Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-04-12

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Manqele, which language would you prefer to use?

S F MANQELE: Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any objection to the taking of the oath?

S F MANQELE: (sworn states).

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	Mr Manqele, I would like you to just very briefly -you are currently serving a sentence with regard to offences of which you had been committed, the same offences of which the previous two applicants applied for amnesty, is that correct?

S F MANQELE: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, I would just like to point you to - if I may Mr Chairman, page 12 of the bundle.
   Mr Manqele, on the 2nd of February, 2nd of January 1996, you completed an application for ...(indistinct) in terms of an indemnity with regard to the crimes for which you had been committed.  Do you recollect completing such a statement?

S F MANQELE: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: It is also true that during December of 1996, almost 12 months later, 11 months later, you completed an amnesty application form, Form 1, with regards to an application for amnesty which relates to exactly the same conviction, is that correct?

S F MANQELE: Please repeat.

MR CLAASSEN: Later the same year, after making application for indemnity, you also filled out an application for amnesty which greatly differs from your initial application.

S F MANQELE: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, could you just indicate to the Committee, the initial application, the indemnity application, the information which you gave on that application, is that the true facts of what occurred on that particular day?

S F MANQELE: I would not be in a position to indicate that, because what I filled in on the indemnity application is not true.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	Mr Manqele, could you just explain to this Committee, they have the bundle in front of them, the information which you disclosed in this indemnity application, why that is not the truth.

S F MANQELE: It is because I did not obtain the full truth pertaining to the indemnity or how it works.  We were told that when you tell the truth, you will get further sentence, so it is best that one lies.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, now how did things differ from that time to the time of your amnesty application?  Why - let me just maybe ask you this, the information given in your amnesty application, is that the correct version of events?

S F MANQELE: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: Why did you decide to tell the truth in your amnesty application and not in the indemnity?

S F MANQELE: It is because the IFP legal reps came.

MR CLAASSEN: And it was explained to you how the amnesty process works and that you should make a full disclosure should you want to qualify for amnesty?

S F MANQELE: Please just repeat that part.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele - Mr Chairman if I may just - could you just briefly tell us what occurred on this particular day of the death of the deceased, what was your involvement, your role and what exactly happened?

S F MANQELE: On this particular day in question, when this event took place or happened, I had previously been there to inspect the area, the place which was told to me by Wiseman Kanyele, together with my colleagues.  He showed me the way too and the way to effect service and he further told us that these people have money and indeed I went there with my colleagues and I showed them exactly as it was shown to me that here ...(intervention)

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, if I may.  You, in the application form which you completed, which you went through, you initially said it was written down that you did not receive instructions from anybody, is this the correct version, or did you receive instructions from anyone?

S F MANQELE: May I ask which application are you referring to now, because you have made mention to two applications here, one being the indemnity one and the other amnesty, which one are you referring to at this point.

MR CLAASSEN: The amnesty application, the one which you just said contains the correct information.  You also state in that particular paragraph in which you shortly put down the facts of what occurred, you say that
"I did not receive instructions from anyone".
Is this correct?

S F MANQELE: That I did not receive any instruction from anyone, being a superior or a leader, in the organisation.

MR CLAASSEN: Are you now referring to yourself?

S F MANQELE: Right now I am referring a member of the organisation, being Wiseman Kanyele.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, could I just put it to you like this, did you receive instructions from anyone?

S F MANQELE: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: From whom?

S F MANQELE: Wiseman Kanyele.

MR CLAASSEN: And what were these instructions?

S F MANQELE: Wiseman Kanyele gave us an instruction that entailed the fact that for us to be able to be free of all the problems that emanated in the hostel from the ANC people, we should be in a position to obtain firearms and be in a position of having cash or money, then there is one way we could come out of this problem, where he works there is money that we would be able to obtain to be able to fulfil the mission we were up to.

MR CLAASSEN: What is this mission that you are referring to?

S F MANQELE: That would be - in fact myself, I was an IFP member, but each time an IFP member died or got killed, I would not be in a position to donate some money.   Secondly, as a member of IFP I did not have any firearm that would enable me to stand and fight against, and defend myself from any attackers.  Thirdly, sometimes we would run into a situation where we need monies in case we have activities such as rallies, we would be in a position to have money, but we would not be in a position to have money, so that would have helped.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, just very very briefly, explain to the Committee, what was your role and what exactly happened that particular day that the deceased was killed, what exactly happened?

S F MANQELE: On this day of this event I was one of the people who was directly facing the deceased and I was pointing my firearm at her.

MR CLAASSEN: What happened then?

S F MANQELE: As I was pointing my firearm, in fact as I drew out my firearm and stopped her, we did not particularly agree, in fact I could tell that she was shocked by the fact that I was drawing out a firearm and she screamed and jumped around and there were cars around us, and by so doing she happened to get into contact with the other car and suddenly the alarm from that car went off from that car and now I could not further explain to her and to why and what I wanted from her because of all this commotion that took place.  And now in that very commotion with myself this side trying to pull the bags, I therefore heard the sound of a gunshot and I was confused.  In fact I got confused for a minute because I did not know where this gunshot was coming from, and I let go of her and we ran off.  In fact we fled.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Manqele, this gunshot came from your firearm, is that correct?

S F MANQELE: Yes, but I was only told by the police.  That got clear to me when the police was relaying the whole thing to me, but when it happened I could not quite tell as to where it was coming from.

CHAIRPERSON: How far were you from this lady when you shot her?

S F MANQELE: We were quite close to each other because I was trying to pull off the bag which she had on her arm.

CHAIRPERSON: And how far was the firearm from her body?

S F MANQELE: It wasn't too far.

CHAIRPERSON: Give us an indication.

S F MANQELE: As she hung her handbag around her arm, as is the practice with the ladies, I tried to pull the bag and she was trying to run away and then I had my firearm pointing at her, but it is not that it is in direct contact with her body, the firearm that is.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Manqele, all I am asking is how far was the firearm from her body.