Amnesty Hearings — Mmabatho — 1998-08-04

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I will agree that that would be political, more so that we have evidence that has been coming up that the IFP was operating in the trains, and if that is the position, then that would be political, I would concede to that one, but, Mr Chairman, as I indicated right at the beginning about Inkatha, I said Inkatha was mentioned in passing by the applicant.   We do not have, Mr Chairman, as forming part of the evidence, evidence to the effect that "On a particular day five or six houses in our neighbourhood were attacked by people wearing red bands or were attacked by Inkatha people", we don't have such evidence.   If we had such evidence, then one would come to that correct conclusion as the applicant would like us to accept, that there was Inkatha that was to be dealt with in that area, but we are just given a general evidence about Inkatha, nothing specific.   We don't even know whether Inkatha ever penetrated Diepkloof.   That is the problem that the committee may have on that aspect, Mr Chairman, or perhaps to say that is my problem, Mr Chairman, not your problem, sorry.

ADV MOTATA: If I may just interpose here, Mr Mpshe, like you say in your argument, for instance, that we know about the structures that are there, and we have never come across a structure called street defence units, and I want you to help me out here, that is it also not a know fact that Inkatha was one of those, in your words, liberation movements which gave communities throughout the country great problems, and people were already gearing themselves that at any given time they should be defended against them, and now we look at the applicant and say again, he says, "We couldn't do it effectively, but with the obtaining of arms, we felt we would go on the offensive", like the chairman says, "so that we could defend ourselves".   Wouldn't we say that we should also bear in mind, or you say we should exclude it that it wouldn't, because you are arguing that there is no direct evidence that says, for instance, in Diepkloof so many houses were attacked, and say because of that then we should exclude what he's saying that probably the enemy was Inkatha at the end of the day?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I do concede that Inkatha was one of those parties that were causing havoc in quite a number of areas, but the honourable committee member has stated it so brilliantly that the applicant said, "We couldn't challenge Inkatha without weapons", but we do not have not even the slightest evidence that says, "We tried to fight Inkatha, we did one, two, three and four, we failed and then we realised that to fight them, we must get guns", we don't have that.  All what we have is a decision to get guns.

ADV MOTATA: Again, just help me out, he says amongst the hostels in Soweto, only one hostel, which was in Diepkloof, was the peaceful hostel, you take Nancefield, you take Ndube, you take Meadowlands, they were all problematic, so are you suggesting that when they speak of this protection of the community, you just have to protect a community where you live in, or protect the community in general, as in Soweto, that you get rid of the problem that is there?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, we know of a protection that would be done by units protecting the whole of Soweto, hence we used to speak of deployment, deployment of units to other areas.   You will take units from Pimville to Orlando, units from Zolla to Dobsonville, units from wherever, all over Dobsonville, deploy them to go and assist, that I concede to, but the problem I have with the applicant, he selected Diepkloof in particular, he did not say to protect the black community in Soweto, he said "The people resident in Diepkloof, that was our concern", he particularised his protection.   Had he said, "We were to get these things as protective units to protect people in Soweto, then the examples of Nancefield Hostel, Diepkloof Hostel, Ndube Hostel, would certainly, without any problem, come into play, but he said Diepkloof in particular.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, your argument is that there wasn't a political objective, for the reasons that you've put up, and I'm not stopping you, you can put up many more reasons, but just at this stage, if it wasn't a political objective, then what would you suggest that it was?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.   Mr Chairman, my learned friend has aptly put it that it is a criminal objective, and that is my submission.	Thank you, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mpshe, can I just ask you one question on your submission, I think it was raised by Mr Mulligan that if it was a purely criminal objective, the applicant and his colleagues would have gone for a softer target than a police station.   It's a very valid proposition.   Do you have anything to say about that?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman.   Mr Chairman, my colleague used the soft targets.   If I have to define what was meant by a soft target in political circles, it will take long and certainly the police will not come into that picture.   Mr Chairman and members of the committee, the police, it's well-known that the police were targeted for various reasons or motives.   I'll quote two.   One, the activists or the liberation movements would say that, "We've got to target the police because we see them as the wing of the apartheid regime.   Now if you remove the legs, the head will come down.   Now the head was the apartheid.   Another reason, the police would be targeted in the street, guns be taken from them in the street, in their houses, to go and use them in criminal activities.   It is these very guns taken from police stations and the police that are used in hijackings, in robberies, and we've got a lot of cases on this aspect.  Just to add on this, Mr Chairman, we know about this, when criminals are arrested, then they'll say the guns used belonged to the police, and they could trace this gun as having been stolen from a policeman who was killed in Orlando or wherever, this is well-known.

CHAIRPERSON: So you're basically saying for us that the version given at the trial court, in other words that they were going to Sun City, or you know, and this was something that was done as a spin-off to this trip to Sun City, could possibly be true?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Be true, Mr Chairman, that is my contention.
	That is all, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mulligan, do you have any reply?

MR MULLIGAN: Just on two or three small issues raised by my colleague.

CHAIRPERSON: You can reply to as many issues as you like, Mr Mulligan.