Amnesty Hearings — Umtata — 1998-04-21

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman and members of the Panel, during the tea adjournment I took instructions from the widow of the late Sergeant Ngubo and she requested that I represent her interest in this inquiry today as well.
	May it be recorded that I represent both families of the deceased policemen.
	Mr Nyembezi, in October 1993 where were you living?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: I was saying at Bongweni sir.

MR BRINK: That is in the Kokstad district, correct?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: Yes sir.

MR BRINK: And how were you making your living?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: I was a student, studying.

MR BRINK: I am instructed that Sergeant Ngubo and his wife lived in a house, two doors down from your home at Bongweni, can you confirm that?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: No sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that at that time?

MR BRINK: Indeed, at a material time.  Two houses down, you deny that?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: I said sir, I do not know that.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: I do not know sir.

MR BRINK: Mr Ngubo instructs me that she and her husband knew you very well, she knew very well who you were and you knew them equally well.

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: No, that is not so sir.

MR BRINK: Was the purpose of training as members of Self Defence Units to protect your local community against attacks, incursions by hostile forces from the outside?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: Yes sir.

MR BRINK: Did you hold a command position in your local community, Self Defence Unit?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: No sir.

MR BRINK: You do confirm that you were not a soldier of Umkonto We Sizwe?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not in order.
	I am sorry Judge, your speaker is off so I could not follow you.

CHAIRPERSON: All I needed was for the witness to answer the question.  The question was whether he was a member of Umkonto We Sizwe?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: No sir.

CHAIRPERSON: You were not a member of Umkonto We Sizwe?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: No sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought in your application, not I thought so, it is so that in your application there are, state the capacity in which you served the organisation, institution, body or liberation movement concerned, if applicable and membership number if any, and your answer there was MK soldier.

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: Sir, we were SDU's having been trained by MK members.

CHAIRPERSON: What does that mean, were you or were you not a member of Umkonto We Sizwe?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: I said no sir, I was not a member of MK, Umkonto We Sizwe.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you answer that question in that manner?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: As I was saying, we were under MK.

MR BRINK: Whereas it was the task of soldiers of Umkonto We Sizwe to wage the liberation struggle, it was the task of members of the Self Defence Units, to protect the local communities of which you were a member, is that correct?

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, before he answers, could I just get clarity on the question, are you saying that the one was exclusive, or you were only this or that, if you could explain that.

MR BRINK: That is what I am suggesting to you.

MR NOTUNUNU: Could I also chip in here Honourable Chair, my learned friend Mr Brink, had said that he had no problem with paragraph 1 right up to paragraph bla, bla, bla, now, if one looks at paragraph 9 of the affidavit by Mr Nyembezi, it refers to protecting communities, not necessarily local communities.  Communities, I think there should be some clarification on that.

CHAIRPERSON: We are going to run into trouble here and I want to avoid that.
	Mr Brink, is it at all relevant as to whether he was entitled to do what he says he did or not?  The fact of the matter is that he did it.

MR BRINK: I take your point.  I won't persist with the line of questioning.
	For what reason did you attend the funeral of the four children who were killed by the South African Defence Force, was it in any official capacity representing your community, or did you go in a private capacity to share the grief of the parents of the children who were killed?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: I was there as a public representative, or a representative of the people.

MR BRINK: You mentioned that it had been decided to consider the Kokstad police station as a target in order to humiliate the government of the time.
	You said that all police stations were military targets.  I put it to you that you had in mind to attack the police station all along.

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: I deny that, sir.

MR BRINK: Why did you describe the police stations as military targets then?  I put it to you that implicit in that description is the idea that they were fit for attack.

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: Yes, all of them should have been attacked.  They were suitable for attack.

MR BRINK: When was the last time any surveillance had been done, before the abduction of the police from the Bongweni police station?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: Please repeat your question sir.

MR BRINK: When was the last time any surveillance was done of the Bongweni police station, before the abduction of the policemen in question?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: After the funeral.

MR BRINK: How many days, or weeks before the 17th of October 1993?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: It was a day after the 17th of October.

MR BRINK: I am instructed that ordinarily about six policemen would man that particular police station at night.

MR NOTUNUNU: Could that question be repeated please.

CHAIRPERSON: It is a proposition that at any given time, that police station would have six policemen in attendance.  Is that correct?

MR BRINK: Correct Mr Chairman.

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: I know no such, sir.

MR BRINK: I am instructed that for reasons which have never become clear, the police station on the night you approached it, was understaffed by four.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that common cause?

MR BRINK: Right.  Did you have information that there would be just two men at the police station on the night you decided to approach it?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: No sir.

MR BRINK: You were simply expecting to find two or three policemen there?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: We expected to find two policemen, sir.

MR BRINK: In your evidence in chief I understood you to say, you thought two or three men manned that police station?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: Correct sir.

MR BRINK: Did you anticipate when you approached the police station, that all three policemen might be carrying firearms, if there were three there?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: Yes, sir.

MR BRINK: Notwithstanding that, you decided to take on these three policemen with a single pistol and knives.  I put it to you that is entirely improbable.

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: It is sir, exactly as I said it.  We found two policemen there.

MR BRINK: But you anticipated that there could be three, all armed?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: I said that we had made a surveillance.

MR BRINK: Yes?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: It is the surveillance that gave us the report that the two policemen were there.

MR BRINK: When was that surveillance performed?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: After the funeral sir.

MR BRINK: I ask again for the final time, how many days before your approach on this police station?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: We went there on the day of the funeral, sir.

MR BRINK: All right.  Did you take any steps in the police station to prevent communication from the police station to other stations?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: Yes sir.

MR BRINK: What did you do?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: We cut the telephone wires.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, is it the family's version that there was no kidnapping, no abduction?

MR BRINK: Not at all Mr Chairman.  It is common cause there was indeed an abduction, but the difference is that it is the family's version, the family's understanding that the abduction took place in circumstances quite different from those described by the applicant.
	You confirm that you cut the telephone wires, and did you also cut the handset from the two way radio?

MLUNGISI NYEMBEZI: Could the speaker please, could Mr Brink please repeat his question?