Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-04-07

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I will make an example, because we are now talking of the Defensive Group.
	I will make an example of KwaMakutha.  This is the period when the Defensive Group was sent to the local leadership of KwaMakutha and the local leadership communicated with the Defensive Group that this area or rather they help in identifying the areas.
	The Defensive Group then went to verify whether it was as the local leadership had put it to them.   On returning, the Defensive Group reported and there was preparation for the Offensive Group to go and attack, to kill people.
	That was the very first operation that took place.  In that operation the target that we had identified, was not killed, it was women and children who were killed.
	Those people came back to report and then it was discovered that they had made a blunder.  But nothing was done about this, nothing was done to punish them.  A goat was slaughtered to cleanse them, to show that they had killed women and children in a war situation, and this was not acceptable.
	From there, things did not go as planned by the Planning Committee, that is the identifying and verification.  This didn't happen because the people that had been organised by M.Z. Khumalo, did not do exactly as reported here in the affidavit.
	That is why what happened at KwaMakutha happened in other areas as well.  Because the only person who was now responsible or who was in charge, was M.Z. Khumalo.  He is the one who now gave instructions.  
	Therefore it did not happen as put down in the affidavit.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, at least you have given me an indication with regard to the time frames and I am greatly indebted to you therefore.
	Are you able to give an indication whether when you were appointed as the Overall Commander by M.Z. Khumalo, you also were able to command the Offensive Group?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: No.  The Offensive Group was always under the Boers, that is the military intelligence, under J.P. Opperman, his deputy being Cloete.  They lived at Port Dunfort.
	I never used to go to Port Dunfort.

UNKNOWN: And as the Overall Commander, were you in a position to give instructions or orders to members of hit squad like those of eSikhawini?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I would say on being requested by leadership just as it happened at eSikhawini where there were some Caprivians, but they were not associated with violence there.
	And the leadership at eSikhawini felt that it should assist these Caprivians because they knew that they were there, but they were not active at eSikhawini itself, but Nseleni as I have pointed out, Joyful Mthetwa was also there, but here, they were asking for assistance that they be present at eSikhawini.

UNKNOWN: Did you give any instructions or orders to members of those hit squad members, to engage in any of the activities that you have mentioned in your application, that is my question?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: No, not those at eSikhawini.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Just briefly Mr Luthuli, am I correct in recalling that when you gave evidence yesterday, you said that you don't know whether you yourself have killed anybody, but if you did, that you are sorry for it?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you can't recall whether you have killed anybody yourself?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I am saying yes, there were people that I killed, but there are others whom I don't know whether they died or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  On page 235 of the record you state that the system, referring to your Group system, the hit squad system, operated well and may still be operating.  The Caprivi trainees are still a close knit group who remain very independent.
	Is that just your opinion, or do you know whether they are still operating now?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, I would say as we are here, and they were not given an opportunity to be like ourselves, they are still continuing those who are, who were trained.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Stuart, do you have any questions arising out of questions that have been put by members of the panel?

MR STUART: I do Mr Chairman, and I understand that some of my colleagues, do as well, and I wonder ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I see that it is after four o'clock.  If we could then adjourn now until what time tomorrow would be suitable, half past nine again, and I wonder if the legal representatives could just briefly pop into our office, I would just like to see you briefly today to discuss about what should be done tomorrow.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody.  Yesterday we have concluded our proceedings with the members of the panel putting certain questions to Mr Luthuli, and it is now, I will now give an opportunity to the legal representatives to ask any questions they wish, arising out of the questions put by the panel.
	Mr Stuart, do you have any questions arising?

MR STUART: I do, Mr Chairperson, thank you.

MR STUART: There are just a couple of areas which have arisen, and I will deal with them one by one.  The first one is the question of Mr Samuel Yamile of Claremont.
	Mr Luthuli, did Mr Yamile play a political role in Claremont?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, that is correct.

MR STUART: How did the local people of Claremont, regard Mr Yamile at that time?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I would say they did not like him.

MR STUART: What was Inkatha's strength in Claremont at that time?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: There was no power for Inkatha in Claremont at the time.  If Inkatha was present there, it must have been at areas around Claremont, and there was just a few Inkatha members.

MR STUART: You said in answer to my first question, that Mr Yamile did play a political role in Claremont.  What objectives, what political objectives did he pursue in Claremont?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I would say he wanted the whole Claremont under Inkatha control by all means.  And also he did whatever he could, that those who were opposed to him and his political aims, that Inkatha be in charge, must be killed because they were an obstacle to the objectives, his personal objectives as a member of Parliament at the time, and also being an Inkatha member.

MR STUART: The next area I want to cover is the question of policy.  Was it to your knowledge, ever the public policy of Inkatha to kill its opponents and to clear UDF areas of the residents there?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I would say according to Inkatha, the policy was divided into two.  There was a written policy, a policy that they used for rallies and in the radio's, and this policy suggested that they are not associated with violence, they were for peace.  That was the known policy if they were talking in public.
	At the same time there was also another policy to the effect that they should be fighting against those people who were opposed to Inkatha.  Those people who were found or a place that was identified as requiring to be removed, so that Inkatha should remain in that area, such a thing, used to be done.
	That was also the policy.

MR STUART: This latter policy you have dealt with, I might characterise it from the way you speak, as a clandestine policy.  How did you come to know about that as policy?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I would give you an example.  Like the formation of the Caprivi group, according to policy that was not to be, but in action, the group came into being.
	There was no way where there was a meeting according to my knowledge, and the Goldstone Commission also discovered that, they denied knowledge of the existence of such a group.  They did not own up to the 200 members who went to Caprivi for training to defend or protect Inkatha leaders.
	And therefore there was a policy that was not spoken about within the IFP.