Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1999-02-24

AZHAR CACHALIA: And what was your instruction to your attorney, where did that gunpowder come from?  At that time, not today.

MR NDLOVU: It was difficult for me to say to my attorney that I did hold that firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you deny that you had held a firearm?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, I denied.

AZHAR CACHALIA: And if you denied that you had a firearm you must have given an explanation about where the tests proved that you had handled a firearm came from.  You must have told your attorney about that.

MR NDLOVU: He never canvassed the matter any further after I denied it.

AZHAR CACHALIA: And it was canvassed in the High Court also, when you gave evidence.

MR NDLOVU: No, no I was not questioned to that effect.

AZHAR CACHALIA: What you are saying Mr Ndlovu is that you stand by the information that you gave here, that there was this particular position about something in a bottle which was passed over your hand.  You stand by that particular position?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

AZHAR CACHALIA: And you say now that the only mistake you made was you said,
...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That the shack wasn't searched.

AZHAR CACHALIA: That your shack wasn't searched.  Is that correct?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

AZHAR CACHALIA: The balance of that paragraph that was read to you previously, that is correct?  That was read to you previously in your evidence-in-chief.

MR NDLOVU: If I'm not mistaken I think that is so.  I don't know, maybe there could be other mistakes as well.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Perhaps, perhaps just for absolute clarity's sake, I'm sorry it's taking some time, on the day IFP and ANC members were killed.  Correct or incorrect?

MR NDLOVU: Please may you repeat.

MR LAX: He's already said that's a mistake, that both died.  We don't have to repeat it again.  He said that in his evidence-in-chief, right at the beginning.

AZHAR CACHALIA: That is correct that you had said that in evidence-in-chief.  Then you go on to say there were gunfights during the night.

MR NDLOVU: You mean at night?  It was not during the night, it was late in the afternoon or in the afternoon.  The shooting that transpired.

AZHAR CACHALIA: The next item you've already dealt with.  You said that the police after they arrested you wanted a gun from you.  Is that incorrect or correct?

MR LAX: Well hang on a second.  We haven't said anything about the police arriving at his house or not.  Did the police arrive at your house and ask you whether you were a Zulu?

MR NDLOVU: No, they did not arrive.

MR LAX: So that's also wrong.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is also wrong.

MR LAX: And they never asked you if you wanted a gun, if you had a gun?

MR NDLOVU: No, they did not ask me that.  My story ends at the ground.

MR LAX: Yes just answer the questions and listen carefully.  Carry on Mr Cachalia.

AZHAR CACHALIA: What you are saying Mr Ndlovu is that there is a portion of this particular paragraph, the one that we've dealt with previously that is correct and the balance of it is incorrect.  Is that right?  Alright perhaps it's just summarising what you said, we don't I don't need you to answer that.  You then go on on page four and you tell us what was the reason of the conflict, in terms of according to your belief the IFP decided not to partake in the elections, that was a correct position is that right?

MR NDLOVU: That much I don't know.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Did the IFP at that stage in 1994 ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Just read him.  We don't know if he's heard this section before, so it might be better Mr Cachalia to avoid putting something to him without him having heard it and then him denying it later.  Just read him briefly what's said here and ask him if he still stands by it.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Yes Mr Lax I've got no problem I'm just trying  to hurry the process because we've got such we're constrained by time, but I'll read that to you and it might be a better we might save time in the end.  You say on page 4 in paragraph B
"...the reason for the conflict to my belief was that in 1994 the IFP decided not to partake in the election.  That would have irritated the ANC and as a result of that the ANC started waging a war against the IFP.  I wish to apply for amnesty because I was a victim of the ANC.  I was a builder.  I lost all my property and I have nothing left."
Perhaps we should stop there and just we'll carry there's a balance of this portion I'll read to you later.  Up to now is what you're saying there is it correct, is that what you told Mr Msizi who told Mr Claassen?

MR NDLOVU: What you just read to me is some part of it I don't know, it's strange.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Are you a builder, sir?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that's my work.  That's what I do.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Did you lose your property and everything there in Zevenfontein, or did you lose your property, you had nothing left it doesn't say Zevenfontein so I don't want to put anything in your

MR NDLOVU: As to the property, on that day of that incident when I was arrested it is true, I had lost property and I recovered none.  Especially after I was out on bail I discovered that I'd lost my property.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Did, did the IFP decide not to partake in the elections in 1994, as at February 1994 when this incident took place?

MR NDLOVU: That much I don't know.

AZHAR CACHALIA: So excepting for that particular portion there the other the balance of it is correct is that right?  The balance in the sense of your building and your property that we've dealt with.

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that much is true.  I was a builder and my property was lost.

AZHAR CACHALIA: I also - you go on to say
"I also want amnesty because it was a war and people died on both side.  I am also a victim because I am a member of the IFP.  I was attacked by the ANC who attacked members of the IFP.  People were arrested on both sides."

MR NDLOVU: That is new.  I don't know that.

AZHAR CACHALIA: So the major portion of this particular paragraph you deny excepting for the question of property we've established that and excepting for the question of your, of you occupation.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he denies it, he just said he doesn't, this is not from him.  It doesn't emanate from him.

MR LAX: What he says is he doesn't know that.  In other words the implications being that he never said those things.  Is that right Mr Ndlovu?

MR NDLOVU: Yes, that is right.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Thank you Mr Ndlovu what I'm saying is that what you are suggesting to us is that you didn't say that to Mr Msizi although it is in your statement.  Some portion of it must have come from you and the others they must have added on.  Is that right?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.  Some portion of it I did say but some portion of it I did not say.  And it surprises me as to where all of that emanates from, especially that I said there were members of IFP were killed or died, and from the ANC side as well there were members who were arrested.  That is new.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Now Mr Ndlovu, on the 28th of November 1996 when you made this statement you took an oath, you swore that what you are saying in this statement is the truth, that you knew and understood what was being said.  Do you acknowledge that?

MR NDLOVU: Yes.

AZHAR CACHALIA: Now why did you take an oath and swear that it was the truth when in facet now you are saying that you didn't know what was written in there?

MR NDLOVU: It is because, the problem that I see that exists here, is the fact that the statement was never read back to me.  If that statement was read back to me, I know I would have rectified the mistakes where they were, as you have just said to me.  It's completely new.  So it goes without saying that statement was taken without being read back to me.  As a result it's completely new as you are reading back to me today.

ADV SIGODI: Didn't your attorney read this back to you today before consultation?