Amnesty Hearings — Palm Ridge — 1998-11-23

SALLY SEALEY: I think it's very important that we don't lump all Self Defence Unit members in the same category.
	There may be areas where there was more discipline and areas where there was less discipline.  I think when looking at the Thokoza area, it's very different from how the other Self Defence Units worked.  For example in the Thokoza area the vast majority of weapons did not necessarily come from the ANC.  These weapons were actually purchased by the community, by the Self Defence Units raised in the community.  So those weapons did not directly come from ANC stores or whatever the case may be.  
	And also if I can just comment, there was a structure in Thokoza which may not have existed in other areas, which had some kind of, and this structure tried to keep control.  There was a code of conduct which each Self Defence Unit member had to sign and breach of that code of conduct was actually dealt with by the central command.

ADV STEENKAMP: And then my last question to you.  If I remember correctly at the Goldstone Commission the police made a submission that there was a set plan by the SDUs to get hold of weapons by attacking police officers, do you have comment, do you have any knowledge of this?

SALLY SEALEY: I think that is quite true.  I think that there were many methods used by the Self Defence Units to get weapons.  For example, there is an amnesty application which will be coming before the Truth Commission in regards to raid on the Kliprivier Police Station, where Self Defence Units robbed the police station of their arms.
	There are also cases for example, Polla Park, where it's quite true, policemen were robbed of their firearms.  So I think it was actually a policy that policemen, and for that matter security personnel of any sort, were actually attacked for their firearms.
	I think there were a number of methods that were actually used.  For example, in the very beginning when Self Defence Units were set up obviously people in the community didn't have access to firearms and the Independent Board of Inquiry during its research and its investigation has come across a lot of evidence where originally a lot of criminals were encouraged in the beginning to join Self Defence Units because they were the people that had the firearms.
	And I think we are now - the legacy of the crime and violence that we have now is the fact that many of those people that became involved, once the structure fell away they were left to their own devices.  So I think that is a problem.  I think it is quite true that as you say the police were actually attacked for their firearms.

ADV SANDI: But is it not also true from what you've said, that perhaps one of the reasons why the police were attacked is because they were perceived to be taking sides with one of the parties in this conflict?

SALLY SEALEY: Yes, definitely, there were many reasons for attacking policemen, not just for their firearms.  I think that a lot of evidence has emerged which has shown that the police definitely played a role in the violence, particularly in the East Rand.
	The Internal Stability Unit for example, was notorious in this area.  One always knew, if the Internal Stability Unit was in the area people were going to die on that day.  So I do think that many of the - particularly Pollo Park, Polla Park had a particular experience of police brutality.  For example, I think in 1992 the entire Polla Park was cordoned off with razor wire.
	Pollo Park has had the experience of 32 Battalion.  There was the incident in 1992 where a member of 32 Battalion was shot at.  The Goldstone Commission found that 32 Battalion then went back to barracks and decided amongst themselves to go back and teach the community of Polla Park a lesson, and they returned and they beat up and severely injured a whole number of residents of Polla Park.
	Again there was a Commission of Inquiry into that incident and the Goldstone Commission found that 32 Battalion should never be used in a peacekeeping way in future.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADVOCATE STEENKAMP

ADV SANDI: Just one question from me.  Who did you say was selling arms?

SALLY SEALEY: There were a number of people that have been identified as selling firearms.  For example in Polla Park many of the applicants have mentioned that they bought firearms from the Polla Park informal settlement.  In Polla Park there are a number of people that are from, illegal immigrants Mozambique and many of people were involved in selling AK47s and the like to people.
	Unfortunately one has only been given a first name, John, 
which obviously doesn't help the Commission very much and I would assume that when one buys weapons one doesn't actually get the details of who the person is. 
	Other weapons were purchased from the Vosloorus hostels.  I think those are the two main sources in this area for the purchase of firearms.

ADV SANDI: Were there any people selling arms from the hostels?

SALLY SEALEY: There are amnesty applications for example in the Khatlehong area, where SDUs, where one SDU member says that he was able to inform the, he was able to convince the hostel residents that he was actually an IFP member and then he was sold weapons but in actual fact he was a member of the Self Defence Units.  There is that example.
	The interesting point about the Vosloorus hostel is that there was very little violence at the Vosloorus hostel and it was the belief at the time that the Vosloorus hostel was used as a store for weapons, and hence they tried to keep violence away from the hostel so that it wouldn't sort of effect the selling of weapons that was going on there at the time.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.  Miss Sealey, just so you can help me understand this clearly.  I understand that the Committee of Seven, the control committee didn't necessarily issue orders but if I as a member of the SDUs did anything, would I have to have had an order from my local commander or could I act on my initiative, as people sometimes call it?

SALLY SEALEY: There were some instances where people acted on their initiative but by and large most of the SDUs, when they were defending the community, had to act on an order by their commander.  So for example, in Lusaka-A they would have to have acted on an order by their commander, Mosa Msimango or the previous commander, Steven Ngubane.

ADV GCABASHE: Then one other question.  There is one application here that relates to housebreaking, was there any either general or specific policy about repossessing goods where an SDU had gone out to attack?  I just want to understand the environment of the time.

SALLY SEALEY: I think what used to happen at the time was that very often when - for example there was a situation where a number of houses were taken over, there was a policy where houses, for example if it was an IFP area and you were ANC supporting, you were basically forced to leave your home.
	I think there were situations where for example, elements within the SDUs for example, who were involved in removing goods from residences and I think the situation which relates to Committee of Seven is that if anybody, Self Defence Unit members included, were involved in any kind of removing property from people's
houses, stealing in other words, they would be punished for that because that wasn't actually the policy.  I mean there was not a policy that you would go in and remove people's possessions and hence those people would called to this Committee of Seven and told: "Take those goods back."  	But those offences weren't necessarily committed by Self Defence Unit members, it may have been committed by other members of the community.