Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1999-05-04

CHAIRPERSON: The legal representative would like to know why you would volunteer the information on Boipatong and not on Sebokeng where you killed nine people where you have already informed us this, you would not have admitted to it.  The attorney would like to know why you are willing to keep the information regarding Sebokeng secret and not the same with Boipatong?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I have already explained that I have already been convicted on Sebokeng therefore I have no reason to hide it any further but had I not been convicted, I would not volunteered the information.

CHAIRPERSON: The attorney would like to know why you volunteered information on Boipatong because you were not convicted on it?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: With regards to Boipatong I felt bad because many people were effected, old people were killed and the police and IFP were involved in this attack.  The people who survived know very well what trauma they went through.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair.
	So to take you up on an aspect is the following, you have killed in the past in cold blood, it appears that you suddenly have a moral attack.  That does not make sense.  The question is why all this morality all of a sudden?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I did kill people but it was under the command of Prince Zulu that I should do so.

MR LOWIES: Which incident are you now referring to?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I would like you to repeat the question because I am not sure the incident you're referring to.

MR LOWIES: Let's leave it at that, I'll repeat my question.  You have killed people in cold blood before and you chose to hide it, now it appears that you have a moral obligation to talk on your ....(inaudible) I'm asking you what has happened, why the sudden change?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: It is out of my own violation out the bottom of my heart.

MR LOWIES: But I thought you also said to us that you were under instruction of Prince Vanana Zulu?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, with regards to the Sebokeng matter.

MR LOWIES: So Vanana Zulu forced you, am I correct to attack the people in Sebokeng?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: That is so, you would have not disobeyed an order if you were issued with one at KwaMadala Hostel.

MR LOWIES: And in Boipatong were you forced by anybody?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: That is something which was discussed in a meeting and the only people who were allowed to remain behind were women and children.

MR LOWIES: But I don't get your answer, was it yes or no, were you forced or not?

CHAIRPERSON: I think the import of his evidence is that if you were made resident of the hostel there was no way you could not have taken part in these attacks.  I think implicit in that there was some kind of indirect order to go and do these things.

MR LOWIES: Now having regard to what has just been highlighted by the Chairman, I would like just to say this, what would have happened to you if you refused to go on the night of the Boipatong Massacre, would anything have happened to you?  Did you have a choice not to go?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: The situation did not allow because every adult there was supposed to go out on that attack.  The only people who were to remain behind were the children and the women.

MR LOWIES: Now to get back to your evidence yesterday, your evidence in chief and specifically when you were questioned by the Chairman, you said that you heard that lies were told here at the Commission regarding complicity of policemen and White people in the attack and that caused you to bring this application for amnesty for which we are here today.  Do you still confirm that evidence or do you want to change it?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I do not wish to change it.

MR LOWIES: So it's still the same?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes I stand by it.

MR LOWIES: Then my question is when did you hear that lies are being told here regarding police complicity and White complicity in the Boipatong Massacre?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I was present when they gave evidence, when the other applicants gave evidence.

MR LOWIES: So you say very first time that you wanted to apply for amnesty was when the proceedings in the Boipatong matter was already in progress and the amnesty I'm talking about is the amnesty for Boipatong?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: No I had already submitted an application for the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this in respect of Boipatong?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes when the hearing commenced I'd already submitted an application form.

MR LOWIES: But then you could not have heard here at the hearing that they are lying and that could not have been the reason for your application?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: It is true that I've submitted my application form a while ago and later when I came to this hearing and heard the applicants telling lies about the incident.

MR LOWIES: Okay, there's some confusion now and I'm going to afford the opportunity to clear that up.  I started off with the following, yesterday you told the Chairman specifically because he wanted to get clarity on the following point, you told the Chairman specifically that the reason why you applied for amnesty in Boipatong was because you heard that lies were being told here regarding the police complicity in Boipatong attack.  Do you still agree with that evidence?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I said I was involved in that incident that is why I submitted an application form and people were not telling the truth about the incident.

MR LOWIES: No but I want to hear whether you agree with what you said to the Chairman yesterday.  Forget anything else, my question is focused on the following, do you agree with what you told the Chairman yesterday and that is the reason why you applied for Boipatong amnesty is because "I heard that there were being lies told here at the amnesty hearing regarding police complicity".  Yes or no?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I was present here, I was listening to them as they spoke, it's not that I heard about it, I was present myself when they said that the police had not been present but the police had been present when people were killed.

MR LOWIES: Yes, yes, yes, I think I agree with you but the important point is the following, the point is those lies that you heard here caused you to apply for amnesty in the Boipatong hearing, yes or no?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I said the reason why I've lied for amnesty is because I was also involved in the attack, that is the truth.

MR LOWIES: I agree with you but you also said and this is what I'm establishing with you, was the other reason, the second reason in other words not that you heard here during the amnesty that lies are being told and that made you Sir apply for amnesty in the Boipatong matter, that's what you said?  Am I correct?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes I had already submitted my application by then.

MR LOWIES: So what you told the Chairman yesterday then was not correct and that is I heard lies being told and that is why I applied for amnesty.  That cannot be correct, you can't have the one or the other?  Or the one and the other?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I said I was involved in the incident, that is why I applied for amnesty.

MR LOWIES: I agree with you but that's not the point in issue at this stage.  I know that you said that.  The point in issue is you told two things which are mutually destructive.  The first is you said to the Chairman you heard lies being told about police complicity and that made you apply and you said on two occasions or three occasions yes that is the reason and that evidence is correct.  Now I want to know finally from you, is that the correct version?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes I was also involved in that incident.