Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-07-08

CROSSBY MR BRINK: Very well. I am suggesting to you that it is absolute nonsense to say that thekilling of Amy Biehl would resolve the problems which you and your organisationmight have had with the education authorities.

MR MANQINA: If you see it that way it will not solve the problem but we were going to keepon killing White people, but lastly the government would have answered our Africangrievances. It was not only the exam fees. We also wanted our land to come backto the African people.

CROSSBY MR BRINK: And the killing of Amy Biehl would bring the land back to the African peopleis that your evidence?

MR MANQINA: Yes ...(intervention)

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: That is not his evidence Mr Brink. He is saying we would have continued killingmore people. He is not saying the killing of Amy Biehl that afternoon on the15th of August would have that afternoon brought back the land to the people.

CROSSBY MR BRINK: I misunderstood him. I do know that one of the other applicants made that point,the killing of Amy Biehl would have brought the land back, if I am not mistakenit was the first applicant.
	But let me putit to him, let's get clarification Mr Chairman. Was one of your objectives inkilling Amy Biehl to get your land back, land back to the African people?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

CROSSBY MR BRINK: So there was a two-pronged, a two-pronged reason for killing Amy Biehl, oneto resolve the educational dispute, and the second to get land back to the Africanpeople and the third to make the township ungovernable?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Brink isn't he trying to convey to us that if they continued killing peoplethe situation would have gone out of hand and the government would have realisedwe should do something about it, we should listen to the grievances and, becauseif we don't listen they will continue to do it and it would be to the detrimentof the whole country, isn't that what he's trying to convey?

CROSSBY MR BRINK: He might be trying to convey that, but what I am concerned with and what thisCommittee is concerned with, with respect, is the murder of Amy Biehl, how thatparticular murder could have resolved these various difficulties or problems.That's my point. It's the proportionality bit - it's matter for argument possibly.But that's what I'm getting from him, whether that was his objective in takingpart in this murder. But I won't take it any further at this stage Mr Chairman.I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONSBY MR BRINK

CHAIRPERSON: Just so that I understand you correctly, in your mind is it clear that in doingwhat you did you realised that that single act by itself was not going to achievea change in the government's attitude on the examination fees or on the questionof getting your land back to the African people?

MR MANQINA: I do hear you, but according to my view AZANIA is free today, South Africa isfree because of the bloodshed even though we are not ruled by the PAC, we areruled by the ANC, the fact remains that it's a Black person who is ruling thiscountry, the land is back to its owners.

CHAIRPERSON: My question related to this particular incident. I tried to understand you andto be fair to you that in your mind that you realised that the killing of thisone person was not going to resolve your problem about your exam fees and gettingthe land back to the Black people, you knew that?

MR MANQINA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: What does that mean, do you agree with me or disagree with me?

MR MANQINA: I don't agree with you.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't agree with me. So in other words you believed that killing this oneperson was going to achieve the results that you wanted, is that what you aresaying? Are you sure?

MR MANQINA: Yes, I am sure.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you know at this time there were negotiations going on about the futureof the country, that the matter was being discussed by political parties?

MR MANQINA: Yes I knew.

JUDGE WILSON: And that the negotiations were being handled smoothly and agreement was beingreached?

MR MANQINA: That did not mean that we won the armed struggle.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you think that at that time killing one person like this could really achieveanything as against what could be achieved by negotiation, by discussion?

MR MANQINA: Please repeat your question.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you really, at that time, knowing that negotiation and discussion were goingon, did you really believe that killing one young person could achieve anythingthat would not be achieved by the negotiation and the discussion which was goingon between the parties?

MR MANQINA: We were following instructions.

JUDGE WILSON: So you are now not saying you believed it, just we were following instructions,is that what you are now saying?

MR MANQINA: Please repeat.

JUDGE WILSON: You are now saying not that you believed something would be achieved by doingthis, you are saying we were following instructions, that's your defence, isthat the position?

MR MANQINA: Yes, we were following instructions.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Can I take you back to the exchange you had earlier on with the Chairman here.Was your view that the killing of just that one person would bring about allthe change in the country?

MR MANQINA: That was my view, I saw it that way, when I was alone I saw it that way.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: That the death of the deceased was enough to cause the country to come backto the Africans?

MR MANQINA: Yes that is so.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Now you must explain to me how you manage to entertain that kind of view.

MR MANQINA: Can you please explain?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: How can you manage to entertain the view that the killing of one single personon one particular afternoon in Guguletu could change the whole of South Africa,cause it to revert to Black people?

MR MANQINA: As I have already said before, the death of Amy Biehl we wanted the governmentto answer to our grievances, but if the government did not answer we were goingto continue to make this country ungovernable until the government would cometo us and answer our grievances. What I believe is that the government was goingto answer our grievances.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You would have continued to kill more, as you put it, White people?

MR MANQINA: If there was a need we would have done so.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: In what standard were you at that time?

MR MANQINA: I was doing standard six in Guguletu.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Have you progressed any further since then with your studies?

MR MANQINA: Yes even in prison I am continuing with my studies.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: What standard now are you?

MR MANQINA: I am doing standard ten.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You didn't do standard eight and nine did you?

MR MANQINA: I did standard eight, but there's no standard nine there, Adult Education.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: So you have followed the unconventional route? What I mean is you didn't gothrough, you didn't pass standard seven and standard eight, standard nine, whatever,because you are reading privately you can enrol for whatever standard?

MR MANQINA: Yes.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Thank you.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Manqina I want to take you back to what you've said at paragraph 9.3. I justneed clarity with regard to one issue. Your statement reads as follows, or yourevidence
"WhenI saw the driver of the vehicle, which we had stoned and which had cometo a standstill, was a White person, I immediately asked one of thecomrades in the crowd for a knife".
Now what I want toknow is, when you started throwing stones at the car had you not, at that stage,realised that the driver of the car was a White person?

MR MANQINA: First of all I did not throw any stones. I went looking for a stone but it waswhen the driver left the car, running. I did not get a chance to throw any stones.She was then tripped, we then went to her, I arrived at her before others did.