Amnesty Hearings — Kimberley — 1997-10-27

MR TSHOLANKU: So, my understanding is that it was as per your instructions to Walter Smiles that the incident took place?  Is that correct?

LAURENS MBATHA: It is true, Sir.

MR TSHOLANKU: You were a member of the MK, what was your relation to Walter Smiles?

LAURENS MBATHA: Smiles was a member of Umkhonto we Sizwe and I happened to be to his Commander by then.

MR TSHOLANKU: And as you have indicated that this was an instruction to Walter Smiles, how is a member of MK expected to react when instructions, to an instruction from his Commander?

LAURENS MBATHA: Normally it is to execute that order or that instruction.

MR TSHOLANKU: Does he have a choice not to execute the command or react to your command?

LAURENS MBATHA: Within the context of the military system, he, actually, executed the instruction as a person, that is very normal, who believed in his Commander, that is all.

MR TSHOLANKU: That I understand, yes, but what I want to put forth to the Committee is whether he had a choice, could he say no to his Commander?

LAURENS MBATHA: Unfortunately, if he says no there is nothing that I can do, but as I am saying, my relationship with him is based on a military one where he believes in what I told him.

SISI KHAMPEPE: I think what your attorney is trying to find out from you is whether a person who is acting under your command can refuse instructions given by you in your position as a Regional Commander.

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes, it is true.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Are you saying it is true that he can refuse instructions or what?

LAURENS MBATHA: As I am saying, if he refuses there is nothing that one, actually, can do except to call the member in and talk to the member again to explain the importance of that type of exercise or operation to execute.  It normally starts from a level where we explain it to the member and when the member understood it then he executes it, but it is not a situation where you just come and it goes off.  The first experience, yes, it is different, it is where, actually, you do a lot of talking, a lot of explanations, but with the continuation of the process, it was not the first one.  So, already it was something that the member was use to.

SISI KHAMPEPE: I am sure, Mr Tsholanku, you want to proceed.

MR TSHOLANKU: Yes, Ma'am, thank you.  Was it explained to him on this particular instance what the objective of this particular incident would be?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes, I did.

MR TSHOLANKU: So, can we safely say he fully understood what were the reasons behind this particular incident?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: I do not understand, Mr Mbatha, what you are placing before us.  I mean, you have earlier on advised us that you have been a trainer of the units which came through whilst you were in Uganda.  Are you saying it was part of the training that a cadre could refuse instructions which he believed were reasonable when they came from a person who is a superior within the MK structures?

LAURENS MBATHA: One should say that there is a difference, actually, between a situation when you refer it to Uganda and it has to do within training camps.  Smiles is a product, that of an internal, he was trained internally, he never, actually, went out and the situation so far, it, normally when they train as cadres who are going through, orders are orders to be adhered to, but in a situation like this one, where a member is internally trained, the situation is not as strict as one quantifying as conducive as it is outside.  So, inbetween, it is more of a situation that you are trying to take the member very slowly, but you cannot impose very strict laws on that very same member, because the question remains, like I have said, if the member decides that he will abstain, unfortunately, there is nothing that you can do.
	So, the best way is that persuasion should be in such a way that the member, actually, understood, believes in you and understands the objective.  It is based more on a conscious aspect, because around you you cannot use mechanical approach, which is more conducive within camp situations, that was one would define when you are training soldiers in a camp situation outside then.

CHAIRPERSON: So, he, Mr Smiles, if he had so chosen, he could have decided not to accept your orders? I do not know whether we should call it an order or your instructions.

LAURENS MBATHA: I would, actually, say, yes, and try to elaborate on it.

CHAIRPERSON: I am satisfied with yes unless you feel the need to elaborate, because I thought you did elaborate earlier on to say that there is a difference between somebody trained internally and a person trained externally, but all we wanted to know was to satisfy ourselves that your evidence, as we understand it, was that Mr Smiles had the choice not to carry out an instruction and I understand your evidence to be that, yes, that is the case.

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And he could have chosen not to carry out those instructions without any consequences of any kind either from the ANC or from MK.  Is that correct?

LAURENS MBATHA: Just repeat your question again, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: He could have refused to carry out those instructions without or let me put it this way.  Had he refused to carry out those instructions there could have been no adverse consequences to him either from the MK or the ANC.

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes, it is true, Sir.

MR TSHOLANKU: Thank you Mr Chairman.  I think we have covered all the four requirements for an applicant applying for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the purpose of the march?

LAURENS MBATHA: It was an anti-Bop campaign.

CHAIRPERSON: Just explain that a little bit, the ultimate purpose.

LAURENS MBATHA: The ultimate purpose of the march, as I have said, actually falls within the overall intention, that it was an anti-Bop march and to submit memorandums over to the Bop Consulate about the repression that was escalating within Bop and which resulted, also, if I remember very well, the Unibo situation.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, the Unibo situation.  Do I understand the word correctly?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: What was the Unibo?

LAURENS MBATHA: Unibo, it is, actually, the situation which resulted, that is University of Bop where one of the students were, actually, severely assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, sorry, for the record, I think what you should have said to the question was Unibo stands for University of Bophuthatswana.  I think that is what the question was all about.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Mbatha, who had organised that march?

LAURENS MBATHA: The march was, actually, organised, I cannot specifically say exactly, but it was between the Youth League and Cosas.

MR TSHOLANKU: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the evidence of Mr Mbatha.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR TSHOLANKU

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have noticed that it is quarter to one.  I wonder whether it might be an idea for you to take the adjournment now, if I may suggest that, we can, perhaps, sort out among ourselves what the order of questioning should be.  I can start if necessary, Mr Chairman, but, perhaps, it might save a little time if we could, if I could get my mind precisely in order.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, Mr Visser, you will have to tell us on what basis you want to cross-examine this witness, because he is not implicating your clients.

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Chairman, we cannot look at this, the evidence of this witness, in isolation.  We know, by way of background, that there was a criminal trial in which two people were convicted.  That followed a process of police investigation, arrests, detention in terms of Section 29 and later they were brought to trial.  In the documents which we were provided by ... (intervention).