Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-08

MR WILLS: Thank you.  My understanding at that trial was that Mr Luthuli was called as a witness for the State.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's correct.

MR LASICH: I beg your pardon.  But, in any event, Mr Luthuli, you weren't frank and open with the Court.  You did admit certain things, but - and I know your counsel may suggest that you were given a warning by the Judge that you do not have to incriminate yourself, but what I'm asking you to comment on is whether or not you were frank, fully and open with the Court.

WITNESS:   That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, were you or were you not - sorry, I didn't really understand the answer to that.  You put it in a way that if he answered, "No", it meant no, he wasn't frank.

MR LASICH: Let me clarify that, Mr Chairman.  What I'm putting to you, Mr Luthuli, is that during that trial you did admit some involvement, but you did not admit everything as you've admitted today.

WITNESS:   No, in court I appeared for one thing and in court I didn't want to actually appear, but I was subpoenaed, because I had initially told them that I did not want to be on the side of the Government or be a State witness.  Therefore, my presence there was not in my heart so that's why I didn't disclose certain issues and the matter that was being dealt with there was the Esikhaweni matter and nothing else but the Esikhaweni matter.

MR LASICH: Now, I'm going to be brief about this point and you could probably anticipate the proposition that I'll put to you.  You lied at the Goldstone Commission.  Could I just finish, please.  The prosecution did not call you in the

MR LASICH: /so-called Malan

MR LASICH: 2A so-called Malan trial, S v Msane, and I'm sure you can guess what I will put to you.  In other words, my suggestion to you is that people have difficulty in believing your story.

WITNESS:   I will answer you.  The fact that I was not called during the Malan case was not a mistake.  It was deliberately done, because I'm telling you now, so that you can also tell your clients that the people who killed others at the KwaMakutha massacre are the ones and the people who were present there is the military intelligence that JP was working hand in hand with.  M Z Khumalo and myself are the ones who applied for the KwaMakutha matter - that is myself and him.  The reason that I wasn't called was a very deliberate effort so that they could be acquitted.  That is why they didn't even want to come before this Commission.  That's why they are sending you, because they do not want to disclose the truth.  People were mistakenly killed, but they had been told that they apologised.  That's why M Z Khumalo slaughtered a sheep or a goat, because they killed the wrong people.

CHAIRPERSON: [Break in recording] ... answer to the question, Mr Luthuli.

MR LASICH: I just want clarity on this, Mr Luthuli.  Are you suggesting that the Inkatha Freedom Party and M Z Khumalo had something to do with you not being called at that trial?

WITNESS:   No, what I'm saying is the reason why I wasn't called as a witness during the Malan trial was that they knew I was going to disclose the truth.  That is the only reason they didn't call me.

MR LASICH: Now, I'm sure you can guess what my clients would say about your evidence implicating them, including

MR LASICH: /M Z Khumalo,

MR LASICH: 2A M Z Khumalo, with regards to setting up a military wing for the IFP.  Would you tell us what you think their answer would be to that.

MR LAX: Sorry, please just put a direct question.  This business of asking him to guess what your client is going to do is really not a fair way of putting the question, with respect, Mr Lasich.  It creates a speculative situation.  It then puts him at a disadvantage because whatever he says may not be what your clients have in mind.  Rather just ask him a straight question.

MR LASICH: I take your point, Mr Lax, but, with respect, I see he was nodding his head.  In other words, Mr Luthuli, we'll keep it simple.  Your allegations against them are denied.  Could you comment on that?

WITNESS:  The fact that they trained people - is that what you are saying?

MR LAX: I think the question was that there was a request from M Z Khumalo to set up a military wing for Inkatha.

MR LASICH: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: And Mr Lasich said that M Z Khumalo and the IFP deny that.

MR LASICH: That is correct.

WITNESS:   Let me tell you this - the IFP mobilised or organized people for military training and the soldiers do admit that they did train these people.  They can say anything that they want now, but what I'm telling you is the IFP had a right at that time, because it was being attacked.  This is the reason why they had to go out and organize or mobilise people so that they could protect themselves and during the recruitment the police were not involved, it was only the

MR LASICH: /Inkatha Freedom

MR LASICH: 2A Inkatha Freedom Party and the South African Defence Force that were involved.  That is all.  And when they came back they didn't go to the police, they went out to do whatever they were trained to do.  Now, I do not know as to why they are denying or what are they denying, because I did not apply.  There are no forms that I filled in.  I was requested specifically to be a political commissar of that particular group, because they were facing an enemy and they wanted a person who was knowledgeable and who had the necessary skill.  What did they come to me to do?

MR LASICH: Mr Luthuli, I don't want to guide you in your answers, but you could have simply said you disagree with that denial.  We've heard all of this before from you and we've read your statement to the ITU.  If the Commission will just bear with me.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Mr Luthuli, I would like to cross-examine you for several days here but you will agree there is a lot of evidence involved in this matter and this is not a trial.  Perhaps we'll meet again.  All I need to put to you, as I put before, is your implication of members of Inkatha Freedom Party, who I represent, in setting up military wings and hit squad activities is denied.  If you could just say whether you agree or disagree, that would be quite simple.  Thank you.

MR STEWART: Mr Chairperson, if I might intervene, it's probably the case that my client doesn't know exactly who Mr Lasich represents, because, if I recall correctly, when we introduced ourselves on Monday he said that he represents the IFP and I think he said 48 or 78 other people - associated people - something like that.  There may well be a list.  I haven't seen it.  My client hasn't
 /seen it.
2A seen it.  In order to answer the question he would need to know that.  There are obviously an enormous number of IFP members and we need to know who is included in the ambit of that question in order to be able to answer it.

MR LASICH: Perhaps I can make that simpler, Mr Chairman, the notice was issued to us and perhaps Mr Luthuli could look through those names.  That would be easier than me reading out the whole list of names, but that's the nub of what we're putting to Mr Luthuli.

MR STEWART: We don't have a copy of that notice, Mr Chairperson.

MR LASICH: Well, if I may indicate, Mr Chairman, the people he's mentioned in his evidence who are implicated in this hearing, that the basis of the denial.  It's on their behalf.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lasich, just for the record, could you just repeat that denial.  Don't let me ... (intervention)

MR LASICH: I'll repeat it again, Mr Chairman.  It is a bare denial on the part of those members that Mr Luthuli has implicated in his evidence.  I see he didn't deal with the Esikhaweni matter.  That they were involved in hit squad activities or in the involvement of setting up a so-called military wing for Inkatha.