Amnesty Hearings — Kroonstad — UNKNOWN

ANSWER: Yes, the involvement of the police with the gang,as far as that's concerned I've already mentioned one incidentand I think the previous witness also related a particular incident.  Must I elaborate?   You see on various occasions what wouldhappen would be this, for instance one case where the PremierMilling Company, their employees were on their way to go and arrestthe Three Million gang and to take them to the charge office.  The police intervened, the police were already in Trobo therewhere the Three Million gang members lived.   The police werewaiting in their caspirs in an open piece of land, they were waitingfor the Premier Milling employees.   I was present, I was sittingin a car with a certain Mr Touw(?) to see what the police woulddo.   The police chased away these workers, they shot teargas,whilst the Three Million gang were present amongst the membersof the police in between the caspirs so these people were overcomeby the teargas.   I clearly saw that the police did not take anyaction against the Three Million gang with weapons and these PremierMilling employees were unarmed.

<UNKNOWN>: : Did the police at any stage act against theANC with weapons?

ANSWER: The police always acted against the communityand the ANC using their weapons.

<UNKNOWN>: : Can you mention one example?

ANSWER: Yes, children were shot dead in Maokeng by thepolice.

<UNKNOWN>: : Were these policemen charged?

ANSWER: They were charged yes, cases were made againstthese policemen but nothing happened, nothing came of these cases.

<UNKNOWN>: : Did you monitor these police matters, thesecases made against them?

ANSWER: I think perhaps, yes I monitored them perhapsmore so than anybody else in Kroonstad, I monitored the progressof these cases but nothing happened.

<UNKNOWN>: : Is it possible for you to name the police involvedin these incidents?

ANSWER: Yes, it was a Lt Mbombo, it was a Captain Umsimau(?),I'm not quite sure of his surname but he was the Captain thenand I always went to them to go and ask about the progress inthese cases.

<UNKNOWN>: : Was there a verdict?

ANSWER: No there was never any trail in these matters.

<UNKNOWN>: : One of the applicants Roland Petrus, was hea member of the ANC Youth League?

ANSWER: Yes he was a member of the ANC Youth League.

<UNKNOWN>: : We've heard evidence that Roland Petrus hetestified to that himself that he did not live in Maokeng buthe came from Johannesburg, what do you say?

ANSWER: Yes, let me explain.   Roland, as he also testified,Roland's father originally came from Kroonstad he was born here.  Roland often came to Kroonstad he virtually lived here, hisheart was here, he went to school here.

<UNKNOWN>: : Were you aware of Roland's actions on this
particular day when he killed Diwiti?

ANSWER: I was accused No 2, I was present in the carwith Roland and therefore I was aware of what happened.

<UNKNOWN>: : What car was this?

ANSWER: It was a Honda Ballade.

<UNKNOWN>: : Did you drive to town in this car?

ANSWER: Yes.

<UNKNOWN>: : On that particular day?

ANSWER: Yes.

<UNKNOWN>: : Please continue?

ANSWER: Chairperson what would you like to know?

<UNKNOWN>: : Now you drove to town in this car on the particularday of the incident?

ANSWER: Yes.

<UNKNOWN>: : Was he acting as a result of your instructions?

ANSWER: I must make it very, very clear that no disciplinedmember of the ANC would give such an instruction to kill a person,no disciplined member of the ANC would do such a thing.

<UNKNOWN>: : Yes but you knew, you were travelling withhim to town, what was your attitude, you knew what he was planningto do in town.

ANSWER: That's correct, I spoke to Roland and I triedto persuade him and he said that the order and instructions camefrom the community and he must carry them out.

<UNKNOWN>: : Were you aware of these instructions?

ANSWER: Yes, yes I had heard about these instructions.

<UNKNOWN>: : The other applicant, Mr Nkompondo(?), was hea member of the ANC Youth League?

ANSWER: Yes that's correct he was a member of the YouthLeague.

<UNKNOWN>: : Were you aware of his conduct and actions?

ANSWER: No I wouldn't say that I was aware of his actions,there were so many incidents here in Maokeng that I wasn't personallyaware of each and every incident, I can't remember them all.

<UNKNOWN>: : Let us talk about the last applicant, JosephSukudu.   You know what he did?

ANSWER: Yes.

<UNKNOWN>: : Was he also a member of the ANC Youth League?

ANSWER: According to Matshabe he was a member of theYouth League.    Do you want to know what the organisation's viewwas?

<UNKNOWN>: : Yes.

ANSWER: I'd heard about this Joseph Sukudu incident,Joseph having killed this white person.   The ANC never foughtagainst the colour of a person's skin, the ANC never gave instructionsto kill anybody, what Joseph Sukudu did I would like, on behalfof the ANC I would like to condemn that in the strongest possibleterms, but I would also like to say that I think the reason whyJoseph had become involved in this incident, well South Africawas an abnormal society at the time of the previous governmentmade murderers of our children.   The previous government pittedblack against white and that is what I can say as far as thatincident is concerned.

<UNKNOWN>: : Would it be correct Mr Bloem if I tell youthat the ANC as a result of your answers to my questions, thatthe ANC did not associate itself with Joseph's act?

ANSWER: No not at all and that's why I'd like to repeatit today.   The ANC would never condone or accept that anybodymust be killed.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOTSEPE

JUDGE WILSON: : You have told us you were a co-accusedat the trial of Roland.

ANSWER: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: : You were represented there?

ANSWER: Yes that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: : You pleaded guilty?

ANSWER: Yes that's also correct.

JUDGE WILSON: : Not to the murder.

ANSWER: Yes that's correct.

JUDGE WILSON: : You put in a Section 112 statement is thatcorrect?

ANSWER: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: : Set out to the Court what your versionof the facts was.

ANSWER: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: : Do you remember what it said?

ANSWER: No this happened in 1992 and we are now in 1996so I don't recall.

JUDGE WILSON: : Would you like to look at that document?

ANSWER: Yes.   Chairperson if you could perhaps posethe question then I will answer the question.

JUDGE WILSON: : Is this the Section 112 statement you madeto the Court?

ANSWER: Yes that's correct.

JUDGE WILSON: : In it you said that on Tuesday afternoon,25 February you discovered that Roland and others had not leftbut had used the money that you'd given to them to buy liquorand when you found them at your house that afternoon they'd clearlybeen drinking although they were not drunk.

ANSWER: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: : You said how angry you were with them andyou took them to town to find out what the taxi fares would befor them to go home.

ANSWER: Yes that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: : That was the purpose for going to town?

ANSWER: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: : You then returned to your car and wentto the house of Cecile, a friend, whom you wanted to borrow moneyfrom to pay for their taxi fares for them to go home.

ANSWER: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: : She was not at home and while you werewaiting there accused No 2, Roland, told you what he had done?

ANSWER: Yes that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: : You were shocked and upset?

ANSWER: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: : I understood you told us a few minutesago that you drove to town with him, you knew what he plannedto do?

ANSWER: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: : Did you know before he murdered this manhe was going to do it which is not what you said in your 112 statement.

ANSWER: Right, I'm not going to explain.   It's entirelycorrect what is stated here, the situation and circumstances inwhich we were at the time forced us to make this kind of statementbut today I came here and I'm going to say exactly what happened.