Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1998-02-11

ADV PRIOR: Yes, I understand that but your counsel also put to you that there seemed to be a change on the nature of the targets that APLA were now concentrating on.  You as a soldier, were you not able to even formulate that in your mind that: in the we were attacking military targets, policemen, police stations, military headquarters, army headquarters, army bases, now suddenly we are told to attack civilian targets?  Did that not indicate to you that there was a change in the policy of APLA?

ANDILE SHICEKA: I can't say I realised any change there.

ADV PRIOR: Are you saying you simply accepted the order and you saw no difference in attacking civilians as opposed to policemen or military personnel?

ANDILE SHICEKA: Sir, I am a soldier, I don't question instructions from my seniors, if they instruct me to do a particular thing I do it.

ADV PRIOR: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not the question.  You are a soldier but even soldiers can think surely, whether asking you is - is it not so that in the past your targets were police and other security forces? Now did you not, when you were asked to carry out this operation, did you not realise that: O, now we are shifting from attacking security forces, we are now attacking civilians?  The question is not whether you - the question is not why you didn't ask that, the question is, did you not yourself, as somebody who has passed standard 10, did you not realise that: O, we are now shifting from attacking strictly only security forces, we're now attacking civilians?  Did you not notice that?  That is the question.

ANDILE SHICEKA: Mr Chairman, the attack on white civilians is not a new thing, when you look back at the history of PAC, the formation of Polko on the 11th of September 1961, if you remember the attacks at Mbashe, Paarl and Komane, those comrades of those days were members of the PAC which was converted into APLA.  They were attacking white civilians during those days, even history confirms that.  Therefore I find it difficult for me when one of the panel members says we're shifting as to our targets.  Instead of attacking security forces, we were attacking white civilians which I refer to as: "soft targets".  Farmers were also attired before the attacks on Gold Gloves and St James and other attacks.  That's the reason why I say I am confused when they say we have shifted in constitution targets because this started long ago.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that was the question and perhaps that was the answer you should simply have given from the beginning.

ANDILE SHICEKA: Mr Chairman, I didn't understand before.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Shiceka, what I'm essentially driving at is that despite your evidence that you were a soldier simply carrying out instructions, it would seem on the very eveing of the Newcastle attack, you excersied a discretion, a discretion not to attack the reastaurant which had been selected as a target.  You decided against that because you said african people in the vicinty may have been injured. You assessed that risk and you decided nevertheless not to attack the restaurant and you went elsewhere.  Isn't that so, isn't that true?

ANDILE SHICEKA: That's not true.

ADV PRIOR: But that was your evidence Mr Shiceka. Are you saying that you didn't ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, no Mr Prior, that is not a fair statement put to the witness.

ADV PRIOR: As the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: He never exercised his discretion to move away from the prescribed target.  He never exercised his discretion to move away from the target which was prescribed by the instructions.

ADV PRIOR: Well with respect Mr Chairman, on his evidence the restaurant was the primary target, they went there ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Provided it will only be whites and that's very important.

ADV PRIOR: It seems from his evidence that he did - that a discretion must have been exercised not to attack because there was a risk to the safety in the vicinty, surely that is a discretion.

CHAIRPERSON: Well suppose they had attacked and injured a lot of black people, would that have been in line with the instructions?

ADV PRIOR: I take your point.  I'm simply trying to highlight, and will argue later, that that didn't seem to be the case in other examples of APLA attacks.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm trying to say to you, the discretion, if that is a discretion at all that you are referring to, did not allow him to attack anything other than white people.

ADV PRIOR: I take your point Mr Chairman, I'll move on.
	Was the - let me put it this way, let me refer you to paragraphs 17 of your statement, I beg your pardon, paragraph 15 at page 5.  You said:
"Occasionally Tanda went out to check possible targets in town. One day he came back saying we can attack a restaurant.  After he had selected a target he left with two other africans whose names are not known to me, to find a car for the operation"
You then discuss how you organised yourselves and how a vehicle ws obtained and then you come to paragraph 17 where you say:
"We arrived in town and went to the restaurant but there was too much movement outside the restaurant"
You make no mention that there was danger to african people, of them possible getting injured, in your statement.  Can you explain that?

ANDILE SHICEKA: In front of the disco - two flats away from the disco  there is a bar which is for black people and that's where people normally go to drink and it was at night and there were many people on the streets and we realised that if we carry out the operations and people started retaliating, many black people would be injured and that will not be in line with our aim, that's what I said.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, I understand that.  The question is directed at what stands in your statement, what appears in your statement.  Are you able to explain why what you've just told us, does not appear in your statement?