Amnesty Hearings — Ermelo — 1998-07-23

MR KEMP: Mr Chairperson, I thank you.  Just another matter which I need to raise Mr Chairperson, before I do that because of certain misconceptions that I've found.  In bundle 2,  directly after the Goldstone report by Mr Justice Goldstone, there's a document included called Goldstone Commission of Enquiry, the Wesselton Police Submission Apropos of the Investigative Procedures and that document concludes - my papers aren't paginated but the Goldstone report is 41 pages and one would find it on the following page which would then in effect be page 42.  It's a document that's 21 pages - that's in Volume 2.  I just want to explain that this document was in fact the heads of argument submitted by Mr Sogget in that Commission and did not form any part of Mr Goldstone's report.  The reply which I drafted and replied to this and which was fully considered by Mr Justice Goldstone is not annexed so I would ask that it merely be ignored as it's merely submissions made by another counsel.  Some people were under the impression that it formed part of that report.  Thank you Mr Chairman.
	Mr Khaba, these allegations which you've made in this Commission were broadly the same allegations you made in the Goldstone Commission is that correct?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: That is correct.

MR KEMP: I merely want to put it to you that as previously in the Goldstone Commission, those people and those policemen whom you've referred to by name deny that they participated in any illegal activities or support of - that is illegal support - of the Black Cats or any of the parties involved in the violence at that time?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: According to my knowledge I know that they're being implicated.

MR KEMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KEMP

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
	Mr Khaba, when you completed your application form for amnesty did you have the assistance of a legal representative?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: No, there was no legal representative.

MR MAPOMA: I take it that when the supplementary statement to your amnesty application was prepared it done in consultation between yourself and your legal representative, do you confirm that?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: Yes that is correct.

MR MAPOMA: Now, these two documents, your application form and the supplementary statement, I will not suggest that they are contradicting each other but I would want to know from you which of those two documents is truly reflective of the facts you want to bring before this Committee?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: The statement I prepared together with my attorney is the one.

MR MAPOMA: Now in the criminal case against you, you say you did not tell the truth there.  Now you say in this Amnesty Committee what you're saying is actually the truth?  I want you to explain this because the problem I'm having or that the problem that may be had is that you have an ability to swear and tell a statement and then again you swear and tell another statement.  Just explain the circumstances between the two because both your evidence in the criminal court and the evidence here has been an evidence sworn into.  I just want you to explain the circumstances between the two.

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: I will try and explain that.  The thing that made me give a false statement at the court of law were the reasons that I already on laid the table that the police and the court official, is the way they related my charges and the series of my charges, I realised there was nothing or there's no charge that I'm going to agree to.  This is why I've lost my application of amnesty so that I appear before this Commission and tell the truth as it is.

MR MAPOMA: Do you understand that for you to be granted amnesty you must tell the truth before this Committee?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: Yes I understand that perfectly well.

MR MAPOMA: And for you to be acquitted in the criminal case you did not have to tell the truth, is that not correct?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: At the court of law I did not tell the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Mapoma, he swore to tell the truth so he's supposed to have told the truth, not so?

MR MAPOMA: Yes sir, no what I want to say sir - unfortunately that perhaps I may have phrased my question not accurately.  What I just want to bring is the fact that in the criminal trial he did not necessarily have to tell the truth for him to get the results that would favour him as is the case in the Amnesty Committee.

ADV SANDI: But he had taken an oath to tell the truth not so, Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Absolutely sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should we believe you today - you took the oath to tell the truth on both occasions?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: I will briefly say this Commission that I'm appearing to is a Commission that is fair and it's law supports the rights of the people.  It's unlike the court situation.  At the court of law they look at what the police is saying and the court officials mostly more than what the accused is saying.

MR MAPOMA: When you take an oath Mr Khaba, do you always consider yourself bound by that oath?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: Please explain to which oath you're referring to -whether the oath at the court of law of here the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: It's the same oath to God to tell the truth.  God doesn't change between criminal court and here, it's the same God.

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: Mr Chair, I will agree with you on that point that the God we serve is unchanging when it comes to the truth but the court of law and the amnesty are two different things.
If you are in a court of law there are things that you have to say inevitably because there are police around you and the prosecutors.

CHAIRPERSON: But the question my colleague has asked is that when you took the oath to God did you not bind yourself to tell the truth?  Did you not bind yourself with God to tell the truth?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: I would briefly say Mr Chair I do trust and believe that the circumstances under which I were at the time there was not any other way that I could have handled the situation or the circumstances because the court of law could have sentenced me longer if only I told the truth.

ADV SANDI: Would it be a fair statement to make about you Mr Khaba that sometimes you find an oath binding on you but at other times you find it not binding on you?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: Yes that is so.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you sir.
	Now, let's go to the disco.  I will take you to what happened at the disco.  You say in your evidence in chief that you went there to defend the community, is it so?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: And I take it that there were a number of people, members of the Black Cats who were there, is it so?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: And you shot only one person there and that is Obed, is that correct?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: Yes, I wouldn't know other who got injured but one person I knew or I know is Obed.

MR MAPOMA: There were a number of other Black Cats you knew of other than Obed, is that not correct?  There at the disco?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: But why shoot Obed only?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: At the time when this transpired at the disco or happened I did not see Obed that he was the one who got shot, it happened like that, that he got shot at the disco.

CHAIRPERSON: You told us a few minutes ago the person that you recognised at the disco was Obed?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: Mr Chair, I don't have any recollection of such.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm telling you, you did say so.

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: It may happen that I made a mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you shoot other Black Cat people?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: Please repeat your question?