Amnesty Hearings — Pinetown — 1998-10-22

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: I am not in a position to state exactly as to the organisation itself.  It knows better because we never went further, beyond that point and as far as that amount of money was concerned, that is up to the organisation, and it will be in a better position to explain this much better than me.
	I am a convict now.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: With regard to incident one, what was Thompson's status, vis-a-vis a vis-a-vis your status in the organisation?

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: Thompson was my senior.  I was his junior, subordinate.  He was truly and indeed a senior and I was a junior to him.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: If given an instruction or an order by a person's senior, let's say Thompson for example, and you find that order or instruction not justifiable and you refuse to carry it out, would anything have happened to you?

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: An order is an order.  You don't question an order.  You take an order and process it.
	You will ask questions after you have taken it into action.  You cannot defy an order.  As a senior you take instructions and process it and you will have to comply with the order, no questions about that.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: You testified that you saw Ndlandhla at one stage, I think you said on a photo he was moving to a blue car driven by a white person, am I correct?

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: And then later when you went to court, after the arrest of Innocent, you saw, you identified the Investigating Officer as the one who was on the photo with Ndlandhla, is that correct?

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Good. Is there any other incident that you know of personally, that could convince you that Ndlandhla was an informer, other than the photo?

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: Another thing besides this photo story, I got to discover this later on the day when he was killed, that Ndlandhla indeed was colluding with an enemy.
	It was on a Monday that day, I remember when we got to Ndlandhla's work place, there was a call that came and he answered the phone, Ndlandhla that is, and he said hello, and I suppose the person on that side responded and Ndlandhla said, is it you Piet?  That time when he mentioned that name, I already had heard that Ndlandhla is working for this particular Police by the name of Piet.
	Now that quickly registered in my mind, now I heard him say Piet, I am suppose to give you a feedback, but I will see you later when I come back from - meaning from the meeting that was scheduled with the management of Juba Breweries.  In other words he was saying he would talk to Piet after that meeting, when he gets back to the office.
	I was asking myself, wondering as to what feedback was he referring to or what feedback is he talking about here.  You see, we know a few English terms and the names, English names, now when this Piet was mentioned, in my mind there was nothing else except that this is the Piet he is working with and yet the congress we had the previous day, Ndlandhla was there, he had attended, and the day when we were killing him, we asked him about the phone call and asked him who was this person you wanted to give a feedback, and he accepted and told us that it was Piet Nel, and this was the Police that had hired him.
	Besides that incident, I will say you see an informer can be identified very easy and so simple.  An informer is so curious, will always want to know every detail, even things that will not concern him at all.  That is the characteristic of an informer.
	But then again, when you listen to him quite closely, you will follow that the information that he so much wants to know and hear, it is not because he has any interest in what you have, but you can tell easily that he has other motives, or hidden agendas.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, that will be all.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mpshe.  Mr Mbandazayo, do you have any re-examination?

MR MBANDAZAYO: None Mr Chairperson.

MR MBANDAZAYO: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibanyoni, do you have any questions to ask the applicant?

MR SIBANYONI: Yes thank you Mr Chairperson.  Mr Ngema, do you know or perhaps you don't know, whether it was PAC policy to kill its members who are informers?

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: According to me, I was active in the VIP protection and security, I learned that and it was explicitly conveyed to us that any informer shall be killed.  AT the time, we had no any other ways or remedies around informers, except eliminating them, or maybe disciplinary actions or so.  There were none, except they shall be killed, so that there is no link between the enemy and the organisation.

MR SIBANYONI: I see this incident happened in 1992, things were a little bit better by that time, organisations were unbanned, you could operate freely in the country.
	Don't you think it was possible to deal with him, discipline him in another way, rather than killing him?

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: You say things were well in 1992, no, I think we differ.  In 1992 South African Police killed Themba  Nxapayi.  I don't think that I agree with you when you say things were calm then or were straight and in order.
	I don't think I agree with you.  There still wasn't any stability at that time.  Another thing I will say with regards to the armed struggle of PAC, it was still active and APLA was very active in action at that time.
	I don't think the struggle had come to a stop.  There were negotiations, I do agree with you there, but the armed struggle was still going on.  It is not to say the situation had been quelled, no.  We believed that the government of the day was not legitimate.  
	We were believing that we as PAC, are legitimate and an organisation that practice legitimacy.  That is what I will say.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Sibanyoni.  Mr Lax, do you have any questions to ask the applicant?

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.  Mr Ngema, the second mission that you went on, if I understood your evidence correctly, you were going to a bar in Port Edward, that you said whites frequented.

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: Yes.

MR LAX: What were you going to do there?

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: We were going to kill or we had planned to kill the whites that were drinking there, or that frequented that place.

MR LAX: Was that the sole purpose of your mission?

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: No.

MR LAX: What else were you going to do there?

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: The reason why we would have wanted to kill those whites who were drinking there, was to try to bring some fear to the white community or civilians that they should not trust the government of the day and they shall be the ones who will be in the forefront, wanting the government to put or to get out, to step out of governing the country.
	We wanted to have them see that there is no hope and this government is hopeless because such things are happening in their communities.  They are being killed during their governing and there is nothing, in other words, it is just a hopeless government.  That is the kind of impression we wanted to instil to the white community or civilians.

MR LAX: Yes, I understand that being the motive of the operation, but I want you to turn to page, do you have the documents in front of you, page 3?  Page 3 forms part of your amnesty application, dated the 25th of April 1997.  The date is on the previous page, the page after that.
	In that in answer to question 9(a)(iv) where you give the nature and particulars of your actions for which you are applying for amnesty, the second operation is recorded as follows.
	In the second murder, I was in fund-raising mission.  This wasn't a fund-raising mission.  Please explain this to us.