Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1997-06-11

ADV PATEL: Is it not possible that he could have invited friends that night to his house?

CONRAD NKUNA: It could have been possible, but we wouldn't know that.

ADV PATEL: Is it not possible that other members of the ANC were also at his home that night?

CONRAD NKUNA: It could have been possible, but we did not see anyone who came in the house, except for him.

ADV PATEL: So the attack on Mr Shabangu was done with reckless disregard for the presence of any other persons at his home?

CONRAD NKUNA: It was not recklessly done because this attack was directed to the bedroom, not to the other rooms of the house, only the bedroom.

ADV PATEL: Was the handgrenade thrown into the bedroom?

CONRAD NKUNA: That is correct.

ADV PATEL: Did it cause a fire?

CONRAD NKUNA: It caused a fire.

ADV PATEL: Is it not possible that other persons in the house could have also been burnt or injured from the fire?

CONRAD NKUNA: There were no flames, that fire was only caused by the explosion.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Patel, just remember that he is not actually denying criminal liability in respect of the several counts of attempted murder?

ADV PATEL: For that reason I am moving onto the next stage.  Could you turn to the next page, which is page 10 and paragraph 11 (b), and I am going to read the paragraph and I would like your comment on it.
	It says "it was approved in SACP Head Office in Johannesburg where we discussed with comrade Chris Hani that he approved the mission".

CONRAD NKUNA: That I said from the information I got because he is the person Joe, who used to go to the Head Office.  I never worked for the office, it wouldn't have been possible for me to be present when such things were discussed.

ADV PATEL: But you say under oath, we discussed with Chris Hani and he approved of the mission, you say "we".  Can you explain that please?

CONRAD NKUNA: I explained wrongly I think, because I took it that this was planned and all of us are involved and if I say "we", even though I wasn't there, but I am still implicated in the whole case because I took part.

ADV PATEL: You may be implicated in the entire case, but for the moment the concern is when you say "we discussed with Chris Hani and he approved of the mission".  The implication of that very clearly is that you were part of that discussion.

ADV TEE: Objection, it is quite, Mr Chairman, with respect the witness has explained quite carefully that the reason why he is using "we", is because he was part of the whole attack, he did not have the benefit of legal representation at the time that he was filling this in, he does not understand the nuances and semantics and I think the question is unfair.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it is unfair question, it is not a legal issue here, it is a factual statement.  It relates to facts, not to law and if Mr Patel is not happy with the explanation given by the applicant, I think he is entitled to take the applicant on and cross-examine him on that answer which he doesn't find satisfactory.

ADV TEE: As you please.

ADV PATEL: Let's come back to this entire paragraph very clearly all right.  And I will read it - it was approved in SACP Head Offices in Johannesburg and the emphasis are on two words, where we discussed with comrade Chris Hani and he approved of the mission.
	Can you explain that statement because you are saying that where you amongst others were at the office of the SACP in Johannesburg and had a discussion with the late Chris Hani and he approved of that mission, please explain yourself.

CONRAD NKUNA: I said we as I've already explained because I got that information from Joe, because I was involved in that mission, I referred to the whole thing as we.  I wasn't there in person.
	At the time when I was writing this statement, I wasn't careful.  I wasn't careful enough in the usage of the words.

ADV PATEL: Why were you not careful enough?

CONRAD NKUNA: In my mind I thought that as all of us were involved, I took what was told to me as if I was also there in person.

ADV PATEL: But you see if a person reads your statement, the first impression one would get would be that you were actually present when this was discussed, that is the primary impression one would get, isn't it?

CONRAD NKUNA: Yes, it maybe so, but as I already explained to the Committee how it came about that this happened, I wasn't careful and wasn't aware.

ADV PATEL: There is a vast difference between saying you were told something by somebody on the one hand and saying that I was actually present.

CONRAD NKUNA: Yes, there is a difference.

ADV PATEL: I don't understand why you didn't express in such a way that you said what you meant instead of expressing yourself in such a way that you said what you didn't mean.

CONRAD NKUNA: Because I took part in this whole mission, I took it for granted that what was told to me and when I put it in writing and say "we", I did not realise that even though I wasn't there, this might complicate things.

ADV PATEL: Thank you.  You see the use of the words ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Nkuna, if I say we discuss, that would mean I and you discussed it, wouldn't that be so?

CONRAD NKUNA: That is so.

ADV DE JAGER: Now you are saying this was discussed in the SACP Head Office in Johannesburg where we discussed.  So you are saying there was a discussion in this party's office where we discussed.
	And can it be understood otherwise than that you were in fact present there?

CONRAD NKUNA: As that was under discussion  and discussed, that was the information that was given to me and wasn't at the Head Office when this was planned.

ADV PATEL: Why did you not simply say that Joe told you that a discussion took place at the SACP Head Office in Johannesburg when Mr Chris Hani approved the mission?

CONRAD NKUNA: As I have already explained, prior to this, I took it for granted that as I was part of this mission, now that Joe was given that order, all of us are involved in it.  The order was given to Joe and through Joe, to us, so we all took part and we were involved.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Patel, I don't know whether you can take this point any further, I mean we keep on getting the same answer.  If you don't accept it, then you will just argue it.

ADV PATEL: I am not going to persist with it any longer.  Mr Chairman, I may almost be through, I just want to go through the record of the proceedings last time.  Did you later discover that there were other persons in Mr Shabangu's house who were the victims of the attack?

CONRAD NKUNA: I discovered that in the room where Mr Shabangu was, was his girlfriend as well.

ADV PATEL: But you were charged with the attempted murder of six persons, is that correct?

CONRAD NKUNA: That is correct.

ADV PATEL: And you were convicted for the attempted murder of six persons, is that correct?

CONRAD NKUNA: That is correct.

ADV PATEL: And six people were victims of that attack, is that correct?

CONRAD NKUNA: To my knowledge I would say at the time of the attack, we intended to attack one person, therefor we attacked the only room where he slept and we didn't attack the other rooms.
	This shows that we intended to attack one person because we didn't attack the other rooms where the occupants were sleeping.  And the court happened to find a different view in this matter.  And therefor I would not ask for amnesty for the other matters.

ADV PATEL: Mr Chairman, I am finished now, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: At what time did this attack occur?  What was the time?

CONRAD NKUNA: It was about two o'clock in the morning.