Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-08-05

MR LANDMAN: You have however subsequently been told and you have read statements of people who were present when the explosions occurred.  Is that correct?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: That's correct.

MR LANDMAN: Now bearing in mind those descriptions of the incident, can you comment upon the effectiveness of the plan which was planned and executed by amongst others yourself and Joseph Kgoele?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: My comment can only be that that plan was well executed and the majority or millions of Black South Africans they were happy that at least those in fact who had been unleashing terror against them can also now taste the pain of their deeds.

MR LANDMAN: Knowing now the manner in which the explosions occurred and the casualties that were inflicted, can you inform the Committee as to whether or not that operation and the consequences of that operation fell within the policy of the ANC and MK?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: It fell perfectly within the policies of the ANC and MK.  Maybe we should also remember the fact that the people who were killed by this bomb are the very same people who had been sent to the townships shooting at unarmed innocent children and Black people.

MR LANDMAN: I believe Mr Shoke it's common cause that those killed in the bombing were policemen.  Is that your understanding as well?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: Those were the people in fact who had arms and who were defending apartheid.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they policemen?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: Apartheid policemen.

MR LANDMAN: According to the statements there were some civilians who were slightly injured.  Can you comment upon that?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: I think in fact it's also stated in the ANC submission that as the struggle intensified, civilians would be caught in crossfire, but however we'll never go out of our own way to go and inflict casualties (indistinct) and I can refer you to page 51 of the main submission by the ANC.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman I'm coming to the end of the evidence in chief as it were.  May I enquire from the Committee whether the applicant's application is before the Committee, the signed and sworn application.  I believe it is in the bundle from page 14 onwards?

CHAIRPERSON: (Inaudible).

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman you will find from page 30 and - on pages 30 and 31 an amplification of the initial application form.  I understand that was sent in response to a request by Mr Prior for further particulars.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman may I just point out, I don't know if pages 30, 31 are the further particulars supplied by Mr Mabele.

MR LANDMAN: Thank you, I apologise for that if that's the case.

DR TSOTSI: What about the other bundle Mr Prior, is it not perhaps in the other bundle, these further particulars?

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman may I should just ask Mr Shoke whether he did supply further particulars, that might just resolve it.

CHAIRPERSON: There is the Annexure A.

MR LANDMAN: Mr Chairman I am instructed that he didn't provide further particulars, all that he did supply was on the application form itself, as well as Annexure A as has been pointed out by the Committee member.  And you'll note on page 22, part of Annexure A, he does refer to the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court car bomb.  In that case Mr Chairman I have no further questions at this stage.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LANDMAN
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR WAGNER: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Shoke may I refer you to your written application as it appears in Volume 1 from page 14 onwards.  Is this document completed in your own handwriting?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: That's correct.

MR WAGNER: Every part of it?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: I concur with what is in this document.  I don't know whether every part of it has got any relevance to this matter we're discussing here.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke will you please answer my question.  Is the handwriting in this document yours?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: I say I concur with the contents of this document and whether it is every part it's got no relevance with the matter under discussion here.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you answer the question Mr Shoke, it is not for you to determine relevance.  You have been asked was the whole document filled in in your handwriting.

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: There are some parts that I dictated to someone if you're going to hand a submission that he should fill them in.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke can you tell the Committee which parts of this document you completed yourself and which parts were completed by someone else?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: Page 16, B, C, C.1.i, ii, iii and iv and 10.a, that's it.

MR WAGNER: In other words the paragraphs you referred to now, were they not completed by yourself, is that no your handwriting?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: I dictated to someone telephonically.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke did you sign this statement at a stage when it was completed as it is before us now or did you sign it and was some parts added afterwards?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: I signed it.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke didn't you understand my question?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: I say I signed it.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was when you signed it, had these paragraphs been inserted or where they inserted later?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: I signed the statement before and then someone wanted to come to finish, to come and finish certain particulars and asked me questions and then I said fill in those particular details, that's all.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke I want to make absolutely sure.  Did you complete this form ... (intervention)
MR LANDMAN

MR WAGNER: Just give me a moment please.  Did you complete this form and sign it and confirmed it under oath apparently and then afterwards you asked someone to amend the document, after you'd signed it and sworn to it under oath, is that what you're telling us?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: I completed the document and left it in Shell House.  Someone phoned me that the document is incomplete.  I said could you please fill the following - he asked me portions and I responded to that, he read it to me and I said I concur.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke do you have problems in following what I am asking you.  I'm simply asking you this, did you sign the form under oath and then afterwards have someone else amend the document?  That's all I'm asking you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the word amend correct Mr Wagner.  I don't read these as being an amendment to the document, I read it as an addition?

MR WAGNER: Sorry Mr Chairman we may call it an addition.

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: (Indistinct).

MR WAGNER: I would like you to respond please.

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: I think I've already responded.

MR WAGNER: Mr Shoke I'm going to argue at the end of this matter that you're not prepared to answer my questions.

CHAIRPERSON: He has told us that he went to Shell House, he signed the document, somebody later phoned him up and said it was not complete and he asked them to fill in the following.  Hasn't he told us that?  Isn't that an answer to your question?

MR WAGNER: Mr Chairman we will argue this.  Can I refer you to page 16 Mr Shoke, paragraph b which apparently is not your handwriting.  Now what stands there, is it correct in relation to the incident that you are now applying for amnesty for?

SOLLIE ZACHERIAS SHOKE: I think you asked me first (indistinct) which paragraphs were not my handwriting and I specifically told you that so I don't know really what you want now.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was are the averments in that paragraph correct or not?  It's a perfectly simple question

<UNKNOWN>: "State whether any person was injured, killed or suffered any damage to property as a result of such acts, omission or offences", and what is contained is now

<UNKNOWN>: "I have no details thereof because I left the operation scene immediately without verifying whether victims injured or dead".