Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-12

ADV STEENKAMP: I would just refer you to the first five lines or maybe the fifth line to be exact.  I will read for you there.  I will start with the sentence
"I mean"
This is the third sentence ...(intervention)

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: Okay, I have identified the paragraph.  I believed that ...(intervention)

ADV STEENKAMP: Can you listen to my question first?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: Okay.

ADV STEENKAMP: I will read for you from
"I mean if the previous didn't practice maladministration to the native of this beloved country by killing them because of their skin colour ..."
What did you mean by this sentence or paragraph?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: I am trying to explain here that many people who were victimised were victimised by the police who were serving the them racist government.

ADV STEENKAMP: Are you saying people were killed because of their skin colour, is this what you're saying here?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: Yes, that was the case insofar as the previous government was concerned.

ADV STEENKAMP: Was this the reason why you attacked the white people in this car, was this your   motivation?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: No, this is not the motivation.  I have already indicated here before that I did not intend to kill a white person.  It didn't matter whether the person behind the steering wheel was black or white.  It just happened that the person was at the scene at the wrong time.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I didn't want to waste your time, if you can bear with me with one or two questions.  I'm nearly finished.
	Sir, maybe you can answer this question for me.  You're saying today to this Committee that this accident or incident was politically motivated, may I ask you why there doesn't appear a shred of evidence in the whole of the Court record about this politically motivated incident as you put before the Committee today?  Nothing in the Court record indicates at all that this incident was politically motivated, why didn't you put that before the Judge when you had the opportunity?  Can you explain this to me please?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: I think you must have forgotten what I've said here earlier on.   I did not want to admit guilt in Court because I have already suffered victimisation at the hands of the Court officials and the police and thirdly, I was convicted before I appeared before the Court of law because the attorney at the time told me that I would be given, or sentenced to 25 years if I pleaded guilty and if not I'd be sentenced to death.

ADV STEENKAMP: Why was this never put before the Judge maybe as a mitigating factor before sentence, that you had a politically motivated motive when this incident happened?  You were under instructions, you believed that this was ANC policy, why didn't you tell the Judge that?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: I don't know whether you understood my answers.  I indicated to you just now that I did not say or render that testimony because of the attitude of the Court officials.

ADV STEENKAMP: My last question to you, maybe you could elaborate on that.  What was the attitude of the Court officials, was there a problem with any of the Court officials and if so, did you discuss this with your attorney or did you tell the Judge about this?
	Thank you, Mr Chairman, that will my questions.

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: When I explained everything to my attorney I indicated to him and I said to him that the confession statement was compiled in an illegal way and I requested him to expose it and he told me that all the testimony that appears in that statement convicts me.  He indicated to me that he was going to try as much as he could to convince the Court insofar as the confession statement is concerned.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Steenkamp.
	Can you just explain to us the person that you referred to as comrade Sinamela, you say that he was a higher ranking official than yourself, is that correct?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: Yes, that is correct.  He is the one who was training us within the self-defence unit.

CHAIRPERSON: And was he a member of any political organisation?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: Comrade Sinamela was a member of the ANC and he was also an MK soldier.

CHAIRPERSON: And you would normally report to him within the activities of the self-defence unit?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you assume that he would then report further, either to MK or to the ANC?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: I wouldn't say the MK because the MK had already been disbanded at the time but I would think of the ANC.  I knew that he was reporting to the ANC but to whom exactly in terms of position or ranking I would not say.

CHAIRPERSON: So you saw him as a link between the self-defence unit and the ANC?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you had reported to him that your unit had lost some of the weapons and that you were going to look for ways of finding new weapons for the use of your unit?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And did he agree that you can go ahead and do that?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: Yes, he did but I would like to explain briefly as to how he agreed.  He agreed with the full knowledge that the African National Congress did not bring back home trucks and horse and trailers full of firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: So he knew that you had to use your own initiative to find ways and means of getting firearms for the unit?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And what he in fact did was to confirm that you should use your initiative and get weapons for the unit?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he at any stage repudiate you, did he at any stage indicate to you that he disagreed with the way in which you went about procuring these arms?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: You see comrade Sinamela was a matured person politically speaking.  He was trained as a guerrilla, he knew what was happening in a war situation.  I did not struggle explaining the situation to him, he understood and he agreed with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Are you there any other questions?  Mr Sibanyoni?

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
	Mr Manyamala, I heard you saying after the use of the vehicle the intention was to destroy it so that you could not be traced by the police, was it because of the shooting incident or even if the vehicle was handed over to you without any resistance, would you still dispose of the vehicle?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: I'd like to rectify your statement if you say we tried to burn it.  I ordered that it be burnt.  You see if supposing nobody was hurt or shot we would still burn the car so that no testimony or evidence should I say, could lead to our arrest.

MR SIBANYONI: The reason I'm asking you this question is, we have heard of incidents where comrades use other people's property, like a motor vehicle but after using that motor vehicle they would take it and abandon it somewhere.  Now I'm asking you to tell us the reason why was the vehicle supposed to be disposed of instead of being abandoned somewhere after it has been used?

SAINT MKULULI MANYAMALA: As I have explained Chairperson, the intention behind the burning of the vehicle, myself as a person in charge of the unit was thinking about the possibility of police locating the vehicle and securing fingerprints that my lead or could lead to our arrest.

MR SIBANYONI: Was the vehicle eventually burnt?