Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but there's no suggestion that going to Blanko's place was just coincidental, there's no question of that, his evidence was that a decision was taken at the gathering at block C that they will round up all members of the SDU, disarm them and take them to KBA, which is where the community normally had meetings, and then they split into different groups, he was in the group that went to Blanko's place, and there we know Blanko was shot at, killed, his spaza set alight, an incident which was witnessed by Motlokwa, who reported the matter to Sonti, and then in turn to the SDU, which then led to the SDU saying, "Let's go and get them", referring to the Youth League, but all of this from Mr Likana, was sparked by the killing of Bulelwa.

MR MADASA: Yes, Mr Chair.   Mr Chair, I'm saying I disbelieve that Bulelwa's death was the cause for the attack at Blanko.   For this reason:  if it is true that Tusanang and the community had gathered because they've heard what had happened to Bulelwa, and then they planned to go and attack Blanko, I submit that, and that SDU must be rounded up and taken to KBA, I submit that their conduct subsequent to that so-called meeting doesn't support the fact that they met, because they did none of those things they had gathered there to do.

CHAIRPERSON: But precisely, because the SDU launched an offensive.   They had seen them, they had seen a group of them attacking Blanko's house, they fled, they went after them, they ran into the veld, they captured some and they brought them back.   So in a sense they were, his evidence suggests that, if he his to be believed, his evidence suggests that the Youth League failed in its mission because they were overpowered by the SDU.

MR MADASA: Yes, I hear you, Mr Chair.    Mr Chair, I'm saying, my submission on this is simply that, in view of the criticism I've labelled against him, he is to be disbelieved that they had a mission to round up these people.   I submit that their mission was to kill them, which is exactly what they did, because he says ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Why?   Why?

MR MADASA: Because they expected that the SDU was going to attack them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MADASA: They anticipated an attack for an unknown reason, but there was a rumour that the SDU was, as far as they were concerned, from their side, that the SDU was going to attack at any moment, and this is why ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it probable though ...(intervention).

MR MADASA: I think the attack was pre-empted ...(inter-vention).

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it probable that if they were waiting, if they were awaiting an attack, okay, and Bulelwa, who happened to be an ally, we are told, of the Youth League, although the SDU also claimed that she was their ally, isn't it probable that the killing of a close ally was seen by them as the evidence of the attack that the SDU was going to launch against them?

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, I disagree.   Bulelwa, from the evidence from the applicants, I think even from Nmphula's mother, or aunt, Bulelwa was a member of the community and civic, and she had no problem with any organisation, she was somebody who aligned herself with all these organisations.  Now what I, I don't know whether it borders on speculation, but from what I can gather from these events, if indeed Bulelwa was not an enemy of neither the SDU or ANC Youth League, then her killing can be explained in this way, that somebody who knew that Bulelwa's death would spark violence in either side, so it must be the person who wanted to instigate, to spark, to start violence, somebody wanted these two structures, somebody who knew that these two structures were at loggerheads, and the death of Bulelwa was designed to start the war which it started.   Now I'm saying that could not have been done by the ANC Youth League or nor by the SDU.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that's precisely the point.   The fact of the matter is, whether he was killed, the Youth League denies having killed Bulelwa, and so does the SDU, but the fact of the matter is, on a probability, is that the death of Bulelwa started the violence which led to the massacre.  It was at the beginning, it may well be that, as you submit, that there was someone who was aware of the growing conflict between the SDU and the ANC Youth League, and knew that the killing of Bulelwa might well provoke these two factions into an open war, which indeed it did, but what emerges, all I'm saying, all I'm trying to find out from you is that does it not emerge, from the evidence of Likana, that from the perspective at least of the Youth League, it was the killing of Bulelwa which provoked them into action, whereas from the perspective of the SDU, it was the killing of Blanko which provoked them into action, so that the killing of these two individuals led to the massacre, because as I understand the evidence of the applicants, all are saying the killing of Blanko, the killing of Blanko, and in fact the witnesses, they, Mr Motlokwa saw members of the Youth League and saw Mr Likana with an AK47 shooting at Blanko, so there's no question that they saw who killed Blanko, a member of the Youth League, but on the other hand, you had the Youth League members who suspected, there's no proof, they suspected that it is the SDU which was responsible, you know there was a rumour that Mr Motlokwa was responsible, but nothing turns on that, the fact of the matter is what you said, perception.    This seems to emerge from the evidence of Mr Likana as having provoked their action in killing Blanko.

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, what I could say about this is that from what emerges from the applicants' version, especially Sonti, is that he was with Bulelwa five minutes before her death, and he seems to suggest that Bulelwa was seen by the youth as more aligned with them, and he added the fact that Bulelwa was his home girl, she was Xhosa, Bulelwa, and he was with her soon before her death, and his view was that, because they were seen together, Bulelwa was attacked.   What I'm saying, I submit that, from the Youth League's side, Bulelwa was also their target, from what the applicants are saying.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words what you are asking of this committee, you are asking us to reject everything Mr Likana has said?

MR MADASA: Well, I wouldn't say everything, Mr Chair, what I'm saying, his version in this regard, to the effect that their attack on the SDU was sparked by Bulelwa's death, I submit that it should be rejected.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, you've made your point.

ADV MOTATA: No, but before you leave the point, Mr Madasa, if we take the evidence thus far in its totality, it's that there has been mistrust between the two, that is the ANC Youth League and the SDU, and the evidence would suggest from the one hand that Bulelwa was an ally to the SDU, and that even though there's not much that turns on it, that she even opposed the formation of a new SDU in block F, but at the same time, as she was a leader within the community, she was also an ally of the ANC Youth League, that this mistrust, her death, either by ANC Youth League or SDU, was enough fuel that the two must now launch attack against each other.   Would that be a fair reflection of the evidence as regards Bulelwa?

MR MADASA: Let me put it this way, Mr Chair, Mr Chair my submission is that the committee should reject the view espoused by Tusanang that this death occurred purely as a result of a feud between these two organisations.   My submission is that, on the part of the applicants, this was not just a feud between the organisations, this was an ongoing matter which culminated in Blanko's - in their view, this was a continuation, Blanko's death was an indication of a process of eliminating the SDU so that these ANC Youth League can run amok, unopposed, in the township.  So ...(intervention).