Amnesty Hearings — Pinetown — 1999-03-08

CHAIRPERSON: They wanted to create a funeral to get the brother to come as a mourner.

MR WILLS: Yes, that in fact, that policy was adopted in both Hammarsdale and the Ermelo matters.  In the Hammarsdale matter in fact there were two members of one family killed in order to lure the brother back.  There was a mother and a son killed, and in the Ermelo matters it was just one incident, but the same tactic was adopted.
	But my submission on that is the specific objective, firstly, was to get the particular activist who was labelled as a troublesome person, and in all of these instances, it wasn't applicant seven's idea on his own, he was advised to do this by, in the case of the Hammarsdale matters by Mkehle and I think in the case of the Ermelo one which we'll get to it was Mwayo who instructed him accordingly.

CHAIRPERSON: What about proportionality in respect of that sort of incident?

MR WILLS: Well, I submit ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Where you go to such extreme lengths to, just to get the presence of your target, let alone to kill him.

MR WILLS: Yes, I submit that the issue of proportionality with respect concerns issues more where orders are absent, because where a person is given an order, clearly, particularly Hlongwane, he was at the bottom rung of this killing machine, and he just had to execute those orders.  I think that that creates a problem.  If it were Mkehle applying for amnesty in regard to those events.

SISI KHAMPEPE: But I have a problem.  I agree with you, to some extent, with your submission.  But I do not recollect Mr Hlongwane's evidence with regard to the Hlowane killings, the two brothers, to have been that in both incidences he received instructions from Mr Mkehle.  I think the instructions was with regard to the killing of Thulani, but I do not recollect the evidence to have gone that far with regard to the later killing of the other brother.

MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  I'd have to look at that more closely.  My recollection was that the first instance was the order to kill the mother of the, and then the second incident was the younger brother.

SISI KHAMPEPE: I can assure you that the first order was to kill Thulani in order to lure in Sikanye.  I think that's the person who was being targeted.  Now the reason why they wanted Sikanye is that they couldn't locate Sikanye and the only, best method that Mkehle came up with was to kill Thulani in order to get Sikanye, who it was anticipated would be killed in a night vigil.

MR WILLS: Yes, look I will check up the detail of that if I could have some time and get back to you.  But assuming that what you say, Ms Committee Member, is correct, I still submit that if the initial order was given on the basis that you kill person X to lure your target into a night vigil so that you can kill him, and you do that and that doesn't work, then I would submit doing it a second time would be performing the same plan in a second attempt to try and get the person.  And I submit that if the second time wouldn't have been necessary had the victim been, had the plan worked in the first instance, but the plan didn't work, so he had to try again.  And the whole purpose of that was to kill the opponent.  But I'll check, I will check that out, possibly over lunch.

SISI KHAMPEPE: You do that, and when you do check, also give us a reference whether there was any evidence that was led why Sikanye was not killed in that night vigil.  Thulani was killed in order to lure him in, were there any attempts made to kill Sikanye in the night vigil?

MR WILLS: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you can take a look at, or focus on the rape now.

MR WILLS: That I deal with at page 17 of my Heads.  The main import of the application in respect of the rape, or my main argument, concerns the brutality of the violence and the experience of what applicant seven had been through up until that point in time.  He had effectively been taught to treat enemies as dogs, without having any compassion for their humanity whatsoever.  The evidence of Luthuli concerning his problems when he first arrived in Mpumalanga, about the undisciplined nature of the violence, is also pertinent in this regard.  You will recall that Ntuli went in and there were two camps.  There was one person who wanted to speak, to negotiate problems through, negotiate the conflict through peaceful means, and there was Mkehle who was Hlongwane's commander, who preferred the violent means.  And in describing how these people operated, Luthuli went as far as saying that because the person operating under Mkehle were so treacherous and bad and brutal, that people were moving out of the IFP areas into the ANC areas because they didn't want anything to do with it.  And I think Luthuli's words was that he wanted, one of his purposes of coming to Mpumalanga was to rebuild the organisation because of the serious indiscipline that he found there.
	Now should that be the case, and I submit there is nothing to counter it in the evidence, then clearly the implication is that those persons acting under Mkehle basically did what they wanted without any guidance whatsoever in regard to terrorising the community.  And in those circumstances, the extremes that they took to eliminate all opposition, went to levels which can only be described as horrific.  
	The two girls were not seen as women, they were seen as ANC spies, and the order that Hlongwane got from Mkehle was brutal in the extreme.  When he had captured the girls Mkehle indicated to him that he must cut their throats and take a cloths and wipe some blood off each of their throats and return the bloodstained cloth to him so that he could use this for muti.  In his evidence Hlongwane said that he must do something so terrible to these girls that it will serve as an indication to other people, other girls specifically, that they should not come into the area to spy.  And it's in those circumstances that that rape occurred.  
	First of all had there not been the perception that these girls were spying, Hlongwane wouldn't have gone to get them.  He in fact was called away to deal with the issue, and it is my submission that this rape was simply another example of the extreme brutality which was occurring at the time.  Hlongwane also gives evidence to the effect that it was a practice that was used, and nobody disputed this despite the representation of the victims here, that it was, he mentions the name of a particular IFP woman who was found killed and raped on one occasion, and his evidence was to the effect that this rape occurred on both sides.  And that is corroborated by what Luthuli says when he gets to Mpumalanga.  Luthuli comments at page 289 of the bundle, that the Inkatha youth simply attacked houses on the slightest suspicion.  People were robbed, girls were raped, and people were murdered.  In his testimony applicant one saw his role to clean up the IFP, which was involved, the IFP was involved in killing, kidnapping, rape, stealing, burning and shooting and killing people in broad daylight.
	Now my submission is obviously Mkehle would have know that this was going on if Luthuli who was a recent, or I shouldn't say recent, but he'd come to the area after a long absence.  One would expect, Luthuli found it out almost immediately, so Mkehle must have know that this was going on, and no steps were taken whatsoever to stop this type of activity.