Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1999-02-23

MR SITHOLE: I said the AK-47 is mine because Magwaza had not admitted at the time that I took it from him, and he said I should own it up and I decided to say the AK-47 was mine, and I indicated that Magwaza was not coming up with the truth, I would still have to appeal to him.  I did not want us to fight over this.  I indicated that I was going to tell them that he is the one who gave me the AK-47.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, were you and Mr Magwaza in the same prison?

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you go on Mr Cachalia, I'm just.  There's something that's been left undone and I just want to clarify it.  And it's the issue of the relevance of the appeal, and what the implication of that was.  Mr Sithole, what did the appeal have to do with what you may or may not have said.  How was it relevant to what you were saying?

MR SITHOLE: The importance would have to lower or decrease the sentence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I understand that's the effect of an appeal, but how did what you said in the application to the Amnesty Committee, how was that going to be affected, or how would that affect your appeal or not affect your appeal.  Because you have told us that one of the reasons why you told some lies, was because of the appeal.  Now what we're trying to understand is, what did you mean by because of the appeal?  Do you understand my question?

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Please explain.

MR SITHOLE: As I said I was awaiting the appeal.  I was waiting for the appeal to decrease or lower the sentence.  Now I had to write to the Commission because then that will be  comparing the two because one side I was lying, the other I was telling the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Which side were you lying and which side were you telling the truth?

MR SITHOLE: This appeal, this side.

CHAIRPERSON: What about it, was that a lie?

MR SITHOLE: I was lying because I said exactly what I had tendered at the Court of law.

CHAIRPERSON: And to the Commission you were telling the truth.  Do I understand you correctly?

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

MR LAX: You've told us that that was partly the truth, it wasn't the whole truth.

MR SITHOLE: No, that is on the first statement.

MR LAX: Correct.  Now what we want to understand from you is, why in relation to the appeal did you not tell the truth in your amnesty form, the first one?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat your question Mr Lax.

MR LAX: What was it that you wrote, what was it about the  lies you wrote in your amnesty form?

MR SITHOLE: In the appeal I had said exactly what I said in Court.

MR LAX: So did you not want that to be affected by what would go in the amnesty application?  The comparison of the two, is that what you're saying?

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

MR LAX: Now to get back to Mr Cachalia's question to you.  Why admit the gun, if you were worried about the comparison?  Because by admitting the gun, the comparison would reveal that your previous denial was wrong.  Do you understand what I'm saying to you?

MR SITHOLE: No, I didn't quite understand.

MR LAX: Let me put it to you another way then.  If you were worried about the comparison, why then would you admit the gun in your amnesty form, when in fact you had denied it in Court?

MR SITHOLE: It is because I wanted to tell the truth.

MR LAX: But it wasn't the truth.

MR SITHOLE: Partly was true, and part of that was lie.

MR LAX: Everything about the gun in this form is not the truth.  Everything about the gun is not the truth, in the first form.

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

MR LAX: So how would that help you?  That's what I don't understand.

MR SITHOLE: It will help in such a way that that attorney, I did not trust that attorney and I was still awaiting appeal.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, just to.  When this attorney came to you, was the process of amnesty explained to you?  What was required from you in order to get amnesty.

MR SITHOLE: It was explained by Anina afterwards.

ADV SIGODI: In other words the first attorney never explained to you what the whole process of amnesty was all about?

MR SITHOLE: The attorney did not explain the whole thing, but explained or told me that I should admit as to what I had in my possession and my role thereof.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Mr Sithole, just let me put this question again to you.  Why didn't you tell this attorney, lady I will not make the application now, I will wait for my appeal and then make the application?

MR SITHOLE: I feared that she would disappear once I said that, and yet I had not divulged the whole truth at that point in time.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Perhaps we're flogging a dead horse.  We'll carry on Mr Sithole.  The position on, was that you were, you were at that stage incarcerated at the Medium Prison in Johannesburg when you made the first application.  Is that right?

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

AZHAR CACHALIA: And your colleague from the IFP and your co-accused, Mr Magwaza, was also there with you at that time?

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

AZHAR CACHALIA: And you and him both made the application at that same time?

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Did you and Mr Magwaza and Ms Colleen Henchie sit down and discuss the matter together?  Was there anybody else?  Please tell us the circumstances under which you made this application.  Who was there?  Tell us.

MR SITHOLE: I don't remember as to who else was present.  I recall Magwaza and this one.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Sorry, by this one you mean Ms Colleen Henchie, the lady attorney.

MR SITHOLE: Yes, Colleen

AZHAR CACHALIA: Now, did they deal with your matter first, or did they deal with Mr Magwaza's matter first?  Did the lady deal with you first or with Mr Magwaza?

MR SITHOLE: I don't remember.

AZHAR CACHALIA: You see Mr Sithole, Mr Magwaza denied, he just repeated what he had said in Court.  He denied any involvement, any guilt in this particular matter.  You're aware of that, are you?

MR SITHOLE: I heard that, yes.  He never said that to me.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Sorry, you were together when this application was made.  I'm asking you who was there and you and Mr Magwaza and Colleen Henchie, at least those three persons were in the particular, presumably consulting room in the prison at that time together.  Is that correct?

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Now, when the, when Ms Henchie discussed this matter with you people, the same person that filled in the form for you has also apparently filled in the form for Mr Magwaza.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chair if I may, once again I don't know if this is reasonable questions.  Maybe the question should be put to the applicant not ...

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps I could put it.  Mr Magwaza, you say that the three of you were together in a room when you filled in these application forms.  Is that correct?

MR SITHOLE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Magwaza in his form, the version he put in his first form that's dated that same day, says that he wasn't even at Zevenfontein when this trouble occurred.  He was away.  He wasn't involved in it at all.  Did you know about that at the time that you filled in your form?

MR SITHOLE: I heard that when he said that when he was talking and also denying the fact that he had a firearm.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Why didn't you do the same Mr Sithole?

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chair, I'm sorry for ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think he's already answered that one.  He said he was protecting Mr Magwaza.  He said Mr Magwaza said that he must stick up for him and take the blame for the gun.  Were you protecting Mr Magwaza when you admitted that you were having the gun?  When you lied to the effect that you had the gun?

MR SITHOLE: What led me to say that, it was because Magwaza had not admitted that I had taken the gun from him.  Now I was pleading with him that, you see I'm divulging every truth here and I also made mention of the fact that I got the gun from you, and he did not, he disagreed with me on that point.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Cachalia.