Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-03-26

MR MALAN: What was your employment for and what did they pay you that salary for?  Sorry what did you understand they were thinking, the government was thinking when the government was paying you?

THULANI MZOKHONA MYEZA: There were slips to show how much we got whenever we went to Ulundi.

MR MALAN: Did you get a monthly slip with your salary?

THULANI MZOKHONA MYEZA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell us that - sorry, carry on.

MR MALAN: Just one question, was any tax deducted? Did they show deductions on your slips?

THULANI MZOKHONA MYEZA: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought I heard you say during your evidence that this money that you were getting from Ulundi stopped when a middle man disappeared or left. Can you clear that up first of all?   Who was the middle man and what do you mean by he disappeared or he left, what does that mean?

THULANI MZOKHONA MYEZA: I did not know the name of this middleman.  However, when all KwaZulu-Natal SPU members were called to Ulundi to get their monies, that was Friday, we went to camp at Emandleni.  The following Saturday, we went to the soccer field in E section in Ulundi, and we were told that this person had run away.  We barricaded the Parliament in protest of our salaries and demanded to talk to Mr Powell himself.  He came and told us that that person had run away.  He left Ulundi.  I did not know his name.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Myeza was this man, the middle man white or black?

THULANI MZOKHONA MYEZA: He was black.

MR MALAN: Mr Myeza, when were you arrested?

THULANI MZOKHONA MYEZA: I was arrested in 1995.  These people no longer wanted to see me.

MR MALAN: But in 1995 you were still paid when you were carrying out some of these orders as you told us in your evidence?

THULANI MZOKHONA MYEZA: It was in 1995 when the payments stopped.  I was then arrested when I came back from Ulundi.

MR MALAN: Was it not because you were arrested that you couldn't go and collect your money?

THULANI MZOKHONA MYEZA: I cannot say, but we had a stay-away the last time I went to Ulundi.

CHAIRPERSON: So it wasn't just your money, all the others who were with you also didn't get their money?

THULANI MZOKHONA MYEZA: Yes.  All of us did not get our money.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much. You are excused. You can move off from there.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Are you thinking of calling any other witness?

MR ALBERTS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: I am not calling witnesses Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Is there anything you wish to say to us in argument?

UNKNOWN: Firstly the one incident where the evidence was that it happened in 1995.  In the statement given by the applicant he mentioned before the election 1994.  I would ask the Commission not to make a finding on that, whether it fell within or without the cut-off date before all the information was gathered by Mr Brink.  There were some inconsistencies in his evidence especially where dates and times etc., was not, could not be remembered but it is my submission it happened some time ago, at least four years, five years ago and it is a number of incidents and where he could not remember or he could not give exact details or where it seems he might have contradicted himself it might well have been as a result of the long time period and the number of incidents in which he was in fact involved, that some of the details got confused.
	It is my submission that the actions that he did perpetrate was according to his evidence for political motives.  He was instructed by this Nyawuza to commit certain acts on behalf of Nyawuza for Nyawuza's political gain and then to assist the IFP in winning the elections.  Also the evidence he gave later on regarding the SPU's etc, he had a bona fide belief that what was done was for the political gain of the IFP.
	It is my submission he did tell the truth, although sometimes he was not all that really clear as I have already stated.  He might well not remember everything as clearly because he is not a well-educated man it seems from the fact that he is not able to read English, his thumb print was annexed to his affidavit, etc.  Therefore I have requested the Commission to make a finding that he was truthful in what he did say to the Commission. 
	The one aspect that might cause a problem  is Section 23 (f) 1.  It is my submission that he was a member of the IFP even before he joined the SPU.  He did say that the only reason for his actions was to get employment and for the money. I don't know whether one can take this into Section 22(b) or (c), I'm sorry, (c) or (d) as being employed to do this. I will leave that in the hands of  ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR ALBERTS: No, Section 23(f) deals with a personal gain.  Section 22(c) and (d) deals with a person that is employed by somebody committing certain acts on behalf of that party or government.   We do not know where the funding came from.  I will leave that aspect in the hands of the Commission.
	It is my submission that his amnesty should be considered.  Is there anything else that the Commission would like to hear me on?

CHAIRPERSON: It is quite clear that it can't be said that he acted on behalf of the KZN government?

MR ALBERTS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And nor can it be said that he was acting on the instructions of the Inkatha Freedom Party?

MR ALBERTS: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So he was carrying out the wishes of a man called Nyawuza?

MR ALBERTS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Mr Brink?

UNKNOWN: Very briefly Mr Chairman, as far as the application relating to Ntuli is concerned and that is the one where in his sworn statement he indicated that that took place before the elections of 1994.  He made it quite clear that this murder was committed after he had been released from prison in July 1994 which clearly puts it beyond the cut-off date. While it is perfectly true that the man's memory was to some extent unreliable, likewise his sworn affidavit was unreliable so you can't place any value on what he said in that statement relating to when Ntuli's murder took place.
	The second point I wish to make is that he clearly was, as Mr Chairman has pointed out, not acting on behalf of the IFP as a political party or indeed on behalf of the KwaZulu government at that time.   It appears that he comes close to the personal gain matter which is referred to in Section 20 subsection (1). (a) I: Personal gain.  His evidence was that he would not have committed any of these offences had he not been made an offer of employment and of gainful employment that is.  
	My submission Mr Chairman, that can well be interpreted as having done these things for personal gain, promise of a job in the then KwaZulu Police. Those are my submissions.

MR MALAN: Mr Alberts, this question really is to Mr Brink too, on the evidence he was indeed employed, he was paid at Ulundi at the government offices on a monthly basis, quite a sizeable salary of R2 800 a month.  Why should that not be construed as employment by the government?

MR BRINK: Well it may have been some kind of slush fund payment Mr Chairman.  There is no evidence that this was KwaZulu government money.  He said he didn't pay tax or tax wasn't deducted.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) secret fund.  Yes, thank you very much.  The Committee will wait until we get clarity in respect of the attitude of the victims of those who were involved in the applications he made which are not referred to in his application form but which are referred to in his affidavit.  I trust in that counsel will sort out this among themselves before the necessary document is placed before us.  It might be in the form of an affidavit or affidavits from clients. You will show them to counsel ...(indistinct)