Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR CURRIN: : They were separated in point of time, butsome of the parents are not absolutely sure of the date when theirchildren disappeared, so that is a little bit of a difficultythat we have and we have discussed it with the representativeof the Attorney-General's office.   I am going to mention 11 namesbut obviously all 11 were not, we don't know which are the 9 ofthese 11.   I am not absolutely certain about the other incident,it's not something as far as we know that is subject to an
3b                                            application/...
MR CURRIN 614 J H CRONJE
application here at the moment.   Apparently it's the
Kwandabele application there's a bit of overlap.   I'll just tellyou briefly about the victims.   There was Abraham Makolane, atthe time he was 17 years old and he was a student at the J KikanaHigh School in Std 8.   He was a comrade and he had been arrestedon a few occasions and at one stage was charged with arson andpublic violence.    Then there was Samuel Masilela, he was 16years old.   He was in Form 1 at Mamelodi High School.   Accordingto his mother he was also a comrade.   Her recollection is thaton one occasion the police had come to the house looking for him.  He had never been detained or charged.   Then there was SiphoPhillip Sibanyoni, he was 15 years old.   He was also a, accordingto...(end of side 2)...he was in Std 9 at the Japhta MshlanguSchool.   His mother is unaware of any political activity by him.  He was never detained or arrested by the police.   Then therewas Thomas Phiri.   According to his sister he was 22 years oldat the time of his disappearance.   He was in Std 9, we don'thave the name of the school.   He was also an activist and a comrade,but had never been either detained or arrested.   Then there wasJeremiah Magagula.   According to his mother he was 16 years oldwhen he disappeared.   He was attending the Mthombo Primary Schoolin Mamelodi.   He was a comrade, politically active but had neverbeen arrested.   Then there was Morris Nkabinde, he was 19 yearsold when he disappeared.   He was also a comrade, although hehad never been arrested.   Then there was Matthews Promapana Lerutla.  He was 15 years old when he disappeared.   According to hismother he was also a comrade.   He had been taken by the policeon one occasion but was not charged.   Then there was StephenMakena.   
4.                                      According/...
MR CURRIN 615 J H CRONJE
According to his mother he was 18 when he disappeared.   He
was also politically active and a comrade but he had never beenarrested. Then there was Elliot Sathege, he was 20 years old.Also a comrade but never arrested and that's 10 not 11. One othername we've got here is Sibia but he, we've verified, is in factpart of the Kwandabele group.  So we have 10 names and not 9.I want to put it to you Brigadier that these young boys were typicalcomrades in the townships who got involved in the general activitiesof comrades, which generally speaking was forms of public violencein the sense of marches through the streets, boycotts, which wasthe general activity of the comrades as you know.

ANSWER: That is likely to have been the case.

<UNKNOWN>: What is also interesting in your written documentis you say that, on page 89 at the last paragraph you say
  "I do, however, remember that these activists were probablyall involved in school boycotts, consumer boycotts and arson."

ANSWER: This was 10 years ago and I cannot remember thedetails with great precision.

<UNKNOWN>: Could you go to page 91 where you talk aboutthe "purpose of the operation".   After the incidentyou did everything in your power to create the impression thatit was an accident, correct?

ANSWER: (Very loud buzzing, reply inaudible)...

<UNKNOWN>: (Inaudible).

ANSWER: I cannot remember exactly what the newspaperreport said, I do not ....(buzzing continuing, extremely loud).

<UNKNOWN>: ...police killed them.
4. ANSWER: /...
MR CURRIN 616 J H CRONJE

ANSWER: No I do not believe that they said anything likethat.

<UNKNOWN>: ...this (i) under "intimidation"apply as an objective in this case, they died in an accident howwould that dissuade other comrades from carrying on their activities?

ANSWER: It could have dissuaded them in this sense, thatothers would have known that if you get involved with explosivesyou would die.

<UNKNOWN>: So it dissuades them because they may havean accident, other comrades may have a similar accident, is thatwhat you are saying?

ANSWER: That is the case.

<UNKNOWN>: They weren't killed in the accident they werekilled as a result of the explosion, isn't that so?   (Discussionbetween counsel and member of Committee about bomb in the car).  (iv) on page 92, you talk about your modus operandi andyou say
  "The general modus operandi was to strike back immediately."
This wasn't a hit-back, this was a pre-emptive act.

MR DU PLESSIS: : I don't know whether this point would,in this particular case, be applicable.   I just want to reiteratethe point and I've made this point 100 times now, that the generalmotivation for some of these acts have been included in respectof certain deeds.   It is obvious that the facts of some of thesedeeds differ from time to time and perhaps here and there a specificmotivation which forms part of the general motivation might notbe all too applicable in that specific instance.   Under thesecircumstances I really think it is unfair of my learned
4. friend /...
MR CURRIN 617 J H CRONJE
friend to pick out those specific paragraphs that might not be100% particular to that specific incident when he deals with cross-examinationof the general motivation.

CHAIRPERSON: I think in fairness you should bear that inmind because he's outlined a number of general principles, whetherthey apply specifically to every one of the instances is anothermatter.

MR CURRIN: : I certainly will bear that in mind, there'sjust a possibility that in some instances one may whittle themall down and then there will be nothing left and that's preciselywhat I am trying to do.

CHAIRPERSON: ...you bear in mind that these are generalprinciples.

MR CURRIN: : Yes absolutely.
MR CURRIN (contd)

<UNKNOWN>: Would you agree that (v) does not apply inthis case?

ANSWER: I would agree.

<UNKNOWN>: (vi) also seems to be irrelevant.

CHAIRPERSON: It might be best if you asked him which heconsidered to be relevant?

MR CURRIN: : I think we've got to the last one anyway butin future I will do that and if necessary contest the witness'sopinion.
MR CURRIN (contd)

<UNKNOWN>: Under "beinvloed van blanke kiesers",which of those do you believe are relevant?

ANSWER: Three would be applicable,  (v)...

<UNKNOWN>: Just explain?

ANSWER: It would have confirmed trust in the apartheidgovernment because people would believe that these persons
4. were /...
MR CURRIN 618 J H CRONJE
were poorly trained and that is why they blew themselves up.

<UNKNOWN>: (v) and (vii) are the same and under (c) ofcourse, nothing is relevant.

ANSWER: No, except that they could return to do actsof terror, future acts of terror.

MR DU PLESSIS: : Mr Chairman, with respect, paragraph (iv)on page 95 is absolutely irrelevant.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that's not the witness's opinion.

ANSWER: I did not read paragraph (iv) but I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: The white public had some knowledge that theSecurity Forces were going out and committing these atrocities?

MR DU PLESSIS: : Mr Chairman may I please cut in here,I don't think we are in general ad idem about the sameparagraph, which one are we referring to Mr Currin?

MR CURRIN: : Paragraph (iv) on page 93.

MR DU PLESSIS: : Page 93, can we just make sure.

MR CURRIN: : You've gone now to page 95.

MR DU PLESSIS: : Yes that's the paragraph (iv) I was referringto, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, could you just make it clearwhich paragraph we are dealing with?