Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-19

MR RICHARD: Would it surprise you that during evidence this week, Mr Dube said he made the decision himself and that particularly Tshabalala and Zungu were not involved in any decision making process at all?

PULENG ZWANE: Look, though a collective decision is being taken, but at the end of the day, one person is accountable for that particular decision.  In a war situation, a commander, I would understand and believe, is the one who is ultimately accountable for a particular decision, but in the name of the collectivity.

CHAIRPERSON: You are trying to justify it, but that is not what he said.  He did not say he was taking collective responsibility or anything of that nature.  He said
"I made up my mind that he should be eliminated, I told Clive to shoot him."

PULENG ZWANE: But what I understand from my discussion with him, is that he took a decision as a collective and then killed Dhlomo, but I am not, you know, I can't ascertain whether was he eligible to take a decision or not.  What I can say is that he told me that they took a collective decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he told you that they took a collective decision.

PULENG ZWANE: Sure.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what he wants.  He came and told us something completely different.  You know nothing about that, you did not know that, you thought they took a collective decision?

PULENG ZWANE: Sure.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not know that two of them weren't there at all, and they never discussed it?

PULENG ZWANE: Sure.

MR RICHARD: So then, when further down on the first page of D, you make some statements
"Sicelo was arrested by the Security Branch police in possession"
From where did you get that information?

PULENG ZWANE: From Dube.

MR RICHARD: Did you investigate it in any way whatsoever?

PULENG ZWANE: In that paragraph, I am writing about the circumstances surrounding the death of Dhlomo as narrated by Dube.

MR RICHARD: That is all I wanted.  And then here we have a statement Sicelo was often seen in a car belonging to the Security Branch police, is that also Mr Dube narration?

PULENG ZWANE: Sure.

MR RICHARD: Did you investigate it?

PULENG ZWANE: No.

MR RICHARD: Then why isn't that statement in the affidavit?

PULENG ZWANE: I said the affidavit is the product of the two documents put together, Dube's version of our conversation and my version of the conversation.  In that process, certain information is left out, but I didn't know, I don't see what difference would that have made to the sworn statement.

MR RICHARD: Let me proceed to another point.  Did you discuss the matter with the other three applicants, besides Mr Dube?

PULENG ZWANE: I spoke to one of them, Clive.  Dube came to my meeting with Clive.  I am not sure Clive, but I know it is a short one, and I want to believe that it is Clive.  I discussed the matter with Dube and Clive.

MR RICHARD: What did Clive say when you confronted him with Mr Dube's statements as they then stood?

PULENG ZWANE: He believed in what was written down as a true and honest  truth and nothing more, so he supported everything Dube told me.

MR RICHARD: Then it is obvious now why in each of the applications, apart from Mr Dube's, they say please refer to Mr Dube's statement?

PULENG ZWANE: Sure.

MR RICHARD: No more questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.  Mr Zwane, you say that you got this evidence that Dube worked for or had infiltrated the Security Branch during 1991.  I am not sure whether you also said this, but I just want to ascertain as to whether in your investigations or, yes in your investigations, was there any evidence, no matter how flimsy, that he was associated with the Security Branch prior that time?

PULENG ZWANE: To my knowledge, the only dates and years I can put my head of the block, given the evidence I have, is from 1990 up to 1992/1993, from that period, not before then.

MR KOOPEDI: There is nothing that goes backwards, thank you?

PULENG ZWANE: No.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, I think I have heard you correct and correct me if I am wrong, that this statement that is on page 10, the one that was shown to you, was  a product of what you and Dube had worked out.
	If you look at your report, at the last paragraph, the second line, you say that apparently an order was given by Dube, who was a commander at that time.  Where did you get this information that an order was given by Dube?

PULENG ZWANE: From Dube.

MR KOOPEDI: You got it from Dube?  So Dube never hid that fact from you that he is the one that gave the order?

PULENG ZWANE: No, he was honest about it.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay.  I see your report refers to a progress report of October to November 1996, would this be the only time where you had anything to do with this matter?

PULENG ZWANE: I think it was the last time.  This was my last and final report to the TRC in as far as the Dhlomo case is concerned, and then I left it at that stage.

MR KOOPEDI: My question is would there then be an earlier report on this matter?

PULENG ZWANE: Yes, there is an earlier report, but it is not in writing, it was a verbal report to Magadla, my Head.

MR KOOPEDI: Would you know if he recorded such verbal reports?

PULENG ZWANE: He was always taking notes when we were reporting to him.

MR KOOPEDI: Would it be correct to assume therefore that the TRC somewhere has a record of that report?

PULENG ZWANE: Sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Would the earlier report have been something to the effect of that you had received information that Dhlomo had been killed by members of Umkhonto weSizwe because he was an informer and you were going to check on it?

PULENG ZWANE: Sure.

CHAIRPERSON: No more than that?

PULENG ZWANE: No.

MR KOOPEDI: I must say we don't know that now Chairperson, but I will go on.
	I heard you say what was important, what was material was to find out who killed Dhlomo.  Was it also not material to find out why was he killed?

PULENG ZWANE: Sure, it was.

MR KOOPEDI: I believe that because you did not follow or complete the investigation, you were not able to find out why was he killed?

PULENG ZWANE: Sure, I gave the TRC a proposal that we know who, we don't know why.  I needed more resources and time to focus on the why.
	It was at the stage when I had differences with my superiors and then I left, so I could not establish why.

MR KOOPEDI: In your investigative experience, would it mean that the person who succeeded you in the investigation, would have followed up that fact as to why was Dhlomo killed?

PULENG ZWANE: I don't think so because the reason why I had differences with my superiors, was the same reason of establishing why was he killed.  They were satisfied with the who only.

MR KOOPEDI: You are saying your superiors didn't want you to investigate why Dhlomo was killed?

PULENG ZWANE: Sure.

MR KOOPEDI: Was there any reason given why?

PULENG ZWANE: They told me that there are certain priority areas which the TRC should focus on, as long as we have established who, we shouldn't bother by why.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, so it was not a priority to find out why?

PULENG ZWANE: Sure.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay.  Now, when you spoke to Mr Dube and any other applicant that you spoke to, did you have any doubt in your mind, that full disclosure of all the relevant facts is being given to you as a TRC Investigator?

PULENG ZWANE: Yes, I must place on record that I spent almost four full months with Dube.  You know, interacting with him on a frequent basis.
	I even went to his place, I even went to Soweto and met other sources.  I was confident and sure that this is a complete picture.

MR KOOPEDI: In as far as you are concerned, full disclosure of all the relevant facts relating to the killing of Sicelo was given to you as a TRC Investigator?

PULENG ZWANE: Sure.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay.