previous applications and counsel and Attorneys should place themselves on record.  Mr Black?

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, in this matter of Mr Skosana, it is application number 3387/96, the facts are closely interlinked with the previous two applications.  The victims referred to in the previous two applications remain the same, they are also aware that this hearing is taking place and have been notified.  All interested parties have been notified and Mr Skosana, the applicant, is legally represented by Mr Mojapelo.  The implicated parties are essentially the two previous applicants and they are present and represented by Adv Tee.
	I submit that we are ready to continue.

CHAIRPERSON: And of course Adv Patel is still representing the victims?  Am I right Mr Patel?

ADV PATEL: Yes, Mr Chairman, you are right.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tee, of course is representing the implicated persons, this time now it is the two previous applicants.  Mr Mojapelo.

ADV MOJAPELO: Thank you Mr Chairman and Honourable members of the Committee.   Mr Chairman, I do confirm that I appear on behalf of the applicant, Mr Derick Skosana.  During the previous two applications, there were references to the possibility of him being called as a witness.  He has asked me to place on record that he is here today to present his own application, he is not coming in opposition for the application of the previous two applicants, or indeed in support thereof.  He is presenting his own application and his role here is to tell the truth from his own perspective.
	He has asked me to convey that before we start.  And if you are ready to start Mr Chairman, with your permission, may I then call upon Mr Skosana to testify?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let's just swear him in.
DERICK (INDISTINCT) SKOSANA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may sit down.  Mr Mojapelo, you have prepared an affidavit, it hasn't been signed actually, has it?

ADV MOJAPELO: It has not been signed Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, we will ask him whether he confirms the truth thereof, but are you wanting to cause him to read it into the record?

ADV MOJAPELO: That is correct Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed to do that.
Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1997-06-11

ADV MOJAPELO: I will appreciate that.

CHAIRPERSON: And then if we happen to hear oral evidence on Friday, he will tell you tomorrow afternoon that we would like to hear argument on Friday, if that turns out to be the case.  So we will adjourn until half past nine tomorrow morning.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1997-06-12

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Very well then.  People might have been referring to different gates.  Well then finally settled at 32 metres.  Right.  Thank you Mr Tee.
ADV TEE ADDRESSES COMMITTEE ON MERITS OF APPLICATION

ADV TEE: Mr Chair, members of the Committee in this argument for the granting of amnesty to the two applicants that I am representing I have divided the argument into seven main points.  The first point will relate to the acceptance by this Committee of the version put forward by the applicants, in particular Joe Nkuna.  The second will relate to my submissions concerning the effect of accepting that argument.  The third relates to the commonality of versions between all the three applicants that this Committee has heard.  The fourth argument relates to the fact that there is no opposition to the grant of amnesty.  The fifth argument relates to the fact that there has been a full disclosure of the relevant facts.  The sixth argument relates to the background and the context in which these events occurred and the last argument relates to the evidence of Mr Shabangu himself as stated by the Magistrate. 	With regard to the first point concerning Joe Nkuna's version ...

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: (Indistinct).
Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1997-06-12

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Well, you can do both.  You can submit your argument right now even before they file theirs and then of course give them copies and then they will be able to, in their replies, oppose or deal with your argument and then you can also file a further, you can replicate.

ADV TEE: Then for today Mr Chair and the Committee members, that is the application.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Maybe we should put everybody on terms.  As you know we, the Committee does not have, I mean we must finish our business by the end of the year and we have got a lot more applications waiting for us so, Mr Shwakane, we would prefer that we should receive your written argument by the latest within the next, would you see to it that you file your written argument by the 24th of this month which will be, it will be a Tuesday.

MR SHWAKANE: Can I fax it please?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: And a copy to, fax a copy to Mr Tee and to Mr Black and to Mr Patel as well.

MR SHWAKANE: Okay, as the Committee pleases.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Yes.  And then the week thereafter Mr Tee, that will be the 30th, would we, if you could just fax us your written argument.  Mr Shwakane, you fax your return argument to the attention of Mr Black.

MR SHWAKANE: As the Committee pleases.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: In our, at out office in Cape Town.  You do the same Mr.

ADV TEE: As the Committee pleases.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: And if you want to submit other written argument in advance of, you could do that sometime next week.

MR BLACK: Mr Chair, in the light of these submissions, written argument if, one could just also place a record a request for the transcription of the record be dealt with as a matter of priority.  We sometimes have delays in having the record transcribed in the Cape Town office and perhaps both Mr Tee and Mr Mojapelo would like copies of those records to assist them and speed up the submissions.  I would, I am just asking for a ...

ADV DE JAGER: You accept the responsibility, well we are asked, place it on record that we consider it urgent and we want the transcriptions as soon as possible.

MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chair.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Well that concludes this session.  We will now adjourn.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Palm Ridge — 1998-11-24

DUMA MOSES NKOSI: The third and the fourth annexure, we are trying there to put the names according to the municipality and according to the way we used to work in attempt of contacting each other.
	You will find that some names like Everest is now Kathrada.  Penduka area you will show it as Thambo, Slovo and Mandela.  That place or area is known as Penduka and then you go to Extension 2.  This is Penduka area, the one I'm pointing at, Slovo right to Mandela and the Dan Klume is Extension 2.  This Sylvester Ngwangwa is Extension 5, but we have new names to show the correspondence of the old and the new names so that you know that the old names are now currently known as what.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Nkosi.
Amnesty Hearings — Palm Ridge — 1998-11-24

ADV SANDI: I'm sorry Mr Nkosi, can you repeat the name, did you say it's Molefe Selepi?

DUMA MOSES NKOSI: Yes, it's Molefe Michael Selepi.  I think Michael is his other name.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, if I may interrupt there on Mr Selepi?  I'm informed that Mr Selepi is currently serving sentence in Glendillen, the investigation in that application is complete.  I've asked for the investigation to be brought here tomorrow and the application, if you can consider it and with your permission we'll probably try and enrol it during this hearing as well.
Amnesty Hearings — Palm Ridge — 1998-11-24

ADV SANDI: I'm sorry Mr Nkosi, I think in one of the documents contained in one of the bundles we have in front of us, something was said to the effect that people would have to pay the police and soldiers to have their properties removed from their houses, do you know anything about that?
Amnesty Hearings — Palm Ridge — 1998-11-25

MR MOPEDI: The next applicant will be Thulani Richard Mbatha, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Just identify the next person again please.

MR MOPEDI: The next person will be Thulani Richard Mbatha, Mr Chairman.

ADV STEENKAMP: Page 61 of the same bundle, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbatha, won't you stand please and give us your full names.

THULANI RICHARD MBATHA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mopedi?

MR MOPEDI: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Mbatha, you are the applicant in this matter and you are also applying for amnesty, is that correct?

THULANI RICHARD MBATHA: Yes, that's true.

MR MOPEDI: Were you also a member of the Self Defence Unit in Lusaka-A?

THULANI RICHARD MBATHA: Yes.

MR MOPEDI: If I may ask you, when did you join?

THULANI RICHARD MBATHA: I would say early 1993.

MR MOPEDI: You joined early 1993.  How old were you in 1993?

THULANI RICHARD MBATHA: If I'm not mistaken I was 12 or 13.

MR MOPEDI: You were 12 or 13?

THULANI RICHARD MBATHA: I was 12.

MR MOPEDI: Could you explain with reference to specific incidents what you did as a member of the Self Defence Unit?

THULANI RICHARD MBATHA: My duty as an SDU member was to clean the weapons or the firearms and we would - I was a pathfinder, we would pave a way for my colleagues prior to any attack.  And there is no incident that I took part in.

MR MOPEDI: So in other words if I understand you correctly, you confirm what the last applicant, Simphiwe Godfrey told this forum?

THULANI RICHARD MBATHA: Yes, I concur with what he has said.

MR MOPEDI: So you have the same duties as Simphiwe Godfrey Ndlovu?

THULANI RICHARD MBATHA: Yes, that's true.

MR MOPEDI: So you are now applying for amnesty?

THULANI RICHARD MBATHA: Yes.

MR MOPEDI: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mopedi.  Advocate Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose no re-examination?

MR MOPEDI: No re-examination, Mr Chairman, thank you.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MOPEDI
WITNESS EXCUSED
Amnesty Hearings — Palm Ridge — 1998-11-25

MR MOPEDI: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  The next applicant is Aubrey Matlema Maile.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, his application appears on page 281 of the same bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Which page number?

ADV STEENKAMP: 281, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Please stand and give us your full names.

AUBREY MATLEMA MAILE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mopedi?

MR MOPEDI: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Maile, you are also an applicant in this matter and do you also confirm that you were a member of the Self Defence Unit for the area Lusaka-A?

AUBREY MATLEMA MAILE: That is correct.

MR MOPEDI: How old were you - before I come to that question, when did you join as a member of the Self Defence Unit?

AUBREY MATLEMA MAILE: It was early 1993.

MR MOPEDI: Were you forced to join?

AUBREY MATLEMA MAILE: No.

MR MOPEDI: What were your duties?

AUBREY MATLEMA MAILE: My duties were to clean the firearms, store them.  I used to keep some of these firearms at my parents' home.  And also to work a way finder was those colleagues that would come and launch an attack.  Those were my duties.

MR MOPEDI: Alright, in short you confirm what Simphiwe Godfrey Ndlovu has told this hearing?

AUBREY MATLEMA MAILE: That is correct.

MR MOPEDI: Is there anything that you would like to add on what you have told us?

AUBREY MATLEMA MAILE: Yes.

MR MOPEDI: You may proceed.

AUBREY MATLEMA MAILE: There is one incident that has been mentioned by Simphiwe Ndlovu in which a taxi was attacked at the hostel gate.  I was present.  I am the one who went in front before him, to make sure that there were no police and I came back to give him the information to the effect that it was safe, we could then go.  And then yes, we did go there.  I think it was on the third circle at a street that is facing the hostel.
	When we arrived there myself and Thulani had to make sure that we look out for the police and they were facing a direction towards the hostel.  It was not long before we had arrived there, not more than five minutes.  As we were looking around we heard gunshots after which Simphiwe and Sipho appeared fleeing.
	As our duty to look out for the police, we continued doing that until we returned to our placed.  That is the one role in which I partook.

MR MOPEDI: So on that day, did you make use of any firearm?

AUBREY MATLEMA MAILE: I did not carry a firearm but Simphiwe and Sipho used to carry firearms.

MR MOPEDI: Thank you, Mr Chairman,  no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mopedi.  Advocate Steenkamp?

AUBREY MATLEMA MAILE: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: I assume there would be no re-examination?

MR MOPEDI: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no re-examination.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused, thank you very much.
WITNESS EXCUSED
Amnesty Hearings — Palm Ridge — 1998-11-25

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mhambi, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
Amnesty Hearings — Palm Ridge — 1998-11-25

MICHAEL FENI: I was not an elected member but I had to attend their meetings and to guard them if they were attacked by the IFP, so that I could take part at that time.

MR SIBEKO: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Thank you, Mr Feni, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: What is next?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, with your permission, that will be the roll for the day.  There will be more applicants tomorrow, but my learned colleagues have informed me that they need to not only consult but also need to do some preparation for tomorrow.  And with your permission, Mr Chairman, this will be the roll for today.  Thank you, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Well I think we have covered quite a bit of ground.  We are going to adjourn the proceedings at this stage, until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.  We will reconvene at nine.  We are adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Palm Ridge — 1998-11-30

THULANI MAHLANGU: He was carrying his baby.  We were close to each other and talking, and he was carrying the baby, carrying him in his breast.  He took the firearm, looked at hit and he gave it back to me but the barrel was pointing towards the baby.  I was not aware that it was on fire and I just took the firearm and in that process a shot went off and the baby died.

ADV SANDI: Okay, thank you.  Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Leah?

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, Chair.
	I just want to ask about the gangs.  You've talked about the Bag Boys gang and the Khumalo gang.  We've heard evidence from the other SDU members about these gangs, evidence similar to what you have said to us today.
	Can you just explain one thing to me though, I'm not sure if you are talking of a number of incidents in 1993/1994, where you would be patrolling and be meeting these gangs or if you are talking of one or two specific incidents.  That's the only thing I need clarity on.

THULANI MAHLANGU: Insofar as the gangs are concerned, is that at the time of this violence the gangs would use the opportunity to benefit themselves, they would steal cars etc., and they would do all of these things under our noses.
	For example, it so happened in one year on a New Year's Eve, people got shot as firecrackers were being fired and we suggested to the community that children should not be allowed to use firecrackers, and at the same time these people were using their  firearms.  	
	We saw them fleeing after shots were fired which we had mistaken for firecrackers.  Therefore we had to patrol the area and make sure that they did not continue doing the same thing.

ADV GCABASHE: But just for a little more clarity.  You are saying this happened a lot of times, essentially.  Through 1993/1994 you'd have patrols, you'd meet gangs.  So you could say 10 times, 20 times you did this, confiscated firearms from gangs, would that be correct?

THULANI MAHLANGU: What I am saying here is that after this incident where we woke up to dead people, we decided that we should maintain the patrol, and on our patrolling we would come across people having firearms in their possession and we would confiscate these and take the firearms to the community.  Therefore the patrolling duties were something continuous.  Sometimes we'd patrol for six months and come back home with nothing.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Re-examination, Mr Mopedi?
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MOPEDI

MR MOPEDI: No re-examination, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Mahlangu, thank you, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1997-07-28

MDUDUZI M GUMBI: We couldn't know because when they attacked we couldn't go and identify as to where they come from because when they attack they just come from nowhere and start attacking and we couldn't identify them in that particular time.  It was going to be difficult for anyone to identify them.

ADV POTGIETER: So did you then decide as a group you will attack a particular area which was an ANC stronghold, whether the earlier attackers came from there or not?

MDUDUZI M GUMBI: We didn't know exactly who attacked us but we knew that they were ANC members involved and where we knew there were ANC members we had to enter that particular place and attack them.  There were so many people whom we didn't attack, we couldn't attack those families because there was no clear sign as to whether there were people inside or not.

ADV POTGIETER: No but before you launched the attack did you, you said that you had a meeting, you had a discussion, that you decided during that discussion that you will attack this particular area?

MDUDUZI M GUMBI: Yes we came with a view that we have to fight back or pay revenge, to employ whatever way possible to pay revenge.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes and you decided to attack this particular area, is that correct?

MDUDUZI M GUMBI: Yes we agreed that we are going to attack that area.

ADV POTGIETER: And the only reason for that was because this particular area was an ANC stronghold?

MDUDUZI M GUMBI: Well it's not necessarily because it was an ANC area, it was because the people who attacked us stayed in that particular place and we were fighting against them.  We couldn't just go and attack them because they were ANC because they have a right to be ANC members.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.
NO FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DE KLERK

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: With the permission of the Chairman, just one question Mr Chairman, just one.  As a follow-up from what the Committee has asked you and you said you did not attack because the ANC people stayed there, you were attacking the people who had attacked you, do you remember that?

MDUDUZI M GUMBI: We were attacking people from that particular area, people who were also attacking us which people were ANC members.  We didn't attack them because we are angry because it was an ANC area.  We didn't attack because we hated the fact that they were ANC in that particular area.  It is because we were fighting - it confuses me as to how to explain this.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Alright, perhaps I may help you.  In your attack were you attacking, was your attack directed at the ANC or directed at ordinary attackers?

MDUDUZI M GUMBI: We couldn't directly attack those who attacked us because we didn't know, however we knew that they belonged to a particular political organisation, that is the ANC.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Mpshe I think that has been covered quite extensively by him, you can take it no further.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I stand corrected.  Thank you very much.  No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE
WITNESS EXCUSED
Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1998-02-10

WALTER FALIBONGA TANDA: I wasn't involved, I only got instructions.  It was the High Commander and the PAC leadership which had powers to do that.
	To add, the reason is that the army is not similar, the PAC or any other organisation where there is democracy.  There is limited democracy in an army situation.

NORMAN ARENDSE: ... for example, we see on and I am referring Mr Chairman, to page 83 of the record, where Sevello Parmer proclaims 1994 to be the year of the bullet and the ballot.
	That would be a policy direction or a  particular course of action that APLA is going to take say in 1994.  How would that be communicated to you, how would you know that this is the direction the organisation is taking?

WALTER FALIBONGA TANDA: I was going to be given an instruction.  But the instructor was going to say what I had to do.  Sometimes there is a need for them to address us as a Unit, so they will come to our Unit and address us on any changes that might have occurred.
	I wasn't part of that unit, however comrade Sevello Parmer was the one as a General in APLA.

NORMAN ARENDSE: So for example, if the APLA High Command Sevello Parmer and other would have decided that during 1993 and 1994 we are going to paraphrase, to take the attacks to the whites in the urban areas, if they had made that their goal for 1993 and 1994, would you have had anything to do with that?

WALTER FALIBONGA TANDA: What was going to happen was that I as a soldier, I was supposed to accept such outcome or instructions and to do as I was instructed.  I couldn't refuse or not agree.

NORMAN ARENDSE: So in other words if you get an order like in this case, you got an order from Power, Mzala, Jones which would give effect to that policy direction, you carry out that order?

WALTER FALIBONGA TANDA: That is correct.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Would you agree with me that this is also part of military strategy for example in the 1960's and 1970's, the former government,they would have decided to suppress political opposition within the country, but then later on, in the late 1970's and in the 1980's they would decide also to move across the border and actually pursue people involved in the liberation struggle.
	Would it be akin, would it be something like that where the military command, the High Command changed strategy and changed policy direction?

WALTER FALIBONGA TANDA: Yes.  But a soldier doesn't have an influence as to the policy direction.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We are trying to think aloud as to whether it would be convenient for everybody if we had to start at nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, yes most certainly.  From our side there is only one witness to be called, that is Mrs Swarts who doesn't really canvass the merits of the application, so she will be very short and I see it only remains for the third applicant to give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I assume that maybe you will argue thereafter?

MR PRIOR: Yes, I am sure we will be in a position to simply argue the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Then we will adjourn until tomorrow nine o'clock.  Thank you.
HEARING ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — UNKNOWN

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, just to comment on that.  I understand and I appreciate the Committee's difficulty I'd also appreciate it if this - I think it's for the first time that this kind of explanation which sounds to me like a rational explanation is given in public.  I would appreciate it if the organisations involved and the applicants could be told perhaps in writing that this is the reason why there is such a delay.  Because I think there are some of them, and I think Mr Molefu for example, is one such person and Tanda, well Mr Molefu certainly, they've only got this one application before you.  Do they also have to wait?  Those kinds of things - or perhaps have a meeting to explain the situation but we know for example Coetzee I think, he had the one Xenge and he's - I'm not trying to exaggerate but like tens, hundreds of other applications.

CHAIRPERSON: And maybe he's going to ask all of us to recuse ourselves you know.  But we have noted your point but I just wanted you to understand also that there are many other factors involved, it's not such a simple matter but we've noted your point.  We will then reserve our judgment, thanks.

ADV PRIOR: Please rise.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — UNKNOWN

NO: ITEM	PAGE Ndeg
 1.	Opening addresses...............................................	1  -   19  
2.	BRIAN VICTOR MITCHELL
Questioned by Mr Naidoo................................	20  -   24  
Questioned by Mr du Toit................................	24  -   78  
Questioned by Mr Naidoo................................	78  -   79  
Questioned by Mr Brink..................................	79  -   81  
Questioned by the Chairman.............................	81  -   88  
Questioned by Mr Commissioner.......................	88  -   95  
Questioned by Mr de Jager..............................	96  -   98  
Questioned by Ms Commissioner.......................	99  -  104 
Questioned by Wilson J........................................	104  -  105
3.	Cases for Applicant and Respondent closed.................	105      
4.	Address by Mr du Toit..........................................	106  -  123 
5.	Address by Mr Naidoo..........................................	123  -  128 
6.	Address by Mr Brink............................................	128  -  129 
7.	Reply by Mr du Toit.............................................	129  -  130 
	---oOo---

CHAIRPERSON: We are met here to consider the application of ... (incomplete)
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

WILSON J: As the applicant and his legal advisers are aware I was the Judge who tried him and convicted him, and am now sitting as a member of the Committee to consider amnesty.  I don't know if there are any other interested parties who are now aware of the fact that that is the position.  In my view the issue to be decided now has no relationship to the question of the applicant's guilt or not.  That is a separate issue, and I have not felt it necessary to recuse myself, but I am quite prepared to hear what anyone may have to say on that issue, and I would invite you, Mr du Toit, to make known the applicant's attitude.

MR DU TOIT: Thank you, Mr Vice-Chairperson.  We have considered this matter and my client, as are we, is of a view that there is no doubt whatsoever that you will bring to bear on the facts placed before you an objective discretion, and we are quite happy that you should sit.  We are also of a view that your knowledge of what happened on that fateful evening will be of tremendous use to the other Committee Members, and we have therefore decided that not only do we not bring an application for you to recuse yourself, but we express confidence in your presence here.

WILSON J: Does anyone else wish to say anything in this connection?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, do you have any views on the matter?
Yes, we may now proceed.
MR BRINK
Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1997-07-30

MR WILLS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairperson, members of the committee.

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, something I want to say before you address us.  That we have, I have arranged to obtain the, sorry, no, no, it is in the other case.  No, sorry.  I am arranging, I hope, to obtain any plan that might have been handed in at the trial.  I think there is some reference to it.  My secretary is seeing it is, to give us a better understanding of the area, of the district and if we do find it, we will notify you, but I think you already know the district.  You have the advantage of knowing what it looks like which we do not and we thought we would like to know something about that, so.

MR WILLS: Yes, that is correct.  I have been to the actual Gengeshe Valley community.  However, the plan may, in so far as, I am not sure exactly where the incidents occurred.

JUDGE WILSON: It can, perhaps, that neither you nor I were quite sure of where it is.  So we are getting that plan, if we can.
MR WILLS ADDRESSES COMMITTEE ON MERITS OF CASE

MR WILLS: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, I submit that this amnesty application should be successful.  I submit that both applicants have made a full disclosure and, in addition to that, I submit that they have satisfied the committee that the act was committed with a political objective.  Turning to the actual political objective, I refer to the criteria that have been outlined in Section 23 of the Act, the motive, initially.  I submit the motive is quite clear.  Their motive was, as an organisation, to have the right to go back to their homes and whilst this was not expressed in so many words, I submit the inference, the only inference of the evidence is that, not only did they want to go back home, but they had the right to go back home and to have, to belong to the organisation of their choice and enjoy free political activity at the place of their birth.
	Referring specifically to the context, I submit that all the evidence amounts to the same, in that, this was not an attack, in the true sense of the word, and I refer, specifically, to Section 23(B).  My submission is that the context shows that this was, in fact, a reaction to a political event.  It is clear that the reason for the ANC part of the Gengeshe community having to leave was that they were not members of the IFP and, with respect, they were forced to flee.  This whole incident resulted as a reaction to that incident and, specifically, that was the incident referred to on the 12th of April some months before the incident.

JUDGE WILSON: I think what bears that out even more, there might be some uncertainty what caused the killing, is the evidence that after they had left, their property was all destroyed which was, I think, is a fair indication that there was an intention to eradicate them completely from the area.  It was not just a personal thing, it was that they wanted them, to drive them out.
Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1997-02-10

CHAIRPERSON: Before we commence with the proceedings this morning for the benefit of victims, dependents and relatives of victims, I would like to inform them that we have with us two representatives of the RNR Committee, namely Ms Sitanda Msomi and Nomsa Gumede.  They are here to render such assistance as they can to the relatives of people who were victims or their dependents.    You will find them in the hall if you need their assistance.
	Mr Brink, is Mr Jassat here?

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I haven't see him. I was looking for him to have a discussion with him, but I haven't seen him.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mrs Jama present?  Does she know whether her attorney is coming this morning?   Are we ready to proceed with Mr Madlala now?

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I saw yesterday that the application form of Mr Madlala had been distributed to you.  I assisted him in completing it yesterday afternoon during the lunch break and it contains all the basic information necessary.  Could I then please ask that Mr Madlala be sworn in.

MR MADLALA: s s

MR BANADE: Mr Madlala, is it correct that you are applying for amnesty in the case of the murder on Mr Jama in February 1991?

MR MADLALA: Yes, that is true.

MR BANADE: Could you please proceed to give us some of your
1A - 11.2	personal/...
MR BANADE	83	MR MADLALA
personal background details.  Firstly I would like to know from you on which date you were born?

MR MADLALA: I was born on the 4th June 1965.

MR BANADE: Where were you born?

MR MADLALA: I was born in Elandskroon.

MR BANADE: And how far did you get at school?

MR MADLALA: I passed my Std 8 in 1983.

MR BANADE: And what did you do after school, what kind of employment did you take up?

MR MADLALA: I was working for a certain construction company. We were building houses.

MR BANADE: During January 1988 you joined the Police Force.  Could you just inform us as to the circumstances at the time?
Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1997-07-29

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1997-07-28

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: What?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I by way of a suggestion, seeing that this matter is postponed to Thursday that because we've got a matter already on Thursday, that we start earlier than we would normally start on Thursday.  I'm worried if it means the Thursday one will have to encroach onto the Friday one but if we start an hour earlier ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well I don't know that we can expect everyone to start here at 8 o'clock essentially.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Half past 8, Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think ...(intervention) promptly and 9 o'clock because if you look at the Thursday one, it is one Applicant on one - this is where as I recollect it, is the one where he said he was acting as a bodyguard, wasn't it?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: There won't be a great deal or shouldn't be a great deal of dispute as to that, either it's there or it isn't but I think we start at 9 o'clock on Thursday and we will start with this one on Thursday.  This will start at 9.  We'll adjourn this matter now till 9 o'clock on Thursday morning, at the same place.  And that concludes today's sitting.  We will now adjourn till 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and we hope we will be ready to start the next matter.  I gather there may be some problems there.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1997-07-31

CHAIRPERSON: The first matter set down for hearing to-day was the adjourned matter of the application of Messrs Gumbi and Zuma.  The matter was adjourned for today, after Mrs Dlamini had given evidence.  The purpose of the adjournment was to enable the legal advisors of the Applicant and the evidence leader to check on various aspects of her evidence and to get her evidence transcribed.
	It gives me - I'm very sad to have to say that we have been told this morning that since the hearing on Monday, her child at this hearing - at this hall on Monday has died.  In those circumstances we feel it would be totally wrong for Mrs Dlamini to have to give evidence today and be subjected to cross-examination.  It would be both unfair to her and unfair to the cross-examiner who would obviously feel in those circumstances that he would have to treat the witness with kid-gloves and we have agreed that is, the members of the Committee, having discussed the matter with the various legal advisors appearing that the only proper course to follow, is to adjourn this matter to a date to be arranged.
	We would like to - is Mrs Dlamini still here?  We would like to express and I'm speaking now on behalf of all the members of the Committee, our deepest sympathy to Mrs Dlamini and trust that she will be comforted by those around her and attention...(inaudible) and perhaps the attention of friends and neighbours and we adjourn now to give her time to recover.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, members of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: I gather the next matter is not ready to proceed yet so we will adjourn again - if you'll notify us as soon as you're ready.
HEARING ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-07-02

CHAIRPERSON: Well, to cock their weapons that would indicate that they are preparing to shoot.

J P VAN DEN BERG: Yes, according to me that is the case.

CHAIRPERSON: There was an inquest in this case, wasn't there?

J P VAN DEN BERG: I assume that there was.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you make a statement?

J P VAN DEN BERG: I didn't make a statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you aware that what the picture which was presented to - which was presented to the inquest was that the police acted in self-defence?

J P VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you convey the information which Mr Sehlwana to the investigating officer?

J P VAN DEN BERG: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, wouldn't that have been, if Mr Sehlwana did tell you that, would that not have been important to the whole question of self-defence?  The fact that they told him that they must ready themselves up for a possible shooting.

J P VAN DEN BERG: That I did mention to Mr Coetsee. I assumed that the investigating officer would come to me to take a statement from me.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, were you surprised that he didn't?

J P VAN DEN BERG: I didn't pay much heed to that. It is only now at this hearing again that the matter came back to me.  The fact that there were no proper statements taken, as it came back to me now.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let me tell you that Mr Sehlwana also told us that he was not approached for a statement, for the purpose of an inquest.  This, according to your version, notwithstanding the fact that he had said that these people told him that they must cock their weapons and ready themselves up to shoot.

J P VAN DEN BERG: According to me that was the task of the investigating officer to take the necessary statements.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, for your part you did what you felt you should do. You passed on that information to your seniors or one of your seniors.  The information which Sehlwana told you.

J P VAN DEN BERG: Correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Shall we adjourn?
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

J P VAN DEN BERG: (Still under oath).

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

UNKNOWN: Yes, Mr Chairman, there is just one thing that I wish to clear up.  Mr Van den Berg, I omitted to ask you originally.  That which you did during, before and during this incident, did you do this - as you saw it - in the course and scope of your duty in terms of orders that you had to perform as a policeman?

J P VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: I have no further questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Van den Berg, you are excused.
Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-07-02

<UNKNOWN>: Description	Page number
Examination by Mr Visser 	1 - 21
Cross-examination by Mr Rossouw 	21 - 23
Cross-examination by Mr Black	23 - 37
Questions by Committee	23 - 42
Re-examination by Mr Visser	43 - 44
Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-07-03

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is where the amendments should come and we have in the past granted amendments asked for orally without any formalities.

ADV VISSER: Well, we would be very ...

CHAIRPERSON: To include any other you know, offences for which amnesty is being sought.  So you want to amend 9(a)(1)?

ADV VISSER: 9(a)(1) Mr Chairman, just by including I specifically apply for amnesty for any offence or delict as far as my participation and role as Branch Commander.

CHAIRPERSON: May I suggest something?

ADV VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Involvement and you know, don't delete that because it may cause him problems later.

ADV VISSER: Yes, no I don't want to delete anything, I am adding at the bottom.  I just want to add my involvement in the investigation for the inquest.  Those words or words to that effect is all that I am wishing to add.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just give us the words as you want them to be.

ADV VISSER: I specifically also apply for amnesty by virtue of my involvement in the investigation and preparation for the inquest file.
	It is probably not a fortunate choice of words, but I think it will convey what we want to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, will it be able to identify the nature of the crime?

ADV VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, for the same technical reasons, could we ask for the same amendment in the same paragraph on behalf of Erwee and Van Dyk and Swarts of course.
	Erwee being at page 4.

CHAIRPERSON: Just give us the names, we will find them later.

ADV VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman.  It is Erwee, Swarts and Van Dyk.  We are indebted to you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the amendments are granted.

ADV VISSER: May it please you Mr Chairman.
Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-07-02

ADV DE JAGER: I just want to make a couple of statements to you.  If at the inquest you had to reveal the true facts, you would have said, and please correct me if I am wrong.  You would have said we received information from the informant in Botswana, he is a colleague of ours, and he regularly or on occasion passes on information about freedom fighters wanting to cross the border.  You would have said that Bennett or Mr Sehlwana pretended falsely to be a taxi driver, but he is actually a security policeman, who would have revealed his identity and everybody would have known that he brought these people in under false pretences.  What would the effect of that have been on the intelligence gathering operations regarding people who were crossing the border or about the intelligence regarding people who entered the country to come and plant bombs in Checkers or whatever.

A J G ERWEE: Chairperson, firstly, talking about Botswana.  It would have started getting risky.  Risky in the sense that we knew that there were members and informers and that it could lead to arrests and charges of espionage, et cetera. If we had used Sehlwana's name, we would have endangered his life.  It wouldn't have been in our interests and it would have hampered future operations and intelligence networks, that is how I would respond to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Except that you need to be careful about that. I mean, you are an experienced policeman yourself. You must have testified in court many times.  In courts we don't have to say I got information from so-and-so, all you have to say is that I got, my informer gave me information and as a result of the information we went there to go and put up a road-block.  I mean, you didn't have to go into such details.  The Courts accept that, isn't it?

A J G ERWEE: I accept that, you are correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient stage to adjourn until tomorrow morning? I would have liked to have put one or two questions to you, Mr Erwee, but I think it is perhaps a convenient stage to break until tomorrow half past nine.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-07-02

<UNKNOWN>: Description	Page Number
Examination by Mr Visser	1 -41
Cross-examination by Mr Rossouw	41 -47
Cross-examination by Mr Black	47 - 61
Questions by Committee	61 - 68
Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-07-02

<UNKNOWN>: Description	Page
Examination by Mr Visser	1 - 6
Cross-examination by Mr Rossouw	6 - 7
Cross-examination by Mr Black	7 - 8
Re-examination by Mr Visser	8 - 9
Questions by Committee	9 - 10
Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-06-30

ADV VISSER: No, thank you, Mr Chairman.  My attorney has discovered something which may be helpful, and that is at page 19 of C in your bundle.  The reference there to photo number 13, is linked up to the sixth person. Now the only thing which I am not quite entirely sure about, is whether this number six corresponds with what the doctor numbered number 6, but we can try and establish that. You see, the doctor, Mr Chairman, numbered each of the bodies as body number one, body number two.  We are not certain whether that number (6) at page 19 corresponds what the doctor called number six, but we will try to establish that.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we then adjourn until tomorrow half past nine?  We adjourn until tomorrow half past nine.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS