Amnesty Hearings — Messina — 2000-07-03

MR DE BEER: And these were the only people or vehicles that you saw?

MR NONDULA: That we saw, yes, that's right.

MR DE BEER: Okay.  On what road, more or less, was this?  Was it the main road, or was it a secondary road?

MR NONDULA: It would be one of the secondary roads, yes.

MR DE BEER: But you at no time saw any civilians around the area?

MR NONDULA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Nondula, from the time that you crossed the river into the country until the time you left, which you said was on the third night, you only saw one vehicle?

MR NONDULA: Ja it was - the patrol vehicle we saw was on the first night before we crossed, because we wanted to confirm the security system and then when we crossed the second day, as I've said, we just slept, we did not operate.  We operated the following night and by that time there was already, our situation was already risky, I'd say, in the sense that this other unit had already planted whilst we had done nothing, so the whole area now was being searched.  That's where this whole situation ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Beer.

MR DE BEER: Thank you Mr Chairman.  On your brief, before you undertook this mission, when you were briefed with regard to the terrain and the population, whether it was a military area, or military zone as you refer to, were you informed at any stage that this area contained any civilians, that there were civilian families living there, or farming there or that the road that you referred to was being used by both military and ...?

MR NONDULA: Yes, firstly there is a farming community whose then purpose is to safeguard the area.  It therefore suggests that those people did have their wives and children must have gone to school or doing whatever chore they were supposed to do around the area, that is a fact.

MR DE BEER: So am I correct in understanding that before you undertook this operation that you had this knowledge, is that correct?

MR NONDULA: That's correct, Sir.

MR DE BEER: Mr Nondula would you agree with me that in planting a landmine, the landmine doesn't ask questions whether the next person who drives over it is going to be a military vehicle or a civilian vehicle, so will I be correct in saying that from the start there was a possibility that if you planted the landmine in that area, that civilians, as you said, farmers with their wives and children, would drive over these landmines, will that be correct?

MR NONDULA: Yes, Sir.

MR DE BEER: If you say that you do not target civilian people, would you not say that in planting those landmines and by knowing or having had the knowledge that those landmines could actually kill civilians, that you were actually - that you actually - sorry, just a moment.

CHAIRPERSON: You can speak Afrikaans if you want to and they can interpret.

MR DE BEER: Mr Chairperson, sorry, I just lost my line of thought there for a moment.  If you can give me just a minute.  So, let me rephrase my question.  In having that knowledge that the landmine could either explode on the military vehicle or a civilian vehicle, would it not be contrary to the policy at that stage, or to you orders not to engage civilian targets?

MR NONDULA: Sir, the objective, as I've said, was purely a military objective, to achieve military gains.  Now, in a situation where a civilian bumps over a mine, as I've said earlier, that would be a regrettable scenario, as it has actually transpired.  It's quite regrettable in the sense that they were not actually aimed at and I may also add that for me at some point, I did say if a person would take his family in an area where there is potential conflict, military conflict, that person is not actually, if I may use the word really at this stage, responsible enough, because he should have removed the family in the area where there is potential military action.

MR DE BEER: You say conflict and that there was potential military action.

MR NONDULA: Potential military conflict.  Now what I'm talking about is, along the borders in an area that's been earmarked as a military area, military "gebied", in my view and I was convinced that that was the scenery, that was the case, that personnel in that area are purely military personnel.  I knew that there was a system that was used in border protection of the Commandos who were regarded as the first echelon, or they composed the first echelon of defence and what was my duty?  Per orders I had to be in that area and lay mines in the area I believed that the military personnel will be affected by those actions.

MR DE BEER: In an area where there are both civilians and military people, you've just said that there were farmers, would you know which farmers were in the Commando system and which farmers were not?

MR NONDULA: No, not at all.

MR DE BEER: So you knew that there were farmers there and there were military personnel which travelled along the road, is that correct?

MR NONDULA: I knew that the farmers in that area belonged to that system of Commandos for the protection of the border areas in South Africa, that's what I knew and I was made to know.

MR DE BEER: How did you know that?

MR NONDULA: As I've said, the briefing itself strictly explained that to us that the farming community are regarded from now henceforth as the first echelon of defence.  They are trained soldiers, fulfilling other duties to the Government, by being in the farming business and it is only on that score that my conscience became clear in my undertakings.

MR DE BEER: So are you trying to say that the farmers in the area were the Commandos and were in the Commando system and actually a threat to your military operations in that area?

MR NONDULA: Exactly, Sir.

MR DE BEER: Why would you think that the farmers in the area would go into having a Commando system?

MR NONDULA: The system of securing the borders of our country at that time was and I believed, based on the Commando system, together with the regular personnel, for information as to other military activities happening in the area, either to report them or to act upon them, according to their instructions.

MR DE BEER: Why would it be necessary for them to protect the borders at that stage as civilians and to enter into a Commando unit or ...?

MR NONDULA: It was their obligation to do that, to protect the borders, to protect the properties.

MR DE BEER: Could it not also be that in order to protect their wives and their children?

MR NONDULA: Exactly.

MR DE BEER: Against what?

MR NONDULA: Against what they saw as terrorism.

MR DE BEER: Or could it have been that it was against any attacks from any MK units crossing the border?

MR NONDULA: Exactly Sir.

MR DE BEER: Will that be the same as a terrorist attack or not?

MR NONDULA: That is security work.  If you'd hamper or - how can I put it?  If you would decide that you are going to be the ear and the eye of the then existing Government, I would have regarded you as my enemy proper.

MR DE BEER: If there was a threat to your home and your wife and your children, would you not also have engaged in a self-protection unit idea in order to protect not only yourself, but your neighbours as well?

MR NONDULA: That is true, that would be my obligation but now the line must be drawn here, if I may add, I was fighting a system I believed to be rotten.  I was fighting a system I believed to be inhumane, from at the ground of a person who at that stage had no claim to citizenship, to human dignity and whoever then stood to enforce that miscarriage of justice, I was obliged to act upon, whoever he was.

MR DE BEER: Even if it means killing women and children on a farm that has never been used for military purposes in any way whatsoever?

MR NONDULA: No, Sir, no.

MR DE BEER: If you could just give me a minute, Mr Chairman.  No further questions at this stage, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DE BEER