Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-06

MR SMUTS: And you were isolated members of an SDU rather than an SDU as a group, who made the decision to participate in this attack?

LUNGILE MAZWI: We took this decision from Flagstaff because we were members of the SDU and we were in the sub-region of Lusikisiki.

ADV DE JAGER: But I've got problems with you taking the decision as members of the SDU.  Didn't you take the decision as individuals, as supporters of the SDU, but not as a body of SDU's or as supporters of the ANC and not as, by virtue of you being a member thereof and a meeting being held and you being authorised?

LUNGILE MAZWI: The question is not clear to me, can you please repeat the question.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't the two of you, or the three of you, decide on your own we are supporters of the SACP or the ANC or the SDU, we take it on our own, as supporters, to revenge the killing of Hani?

LUNGILE MAZWI: It happened that way sir.

ADV DE JAGER: I don't want, I want you to make very sure of the answer.  You have taken the decision as supporters, but you acted as individuals in taking those decisions, the decision to go and kill somebody or people in order to retaliate the death of Hani?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes, that is correct sir.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Smuts, normally Mr Mazwi, how were decisions taken in the SDU's, was there a laid down procedure that would have to be followed whenever decisions are taken?

LUNGILE MAZWI: It depended sir, on the kind of decision that was to be taken.

ADV SANDI: If an important decision like this for example, had to be taken, what procedure would be followed, what would happen, who would get together and discuss?

LUNGILE MAZWI: They comrades who were able to take a decision, would take a decision, even if they are four, five or six.  It was not necessary for all members of the SDU's to be there in order for such a decision to be taken.

ADV SANDI: So the few who get together, could discuss and then agree, later they go and inform others that this is the decision we have arrived at, is that what you are saying?

LUNGILE MAZWI: It is not everything that was taken to other members to inform them, because of the dangers of other cases.  For example the case we are dealing with today.

MR SMUTS: In the interests of which organisation or organisations were the SDU's meant to act?

LUNGILE MAZWI: All the organisations that were under the ANC.

MR SMUTS: Did that mean that the SDU's were required to act within the bounds of the policy of the ANC?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes.

MR SMUTS: What was the policy of the ANC from the signing of the Pretoria Minute on the 6th of August 1990 until the day on which you launched this attack on the fishing party, as regards the use of violence?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Please repeat your question sir.

MR SMUTS: What was the policy of the ANC regarding the use of political violence?

LUNGILE MAZWI: The ANC was against violence.

MR SMUTS: Whose interests were you then promoting when you decided to resort to violence on the 13th of April 1993?

LUNGILE MAZWI: We were serving the interest of the SDU's.

MR SMUTS: And not the interest of the ANC?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Even the interest of the ANC as well.

MR SMUTS: Do you concede that your actions were in direct conflict with the expressed policy of the ANC?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I wouldn't accept that, or deny that.

MR SMUTS: Well, I am afraid, you are going to have to make a choice Mr Mazwi, because if you wish to qualify for amnesty, you are going to have to establish in whose interests you were acting and for what reason.

LUNGILE MAZWI: The way in which the SDU's operate sir, is not the same.  It is not the same with all the ways that the ANC operated.

MR SMUTS: Are you saying that it was open to the SDU's to operate in conflict with the expressed policy of the ANC?

LUNGILE MAZWI: We were forced to do so because this is the manner in which we were trained.

MR SMUTS: You were forced to do so by whom or by what?

LUNGILE MAZWI: The situation prevailing at the time was compelling us to do so.

MR SMUTS: Are you saying that the situation at the time, compelled you to act in conflict with the expressed policy of the African National Congress?

LUNGILE MAZWI: We were not in conflict with the policies of the ANC, but we were doing our job as the SDU members.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smuts, what would be the purpose of the establishment of the Self Defence Unit?

MR SMUTS: Mr Chairman, there was evidence as to the reason for the establishment of the Units, that they were a defence mechanism.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you agree, inherent therein, that should the people who are to benefit from such defence mechanisms, were attacked, the Self Defence Units would necessarily have to at times use violence to protect?

MR SMUTS: Mr Chairman, ...

CHAIRPERSON: I am not suggesting that this is the case here, I am just talking in general?

MR SMUTS: Yes, that would be principle at law, that wouldn't ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but wouldn't that, if one wants to interpret the policy strictly, be in conflict with the policy of the African National Congress?

MR SMUTS: No Mr Chairman.  If one goes to these documents that are collated as Exhibit B, they deal with the use of violence to achieve a political end.
	With respect, they could never have been intended not any of the accords, nor the National Peace Accord, the Pretoria Minute or the D.F. Malan Accord, could ever have been intended to preclude the right to self defence.
	Nowhere in the text of any of those documents, is there a suggestion that the right to self defence is limited in any way.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that the point that the witness is trying to make?

MR SMUTS: It would be somewhat astonishing with respect, to see ...

CHAIRPERSON: He is confronted with a proposition that resorting to violence would be contrary to the policy or stated policy of the African National Congress.  I don't know if that is absolutely correct.

MR SMUTS: May I refine it Mr Chairman.  Your decision to launch an attack on persons driving a motor vehicle on the way back from a fishing trip, I suggest to you was in direct conflict with the policy of the African National Congress at the time.

LUNGILE MAZWI: At the time sir, I cannot say that it was not in conflict with the policy of the ANC, at the same time I cannot say it was not in conflict, but at the time we were working as the SDU members and we were doing our duty.

MR ZILWA: Just for the record, the witness has said at the same time I cannot say it was in conflict.  I see a double negative was used by the Interpreter.

MR SMUTS: If you say you were performing your duty, your duty to who?

LUNGILE MAZWI: We were doing our, we were performing our duties concerning those people who were regarded as our enemy.

CHAIRPERSON: Your duty was to protect people, not so?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Who were you protecting by doing what you did?  Who did you think you were protecting at the time by doing what you did?

LUNGILE MAZWI: We thought we were protecting our leaders and the people of South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: How would you be doing that in doing what you did at that time?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Are you referring to that incident, that particular incident or what?  Your question is not clear sir.

CHAIRPERSON: On the 13th of April, is it, you launched an attack?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you think you were protecting your leaders or the people of South Africa in launching that attack?

LUNGILE MAZWI: The intention was to notify those who were still prepared to eliminate our leaders, they were to know that if they still continue doing that, they will be in trouble.
	That was a way of sending a message through.

MR SMUTS: By launching a murderous attack on three fishermen and two children, is that how you sent the message?