Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 2000-06-12

MR LEBEA: It is true, you look at the situation and you check which weapon to use in which situation, but what I can say to you is this, our function was to carry out the orders, we did not check as to who was old, who was not, but it is true, when you execute an order, you check which weapons to use and which not to use at which times.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue Mr Kachelhoffer.

MR KACHELHOFFER: Did you, during the reconnaissance process, maybe consider rather to enter the premises during the stage when they were not present?

MR LEBEA: Not at all.

MR KACHELHOFFER: Now was it part of your plan to actually physically attack the people as well in the process?

MR LEBEA: Yes, it was.

MR KACHELHOFFER: So I take it that you will concede that you have indeed inflicted very serious bodily harm to these elderly people during the process?

MR LEBEA: I concede to that.

MR KACHELHOFFER: And you will also concede that this has traumatised them severely as well?

MR LEBEA: I will agree with you on that as well.

MR KACHELHOFFER: In the light thereof, do you have any remorse towards them in this regard?

MR LEBEA: As explained earlier on that I'm asking for forgiveness from them, that's a way of showing remorse.

MR KACHELHOFFER: You have also mentioned earlier on that you have caused material damage to them in the amount of approximately R26 000.  It was a lot of money for that time, isn't it?

MR LEBEA: Can you repeat your question please?

MR KACHELHOFFER: You also testified earlier on that according to your information you have caused material damage to them in the amount of approximately R26 000.  You will concede that it was a lot of money for that time.  That's about 9 years ago.

MR LEBEA: According to me that was a little amount.

MR KACHELHOFFER: You also testified to the effect that you have hit Mr van Tonder with a panga but can you also remember that you have in the process hit him with a spade as well?

MR LEBEA: No, at no stage was he hit with a spade.  I do not know that version.

MR KACHELHOFFER: So according to you it was not even possible that some of the others hit him with a spade?

MR LEBEA: No, such possibility, Sir and the issue of a spade does not feature at all, even a possibility, the slightest possibility of a spade does not exist, there was no spade.

MR KACHELHOFFER: Why are you so sure about this?

MR LEBEA: It's because we did not carry a spade along.  I explained the weapons that we had, an AK47, a 9mm pistol and a panga.  The spade issues is a new story, it's new to my ears.

MR KACHELHOFFER: Can you maybe give us an indication of how many times did you hit Mr van Tonder with the panga?

MR LEBEA: I did not count how many times did I hit him.  Under those circumstances you do not count as to how many times you hack someone.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, if I can just come in here.  Just explain to me, whilst you were hitting him, at that stage what was your intention?

MR LEBEA: My intention as explained earlier on was to go and repossess.  At the time of hitting him with a panga, the intention was to hurt him and to instil fear in him so that they could move away from that area.

ADV SANDI: Should I take that to - I mean what you've just said now, would it be correct to say that you didn't intend to kill him?  Was it your intention to kill him?

MR LEBEA: I agree with you, the intention was not to kill him.  Had it been the intention to kill him, we would have done so.  I mentioned already that it was to instil fear in them.  As you might as well know that the farmers have the country's economy in their hands, they are the owners of many hectares of land.  Now the intention was to instil fear and again ...(not translated) the economy of the Government of the day.

ADV SANDI: Were you hitting him with this panga because he was preventing you from taking the goods you wanted to take, what's the position?

MR LEBEA: He was trying to defend himself as I was trying to get the firearm from him, but that was not the only reason that made me hit him with the panga.  I have explained already that I did not hit him because he didn't want me to get hold of the goods.

ADV SANDI: So you could have taken the goods without hitting him with the panga, is that what you are saying?

MR LEBEA: No, I don't think so.  I don't think it will have been easy, I don't think he would have given up that way.  I'm explaining, I'm saying it was to instil fear so that they leave the property.  Again it was to repossess.

ADV SANDI: When you were hitting him with the panga, in whose hands was his firearm?

MR LEBEA: I do not recall and I don't understand your question, whose hands are you referring to?

ADV SANDI: Was he still in possession of the firearm when you were hitting him with the panga?

MR LEBEA: He had a firearm.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Sir.

MR KACHELHOFFER: I think the Committee's question is, was he still in possession, actual possession of the firearm whilst you were busy hitting him with the panga?

MR LEBEA: Yes, that's what I'm explaining.  The firearm was still in his hand.

MR KACHELHOFFER: And what happened to the firearm eventually?

MR LEBEA: Eventually I managed to get hold of the firearm.

ADV SANDI: When you managed to get hold of the firearm, did you continue hitting him with the panga?

MR LEBEA: I carried on, but yes, I went on hitting him with the panga after I had taken the firearm.

ADV SANDI: How many times did you continue hitting him after he had taken hold of the firearm from him?

MR LEBEA: I would not count how many times, but I think it was twice.  I'm just estimating.

ADV SANDI: What was your intention at that stage by hitting him with the firearm - with the panga?

MR LEBEA: The intention was to hurt him, so that the Government would listen to the cries of the Africans.  I believed that the situation in which he would be found, the Government would listen.  That would instil fear in the white people as we made our calls.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR KACHELHOFFER: Thank you Mr Chairman.  How many shots were fired with the 9mm pistol that morning?

MR LEBEA: Just once, I believe.

MR KACHELHOFFER: And did it hit any target?

MR LEBEA: I don't quite know whether there was a target hit.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What kind of wound did you obtain, was it a gunshot?

MR LEBEA: Yes, it was a gunshot wound.

JUDGE DE JAGER: By a shotgun or by a pistol?

MR LEBEA: I don't know whether it was a pistol or a shotgun, but it was a gunshot wound.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now you've made a statement at this stage to the police and said that after you've obtained this wound, you were taken out of the house and you were laid down in a rondavel, is that so?

MR LEBEA: I would not say that is the truth.  We had to deviate completely when giving statements to the police, we did not have to tell them exactly what happened.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, I'm only asking, were you taken to a rondavel after you've been wounded and the other came back and entered the house, or didn't it happen that way?

MR LEBEA: That did not happen.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I see.  And weren't you five people at that house?  Didn't one Paulus Masitsa also accompany you in this robbery?

MR LEBEA: No, he did not accompany us.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So he's lying himself when he says that he accompanied you?

MR LEBEA: No, he did not go with us, he is lying, Paulus Masitsa did not go with us.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Didn't you go to his house before you went to this farm house?

MR LEBEA: We did go, but we did not go with him to the farm house. We used to frequent his place. During the reconnaissance we used to go to his place because many - they were selling quite a few items like liquor.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So if he's made a statement saying that you visited him that evening and asked him to accompany you, that would be a lie?

MR LEBEA: That would be a lie.  I'm explaining that he was not present at all when we committed this act.