Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-19

DR TSOTSI: Did you have any reason to believe that Dube was lying to you when he made that statement?  Are there any portions of the statement which you felt you were doubtful about and thought he might be lying?

PULENG ZWANE: In as far as the who part is concerned, that they killed Dhlomo, I an confident that he didn't hold anything, but as to the why part, I can't say I am confident.
	It remains to the TRC to find out why was Dhlomo killed.

CHAIRPERSON: I am afraid I can't find the document at the moment, but I have an idea that I saw some document, and I say this subject to correction, that the police offered a reward, something in the nature of R2 500 for information relating to the conviction of Dhlomo's killers?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, it is the first paragraph of D, 1.1 Background.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(microphone not on)  That is in your report?

PULENG ZWANE: Yes, this information I took it from the Security Branch officers who gave me the identity of Dube.
	I am not sure whether is it a fact or is it hearsay.

CHAIRPERSON: They gave you the identity, but didn't claim the reward of R5 000, is that the position?

PULENG ZWANE: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, may I ask one further question.  Does the name Colonel Pretorius feature in your discussions with Mr Dube?

PULENG ZWANE: No.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

ADV SANDI: Sorry, you have not really tempted me to ask a question.  Just one question Mr Zwane, this police, how did they refer to Mr Dube, were they using his proper name or any code name?

PULENG ZWANE: They gave me his full names, Silva Nayisele John Etumele Langa Libalile Dube.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, you have given so many names, Silva Nayisele?

PULENG ZWANE: John Etumele Langa Libalile Dube.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(microphone not on)  We will take it now.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MR MAPOMA: No more witnesses Chairperson, that is the end of the evidence.

UNKNOWN: Chairperson, I must confess at the outset that I am not prepared as I should be - I was saying I am not thoroughly prepared for addressing you.
	I would however request that I be given an opportunity to give this brief address and leave to amplify that in writing.  If the Committee so permits me.
	I will start by making a request that this Honourable Committee should condone any technical deficiency on the application forms on all the four applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think anybody is making anything of that, are they?  The applications before us, appear some of them on the face of it, appear to be defective, but they were accepted years ago by the TRC offices in Cape Town, and I think what we have before us, are duplicates or copies.  The originals somehow got lost in the post.

MR RICHARD: As to the procedure and form of the application, I make no issue, but contents is another issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, contents, yes.

MR KOOPEDI: And hence I referred to the technical deficiency.  May I at this stage argue that the unfortunate killing of the late Sicelo, should be viewed by this Committee as an act associated with a political objective.
	Which act was committed in the course of the conflict of the past, as it is required by the Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you say that you want us to find that or do you say you want us to accept that the applicants believed it?  Do you understand the difference?

MR KOOPEDI: I don't understand what you are saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you asking us to find as a fact that the deceased as a police informer or are you asking us to find that having regard to conditions which existed at the time, that the applicants believed that he was?

MR KOOPEDI: The latter.

CHAIRPERSON: The latter?  I think, and this may reduce Mr Richard a little, there does not appear to be any evidence to prove or to even indicate on any strong ground, that the deceased, was an informer in any ordinary sense of the word.  It may well be that he like many other young men, who were detained by the Security Police, pretended to agree to something to ensure that he was not subject to further ill-treatment or to secure his release.
	That may have happened, but certainly there is nothing before us I think, and I think we all accept that, to show that he was what could be called a police informer.

MR KOOPEDI: May I, I believe it is common cause that all four applicants that have appeared before you, were at the time of commission of this killing, members of a liberation movement.  These applicants believed that their actions is in furtherance of a political struggle waged by the ANC against the former State of South Africa.
	May I remind you Honourable Committee members, that this was at a time where the former regime had gone all out to stamp out all opposition and protest against its oppressive rule?  The country had just undergone two states of emergencies, 1985 and 1986.  There was complete chaos and turmoil in our townships and particularly amongst our youth.
	There was on the other hand, an offensive launched by the liberation movement, against the regime.  Cadres of the liberation movement was being infiltrated in great numbers, automatic weapons could be found in abundance in our townships and the weapons I am referring to, are not the weapons that were being carried for criminal purposes, but for the furthering of the political aims of the liberation movement, which was to overthrow the government of the day.
	Chairperson, it is during this time and in that political context, and in reaction to that context that this offence was committed.  Looking at all the probabilities, the motive behind this killing, was political.  There was no personal gain by any of the four applicants, in terms of the evidence that has come before you.
	In applying your minds Honourable Committee members, to this application, I wish to urge you to be subjective, to place yourselves in the applicant's shoes at that time.  The applicants were relatively young.  The first applicant was 26 years old, the second and third were 21 years old and the fourth, the last applicant was 18 years old.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is also fair to say that we should consider the two applicants, the second and fourth, in a category by themselves.  It is common cause, they took no part in any decision, they did not know what was going to happen, that any offences they may have committed, are part of the cover up after the killing?