Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-09-14

MR LAX: Now, according to these statements there were only two policemen that chased you and that is why you were charged with attempted murder of those two policemen in the trial.  Is that not correct?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: No, it is not so.  There were many policemen.   They had surrounded the whole area.  They were in two or three vans, not even small vans, the big ones.

MR LAX: But it is so that you were charged with the attempted murder of these two policemen because they were the ones that you actually shot at.

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

MR LAX: Now, I want to just turn to the shooting of Mr Mashamahite.  Both the statements in this bundle say that you and your colleagues grabbed him before he was shot.  Both witnesses in those statements say that.  You've denied that.

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: Yes, I still deny it.

MR LAX: Now, those witnesses didn't know you.  They didn't even know it was a political matter.  Why should they lie about you grabbing a man at that point in time?  It's not a material issue.

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: I do not want to speak untruths.  Whether they alleged that we grabbed him, that is not the truth.  If we had grabbed him and there were witnesses, maybe we would have done this in a movie style and we were not there in such matters.  We wanted to kill him quickly.  That is why I just drew my gun and shot him.  Those people might have been watching a movie seeing us grabbing somebody, disarming him.  That is not so.  It's not the truth.

MR LAX: So, are you saying there were no witnesses to your attack on Mr Mashamahite?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: There were people who did see.  This happened on the streets.  There are people moving around.  Some people were coming from the movies so they saw what was happening.

MR LAX: So, these were two of the people who saw what was happening and that's what they say happened.  It was getting dark.  It was in the evening.  How can you say that they just made it up?  What motivation would they have had for making it up?  That's what I'm trying to understand.

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: I can state a number of reasons.  Firstly, when you take a statement or if you want to write a statement, the police sometimes tell you when you make a mistake or they tip you on how to write the statement.  There are a number of issues that came out in court.  Some of the things that were mentioned were that we used his own gun to kill him.  I would have not approached a trained and armed person if I was unarmed.

MR LAX: You still haven't given me any reason why they should fabricate information.

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: I do not know.

MR LAX: Sorry?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: Can I explain?

MR LAX: Carry on.

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: I would like the Committee to know something.  The people who say they did witness this incident, if they know me correctly they failed to identify me in a parade.  If they know me how could they fail to identify me at that parade?  How can you actually trust that such a person is telling the truth?

MR LAX: Well, none of these witnesses say they know you.  So I don't understand your point.  Not one of these witnesses that we have before us in these statements say they know you.  Both witnesses who will say they witnessed the killing of Mr Mashamahite don't say they know you.  In fact went to great length to try and find out who you were afterwards but they couldn't see you.  And the one person was very clear, he says he didn't see your faces at all.  But be that as it may.  You've given us your answer.  That's fine.  Just on the issue of Mr Hladi.  Why do you think Mr Hladi went and said that you had robbed him if you hadn't?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: I would not be able to say exactly why, but what I would like to explain is that with regards to the investigation of Mr Mashamahite's death, the police were unsuccessful such that the charges against me were thrown out of court twice in August 1993 and in 1994.  I do not remember the month exactly.
	In withdrawing the case, the court mentioned that there was no evidence against me.  For Basie Hladi to say that I had robbed him was a means of blackmail as well as trying to cover up that he was an informer.  That is how I can put it.

MR LAX: You see, at the time you were tried for these charges, you were on very serious other charges.  The robbery was a relatively minor charge compared to the rest.  So they don't seem to add a great deal to the picture.  Do you see the thrust of what I'm saying?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: The truth is that even in court the first charge against me was the murder of Mr Mashamahite as well as Mr Hladi's case, but in court we did not commence with Mr Mashamahite's matter but instead I started with the matter of Mr Hladi.  To give evidence to the effect that the gun that had been used belonged to Mr Mashamahite.  They made sure that we started with the matter, that is Mr Hladi's matter so that the gun will be construed as having belonged to Mr Mashamahite.

MR LAX: But it did in fact belong to him.  That's not in dispute, is it?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: Yes.

MR LAX: You see, if you look at Mr Hladi's affidavit, and he's not here unfortunately to tell us his side of the story, that's why I'm just asking you these questions, but if you look at his affidavit, his conduct is consistent with somebody who was robbed who then goes looking for the police to say, "You've got to help he.  These guys tried to rob me.  They took my things.  I want to get my things back".  And he then goes looking for you because he wants his things back and he finds you.  There's a consistent pattern of conduct there that makes it look like he didn't just make up the story.  So that is why I'm asking you to comment on it.

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: I also have evidence that he was lying because even in court he said that he was present when I was arrested and he was asked if he was present when I was arrested why didn't the police find anything that belonged to him, because if I had taken something from him and I was arrested about 10 minutes thereafter there should be evidence that I had in my possession something belonging to him, but the police did not find anything.

MR LAX: There are many possible answers to that.   Your colleague could have taken those things from you and disappeared when he escaped.  But we're not going to engage in speculation here.  All I'm saying is his story seems to be consistent and that's why I'm asking you these questions.  Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Just to make a follow up on what my colleague has said.  You perceived Basie Hladi as an enemy, didn't you?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: Yes, after he had come to my home with a policeman.

ADV SIGODI: Wasn't it APLA policy to take things from the enemy even to rob, I mean to rob shops which belonged to what was perceived to be the enemy?   Wasn't it a policy, the general policy?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: Yes, it was.

ADV SIGODI: So couldn't it be possible that your other colleague could have taken this stuff from Basie Hladi?