Special Hearings — Political Party Recalls — UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN: Thank you Chairperson. I want to revisit the subject that we addressed yesterday, but not this specific issue which is the case of the Hallmark bomb in Vermeulen Street in Pretoria. That incident occurred on the 28th of July 1990 where the police found 114 kilogram bomb in a taxi parkade in the garage. The size of this bomb is allegedly about three times that of the Church Street bomb. On that same day the bullet-ridden body of a Mr David Shongwe, a part-time taxi driver was found on the Pelindaba Hartebeestpoort Dam Road and there was some link to this.  Under the Indemnity Act of 1990 and the Regulations, a certain Sipho Elias Mabena applied for indemnity. He was arrested already in February 1991 in Pretoria on this issue and charged with the count of terrorism, alternatively with the count of murder and robbery. The indemnity application was put forward by the ANC, according to our records, and at the time the submission was made by Premier Phosa, who was then the ANC legal representative. Indemnity was indeed granted on the main count of terrorism but refused on the murder and robbery issue.
Now the question is really what more information can the ANC give us on this? This bomb was discovered a few days before the signing of the Pretoria Minute, was it an operation that was planned and sanctioned? And against the background of the indemnity application it seems as if there was indeed a link. Can any further light be shed upon this incident to us?
I may also say that we had at some of our HRV hearings we had victim statements made but the issue is still confused as to really what was the situation and we need to investigate this further especially because we have the links now from more than one side.

UNKNOWN: Matthews Phosa, Chairperson, will deal with this question.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

PREMIER MATTHEWS PHOSA: Thank you Chairperson. This is a matter which we are going to urge you to investigate rigorously. At the time when we were submitting that application we were convinced that it was Sipho Mabena who planted the bomb, and on the basis of the motivation he gave to us we felt he qualified for indemnity at the time. And of course we need to apologise for the death of the David Shongwe and convey this to you, and through you to the family of David Shongwe.
We did further investigation in this matter which suggests a number of disturbing things and one does not want to make judgement calls now. What we will do, if you accept, is to avail names of new witnesses to your investigating unit who are all located in Pretoria, and who I think must be listened to, because if you listen to those witnesses you might arrive at the conclusion that it may have not been Mabena who planted the bomb. Or it may have not been Mabena who killed Shongwe. But I'm saying it's not the time to make judgement calls. We are urging you to investigate this matter further and we will give you the names of witnesses.

UNKNOWN: May I just on a follow-up there ask Mabena did say that he planted the bomb, is that still the position of the ANC, because that is what was disclosed at the time that he accepted responsibility for the planting of the bomb.

PREMIER MATTHEWS PHOSA: Yes that is correct, but you see one of the witnesses is saying that he may have been tortured to agree that he put the bomb in some trade-offs which is very strange which as you investigate you might find that it's not him, it's someone else. So that's why I am saying, investigate, we will cooperate with you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Hanif.

MR VALLY: Thank you Archbishop. Where we reached was the 1990's and we ought to focus initially on self-defence units after 1990. Now if you look at your first submission on page 65 the left-hand column, the second last paragraph, first submission, page 65 first submission, left-hand column, second paragraph. I am quoting now,
"Some members of MK Military Headquarters were tasked to attend to issues relating to the SDU's their organisation, training and the provision of weaponry. It was, however, made clear that the overall control of SDU's was to remain with community structures and MK cadres were to participate as members of the community. MK Command was to play a secondary role. Various clandestine units for the training and organisation of the various SDU's was set up and some cadres were tasked to provide weaponry where possible".
This is repeated in the second submission as well. I won't quote it again. In the second submission on page 30 the right-hand column, the second paragraph, I will just quote the last sentence, it repeats the same statement but it goes on,
"We do not have records of MK's role in SDU's since they were not headquarter controlled structures".
The question is this, does the ANC not think that it was irresponsible to arm and train a force over which it did not exercise control?

UNKNOWN: Ronnie Kasrils will deal with this.

UNKNOWN: I thank you, I will gladly Archbishop. I think that as we pointed out yesterday it's one thing sitting here today, it's another thing when we look back and need to understand the context of the time. So we need to remember what was happening in our country in that period when the ANC took this decision and felt that we had to do everything possible to come to the assistance of people in the townships, the communities who were having to face this awful violence. At night the Boipatong's and so on. On the trains, the sudden attacks and the killings. And it was in that situation that the decision was taken, and who could possibly assist the people? It was MK that was given the responsibility as the first statement indicates.
But if you read this statement and you read the annexure "For the sake of our lives", the document which attempted to give guidance to people in this situation, it was made perfectly clear that the people who needed to be defended were not ANC people, it wasn't a party issue, it was the community. And the community had to be shown and helped how to defend itself, not as an ANC organisation, but it was MK people who could bring this assistance, and to whom the community pleaded and made demands and at times were extremely angry. And people said, they accosted MK people who were well-known, come and defend us or show us what we need to do. So it was a very, very problematic situation and one could say at times extremely confusing.
In that situation we did the best we could. People were tasked to give that assistance, to provide training, to show people how to organise themselves but on a community basis across political affiliation, non-sectarian approach. The second statement that's been read I'd like to address in relation to that context and if Mr Vally could just indicate where, he said it's on page 30, we are trying to find the exact paragraph.

MR VALLY: Sorry, page 30 the second paragraph from the top, the last sentence.

UNKNOWN: That's with regard to SDU's?

MR VALLY: Yes, it repeats the statement I made earlier that was made in your first submission.

UNKNOWN: Oh is that the second column.

MR VALLY: The second column on the right, right at the top.

UNKNOWN: Okay, it was made clear, right. So,
"It was made clear that the control was to remain with community structures. MK members were to participate as members of the community".
I've focused on that.
"MK command would not play a leading role for the reasons I've given. Various units for the training etc were set-up. Some cadres were tasked to provide weapons where possible.
We do not have records of MK's roles in SDU's since they were not HQ controlled structures"
this is the sentence that you focus on Mr Vally?

MR VALLY: That's correct.