Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-04-07

MR HEWIT: Well then from what you tell us, you must have decided then at a very early stage, like 1987, that you weren't going to report to the Planning Committee through Mr M.Z. Khumalo because they had a link with the white South African Defence Force then, correct?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, that is so.

MR HEWIT: So what I am putting to you now from that early time onwards, 1987, you are on your own, you were not reporting to the Planning Committee through Khumalo, and you were conducting operations entirely on your own and without reporting back, on your own version?  What do you say about that?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: That is lies.

MR HEWIT: Do you know that all the evidence led at the Magnus Malan trial, indicated that when you came back from the Caprivi, you became a rouge element on your own.

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, I am aware.

MR STUART: Mr Chairperson, with respect, it is simply not the case that all the evidence led to that conclusion as indicated by my learned friend.
	It is confusing with the witness, he is not familiar with the record of the trial and it is wrong to say that all the evidence indicated that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hewit, we don't have that evidence before us, so I don't know what value ...

MR HEWIT: This is the problem unfortunately with the nature of these hearings Mr Chairman, is that they take place when so many other trials have gone before and findings been made, that it makes it very difficult to do complete justice to these proceedings within the limited time span one has.
	But in any event, I am going to contempt myself with the answers that this witness, obviously the Committee in due course will have regard, I am sure, to all the other documentary evidence available, in coming to its conclusion about amnesty.  But at this stage, Mr Luthuli, I am simply putting it to you that on your own version, you would have dissociated yourself and cut yourself off deliberately from any further contact with people that you regarded as your superiors, for example like Mr M.Z. Khumalo.  What do you say about that?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I don't agree.

MR HEWIT: And following on from that, I put it to you that thereafter you operated entirely on your own without instruction from superiors or anybody else?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I do not agree with it.

MR HEWIT: Okay.

UNKNOWN: Mr Hewit, I am a little perturbed that we are unable to operate within a particular time frame.  The question that you have just put to Mr Luthuli, what period would you be referring to?

MR HEWIT: On his evidence now, he has agreed that the time we are talking about when he found out that the military was involved, and he had a reluctance to report to the Planning Committee because the military were involved, goes back to 1987.

UNKNOWN: Is it not in fact September 1986, from what I have been able to read in my papers?

MR HEWIT: I may have been too generous to the witness then.  I am indebted to you for drawing that to my attention.
	Either way, and these dates can be checked on, you do say and following on from that question from the Committee member, would you bear with me Mr Chairman, I am just trying to find a particular part of the affidavit which puts the matter beyond all doubt, yes, please turn to page 218 of your affidavit.
	Could you bear with me Mr Chairman.  Can we put it this way, would you agree with me that you returned after the training in the Caprivi, during 1986, towards the second half of 1986?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I will say so, although I don't remember correctly.

MR HEWIT: Right.  It would have been at that stage that there was talk about a Planning Committee because you have told us that when you got back, there was this meeting and Louis Botha and various people were there, correct?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, that is so.

MR HEWIT: And that was the one and only Planning Committee meeting which you ever attended?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes.

MR HEWIT: So that was in 1986, we have established that date, correct?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Well, I do not know, I hear that from you.

MR HEWIT: Yes, but in any event, you decided not to deal with that Planning Committee ever again, or report back, because you knew it would just get back to the Central Government, the white SADF.

MR MOLOI: I seem to have a problem with the suggestion that from the affidavit, one can deduce the fact that there was no reporting at all.  If you refer to page 235 on which your argument is based, at the foot of the page, the applicant states in addition to this, I eventually became opposed to reporting on all operations to the Planning Committee, because I knew that they in turn would report to the Central Government.  Does that mean, help me if I don't understand it properly, does it mean that there was no reporting at all there?

MR HEWIT: This is with respect, not for me to explain, but for the witness to explain.  This is why I am asking, for the benefit of the Committee, so that the Committee can understand precisely what he is saying, and to then decide whether this man was acting on instructions or not.
	It is for the witness to tell us and clarify what dates we are talking about, and I am trying to establish what dates, and it appears the answers we are getting, is that we are getting back to as early as the latter part of 1986 which is very, very significant if one looks at the picture that the applicant is trying to paint.
	It is not with respect for me to elaborate on that, but for the witness to tell us what the significance of him not reporting to the Planning Committee is, when he realised certain things.  What we are endeavouring to establish is when he became aware of these matters which decided him, no longer to liaise with them.  That is the point.

MR MOLOI: I don't intend getting into an argument, I would just like to clear this thing.  Does that sentence that I have just read, suggest to you there was no reporting at all done, or was there no reporting on all operations?

MR HEWIT: It is not a question, with respect, what it conveys to me, I am trying to understand what the witness is trying to say.
	I am asking him to elaborate.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if you can just ask the witness what he meant by what was stated in his affidavit.  Mr Luthuli, could I just read you the sentence from your affidavit and if you could kindly inform us what you meant by saying that.
	You say, and I will read it, in addition to this, I eventually became opposed to reporting on all operations to the Planning Committee, because I knew that they in turn reported to the Central Government.
	Now, when you stopped reporting, did you stop reporting completely, did you never again report to Mr M.Z. Khumalo or did you only report selectively to him?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I reported selectively.

MR HEWIT: So you reported some matters, but not all matters?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what my understanding of this sentence is as well, just the literal meaning of that.

MR HEWIT: Well, what matters did you decide to report to him and what matters did you decide you shouldn't report to him?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I will make an example about (indistinct) Mkhize's hit squad.
	Mkhize's group, after receiving an instruction from the eSikhawini leadership, after they would go and kill certain people, they would then call me and tell me about that.
	That I wouldn't pass on to M.Z. Khumalo.  He was supposed to find out that information himself, from Langeni.  That is one example I can give you.

MR HEWIT: Why would you not report the formation of a hit squad to Mr Khumalo?  I understood you to say that this was the sort of grand plan just to alienate people who were a danger to the IFP?