Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-18

JOHN RADEBE: Yes.

MR LAX: Why did you put him in there as somebody who gave you orders?  It's what's written here.  It's really quite simple.

JOHN RADEBE: The person who wrote Stanley's name here is the person who wrote this letter on my behalf.  I told him the positions that were occupied by the people and he included Stanley's name and I agreed with him.

MR LAX: Stanley was never your commander.  He wasn't even part of the SDU structures.

JOHN RADEBE: Yes, I agree.

MR LAX: So why did you mention him in the context of your commanders?  You dictated the letter, remember?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's no fair.  Neither was Mr Malekwane his commander.  That is not his evidence.

MR LAX: Was Mr Malekwane in your evidence when you were at Small Farms, your commander?

JOHN RADEBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But he didn't give you the order for this incident, isn't it?  He wasn't your commander when you committed this act.  When you killed Maletsatsi you were not acting directly on the command of your unit commander?

JOHN RADEBE: Yes.

MR LAX: Wasn't your earlier evidence that when Malekwane spoke to all of you that, early that morning, he issued a command, as a commander.  That's what you said.

JOHN RADEBE: I'm saying I took it from Mabusa because I was already in his unit.  The issue of Kennel addressing us when we were in large number, I leave it.  Such orders were even issued out at night vigils.  A comrade would stand up in front of the people and inform the people as to what happened.

MR LAX: Well then I take you back to paragraph 6 of your statement of page 148
"...comrade Kennel Paulus Malekwane was a unit commander who told us that Maletsatsi and the IFP members must be killed.  We began hunting them but could not find them."
Was that not an order to kill them?

JOHN RADEBE: I agree, it was.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

JOHN RADEBE: Chairperson, I explained to the person who was writing this letter on my behalf.  I told him that Stanley told us to do a clean job.  This person said, oh yes, then we must include his name, and then I agreed.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not concerned about what a person told you to do, and you agreeing, when in fact it was not so.  We are concerned about why you included persons, and we need plausible explanations why they were included in the context in which they were included.

JOHN RADEBE: Alright.

CHAIRPERSON: I have no questions to put to Mr Radebe.  That being the situation, Ms Thabethe if I understood you earlier on, you said the application is unopposed in respect of this incident.

MS THABETHE: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: In the light of the fact that we have now come to the end of leading evidence in respect of Mr Radebe's application, Ms Moloisane are you in a position to address us?

MS MOLOISANE: I am in a position to address you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to do so but otherwise if you need it, about five minutes to collate your notes, I know this has been a very protracted matter, we would be very favourable to give you that indulgence.  However, if you feel that you are in a position to proceed without any kind of adjournment we would be greatly indebted to you now that we notice that the time almost half past seven at night.
WITNESS EXCUSED

MS MOLOISANE COMMITTEE: Madam Chair I am in a position to address this Committee, and I will start with the second incident, that of Maletsatsi.
Madam Chair and Committee Members, my submission is that there has been full disclosure of these activities as required by the Act, and Madam Chair, I also would like to point out that as far as I am concerned, the applicant tried his best to recall the events of 1992, 1993, that led to the killing of Maletsatsi Marumo.  	Madam Chair, Committee Members, I agree that it has been a very tedious task for the applicant to recall the sequence of events as they happened then, Madam Chair and Committee Members, and Madam Chair, I, in this regard, would like to draw this Committee's attention to the fact that when this incident took place the applicant was 15, 16 year of age, and it is therefore the reason why he has, or he experiences such difficulty in recalling the sequence of events.  
	Nevertheless, my submission is that the applicant has established that in committing the said murder, he was acting on the orders.  Madam Chair it is not disputed that the said orders came from Mabusa Mhlongo and Kennel Malekwane.  Madam Chair it is also not disputed ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: You confuse me now if you include Kennel Malekwane.  My understanding of your client's evidence, at least the thrust thereof, is that this was mentioned by Malekwane when they were in Small Farm.  As a result of that information he took it to his commander, Mabusa Mhlongo, who then appropriately as a commander of his unit issued the order to have Maletsatsi killed.

MS MOLOISANE: I'm indebted to you Madam Chair.  Madam Chair, the crux of the matter is that the applicant in acting in the manner in which he did, that is in killing Maletsatsi, was merely executing orders that had been issued by a person who was in authority, and Mabusa Mhlongo himself testified, Madam Chair and Committee Members, that he was indeed the person in command, and the he did issue such an order, and to some extent that was also corroborated by Mr Bonga Khumalo, that Mabusa Mhlongo, having been an ex-MK cadre, was the unit commander of the unit to which the applicant belonged, and furthermore, Madam Chair, the said Bonga Khumalo also confirmed that the unit commanders had the authority, above all, to issue specific orders.  Madam Chair, I therefore ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Without interfering with the flow of your argument, and I hate having to do this, you are now relying on what Mr Khumalo said as the general commander, rightfully so, but hasn't he created a little bit of a problem insofar as the suspect is concerned, because his testimony is that, inasmuch as the commanders had authority to issue specific orders, emanating from his general order, they were also under some kind of obligation to verify information, before acting on that information, and in this case we do not have any such evidence that anything was verified by the commander concerned.

MS MOLOISANE: Madam Chair and Committee Members, I have already stated that the applicant was merely an operator.  He depended on somebody who had to issue orders, and as to the verification of the allegations levelled against the particular people, or in this case Maletsatsi, it was not encumbent upon the applicant himself to verify those orders.  It was the duty of his unit commander, Madam Chair, and having, these SDUs having been recognised by the community, and, my submission is that the applicant had no other way but to comply with orders that were issued by his unit commander who was recognised as his unit commander and who had earned that position by virtue of his having been an ex-MK cadre, and who also had the authority to issue commands.
	My submission is therefore that there was a political motive, and that the objective that was sought to be achieved was purely political.

CHAIRPERSON: Which objective did they seek to achieve in respect of the Maletsatsi killing?

MS MOLOISANE: Madam Chair, the applicants they said that Maletsatsi had to be eliminated, and although it was not his own initiative to do so, it was an order, but that he went further to say that it was because Maletsatsi was in possession of vital information concerning their activities, which information was being suspected that she was passing, or imparting.

MR LAX: Is it your argument that he had no alternative but to carry out this order.

MS MOLOISANE: That is correct Mr Lax.