Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-06

MR SMUTS: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I hadn't completed putting the passage to the witness.
	At the top of page 4074, the Judge records that your evidence was "he did not know what kind of whites they were referring to and he only decided to mention the old lady.  When asked about the mention of the girl, he said that the police had told him that they only found females and he only thought that they might have found an old lady and a girl."
	Is that indeed what your evidence was in the criminal trial regarding that portion of your confession?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I hope that is the way that, that is the manner that I testified in court.

MR SMUTS: Why do you hope that that is the way you testified in court?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that what he intends to say is he hopes that he is being correctly quoted.  What do you mean by you hope that that is what you testified?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I agree with him in what he says.

MR SMUTS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  The evidence that the idea of saying there was an old lady, came from you, according to your evidence today, was false?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Sir, I was trying to save myself, I was trying to escape.  I was trying to save myself, therefore it will be difficult.  The way I was testifying, the manner in which I was testifying in court, I was actually trying to save myself, therefore it will be difficult for me to clarify further on that fact.

MR SMUTS: How would it have made any difference to you whether, in the criminal trial, whether you testified as you do today, that you had got this information from the police or whether you testified as you did then, that the idea of mentioning the old lady was your own inspiration?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Whatever I was saying in front of police, it will be different from something that I will be saying willingly because I was not free there, even when I was in Leboti doing that confession.	I was a bit confused.

CHAIRPERSON: What the Advocate is saying is that when you were, during your trial you told the Judge that this story about an old lady was something you made up.  And you now tell us, that wasn't the truth, but that you were trying to save yourself and that is why you told the Judge that it was something that you made up.
	Today you tell us that the idea of an old lady was really something that was reported to you by the police when they were investigating this matter and interrogating you.  That information they acquired from one or more of your colleagues.  What the Advocate, and you say - what the Advocate is asking you is why didn't you tell Judge Davies that in fact this information I acquired from the police rather than saying you made it up?  Because it wouldn't make any difference, you were lying in both cases.

LUNGILE MAZWI: The manner in which I was testifying there in court, cannot be the same as when I testified in a free environment.  At the time my intention was to be found not guilty in court.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay, now can you please tell me, did you make the story up yourself or did the police tell you about the story?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I got that from the police office in the Department of Murder and Robbery, this story about an old lady and a girl, I got it from that office.

ADV DE JAGER: So you didn't make up the story?

LUNGILE MAZWI: No, I did not make up the story as I told the Judge at the Supreme Court.

CHAIRPERSON: And neither did you get that information from any of your colleagues?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I cannot remember clearly, but I am sure that I got this information from the police Officers in the Murder and Robbery Department that there was an old lady and a girl.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, then your colleagues could not have told you that if you are sure that you got the information from the police, not so?

LUNGILE MAZWI: What do you mean, do you mean they couldn't have told me at the time, or after.  What do you mean actually?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it doesn't matter when you heard it.  You are saying that you acquired this information from the police after you were arrested, during interrogation, not so?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And therefore you could not have got this information from any of your colleagues?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I cannot say so, I could have acquired that information from them.

CHAIRPERSON: But you have just told me that you were sure that you acquired this information from the police during interrogation?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And it follows then that you did not acquire this information from any of your colleagues?  Isn't it?

LUNGILE MAZWI: That does not mean that I could not get this type of information from my colleagues.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, did you get it from your colleagues?

LUNGILE MAZWI: What I can remember is that they said there was nobody inside there, so we had to wait for the cars that were out to the other coast.  I cannot remember clearly who the person was, the person who gave me this type of information.

CHAIRPERSON: We are not talking about information that the house was empty and the number of cars, and that the occupants had left for the coast, we are not talking about that.
	We are talking about the aspect of whether there was an old lady and a young girl somewhere noticed during that reconnaissance trip.  Where did you acquire that information?  Forget about whether there were really a white old lady and a white young girl there.
	Where did you get that kind of information?

LUNGILE MAZWI: As far as I can remember, I got that from the Murder and Robbery Department.

CHAIRPERSON: And therefore it follows that it would not have been any of your colleagues that gave you that information, but as you say, you acquired it from the police?

LUNGILE MAZWI: That is correct.

MR SMUTS: I understood your evidence earlier to be that you got that information from the police in the context that they said to you they had come by that information from one of your other colleagues, is that correct?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes, they told me so.  They told me that they got that information from some of my colleagues.

MR SMUTS: Did they identify the colleagues from which, from whom they had obtained such information?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I cannot remember.  I cannot remember, I don't remember them telling me the name of the person who told me so because even if ...

INTERPRETER: Can the speaker please repeat the last part?

LUNGILE MAZWI: I cannot remember them telling me the name of the person, because even the person who actually implicated me in that case, I was not told, his name was never revealed to me.

MR SMUTS: Do you know which of your colleagues were arrested before you were?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes, I do.

MR SMUTS: Who were they?

LUNGILE MAZWI: The first one was Pumelele Hermans.

MR SMUTS: Was he the only one that was arrested before you were?

LUNGILE MAZWI: He was with Vuyani Nyalukana.

MR SMUTS: Were they the only two who were arrested before you?

LUNGILE MAZWI: And Mlulamisi Maxhayi and  Zongizela Mxhiza.

MR SMUTS: The statement continues at line 20 on page 81 of the typed, line 19 I beg your pardon, a young herdboy appeared and said some white men had travelled to the sea in a 4 x 4 van to catch fish.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Smuts, where are  you?

MR SMUTS: Mr Chairman, the text to the confession appears on page 81 of the typed judgement which is in the bundle.

ADV DE JAGER: You are reading from line?

MR SMUTS: Line 19 Mr Chairman, a young herdboy appeared and said some white men had travelled to the sea in a 4 x 4 van to catch fish.
	Is that in fact a correct reflection of what took place on that day?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Yes, that is correct.

MR SMUTS: Is it correct that when you went to set the ambush along the road along which you anticipated the vehicle would travel, you knew that what you were going to ambush, was a fishing party?

LUNGILE MAZWI: Do you mean on our way to the place?