Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-04-13

UNKNOWN: Are you going to respond to the issue of the order? - of the handing over of the keys and of the firearms.

MR NHLAPO: Would you please explain, I don't understand.

UNKNOWN: You see, Mr Nhlapo, I've got a witness who is going to come and testify that he was there when this incident happened and the other guy you were with never ordered that they should hand over the firearms.  There was nothing said about the firearms, all he said was that they must hand over the keys, what is your response to that?

MR NHLAPO: I heard him when I asked for a firearm from this person and I heard him referring to the keys as well.

UNKNOWN: Can you please explain why did you shoot the deceased.

MR NHLAPO: The deceased was shot.  When I noted that he was reaching for his firearm I saw myself as being in danger and then I fired a shot.

UNKNOWN: Why didn't you run away when you saw him making a sign?

MR NHLAPO: I realised that I was already in danger, fleeing would not have made a difference.

UNKNOWN: It's also my instructions, Mr Nhlapo, that you shot at the deceased because the guy you were with  who was inside the car told you that they are refusing to give him the car keys, as a result you must shoot him.  What is your response to that?

MR NHLAPO: He did not say they did not want to give me the car keys, he said this person is fighting and "shoot".

UNKNOWN: So now is it your evidence that you shot him because the other guy told you that he's fighting, so you must shoot, or the reason is that because he was making a sign as if he wants to shoot you?  Which one is the right reason, the correct reason for you to shoot him?

MR NHLAPO: Both, because I also noticed that he was reaching out for his firearm and my colleagues, my companion also indicated that this person was fighting and I was aware of that as well.

UNKNOWN: Can you explain why you didn't say this in your affidavit, the fact that the friend told you to shoot because he was resisting?

MR NHLAPO: Yes, I can see it doesn't appear in the affidavit.  This question never arose.

UNKNOWN: Was it necessary to shoot the deceased?

MR NHLAPO: Yes, it was necessary for me to shoot him.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR NHLAPO: Because I could see he was fighting and my friend also ordered that I should shoot.

UNKNOWN: Where did you shoot him, whereabouts in his body did you shoot him?

MR NHLAPO: In the stomach.

UNKNOWN: Mr Nhlapo, I've been instructed to also ask you that in your evidence earlier on you said that even though this was a private police car you thought that there were policemen inside because you saw a police microphone, do you remember that?

MR NHLAPO: Yes, I do recall that.

UNKNOWN: My instructions are to ask you how, where was the microphone situated?

MR NHLAPO: It was hanging on the side of the window, inside.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chair, can I be allowed to clarify this point with one of the victims please?

UNKNOWN: The microphone, where was it hanging?

CHAIRPERSON: He said it was hanging on the side of the window.

UNKNOWN: On the side of the window.  It's my instructions that it was under the dashboard and further  - just hang on ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Let's hear what he's got to say to that, that is was under the dashboard.

UNKNOWN: Oh, okay, okay.

ADV SIGODI: What do you say to that Mr Nhlapo?

MR NHLAPO: ...(no English interpretation)

UNKNOWN: Which window are you talking about, are you talking about the windscreen or the side window?

MR NHLAPO: I'm talking about the windscreen.  This was sitting on the windscreen, or hanging against the windscreen.

UNKNOWN: And where were you coming from?

MR NHLAPO: I was coming from the side of the door.

UNKNOWN: From the side.  From the front or from the back, going towards the front?

MR NHLAPO: On the side, I was coming from the side.

UNKNOWN: No, what I'm asking is, from which direction were you, were you coming from the direction of the back of the car or were you coming from the direction of the front of the car when you saw this mike?

MR NHLAPO: I was coming towards the door on the side of the vehicle, that is when I noticed this microphone.  I was on the side of the vehicle near the door.

UNKNOWN: Well Mr Nhlapo, it's my instructions that there is no way you could have seen the microphone because it was under the dashboard, and further, this was a Hi-Ace, which is very, very high, you couldn't have seen this from walking on the side of the car.  What is your response to that?

MR NHLAPO: No, this was visible.  Yes, the radio is usually placed inside the dashboard, but you could see the microphone hanging.

UNKNOWN: So by killing the deceased, how were you going to achieve your political objectives?

MR NHLAPO: The intention was not to kill the deceased, it was only by mistake that the deceased was killed.  We wanted to get hold of his firearm.  It was a mistake that he got shot.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you think was going to happen if you point a firearm at him and you discharge it?  What did you think was going to happen?

MR NHLAPO: I just wanted to scare him off, but it so happened that he got shot by mistake.  It was not my intention to shoot him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

UNKNOWN: And then when you had shot him, did you manage to take the firearm, which was your intention in the first place to take?

MR NHLAPO: No, we were not able to get hold of it.

UNKNOWN: Why?  You had come for the firearm, so why didn't you take it?

MR NHLAPO: Yes, we had come for the firearm.  When this gunshot went off, it drew the attention of many people and we started running away after the person was shot and we therefore couldn't take the firearm.

UNKNOWN: So what would be your political justification for having killed the deceased?

MR NHLAPO: We wanted a firearm from this person so that we could use it where we resided, use it against the people at the hostel.

UNKNOWN: It's also my instructions, Mr Nhlapo, that finally, there was no political motive for your actions that day because you wanted to hijack the car, you never ordered the firearm, you ordered the car keys, or your friend ordered the car keys and not the firearms.  What is your response to that?

MR NHLAPO: No, the intention was not hijack the car, we just wanted the firearm.  We did not have an intention of hijacking the vehicle.

MR MILLER: Sorry, Chairperson, can I just point out that the witness was in fact acquitted on the count of hijacking the car.  In court he was found guilty only of robbing the keys and not the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: And so?

MR MILLER: Well I'm just pointing that out, that that is what he was convicted of and that therefore it would seem that my learned friend's submission that he was intending to hijack the car has got no basis to it.

CHAIRPERSON: Does it follow?  Why can't he be confronted with the proposition?  We don't know why he was acquitted, maybe for lack of evidence, something that she may know now.

MR MILLER: Well maybe she knows something.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.  Would you like me to repeat the question for you, Mr Nhlapo?

MR NHLAPO: Yes, please.

UNKNOWN: My instructions are that your motive that day was not political because your friend did not request the firearms that day, but he requested the car keys and therefore your motive was criminal, namely to hijack the car.  What is your response to that?

MR NHLAPO: I dispute the argument that we wanted to hijack the car, but yes, I agree we wanted to rob the person of his firearm, it was not our intention to rob them of the vehicle.  I must indicate that maybe the friend wanted the keys so that they should not be able to come after us after having robbed them of the firearm.

UNKNOWN: Did you take the car keys?

MR NHLAPO: I wouldn't know because after the gun went off we ran away and each one of us fled to different directions.

UNKNOWN: Did you personally take the car keys?