Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1999-02-24

MR LAX: His evidence to date is he never heard before about being involved and causing problems with two women, pouring beer over their head and assaulting them.  That he's heard for the first time today.  He says the only trouble he caused was by going to Moloesi's shebeen on Friday the 4th and complaining that they weren't serving IFP members and that that was going  to create problems in the community.  Now, that's all that's on record so far in terms of what he said.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Thank you very much Mr Lax I'm sorry I thought that he was disputing that he had never heard it before, and if he has said that this is in fact that he had heard it but it was a different manner then I just want to put one question, or manner to him, this evidence of, this item on page 102 leading page 103 is discussing issues on the 12th of February at approximately 18h00 in that vicinity.  I am saying that you did go to Moloesi's shebeen on that particular Friday according to the Judge and according to the evidence at Court.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr Chairperson that is not in dispute.

CHAIRPERSON: What's not in dispute, that they had the trouble at Moloesi's at six o'clock on Saturday 12th.  He said he was there on Friday the 4th and he went there to query the tavern keeper about selling only to ANC people

MR CLAASSEN: I thought Mr Cachalia was referring to that incident on the 4th or Friday.

CHAIRPERSON: He's referring to the one, this section on page 102 of the record in the judgment where he says that
"...sometime in the late afternoon, probably six o'clock on Saturday 12th violence broke out on the spot."
Oh that's the actual incident.  Whereabouts are you referring to?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: "This gathering was apparently result of an argument which had allegedly, something taken place in a shebeen."

AZHAR CACHALIA: I'm saying ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but that, that's, I mean, that doesn't

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what the missing line is but you know you sometimes can get a reaction to an incident on a day other than the day which, than the causing incident.  It doesn't mean it had to take place on the same day.  They could have been fighting about something that took place a week before.

AZHAR CACHALIA: As the Chairperson wishes, I will lead evidence about that particular matter, sir.  Mr, sorry sir, that would be the last question that I have, sir.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CACHALIA

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat?

MS LOCKHAT: Only one question.  Why did Mr Majola attack you?  What was the reason for the attack, do you know?

MR MPONGOSI: I did not know why he attacked me.  I think the reason why he attacked me was due to the fact that I was an IFP member and in my mind, what occurred in my mind was that that was what they intended to do.

MS LOCKHAT: How did he know that you were an IFP member?

MR MPONGOSI: Myself, I know myself that I'm IFP

CHAIRPERSON: How did Majola know that you were IFP?

MR MPONGOSI: This is how I'll put it.  At that ...(indistinct) are we would know one another very well as to who is who and what political group is he a member of, so that we know, each group would know its members.  The two groups knew very well who is a member of what group, and so on.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Draht do you have any re-examination?

MR DRAHT: No re-examination Chairperson.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DRAHT

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sigodi do you have any questions?

ADV SIGODI: I just want to ask one aspect on the issue of the firearms.  Do you know if the IFP had collected money to buy firearms?  In Zevenfontein.

MR MPONGOSI: Yes, because of the situation that prevailed at the time that necessitated us to collect some money and purchase firearms.

ADV SIGODI: Are you referring to a situation in Zevenfontein or are you referring to a situation elsewhere?

MR MPONGOSI: What occurred in other places elsewhere prompted us to deem it fit to buy or purchase firearms.

ADV SIGODI: Did you make any contributions to buy firearms at Zevenfontein?  Did you personally make any contribution to buy the firearms for the IFP?

MR MPONGOSI: I donated R 20 towards that.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know if, to whom did you donate this R 20?

MR MPONGOSI: I gave it to Mr Magwaza and said he should give it to Ben.  Ben who is the secretary.  And I left it there.

ADV SIGODI: Did you check if any firearms had been bought by the IFP after you've made your donation?

MR MPONGOSI: No I did not check, but I laboured under the impression that Mr Magwaza as our senior he will tell us and inform us with such information.

ADV SIGODI: ...(inaudible) was it necessary for you to go and get your own firearm?  If the IFP had this idea of collecting money for firearms for IFP people.

MR MPONGOSI: With regards to my firearm, I already had mine when that happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax, any questions?

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.  You only went to Sithole's place once that day?

MR MPONGOSI: Yes, I went to Sithole's once.

MR LAX: His evidence to us was that you went there twice, and in particular, and very importantly, once when there was a group of about 100 people that surrounded his house.  His evidence was, it was the same group of people that left his house on the first occasion who then came straight back, because they saw this big group around his house.

MR MPONGOSI: I think he is mistaken the second time because I went there once.

MR LAX: ...(inaudible) Zwane, correct?

MR MPONGOSI: Yes.

MR LAX: There isn't another Zwane involved in this incident.

MR MPONGOSI: You mean, are you referring to this group of us present here?

MR LAX: Your co-accused.

MR MPONGOSI: No, there is no any other Zwane.

MR LAX: Now, when you made this affidavit, I'm referring to the one at page 92 which you signed using your first name.

MR MPONGOSI: Using the first what?

MR LAX: You see that?

MR MPONGOSI: Yes.

MR LAX: Who came to take that statement from you?

MR MPONGOSI: At first this attorney on the other hand came together with Msizi.  And the second time it was himself the attorney, that is alone without Msizi.

MR LAX: ...(inaudible) attorney speak to you the second time?  Did he use an interpreter?

MR MPONGOSI: He made use of the policemen in prison.

MR LAX: ...(inaudible) Msizi was present and the lawyer was present?

MR MPONGOSI: Yes.

MR LAX: And you remember that incident?  It was in December of 1996.

MR MPONGOSI: Yes I do remember.

MR LAX: Now, what happened?  Did they ask you questions?

MR MPONGOSI: I was talking, I was the one talking.

MR LAX: ...(inaudible) Did they ask you questions and you answered and explained what was the story?

MR MPONGOSI: They asked questions and I thereafter talked.

MR LAX: In reply to your questions they wrote down the answers?  In reply to the questions and in reply to what you told them the answers were then written down?

MR MPONGOSI: Yes.

MR LAX: And at some point that was converted into a typed document, from handwriting to typing.

MR MPONGOSI: Yes.

MR LAX: Now, you said that this was not read back to you.

MR MPONGOSI: Yes.

MR LAX: Were you maybe mistaken?

MR MPONGOSI: No, I'm not mistaken.  That was not read back to me.

MR LAX: Well why did you sign something that wasn't read back to you?

MR MPONGOSI: He instructed me to sign.  He was always in a hurry.  He was hurrying somewhere.  We did not have ample time at our disposal, so he was hurrying.  I'm referring to the attorney.

MR LAX: The words that are written here, you say that you don't agree with that?

MR MPONGOSI: I will not say I disagree with that.  Maybe part of it I would agree with what is there and disagree part of it resulting to interpretation of the interpreter maybe.

MR LAX: He's fluent in Zulu isn't he?

MR MPONGOSI: Yes.