Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-04-07

MR HEWIT: You have agreed with me that it sounds just like the way things were before you went to Hammersdale and Mpumalanga?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, that is so.

MR HEWIT: So you were behaving, and your men were behaving in exactly the way, I think you said it was Zakhile was behaving, was it?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, I agree.

MR HEWIT: Zakhile Mkehle?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes.

MR HEWIT: So you were behaving here just like he behaved?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: No.

MR HEWIT: In what way was it different?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: The death of Zazi Khuzwayo is not the same as this.

CHAIRPERSON: We are not talking about the death of Zazi Khuzwayo now.  What Mr Hewit is talking about is the so-called Glover remark incident where you instructed your trainees who were with you, to go and shoot pedestrians because you had heard a remark made by one of them.

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I had explained that.

CHAIRPERSON: So what Mr Hewit is saying is, wasn't that action where there was an order to go and shoot pedestrians who you didn't know, who might have included innocent people on your own version, wasn't that similar to the way that Zakhile Mkehle had been operating in Mpumalanga before you sorted out that problem in Mpumalanga, the killing of innocent people.

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: That is true.  Yes, that is so.

MR HEWIT: Can you explain to this Committee please, how you as Commander, the top military man in charge of Inkatha armed wing, with all this extensive overseas experience, can behave in this fashion, if you are being professional as a soldier and you are doing it for - in the service of an ideal that you believe in?  Explain that to us.
	I have a lot of difficulty with that.

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Let me put it this way.  There are areas that are under the influence of a certain organisation and there could be an instruction that those areas should be cleaned up.
	Who stays there and what organisation is he affiliated to, if for example the area is said to be UDF area, whether you pass by through the area, whether there are pedestrians on the streets, you just kill everybody.
	For that reason you do this to show that a certain organisation is in power.  It is not dormant, it exists, therefore the incidents that I am talking about, Yamile didn't have any support in Claremont, but people had to be intimidated because Yamile had to do something.  It was one of the strategies that we used.
	We could also shoot people in a bus, if those people were seen to be belonging to an organisation.  No one would count how many people in the bus belonged to the UDF or how many did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hewit, would this be a convenient time?

MR HEWIT: Yes, this would be a convenient stage Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take a short adjournment for tea.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I notice that the witness is not present, nor any of the applicants.  We will just wait for them to come in.
	Thank you Mr Hewit, you may continue.

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: (still under oath)

MR HEWIT: (continued)   Mr Luthuli, there was an objection before we adjourned for tea, about my use of the word Supreme Commander.  Would you please turn to page 273 of the record, of your affidavit rather?  That is typed page 63.
	Have a look at paragraph 24.11, do you have that?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes.

MR HEWIT: The words that you use there is I as the Overall Commander planned and launched hundreds of attacks on the UDF areas.  Are you happy with that description, you were the Overall Commander?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes.

MR HEWIT: Okay.  Please now turn to page 280 of your affidavit, typed page 70.  At the top you say the following:  we killed people who may have had no involvement in the violence at all.  I am ashamed of this and I recognise its callousness.
	I was part of the attack.  I personally may have killed old men and children.  I do not know whether I actually killed anyone, or if so, how many.  Neither do I know who the deceased are.
	Do you stand by that?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes.

MR HEWIT: Now, how did that advance the Inkatha cause, killing people that aren't even involved in violence against Inkatha?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I can give you an explanation by saying if you were Inkatha stopping UDF busses that were headed for a rally, shooting at the busses, you don't necessarily know that all the people in the bus, are UDF members, but this is what used to happen.
	Because of this, we had to stamp the presence of the IFP in the area because it happened in some cases where the IFP had already left, but people UDF people, still died because they had to go to those areas so that UDF areas in those areas should live in fear, they should not think they are all alone.
	And therefore, there was no discrimination as to who was a UDF member or not, that is what used to happen.

MR HEWIT: And that justified killing children who obviously at that stage hadn't even become politically aware?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, that is correct.

MR HEWIT: Okay.  Please turn to page 244 of your affidavit.  I want you to look at the very last sentence of paragraph 13.3, which is the one that ends just before the figures 13.4 on page 244, do you have that?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes.

MR HEWIT: You say there we decided to kill Zazi Khuzwayo first.  I told M.Z. Khumalo and he approved.

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes.

MR HEWIT: Is that right?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, that is correct.

MR HEWIT: Who is the we that decided to kill Zazi Khuzwayo first?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: It is myself, M.Z. Khumalo and Yamile.

MR HEWIT: Well, if we are deciding to kill Zazi Khuzwayo, why did you tell M.Z. Khumalo afterwards?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I had to report that such a thing had already happened.

MR HEWIT: What, the decision to kill Zazi Khuzwayo, did you report that?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: What I am saying is that M.Z. Khumalo, Yamile and myself took the decision before his death.

MR HEWIT: So is that sentence badly worded?  We decided to kill Zazi Khuzwayo first.  I told M.Z. Khumalo and he approved.    It sounds to me as if you are saying other people decided to kill Zazi Khuzwayo and M.Z. Khumalo is only told about it afterwards?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: That is not the case.  That is not the case.

MR HEWIT: It reads like that, doesn't it?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: As you are saying, that is how it reads, but that is not it happened.

MR HEWIT: Do you agree with me it reads that way?  Do you?  Do you agree with me it reads as if other people, other than M.Z. Khumalo made the decision and he is only told afterwards?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: No.

MR HEWIT: You don't agree?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: No, I don't.

MR HEWIT: Although you read and write English fluently?

MR MOTATA: Before you do Mr Hewit, I would say to page 243 and look at paragraph 13.2 and compare that paragraph to the answer given by the applicant.

MR HEWIT: I have read those various passages.  The point is that there are contradictions in it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Stuart, you wanted to say something.

MR STUART: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  It seems in the translation the confusion may arise as to whether this happened after the decision or after the murder, and that seems to be some of the confusion.  That is clarified in the questions, may sort it out.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because I think if one reads it with as was pointed out by Mr Motata, the last sentence in paragraph 13.2, it says M.Z. Khumalo instructed that I was to see to it that Zazi Khuzwayo was killed.  That would certainly indicate on this, the way it is worded, the knowledge prior to the killing that is about to take place, and then when it is read with it.
	But perhaps the witness can explain if that is not the case.  Just follow that Mr Hewit.