Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-16

STANLEY GQIBA: When I met them at the time, yes it is true it was in 1994.  What I am saying here is that we have civic structures and it is know that these are structures members of which are adults from the community, and here I was dealing with members of the youth league, and I would be expected to meet members of the civic and explain to them, because it was now known who were responsible for the death of Hapile.  I had to go to the structures such as the civic and explain to the elderly in those structures, explain to them that I had met members of the youth league and give them a full account.

CHAIRPERSON: I find your explanation very upset in the strongest terms.  Are you saying these people were operating outside the structures, that you had to wait for individuals to come back in order for you to get information?  You couldn't have obtained this kind of information from Mr Khumalo, who had been deployed by you to be part of the SDU structure?  Your explanation does not make sense with me, with respect.  Proceed Mr Lax.

MR LAX: You see the issue's a very simple one Mr Gqiba.  They disappeared from the township immediately after this thing's happened, the very day after they tell you what they were about to do, from which you inferred, from what they told you, exactly what they were about to do.  There was no secret in your mind as to who had committed this offence.  And then some six months later people are still asking who did it and why it was done.  Now if we believe you that that was the case, then these applicants have a serious problem, because then what they allege was common knowledge in the community wasn't in fact so.

STANLEY GQIBA: It was a norm that things had to be explained to the community as to who had died and who was injured.  I am no talking here about everybody, but there was a time that it was necessary to remind or inform the community that such a person whom we have been warning for a very long time has done it again, hence the result.  It was therefore necessary that this be explained to the community as to how it came about that these people be killed.  There was no way everyone in the township could have known that these people had just left the township.  Others could have thought that these people were still in the township, members of the SDU who were making a follow up are the ones from whom we had to get information, which information we would in turn take to other structures, which structures would in turn take the same information further on.

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr Gqiba, you are giving a very long winded explanation about the simple problem which has been posed to you.  Why was it necessary for you to explain to the community about this incident, about who had done the deed, and why a deed had been committed, when it was public knowledge that the ladies in question were spying for the IFP and passing on information to the police?

STANLEY GQIBA: It is not my knowledge that the general public knew.  It was not generally known who was an informer and who was not.  There were people for example in one street there would be certain people who had that information, not the entire community.  For example, my mother did not know that, and my brother too, and yet they were part of the community. They were part of the community but they did not know about this.  People who knew are people who came across the incident or heard about the incident, and therefore it was necessary to inform the structures, and this included parents of the people who were victims in the incident, and therefore we as leaders had to account, meet with the people who were responsible for the deeds, take them along to the different structures and explain so that ultimately the information will arrive at the parents.

CHAIRPERSON: In short what you are saying is that it was not  public knowledge that Ms Elsie Mokoena and Ms Hapile Ndumo were spying for the IFP and passing on information to the police.  In short that's what you are trying to explain.

STANLEY GQIBA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAX: Did you know Mabusa Mhlongo?

STANLEY GQIBA: Yes, I know him.

MR LAX: Who was he?  Who is he if he's still alive.

STANLEY GQIBA: He's a member of the youth league.

MR LAX: Was he a member of the SDU?

STANLEY GQIBA: Yes, he is still alive.

MR LAX: Was he a member of the SDU?

STANLEY GQIBA: Yes.

MR LAX: Was he a commander in the SDU?

STANLEY GQIBA: I don't know anything about the commanding position, etc.  I know there were commissars etc.  I cannot say for sure who was who.

MR LAX: As chairperson of the youth league and together with other structures did you not meet with the leadership of the SDU to discuss problems?

STANLEY GQIBA: Yes, we used to meet.

MR LAX: And who would you meet with when you met with them?

STANLEY GQIBA: We used to meet with people such as Bonga.

MR LAX: You see it's the evidence of the applicant that Mabusa Mhlongo was one of Bonga's next, next layer of commanders, so he would have been at such meetings, had you had them.

STANLEY GQIBA: I would not deny that or admit that.  Those people in those structures are the ones who are supposed to answer to that.

MR LAX: Now after these two, after this lady was killed, you heard about it the next day.  Is that right?

STANLEY GQIBA: Yes.

MR LAX: What steps did you then take once you heard about this, to verify whether she was in fact an informer?  Yourself, as chair of the ANC youth league?

STANLEY GQIBA: What I did was that I met with those who were present, the ones who were present at the office at the time.  There was a shock about these incidents, incident, some were justifying this action saying that they have been warning these girls for a very long time, and finally this has happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me get your evidence properly.  Are you saying that the next day there was a meeting, and in that meeting a portion of those present expressed their shock, and others however were not surprised, and pointed to what the ladies had been doing to justify the deed? ...(intervention)

STANLEY GQIBA: Yes, what I am saying is that we are not all from one place.  Others were hearing this for the first time at the office, and when such people came to the office they came across this for the first time, that's when they reacted and they were then informed about what happened the previous day and who were responsible for that.  Do you understand that?  That's when people got a shock.  That is why I am saying that some of the people got a shock and wanted to know when it happened, and at the same time there were others who were saying it is true, everything, or every accusation levelled against these people was correct.  Because there were certain comrades out.

MR LAX: So then you were convinced at that stage, in the light of what these other people were telling you in the meeting?

STANLEY GQIBA: When asking other people who knew about this evidence or suspicions others would come forward and testify to the veracity of the information, so that we ultimately in unison agreed that this could have been a correct step to take.

MR LAX: And that was the day after the event?

STANLEY GQIBA: I am not quite sure.  It could have been a day or so after.  This happened on a week-end.  I'm not quite sure whether it was Saturday or Sunday.  If it was Sunday then the whole thing happend on Monday.  We did not operate on Sundays, so that our offices were closed on that day.

MR LAX: Well it was the evidence of both applicants, or at least Mkhwanazi, that the office was open at all times on every day.  You don't agree with that?  Twenty four hours a day he said.

STANLEY GQIBA: Sometimes there would be reasons for the office to be open 24 hours, for example, discussing crime.  The office was not always open 24 hours except for exceptional cases where certain things had to be discussed, meetings, like criminal cases.