Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-16

JOHN RADEBE: In that instance, when I said he shot twice, I included that in my evidence in the Supreme Court because they were arrested first and the police showed me their exhibits and evidence that I'm the one who took the major, or played the major role in the murder which happened on that particular day.  As I knew as a member of the self defence unit the, no member of the SDU would be able to testify against another comrade, then when I found out that they gave evidence against me, therefore I decided that I should give that evidence so that all of us would be convicted.  But truly, I'm the one who shot.  He did not shoot.  Because his gun had no ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: You are basically saying you lied before Justice Goldblatt when you said Mr Mkhwanazi had shot at the deceased?

JOHN RADEBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I cannot understand however why you lied when you applied for amnesty to this Committee, knowing fully well that the requirement for a successful application is the truth.  Why did you do that?  I can understand you lying during the criminal trial.  I want you tell me why you lied when you applied for amnesty here.

JOHN RADEBE: On the statement which I made before the TRC investigator, that is Judge Mdluzi, I did not know that TRC is, does not align itself with what is happening at Court, because I thought that I would say exactly what I said in the Supreme Court when I came before this Committee, because a certain woman who came to me, that is Sissy Rampepe explained to us that as we have already applied we would get legal representative who would inform us about the procedure of the TRC.  That did not happen, that I should know my legal representative in time before I came before this Committee.  That they want only relevant facts in regard to the incident, not what happened in Court.  That is when Ms Moloisane on the 7th and then on the 8th we were to appear here, that we should only tell what happened on that particular day only.  That is why I tell the truth today of what happened on that, the particular day of the incident.

MR LAX: Mr Radebe, when you applied for amnesty, did you understand that you had to tell the Commission the truth?

JOHN RADEBE: ...(not translated)

MR LAX: Just yes or no, simple answer.

JOHN RADEBE: I wouldn't know that it is a truth commission.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not the question that is being put to you.  When you applied, did you know that you had to disclose the truth about what had happened?  That is the question being put to you.

JOHN RADEBE: I did not know.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not visited by several members of the Truth Commission, who explained to you the process, and advised you that you further had the right to be legally represented?  Were you also not visited in prison by members of the community who understood the Act and were placed in places like Vereeniging and explained to you the requirements of the Act?  I am now talking about the prison wherein you were.

JOHN RADEBE: That did not happen to me, that a particular person would come to me and visit me and inform me about the requirements of the Act.  That what happened in Court has nothing to do with the TRC.  What I knew was that a legal representative would come and inform me what would happen, what should happen in regard to my application for amnesty.  I only knew my advocate on the 7th, and then on the 8th I came before this Commission.

MR LAX: What does TRC stand for Mr Radebe?

JOHN RADEBE: That is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

MR LAX: Doesn't that mean you must tell the truth?

JOHN RADEBE: Yes.

MR LAX: So you knew that at the time you filled out the form, and at the time you made the statement.  Please let's not play games here.  You beat around the bush with a long story.  Just give us a straight answer please.

JOHN RADEBE: My answer is that I should say before this Truth Commission what I have said in the Supreme Court.  I didn't know anything other than that.

MR LAX: Was it the truth?

JOHN RADEBE: I regarded that as the truth because that's what I said in Court.

MR LAX: So then what you're saying today is a lie.

JOHN RADEBE: As from this morning I only told the truth of what happened on the particular day.

MR LAX: You knew very well that what you said in this affidavit was not the truth.

JOHN RADEBE: ...(not translated)

CHAIRPERSON: May I find out why you applied, Mr Radebe?  When you completed your application on the 16th of April 1996, what were you applying for?

JOHN RADEBE: I was applying for the murder of Maletsatsi Marumo, the murder of Hapile Ndumo, the attempted murder of, and the illegal possession of arms and ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: And what did you understand the application to be seeking to do?

JOHN RADEBE: It was in regard to the incidents which I was convicted for and that is why I included those case.

CHAIRPERSON: But what do you understand those incidents to ...(intervention)

JOHN RADEBE: ...(not translated) ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I haven't completed my sentence.  What did you understand the incidents to be relevant to, in terms of politics?

JOHN RADEBE: Because I was a member of the ANC and they were Inkatha members and they were responsible for the killings and we were protecting the community.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you understand that you had to apply only if the offences for which you sought amnesty were politically related?  Did you understand that when you completed this application form?

JOHN RADEBE: Yes, I was explained in that way.

CHAIRPERSON: Who explained that to you?

JOHN RADEBE: Mr Mfolo who is the prison warder.

CHAIRPERSON: And why then would you believe that you were committed to the lie which you had given during your criminal trial, and the lie which you gave when you were a State witness against your fellow comrades during your criminal trial, when it was explained to you the offences for which you could succeed for amnesty were politically related?

JOHN RADEBE: May you please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you believe that you were committed to the lie which you had given during your own criminal trial, and the lie which you gave whilst you were a State witness in a criminal trial of your fellow comrades, when it was explained to you that the requirement for amnesty was that the offences for which you sought such amnesty had to be politically related?

JOHN RADEBE: I said so in Court, because I thought that they testified against me, and even I informed the Court that we did all these things in the protection of the community.  That is why I thought they were politically inclined, because we were protecting the community against those who were attacking them.

CHAIRPERSON: You still have not responded to my question.  I will ask the question again for the third time.  Why did you believe that you still had to be committed to the lies you had told initially during your own criminal trial and subsequently when you gave evidence against your comrades during their criminal trial, when it had been explained to you by the warder that the offences for which you could apply for amnesty had to be politically related?

JOHN RADEBE: I hear but I don't understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: What is it that you don't understand in the question when you hear, when you say you understand?

JOHN RADEBE: I understand it from the beginning, that is why should I commit myself to the lie which I said in Court in my case and then against my comrades, but at the end of that question I did not understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether there is a problem of interpretation or is the question on it's own a little complex?  I will attempt to dilute it further.  You have already testified that the offences for which you could apply for amnesty had to be politically related, and that this information you were advised by a prison warder.

JOHN RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.