Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, he may well have regarded that stabbing a person in the cause of apprehending the person a minor thing which he can just omit?

MR MADASA: Yes, that's what I'm saying, or something that would have been expected of someone who was angry and taking these people for custody.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.   No, that's understandable.

MR MADASA: Mr Chair, coming to the issue that has been raised by Vips's mother, who seems to also add to the allegations that the applicants did not make a full disclosure, I submit that Vips's issue was dealt fully by the applicants.
	Sonti told the committee that Vips they captured and Vips escaped.   Oscar mentioned the fact that Vips, he had seen at Blanko's place, and what I'm saying is that therefore the applicants said what they could say about Vips, and things that were done by Manyala later on at Khumalo to Vips cannot be expected to be explained by the applicants, I submit, Mr Chair.   The applicants had been straightforward as to the involvement of Vips.   The did not deny that they went to look for him, because he had been seen and he was known to be in the forefront of the killing of Blanko, and they looked for him, they wanted him, because their attitude was that leaders, people who were in the forefront of killing, must be taken to the community, and explained that Tusanang, let alone that he escaped, but  these were the people who must not be killed on sight, especially them, they must go and tell the people what they had been doing, they must be exposed that they are not good leaders, they are not doing what they're portraying themselves in the community to be doing.    
	So Vips, the applicants told the committee what they did about Vips, but Vips was taken away, or rather killed, at some other time by Manyala, and the applicants cannot be held responsible for that.
	And Vips's mother was not living in Moleleki and she wouldn't be in a position to know Vips's activities.   Vips lived with an uncle, and no-one knows if in fact he stayed with that uncle.   
	I submit that therefore her allegations should be seen in the light of her being perturbed by the death of Vips, but nothing really can turn on her evidence that the applicants have concealed something about Vips, I submit, Mr Chair.
	Mr Chair, coming to Tusanang, who has made allegations against the applicants, who seems to say that the applicants, he's making counter-allegations, so to speak, he's saying they were the criminals, they were the people who were killing the community, what they did had nothing to do with politics, I submit that Tusanang (a) was not a good witness at all.   
	Mr Chair, in the notes before the committee, I'm sure every single member, if you go through your notes you'll pick up on every page discrepancies by Tusanang, but what was striking mostly is that he concealed certain facts.   
	In his evidence in chief he says they went there, they woke up Blanko, they asked him where were the others, and then they attacked him.    Later on, Blanko was, there was an attempt to apprehend him, he resisted.   We are not told how he resisted, what they did in an attempt to apprehend him.   The evidence from the applicants is that Blanko was sitting on a chair, they found him burnt sitting on a chair.  I wonder what kind of resistance he was posing to the applicants.
	Besides that, they go there with a view to, as a mandate from the community, to apprehend him and to find arms.   Now, when they go to Blanko's place, contrary to that mandate, they go there, they arrive and they attack him.   We are not told what kind of arms were found at Blanko's place.   He says they searched and found some assegaais, which were unimportant, yet they were told that these people were armed.   I submit, even on that point, this was a clear indication that Blanko was innocent, or at least he was unarmed, and it did not warrant them to have shot him at that time.
	Besides that point, I submit that Tusanang was, his demeanour was unbecoming, to me it was unbecoming.    He was extremely aggressive and this is borne out by the fact that Tusanang, by his own admission, he said the problem he had with the - he had a problem firstly with all the SDU leadership, not only SDU leadership there at Moleleki, Manyala was zonal leader, he also had a problem, and his only problem with these people is that he, as also, in addition to being Youth League, a member of the civic, they did not consult when they did things, despite the fact that a march was organised to release his own members, the youth by Manyala, he disagreed with that, and Tusanang would get a piece of someone if he disagrees with something, it is not going to be done.   If the march, if he's anti the march, there was going to be no march.   So I submit that this is a picture, this is a picture that was exhibited by him when he was giving evidence, let alone that he was inconsistent in a number of matters.   
	I therefore submit that his allegations against them, the applicants, cannot stand, because of his unreliability and having told lies.
	I therefore submit that in that light, the applicants' version stands unopposed inasfar as Tusanang's evidence attempts to do so.
	Lastly, Mr Chair ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything to be said in favour of the version by Mr Likana in regard to the events preceding the attack at Blanko's house, namely that the Youth League and members of the community gathered at block C, they took the decision to round up members of the SDU and to take them to KBA, a decision which we now know led to the killing of Blanko?   In other words, the Youth League held the SDU responsible for the killing of Bulelwa, hence the decision to round up members of the SDU, which culminated in the killing of Blanko, which we know led to the counter-attack by the SDU, which eventually led to the massacre?

MR MADASA: Sorry, Mr Chair, I've heard your last portion.  Then what is the question that you wanted to ask?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't there something that can be said in favour of his version though, that there may be something in his version that what really led to the massacre was that the Youth League suspected that Bulelwa had been killed by members of the SDU, and they therefore took the decision to round up members of the SDU, which in turn led to the Youth League, and we now, we are told members of the community killing Blanko, which in turn provoked a decision by the SDU to round up members of the Youth League, a step which eventually led to the killing of, or to the massacre?

MR MADASA: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair, I understand.
	Mr Chair, I submit that there's nothing that can be said in his favour in that regard.   His behaviour and Buthelezi's behaviour in regard to the attack at Blanko goes against what he say.
	Mr Chair, his evidence in chief was that Buthelezi came to him to report that Bulelwa had died, and they knew, he said they knew, as far back, that the SDU were going to attack in December, that's what he said.   So my submission is that this issue of a community gathering because of Bulelwa's death, from the point of view, from the side of the ANC Youth League, it's a smokescreen, Mr Chair.   I submit that Blanko's attack was planned, must have been planned by the Youth League, because he says they expected that the SDU was going to attack, and that is borne out by the fact that they were armed, when they went at Blanko's place ...(intervention).