Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-07

MR LAX: Well, then I think you have to put it on that basis to him and make it clear that that's the basis you're putting it on.  Because the way it's appearing is that that's on the evidence heard so far and I don't think that's fair.

MR VAN ZYL: I will do it so.  What I'm putting to you then, Mr Mkhize, is that my clients who was involved with the training will testify or submit to this Commission, if necessary, that the training was similar to what I already put to you.  Would you like to comment on that?

WITNESS:   They will have to explain that, so I will get to understand the kind of training they will be talking about.  For me to understand the kind of training they are talking about they will have to be given or afforded the opportunity to explain, as I have already explained as well, and there should be some assurance that they don't get themselves trapped into the same trap I fell into.

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Mkhize, the role that Mr Luthuli played whilst you underwent your training, what exactly did that entail?

MR VAN ZYL: /---  He

MR VAN ZYL: 3A

WITNESS:   He was the political commissar.

MR VAN ZYL: [Break in recording] ... briefing and information and lectures which you received regarding politics, Marx, Stalin, etcetera, were these lectures which Mr Luthuli gave you?

WITNESS:   Not him alone, but also from other instructors who were there present.

MR VAN ZYL: What was Mr Luthuli's attitude towards violence during your training, especially with reference to violence against the ANC?

WITNESS:   I think an attitude goes hand in hand with the beliefs of a person.  I don't think I will be in a position to explain Madlanduna's beliefs.

MR VAN ZYL: Did he never convey this to you?

WITNESS:   Telling us about his attitude?  Is that your question?

MR VAN ZYL: [Break in recording]

WITNESS:   I don't recall - I don't have any recollection of that - Madlanduna telling me about his attitude.

MR VAN ZYL: I would then like to say the following.  You testified that during the training you were told that the purpose of the training was to kill the ANC and all my clients who were involved in the training will deny that.

WITNESS:   It's fine even if they may repudiate all of that, but that won't shake me from what I've told this Commission so far.  This is what I will even tell my God.

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I'm just reading through my notes, to see if there are other aspects that I still need to cover.  The training which you received, and more specifically the first two phases thereof, as you testified just now, and which would enable you to kill a person, I would like to agree with you that anybody who had received that training would be able to kill somebody else, but that that was never the objective of the

MR VAN ZYL: /training, that

MR VAN ZYL: 3A training, that it would be specifically applied on your return to Natal to kill people at random.

WITNESS:   Is that a question?

MR VAN ZYL: It's a statement.  Would you like to comment on it?

WITNESS:   You've said everything right.  You see, the training I received had equipped me enough to kill people and if I hadn't received that kind of training I wouldn't be where I am today.

MR VAN ZYL: What methods did you employ and the people who accompanied you and participated with you from 1991 onwards when you started killing people?  What methods did you use?  How did you do it?

WITNESS:   I will have to go back to explain how we killed people and who killed who.  Is that where you want me to go?  I can explain, but is that what you want me to do?  To go back and explain all the details?

MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Mkhize, I don't want to waste time unnecessarily.  If you could perhaps give the Commission an indication.  Was there a specific modus operandi followed by yourselves or did you, for instance, go to people's homes and shoot them there or did you lay in ambush for them?  How did you actually operate?  Is it possible to give us a summary of your methods?

WITNESS:   Yes, there were operations where we applied ambush methods, as I have told you about the incident where we attacked a bus - where a bus was attacked with ANC people on board.  There were some operations where we used house clearing, as this Commission will ultimately get to know how Sergeant Dumisani Dlamini died.  The incidents defined varied as well.

MR VAN ZYL: Now whilst you are referring to the house

MR VAN ZYL: /penetration issue

MR VAN ZYL: 3A penetration issue, the training which you received in the Caprivi in that regard, here I would like to put it to you that that training had the following effect.  When a building was penetrated or entered the sole purpose was not to kill everybody inside that building or house.

WITNESS:  We will be given a certain target and we will know our target, so there was no need to shoot indiscriminately, even killing people we were not instructed to kill.  At times we will find other people, like Mrs Dlamini and the children who were present, but we left her and we hid when she was passing.  We left her alone.  We did not even kick her, for that matter, because we knew who we wanted.  We wanted Dlamini, until we got hold of Dlamini.

MR VAN ZYL: For clarity, I would like to put it to you that although it was mentioned during the training that house clearance or house penetration - that the training in this regard wasn't specifically aimed at entering into a home, but actually entry into a building and not exclusively penetration of a home.

WITNESS:   Why would we penetrate a building?  Maybe you have a reason why you think we will penetrate a building, but I don't get it.  Why would we penetrate a building?  If you differentiate between a building or a home or a house.

MR VAN ZYL: At some stage you testified that you received police training and it is also so that a policeman's duty is the protection of members of the public and it is also the duty of a soldier.  Would you therefore agree with me, Mr Mkhize, that it isn't possible to protect members of the public or buildings properly against attacks - attacks against life or property if the person fulfilling this protective role is not able to act properly and forcefully

MR VAN ZYL: /against these

MR VAN ZYL: 3A against these attackers, and to be able in certain circumstances so to act as to kill them?  Would you agree with that?

WITNESS:   It's not clear.  The question was not quite clear.

MR VAN ZYL: I will repeat the question.  In order to fulfil its protective role properly, such as for instance a function to be fulfilled by a policeman or a soldier or any person utilised for that purpose, namely to protect people or buildings from attacks, to protect them from attacks against their lives or their property, that these protective agents should be able to act properly and effectively, in order to prevent these attacks and this could mean that they should in certain circumstances have the capacity to kill the attackers, otherwise they wouldn't be able to perform this protective duty properly.

WITNESS:   What is your question, Sir?

MR VAN ZYL: I'm making a statement.  I'm making a statement and you can comment on it.  Would you agree with the gist of my statement?

WITNESS:   If Inkatha knew that there were police who were trained to protect the community or people I do not think that there would be a need for Inkatha to train its own people.

MR VAN ZYL: No, I'm no referring here to Inkatha.  I made a statement, the gist of which is this.  In order to be able to protect lives and property properly the person doing this protective work must have the necessary capacity to enable him to do so properly and effectively and this capacity includes the capacity in certain circumstances to kill people.  Would you agree with that?

WITNESS:   No, I wasn't trained to protect.  The kind of house penetration that I was trained on I explained it to this Commission.