Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1998-08-12

VINCENT KHANYILE: To explain about the gates at kwaMadala, there is a gate in front which is normally used by Iscor workers, entering the hostel.  There is a gate where if you use the passage down the bridge to Iscor, it is the gate which enters kwaMadala hostel.  Those people who were guarding the gate which enters kwaMadala hostel, were residents of kwaMadala hostel.  They were Inkatha members together with us.
	The very same pain that we feel, I would say they experienced it.  Therefore we were sure that they will never report us to the Police or pass out information.

MR BERGER: What made you so sure that the Police or the Army that is the Vaal Commando, or the Iscor Security personnel who used to patrol in the area to your knowledge, what made you so sure that they would not be there on that night to witness hundreds of armed men, moving in the direction of Boipatong?

VINCENT KHANYILE: Mr Berger, since most of the majority of people staying in kwaMadala was Zulu speaking people, if we have concluded this mission which we wanted to accomplish, what will happen in future, is something that we don't discuss or we will see what will happen.

MR BERGER: Mr Khanyile, it occurred to you that the guards at the main gate would not report you because they were also IFP members.
	I put it to you it must have occurred to you that as you were moving on that main road from kwaMadala to Boipatong, you could have been discovered by the Police, the Army or Iscor personnel, am I right?

VINCENT KHANYILE: That we said, come what may.

MR BERGER: Isn't it that you knew that even if the Police or the Army or Iscor Security personnel saw you, they would not take any action against you?

VINCENT KHANYILE: I said Mr Berger, what we were going to do was something which was unlawful.  Whether the Police were to see us or the soldiers, they had the right to arrest us.

MR BERGER: When you came out of Boipatong, and perhaps I can refer you to some statements, Chairperson, in preparation for this hearing and in accordance with your wishes at the last hearing, we furnished the Evidence Leader and Mr Prior had copies of certain statements from SADF personnel, Iscor personnel and those statements were copied and given to our learned friends as well.  I don't know if the Committee received copies.
	Might I formally introduce this statements at this time Chairperson?  The last exhibit number was K.  Could we go through them and just identify the statements and then give them numbers.
	The next one should be the affidavit of Geldenhuys.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on a second.   Okay, yes, go ahead.

MR BERGER: Thank you.

MR STRYDOM: Mr Chairman, I just want an indication at this stage if Mr Berger intends calling these witnesses, because he wants to refer to certain statements, affidavits, but I cannot see the relevance if these witnesses aren't called at a later stage, and secondly I would submit that the issues raised in these affidavits, and I have looked at them, are actually irrelevant to the issues before this Committee at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, your response?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, one of the issues before this Committee is the issue of full disclosure.  It would have become abundantly clear from the questions that I have been putting, that we contend that there was direct Police involvement in the massacre and as far as the SADF is concerned, at the very least and I don't know if I will be able to prove any more, complicity to the extent that the SADF saw this group of attackers on their own statements, leaving Boipatong and doing nothing about it.
	The statement that I want to refer to in particular ...

CHAIRPERSON: If the members of the South African Defence Force saw the attackers leaving Boipatong, how was that relevant to the issue of full disclosure in so far as these applicants are concerned?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, not only did the SADF see them leaving Boipatong, but according to one stage, actually stopped traffic to allow the attackers to cross Frikkie Meyer Boulevard and return to Boipatong.
	According to another statement, a statement of Mr Geldenhuys ...

CHAIRPERSON: I am just trying to say if the involvement of the South African Defence Force is at the level of assisting the attackers when they were leaving Boipatong, is it being suggested that these applicants who are before us, were working in collusion with the South African Defence Force simply because the South African Defence Force did nothing as they were passing?
	Is that the basis of the connection?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, it goes beyond merely just letting people pass.  There is also statements that the South African Defence Force was present at Nobel Boulevard when shooting was taking place in Boipatong, and never went into Boipatong to assist.
	There is evidence from residents who went to soldiers of the Defence Force, asked them to go into Boipatong to assist and the soldiers said we can't go into Boipatong to assist.  What I am trying to suggest to this witness is that at the time when they were in the stadium, he must have been given the assurance that the Police who he knew were in the area, that the Army who he knew were in the area, would not intervene, would not resist the attackers going to Boipatong.  He must have been given that assurance.
	That is why these statements are important.  Chairperson, just on another level, as I understand ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay Mr Prior, what is your submission?

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, it is difficult to suppress this sort of information, given the submission by Mr Berger.  I think one should allow it and see how far one gets with it.
	My reading of the statements in the cold light of day, certainly don't assist as far as that is concerned, but obviously Mr Berger is building up to something and we must possibly bear with him in that respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Da Silva?

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairperson, my attitude is that if one wants to prove a document, one has to follow the normal procedure in proving a document through a witness.
	I submit with respect, that there is no procedure in terms of which documents can merely be handed in as my learned friend wishes to do.  I would submit that if he wants to hand in a document, he should prove it in the normal course of events.  I submit with respect, that the document that my learned friend has made available to me, do not take the matter any further and are irrelevant.
	I submit further that there is no document saying, or no statement saying that members of the Defence Force actually stopped traffic to allow the attackers to enter Boipatong.  All ...

CHAIRPERSON: But the point that is being made here is that the purpose of using these statements is merely to lay the foundation for the evidence that may be led on behalf of the victims.

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairman, my submission is ...

CHAIRPERSON: These statements are not the end in themselves.

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairman, I accept that, but I submit that in order to put the statements to the witness, I would submit that it should appear clearly from the statements that there is some form of complicity and my submission is that these statements merely show that after the event, some members of the South African Defence Force, saw people returning to the kwaMadala hostel.
	That, with respect, shows no complicity whatsoever.

CHAIRPERSON: But if his submission is sound, it may well be that if they were there when the people left Boipatong, they may well have been there when the people went to Boipatong because of the time span.

MR DA SILVA: Chairperson, I can't take the matter further than what I am submitting now, but I would submit that if my learned friend wants to lead evidence in that regard, there should be factual evidence in that regard.  It is mere speculation whether they were there before the attack or not.