Amnesty Hearings — Ermelo — 1998-07-20

JOHN MNDEBELE: The speaker is not audible.  Will you please repeat your question.

MR HATTINGH: Did you and/or your committee have control over the SDU's?

JOHN MNDEBELE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you meet and/or communicate with the SDU's?

JOHN MNDEBELE: Gushu would from time to time meet with Mkhwanazi.

MR HATTINGH: But the SDUs, did your committee meet with them?

JOHN MNDEBELE: Yes, we would meet from time to time, but not on a regular basis.

MR HATTINGH: In paragraph sixteen (16) you also make mention of an implied instruction to Gushu, inter alia that he was to obtain arms and ammunition and to finance these operations from whatever source possible, including armed robberies.  Is that correct?

JOHN MNDEBELE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was this ever discussed at your committee?

JOHN MNDEBELE: Yes, we did discuss this, that we had to obtain arms and ammunition because we asked ourselves as to how we were going to protect ourselves if we were not armed.  So, we had to devise some means in order for us to be able to defend the community and protect ourselves as well, because we did not have arms and ammunition at that time.  So, we realised that we had to do anything in our power in order to be able to obtain the arms and ammunition or do anything that was going to bring in finance in order to buy or purchase arms if we had to.

CHAIRPERSON: I notice there are a number of people standing at the back of the hall.  I don't mind if they go sit down on the side there where I see there's spaces.  I'll give them time to do so.  If the interpreter could just interpret that please.  And furthermore, those who are wearing floppy hats or peak caps will you kindly remove those, as well as sunglasses if they are not prescribed.  It's not a ruling, it's just a request.  Yes, Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Were you at the time aware of any specific instruction to Mr Gushu to commit robberies?

MR PATEL: Mr Chairman, at this stage I would like to object to this line of questioning.  As I have it on record, Mr Hattingh appears for seven (7) victims, none of which were injured or killed during robberies.  I can't see where the line of questioning is going.  As it pleases the Committee.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, no doubt I represent victims for which Mr Mndebele makes application for amnesty.  Mr Mndebele also spent some time in what they call a background to all the incidents.  I think in the circumstances that I am more than entitled to in fact deal with this background as presented by the witness on behalf of the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me ask you this.  Are you contesting that background?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I made it clear from the outset that as far as the victims are concerned, the ones that I represent, we accept as a fact that there was strife, conflict and fighting in the area.  What we do not accept as a fact is the apportionment of blame or putting of people under certain parties or teams or factions like Black Cats.

CHAIRPERSON: It's interesting that you should raise that, Mr Hattingh.  This is an observation I made on my own without having consulted my colleagues.  That even if it is at the end of the day a matter that we need to make a finding on, that the categorisation of certain deceased is incorrect, is the fact of the matter not what was bona fide the belief at the time, and shouldn't we concentrate on that rather?  I'm just suggesting.

MR HATTINGH: No, Mr Chairman, we too believe that the perceptions that the people had at the time would perhaps be more important than the actual facts.  But what I'm dealing with at the moment is in fact the background to the instructions to people, the assassinated victims.

CHAIRPERSON: That's precisely.  The witness says that as a result of the meeting it was decided that they had to take the law, as it were, in their own hands and protect themselves.  In doing so, they got hold of Mr Gushu and in general terms gave him instruction and I dare say approval, as I read this document, to recruit any assistance so as to quell the violence and to do what is necessary which included armed robberies to facilitate that first instruction.  Now, unless you are going to say or argue at the end of the day that that is not true, the questioning is going to lead us nowhere.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, perhaps the reason we would like to deal with this particular issue is that there were in fact armed robberies committed by applicants who also killed or assassinated victims whom I represent, and in that sense their credibility for doing whatever they did and for which they now apply for amnesty would come into play and I think it would then be appropriate for me to, knowing that we will deal with their credibility on their reasons or motives for perhaps killing one person and committing another deed like armed robbery, that their credibility would be at stake.

MR SANDI: Mr Hattingh, perhaps the correct approach would be to ascertain from this witness how far this mandate went, how far did it go.  What seems to have been a mandate to Mr Gushu, how far did it go.  What would fall within the parameters of that mandate and what would not.  Can I just ask a question to the witness?  Mr Mndebele, we need to find out exactly what kind of mandate was given to Mr Gushu.  As I understand your evidence, Mr Gushu was told to do whatever was necessary to achieve those stated aims and objectives of your organisation, is that correct?

JOHN MNDEBELE: Yes.

MR SANDI: What to do and what not to do was something which would have to be decided by Mr Gushu and not your organisation which had given him this mandate, is that correct?

JOHN MNDEBELE: Yes.

MR SANDI: Now, was Mr Gushu told specifically not to do anything in the carrying out of this mandate or instruction?

JOHN MNDEBELE: He was not told, he was just told he should do whatever was necessary to maintain stability.

MR SANDI: In terms of that mandate, what would be your attitude to robbery?  For Gushu to go out and commit an act of robbery under the belief that he's furthering these aims and objectives of your organisation?  What would you say to that?

JOHN MNDEBELE: We accept that.  We approve of it because the organisation did not have money and arms.  Whatever he did to secure money and arms was acceptable so that the community can be protected.

MR SANDI: Does that solve your problem, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, to some extent, but my question remains and it's a straightforward question, did this committee instruct Mr Gushu to commit armed robberies?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, maybe I may have to make it easier for him.  Mr Mndebele, if it were put to you at some time during your evidence that you know, this idea of armed robberies is a fabrication after the event, but in fact no such instruction or approval either implied or otherwise was given to Mr Gushu, what would you say?

JOHN MNDEBELE: Would you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: If it were to be put to you that this idea that Mr Gushu had to do whatever was necessary to gain peace, and including armed robberies was a fabrication after in fact armed robberies were committed, and in fact what really happened was that he was not given such a mandate and approval, what would you say?

JOHN MNDEBELE: If we were saying that he could do anything in his power in order to obtain money for arms and ammunition, that is just like saying that we gave him the authority to act in such a manner.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but if it were put to you that such approval was not given at all, what would you say?

MS BOSMAN: Mr Mndebele, this idea of committing armed robberies to obtain funds, was that in line with general ANC policy at the time, do you know?