Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-05

MR SMUTS: Can I just clarify that, the interpretation said when we moved from Port St Johns, was that meant to be when we moved to Port St Johns from Flagstaff?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes, that is correct, we were from Flagstaff to Port St Johns.

MR SMUTS: So by the time you left Flagstaff, you had made a decision to go and attack specific people at Port St Johns, is that correct?

LUNGILE MAZWI: We made a decision that we were going to the comrades, and they would show us the enemy in Port St Johns, we were going to comrades in Port St Johns, and they would show us the enemy which was causing problems for them in Port St Johns.  We would attack them and then we would go to other places if we could, on that same day.

MR SMUTS: And the enemy you speak of, were people who had blown their hooters and disrupted the meeting of the South African Communist Party the previous year, is that the enemy you speak of?

LUNGILE MAZWI: It was anyone who was disturbing the struggle.

ADV DE JAGER: You said you would go to Port St Johns and the comrades will show you the enemy which you could then attack and then you go to other places, which you have planned.  Could you tell me about the other places that you had planned?  Where was that?

LUNGILE MAZWI: It would depend after we had attacked.  There were a lot of places that we could go to.

ADV DE JAGER: But you said other places that you had planned.  Which other places did you plan?  Where was that?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Maybe you heard me wrong.  I didn't say that there were other places that we planned to attack.  I said there were a lot of places that we could attack.

MR SMUTS: With respect Mr Mazwi, that is simply not correct, because when you gave your evidence as led by your legal Counsel, you were asked about the call by Mr Mandela for calm and that that was what led you not to continue with operations and your legal representative then asked you the following question which I have written down verbatim.  Is that what persuaded you to cancel the operations which you had planned for later on and your answer was yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you must read it in context, I think the problem that arises here is that there is possibly a plan for that same day, or elsewhere as opposed to other days.

MR SMUTS: I am not suggesting that it is otherwise Mr Chairman, but what the witness was specifically referred to by his legal representative was, operations which had been planned for later on.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the impression, one of the possibilities of his interpretation of his evidence, was that after the attack on Port St Johns, that they had planned other attacks for that day, and he says now that he didn't say that.

MR SMUTS: May I pursue that on a broader context then Mr Chairman?
	What operations which had been planned for later on, did you cancel?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I wouldn't say sir, because we had not already planned.

MR SMUTS: Then can you explain to the Committee why you confirmed that you cancelled operations which had been planned for later on, when that was put to you by your legal counsel?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I was not suggesting that there were a lot of places that we planned to attack, even though we could attack a lot of places.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you intend to attack other places without necessarily deciding which place it would be, or which places they would be?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Places which we intended to attack?

CHAIRPERSON: Listen to me.  We are all getting confused about the use of the word plan because one interpretation could be that you had planned specific operations to be carried out in specific places on specific buildings or people.
	Another interpretation could be that there was plans to participate in further attacks, without having decided who or what would be attacked.  Which is it?

LUNGILE MAZWI: After we attacked in Port St Johns?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

LUNGILE MAZWI: The question is not clear to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Look, you were asked by your legal counsel that after the Port St Johns attack, you had cancelled other planned operations, do you recall that?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The cancellation was as a result of the call of the President.  Do you recall that?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, let's forget for the time being about the attack that did in fact occur at Port St Johns, what did you mean by using or describing those plans which were cancelled?  What were you referring to?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I was trying to explain that it was not only Port St Johns that we could attack.  It was not only Port St Johns were there were enemies, because example Kokstad, Durban, Port Shepstone, etc even though we did not make a plan at that time that we were going to attack.
	I was just trying to explain that there were a lot of places that we could attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you intend to attack there at some later stage?  Be it Kokstad or Durban or wherever else?

LUNGILE MAZWI: If there was a need sir, we were going to go and attack there.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you intend to attack there?

LUNGILE MAZWI: We had not yet taken such a decision.

MR SMUTS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Why was there a need to attack at Port St Johns?

LUNGILE MAZWI: It is because the comrades in Port St Johns had a problem.  That is why we decided to start attacking in Port St Johns.

MR SMUTS: But we had understood that they had had that problem since the previous year, why did it suddenly become necessary to attack on the 13th of April of 1993?

LUNGILE MAZWI: That is why we decided to attack there, because we had received a report before about the problem in Port St Johns.

MR SMUTS: But you didn't decide to attack when you got the report, you decided to attack months later?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes, that is correct, we didn't take this decision when we got this report.

MR SMUTS: So what changed?

LUNGILE MAZWI: When we met with the comrades at certain times, it happened that they told us about their problems in Port St Johns.  It is then that when this happened, we decided to go to the comrades in Port St Johns, so that they could show us the people who were causing problems in Port St Johns, the people who were disturbing the struggle in Port St Johns.

MR SMUTS: You say it is when this happened, that you decided to go.  When what happened, when this report was made?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Please repeat your question sir?

CHAIRPERSON: You say something happened and it was as a result and only thereafter, that it was decided to go to Port St Johns.  The Advocate is asking what happened for you to decide that you must go to Port St Johns?

LUNGILE MAZWI: What made us take this decision was that the comrades in Port St Johns reported to us that they had a problem.  Nothing else made us decide to start in Port St Johns.
	It is because the comrades there had already reported to us that they were experiencing problems there and then we decided to start in Port St Johns.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?  Is that the only reason why you went to Port St Johns?

LUNGILE MAZWI: If I remember well, I can say yes because the comrades had already reported to us that they were experiencing problems there.

CHAIRPERSON: So your going to Port St Johns had nothing to do with the death of Mr Hani?

LUNGILE MAZWI: It doesn't mean that it doesn't have anything to do with the death of Mr Chris Hani.  I combined all this as one thing.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what I am asking you.  Why did you go to Port St Johns?  I am going to give you another opportunity to tell me.  Why exactly did you go to Port St Johns?

LUNGILE MAZWI: What made us take this decision to go and attack Port St Johns was because of the death of Chris Hani, and that there were problems in Port St Johns and there were people who were obstacles and they were disturbing the struggle in Port St Johns.