Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1998-08-13

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: Yes.

MR BERGER: And at that meeting Themba Xhosa give the instruction that all evidence linked to the massacre, including goods stolen from the hostel, clothes stained with blood, should be burned?

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: I was in the meeting in which Themba Xhosa arrived with a certain Brigadier or a General.  I don't remember the name of that General or Brigadier.  He came together with Themba Xhosa and Themba said that we must co-operate with the police because they wanted to ask us some questions.  He never said that he shall take all the goods that you confiscated at Boipatong and burned them.  And further, the police were already inside kwaMadala Hostel.

MR BERGER: You were asked this question by the evidence leader of the TRC in a request for further particulars, it's paragraph 5.2 on page 170.  In question 5 you were asked whether Themba Xhosa and Humphrey Ndlovu visited after the attack, you said yes.
	5.1 you were asked for particulars of the nature of the visit, you gave an answer.
	5.2 you were asked about Themba Xhosa giving this instruction to burn, you never answered that question.  Why not?

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: You are referring to 5.2, I can't see it.  I can only see 5 and 5.1 where I stated they came after the police have closed the whole stadium and asked us to co-operate with them.  I can't see 5.2 on the forms.

MR BERGER: ...(inaudible) why you never answered question 5.2.  If you have a look at page 170 you will see question 5.2, and I see that you understand English.

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: Give me some time, I will just have to check the 5.2 you are talking about.  Maybe not to waste time Sir ...  In 5.2 there is a question stated as he's reading it out ... "and all evidence that linked the attackers to the massacre, including goods stolen from the hostel and clothes stained with blood."  Is that the question?

MR BERGER: Yes Mr Tshabangu.

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: No goods were stolen from the hostel and Themba Xhosa never stated that people should burn the goods.  That's my answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger are you still pursuing this point or are you going to another point?

MR BERGER: I just want to check something in the bundle Chairperson.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman with respect, and I don't want to steal my learned friend's thunder, if there's such a thing, but it seems that all the other applicants have dealt with that question 5.2 relating to the burning of goods.  It's in respect of this applicant that there doesn't seem to be a reply prepared in the further particulars.  So I think my learned friend is - whether he's suggesting that he deliberately avoided answering that question, or there may be some other explanation why that question wasn't prepared in his further particulars.  But I submit it doesn't take the matter any further.

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson I was the draughtsman of this, and I cannot really remember if I just forgot to add that, or because we saw that the word "hostel" was there, and we deliberately decided not to answer that question, I cannot remember.

MR BERGER: Chairperson my point is that the question was framed exactly the same way for all of the other applicants, and they all managed to answer the question.  It was framed in exactly the same way to Mr Victor Mthembu, and he answered "yes".  It was framed in the same way to another applicant, and he also answered "yes", an applicant represented by my learned friend.

CHAIRPERSON: But we're concerned about this applicant, that's the applicant we're dealing with here.

MR BERGER: The applicant I'm referring to is Sonny Michael Mkwanazi who was also represented by my learned friend.  At page 136 he was asked the same question, and the word "hostel" is there.  The point I'm making Chairperson is that it's quite clear, and was quite clear to my learned friend, what this question is about.  And all I'm asking the witness is for an explanation as to why the question wasn't answered.

MR STRYDOM: My learned friend suggests that I gave the answers.  I read the questions to them and I got the answers from the applicants.

MR BERGER: I'm not suggesting that my learned friend supplied the answers.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just get into any - let's just proceed.  Put the question you want to put to the witness and let's proceed.  Put the question to the witness that you want to put.

MR BERGER: Chairperson I don't understand why there's irritation with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Put your question to the witness so that we can get on.  Put the question to - you know, because Mr Strydom is saying he was the one who read these things to the witness, to the applicants, he doesn't know why he - whether he omitted it because there was a wrong reference or not.  The only person who will be able to tell us, if he knows, is the applicant, and then perhaps we can move, because if Mr Strydom doesn't, you know, is not able to tell us what is the reason for that omission.

MR BERGER: Chairperson can I please just have a moment to confer with my colleagues?

CHAIRPERSON: We will take a tea adjournment, we will come back at about ...(inaudible).
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: May I remind you that you're still under oath, and for us to make progress at these hearings, would you please answer the question directly.  Do you understand that?

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: Yes I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: If the answer that's being called is a "yes" or "no", just give that answer.  Your counsel is here, if there's anything that he believes you have to explain, he will be given the opportunity to have you explain that.  Do you understand that?

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: Yes.

MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson.  Mr Tshabangu you know that goods were not stolen from the hostel, in fact goods were stolen from Boipatong, correct?

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: Yes.

MR BERGER: My question to you was, why did you not answer question 5.2 on page 170?  Please can you answer that question directly.

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: I can't see it on the papers.

MR BERGER: It's on page 170, paragraph 5.2.

MR PRIOR: Sorry, Mr Tshabangu that's the question you read out to us yourself earlier, so we're not messing around here, just let's get to the answer please.

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: The only 5.2 that I can see, it's a question where I was supposed to provide an answer that doesn't appear on the papers.  But if you're talking about things which were stolen in the hostel, I would say Themba Xhosa never gave instructions what the hostel-dwellers should do.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) speakers are making a noise, so I can't hear.  I just want to hear what you are saying.

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: The only 5.2 available is the one where there are question where I had to give an answer.  Presently I can answer 5.2 in this way, if you're referring to things - goods stolen at Boipatong, my answer will be no.

CHAIRPERSON: Counsel understands that that's your answer today, what counsel wants to find out is, and you've just said so yourself, that there is - you did - there is no response from you to question 5.2, right?

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What counsel wants to find out from you is, when you look at page 173 of your answers to that request for further particulars, do you see that?

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There is no response from you to that question.  Now why is that so, why did you not respond to that question?

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: I don't know why.

MR BERGER: The reason I'm suggesting to you Mr Tshabangu, why you didn't answer that question, is again, you don't want to say anything which will implicate Themba Xhosa.

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: It's not correct.

MR BERGER: Let's move to the meeting in the hostel on the 17th of June.  Can you recall who gave the instruction that Boipatong was to be attacked, and what did he say?