Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-08

CHAIRPERSON: I do not understand that kind of argument.  Why shouldn't it be important for us to be convinced that a victim belonged to a political organisation in order to have a nexus between his membership to a particular organisation and the objective which was sought to be achieved by an applicant?

MR MOHLABA: The objective which the applicant sought to achieve, Madam Chair, was to protect the community against attacks, and he has mentioned himself, that this attack was coming from the IFP, the attacks were coming also from, he mentioned criminal elements, gangsters.
	It is also common knowledge Madam Chairperson, that there was the so-called Third Force elements, which was also responsible for fermenting violence.  The mandate of the applicant and the Unit of the SDU's under which he was serving, was to protect the community.  It was not very clear to them that you protect the community against the attack, by a particular political organisation, or by a particular gangster, but it has become common knowledge that these political organisations, as well, were in fact responsible for that.
	I am arguing along that line Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I am no longer going to intervene in your argument, but I will draw your attention to ... (tape ends) ... the activities of the SDU's and the attacks that the SDU's directed against certain parties in particular.  I would find it strange if you were to continue to argue on the basis that the mandate of the SDU was wide, you just attack any person because they are mandate, in as much as the activities were wide and the mandate was very specific.
	They were to defend the community against attacks perceived to be coming from a certain political organisation and affiliates to that political organisation, that was perceived to be attacking the residents and the residents were perceived to be belonging to a particular organisation.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Madam Chair, I am indebted to the Chair.
	Madam Chair, it has been mentioned here, the manner in which the killing of Mkhabela was planned.  The applicant has mentioned that on that particular morning, he went to the hostel with some of his other comrades and as he was getting out of the hostel, he has seen a person who turned up to be Mkhabela, heading towards the hostel.
	He even mentioned even if it was not very clear, that it was known that people who did not belong to a particular organisation, the IFP, were out of the hostel, they were not residents of the hostel.  The people who he met while he was leaving the hostel, entering the hostel, were people who were armed.
	He subsequently established that there was an attack on the people who were commuters in a taxi.    As part of the SDU's, it was discussed that an action needed to be taken.
	Madam Chair, I would want to submit that the mere fact that these attackers were hiding, or were going into the hostel shortly after the attack, would only suggest that this attack was done by the hostel dwellers, was carried out by the hostel dwellers.
	It has also been known to him and his fellow comrades, that the hostel dwellers were at war with the community.

CHAIRPERSON: But you will recall his evidence is that this was the first time a taxi had been attacked and why if that is so, would he then by implication, think that the attack by people perceived to be hostel dwellers, should be conflict related, that is should be something that was between the fighting between the ANC and the IFP?

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chair.  With regard to that aspect, that question was posed to him, and his explanation was that people who were lamenting next to the dead people, were people who were not hostel dwellers, they were people from the community, who appeared to have lost their loved ones.
	He indicated himself that he did not know the victims, but the nature of the reaction by the immediate community there, suggested that those were members of the community and ...

CHAIRPERSON: You see my problem is that his testimony is that it was not usual for the attacks launched by hostel dwellers against the township residents, to be in the form of attacking taxi's, that was not usual.  That was the first incident where in such an attack had been launched, that is an attack on a taxi with passengers inside.
	But there were occurrences of attacks, but not taxi's.  Why would he believe that this attack would still be the same as the attacks which had been directed at persons who were not in taxi's?

MR MOHLABA: Madam Chair, he explained further that he linked this attack to the taxi occupants, to the people who rushed into the hostel and hostel dwellers having been perceived as people who are carrying out acts of terror against the community.  He linked this incident to other incidents of attacks in taverns in the community, or any other form which the hostel dwellers were, any other form of attack which were perceived to have been carried out by these hostel dwellers.  That is how that gets to be linked.
	Further Chair, I would want to concede that the applicant in giving his evidence, it came in a haphazard way.  He was very fast to a certain extent and he could not contain himself to a particular issue and hence it has resulted in the delay in this proceedings.
	However Madam Chair, I want to submit that the way in which this evidence was tendered, wasn't in any way intended by the applicant to conceal certain facts, nor was it intended to deceive the Committee in any other fashion, but it was just the way in which the lack of sophistication on the part of the applicant.
	Further this links to the question of the application form itself.  The application form, even the Chair has commented that it gives very little, to give an indication what transaction was he involved in, until today when he came and painted a picture of the role which he has played in the planning and killing of Mr Mkhabela.

MR LAX: Sorry, just to intervene Mr Mohlaba.  You keep saying in the planning and killing, there was no planning.  There was no planning whatsoever.  They didn't plan this thing, it was pure fortuitous that they happened to see him there on that day.

MR MOHLABA: There is evidence Madam Chair, that when the deceased was seen leaving at the factory units, or at the firms as it was mentioned, he was identified to be this deceased, who was linked to, who was identified at the scene, who was seen running into the hostel after the shooting of the taxi and then the registration letters and numbers of the vehicle in which he was travelling in, were jotted down.
	I would call that planning, because there was a pursuit of looking for this vehicle and there is also evidence that R50-00 was given to him by one of his comrades and I don't know whether the planning will be to stretch it further.