Amnesty Hearings — Aliwal North — 1998-04-22

MR LAX: In the beginning of your evidence you said you didn't know what happened.  There was a shot.  You didn't know what happened.  There was just a shot.  But you told this man to shoot when the vehicle passed.  So how can you tell us you didn't know what happened?

CHAIRPERSON: Well didn't he correct himself even?  He had first said it was a shot, then didn't he say it was a sound, "on the way to it we stopped the van.  The owner refused to stop.   I heard a shot" and then he changed it and said "I heard a sound."

MR LAX: The point is though, he didn't know what happened.  The question I am asking you, how can you say you didn't know what happened, when your instruction to your colleague was to shoot in the air?  Do you follow the question?  Do you understand what I am asking you?

PHILA MARTIN DOLO: I don't get it clearly.

MR LAX: I am asking you to explain to us, why, if you had given this person an instruction to shoot in the air, you told us in your evidence that you didn't know what had happened when there was this sound, which would have obviously been him shooting.  Do you follow?

PHILA MARTIN DOLO: Yes, I can hear you.  I was trying to say that when I heard this sound I don't know what was happen, I don't know happened, because the car kept on moving.  And the reason for that when I realised that the car passed us, it was when I was thinking of shooting, because I thought that my, my firearm was better than the pistol, so I was thinking of shooting at the time.

MR LAX: Shooting at what?

PHILA MARTIN DOLO: I was going to shoot in the air.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were going to shoot in the air, what did it matter if your rifle was better that the pistol?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I know the question of Mr Chairman, but I think there was a, the interpretation was not that good regarding that, that explanation.  I don't think it came out clearly to the Committee.  He said that the reason why he decided to shoot on the second incident was because he thought that it did not make any impact on the first one because it was a pistol.  So that's why he decided to shoot on  the second motorcar.

MR PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Mbandazayo.  Well then your client hasn't answered my question.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you repeat it, Mr Chairman, for him.

MR PRIOR: Okay, the question is really quite simple.  We have here a problem and the problem is this, he tells us that his instruction to his Comrade was to fire a shot in the air to try and scare these people.  Yet in his beginning of his evidence when he related this incident, as Judge Wilson has indicated, he said he didn't know what happened, then he corrected himself and he said he heard a sound.  That's what I am asking him to explain to us.

PHILA MARTIN DOLO: Please repeat the question, Sir.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, the interpreter will interpret to the proper language.

INTERPRETER: He is asking that, he is saying that when you were testifying you heard a gunshot, but when they are questioning you now, you are saying you gave your Comrade and instruction to shoot when the car, the first car was passing, whereas you said you just heard a gunshot ...(intervention)

MR PRIOR: Most of the ...(inaudible) don't know what was happening.

INTERPRETER: And you said you didn't know what was happening.  So they want you to clarify that because you are saying you gave your Comrade instructions to shoot, and yet you say you don't know what happened, what was happening.

PHILA MARTIN DOLO: I, maybe I mixed up these things, but it's only the second, at the, during the second, when the second bakkie was coming I told him not to shoot, as he had shot earlier.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairperson ...(inaudible) it's clear he can't explain this.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.  I'm moving on to Mr Fushane, the second bakkie, that actually stopped.  You said you fired in the air and the bakkie stopped.  Mr Fushane says in paragraph 5 that the persons who stopped him there identified themselves as soldiers of Umkhonto weSizwe.  Did you tell him that?

PHILA MARTIN DOLO: Yes we did.

MR PRIOR: You wanted to bring him under the impression that this was an operation of MK and not APLA?

PHILA MARTIN DOLO: No, those were not our intentions.

MR PRIOR: Surely you'd have realised he would have reported this matter to the Police.

PHILA MARTIN DOLO: That is why we took his bakkie by force, because if we asked him he wouldn't give us the bakkie, but if we took it by force, he would tell the Police, report to the Police, but he wouldn't be able to identify us because he did not know us.

MR PRIOR: And he would tell the Police that it was Umkhonto weSizwe, soldiers of Umkhonto weSizwe that had done this, and not APLA.  Is that correct?

PHILA MARTIN DOLO: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: Why did you say to this gentleman you were soldiers from the MK and not APLA?

PHILA MARTIN DOLO: That wasn't for us to say that.  It's because the Comrade ended up saying it's MK.  I was not there when he was telling them that it's not APLA.

MR PRIOR: Sorry, you misunderstand the question.  It's really a simple matter.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I think it's again, I think it will be a problem of interpretation.  I don't know whether after I have explained you will be satisfied with the answer.

MR PRIOR: Well let's try Mr Mbandazayo.  I'm quite happy with you explaining to him.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, you can take it up after that if you are not happy.  He's saying that after they had stopped and approached this man, the Vuyo or Vuyosile was in the front.  Because he was a recruit, he was a new recruit from them.  He did not mention APLA.  So he did not have a chance to correct him to say no, it's not Umkhonto weSizwe, it's APLA.  So he ended up agreeing that it's Umkhonto weSizwe with him.  It was Vuyosile who said "we are Umkhonto weSizwe".  He was a new recruit, not know maybe the difference.  I don't know.  That's how I interpret it.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that he wouldn't know the difference between APLA and Umkhonto weSizwe, as a recruit of APLA?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I am not there, he can answer that one, Mr Chairman.  I was trying just to explain the answer.

MR PRIOR: You see, the question really is why did you hold yourselves out as MK rather than APLA?  And you've given an answer as I understand it, which is that you wanted to mislead the Police.  That's how it came interpreted.  If you don't agree with that and I've misunderstood you, please indicate that that is so.  I'm quite happy to be corrected.

PHILA MARTIN DOLO: Please repeat your question, Sir.

MR PRIOR: Mr Dolo do you confirm that Vuyo and then later yourself indicated that you were MK and not APLA?  Do you confirm that first, yes or no.

PHILA MARTIN DOLO: Yes, I do confirm that.

MR PRIOR: The next question is why did you do that, and why didn't you correct the situation?

PHILA MARTIN DOLO: We were in a hurry.  We did not have time to explain because we could not even the ask the car from them because we were in a hurry to do the operation and then come back.

MR PRIOR: Let me just explain to you.  We've heard from many APLA cadres now in these hearings, and most of them have indicated that when they took things from Africans, they indicated clearly that they were APLA, that they were on a mission for APLA, that they were encouraging the co-operation of those Africans.  Why didn't you do that?  That seems to have been standard practice in APLA.

PHILA MARTIN DOLO: Please repeat your question.