Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 2000-08-30

LUCKY SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct, but I would like to explain this.  This was not the reason, if you look clearly.  It is not a reason that can force a person to commit robbery.  I did mention that when we were writing there, we had to write this letter to appear more personally, because one would be running away from revealing some of the activities, but after meeting with the leadership, we were free to say anything.
	I take this as the one that, as we were trying to, I wrote this information because I wanted to protect the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Why, the organisation had already attained rule of the country by then?

LUCKY SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So how does that fit in with your explanation now that you didn't tell them the real reasons, because you didn't want to divulge the truth, because you were not interested in embarrassing the organisation?  How would you be embarrassing the organisation, if the organisation was in power already?

LUCKY SITHOLE: I would like to explain this, any time, if the ANC, there is something, if there is something that should happen, but it would offend the ANC, I always try by all means, not to do that because I am trying to make sure that even if it is in power, I cannot just embarrass the ANC with something that is not within its principles.

CHAIRPERSON: But yet you say that is how it happened, why it happened, the crime?   You accept that now?  That is actually the reason, as contained on page 35 and page 34 as to why you committed the crime?

LUCKY SITHOLE: Yes, I mentioned that, and I did explain that the reason for me to say that, I wanted to, this whole crime to appear as a personal gain, because I didn't want to divulge information.  I couldn't just tell anyone about the ANC's problems, or some of the activities.

MR LAX: Would that have helped you to get out of jail?  How would that be regarded, how would personal gain be regarded as a political objective?

LUCKY SITHOLE: That would depend solely on the Committee who would be there to deal with the application, but what I think even today, I am always on the side of the ANC, I can even get into trouble rather than divulging some of the activities of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may continue.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chair.   Mr Sithole, I want to take you to page 17 of the bundle.  Mr Sithole, I refer you to page 17 of the bundle, this is a statement that is made by Mr Munsami Govender, and he was one of the employees in the bottle store on that day.  Towards the end of that statement, there is a sentence which says
"... on inspection my employer found an amount of R2 500-00 missing from the till."

LUCKY SITHOLE: I cannot dispute that, but all I can remember is the R3,000 that I took from the owners of the car.  I know nothing about the R2,000, but I am the one who was there, taking the money, but I was disturbed after hearing the gunshot, I couldn't do anything further.

MS MOHAMED: You see, you were disturbed when you heard a gunshot.  Who fired this gunshot?

LUCKY SITHOLE: There was an exchange of fire, between Temba who was holding an AK47 and a person who had a small firearm, while Mr Munsami was inside.

MS MOHAMED: So Temba had a gun?

LUCKY SITHOLE: We were armed with two AK47s.

MS MOHAMED: So you were also armed with an AK47?

LUCKY SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

MS MOHAMED: Okay, now between who was this gunfire being exchanged, I am sorry, I am not following this too clearly.  You said Temba had a gun?

LUCKY SITHOLE: When Munsami came, he came with a firearm and they shot at each other, but I cannot remember whether he first shot at me, but I was just disturbed during the process.  When he came out of the door, he was coming directly to me, but I cannot say whether he first shot at me, but one thing I am sure about is that what actually disturbed me there, was this gunshot.

MS MOHAMED: Okay, because on page 20 there is a further statement by Mr Govender.  This is a hand-written statement, and if you look at the last three lines of that statement, Mr Govender says
"... we never returned fire towards the suspects, because we have got no guns."
	Can you comment on that?

LUCKY SITHOLE: I cannot dispute that, because he is not even here right now, but all I am saying is what I know.  I did not see Mr Govender, but I remember seeing Mr Munsami on his coming back.

MS MOHAMED: Mr Sithole, Mr Munsami and Govender is one and the same person.

LUCKY SITHOLE: I apologise, the manager who was in the bottle store, I cannot remember his name, but it is him.

MR LAX: This is the manager, Mr Munsami Govender was the manager, he went to call the owner who was another man, Mr Pillay.

MS MOHAMED: That is correct.

MR LAX: Mr Pillay.  He says both of them didn't have a firearm and they never fired any shots at you?

LUCKY SITHOLE: What I say is this, there was exchange of fire, thank you for correcting me about Munsami Govender.  He is the one who brought the firearm, I can even identify him, even today.  He is the one who came with a firearm.  I did not see the second person.  I only see this for the first time, that there was a second person.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you.  Mr Sithole, now if you can refer to page 21, that is the continuation of that statement.  The penultimate paragraph reads
"... the sum of R2,442 was robbed on the 9th of November 1992.  I received this sum of R940 from Sgt Croukamp which was recovered by them."

LUCKY SITHOLE: As he says, there was money, I want to dismiss this amount of money that was recovered.  The money that I remember that was left in the pocket was R3,000, but in Stanger, I cannot remember anything.  I was disturbed, I am the one who was there trying to get the money, but I couldn't continue because of some disturbance.

MS MOHAMED: This amount of R940 that was returned to Mr Govender, is presumably the money that they recovered, and it was your evidence earlier that the R3,000 that you received from Mike's Kitchen, was in the kombi, so can you explain to the Committee the discrepancy of these amounts, and why only R940 was returned?

LUCKY SITHOLE: I am not in a position to explain that, but all I know is that the money, the whole amount was R3,000, therefore it means that some amount is missing, if we see this R940 here.

MS MOHAMED: Did you take any of that money for your personal use?

LUCKY SITHOLE: It did not come to my mind, and I was getting out of the car as a person who was trying to run away.   Even the bag and some travelling documents were left behind, things that are supposed to be with me.

MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Sithole, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MOHAMED

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.  Mr Sithole, did you go to school?

LUCKY SITHOLE: Yes.

MS THABETHE: How far?

LUCKY SITHOLE: As far as standard 10.

MS THABETHE: Now, when you completed the ...

MR LAX: Sorry, I didn't hear the answer?

MS THABETHE: Standard 10.

MR LAX: It wasn't translated unfortunately.

MS THABETHE: Because he spoke in English, he said as far as standard 10.

MR LAX: I just couldn't hear him at all.

MS THABETHE: Okay.

LUCKY SITHOLE: I did not pass matric.

MR LAX: But you can read and write English?

LUCKY SITHOLE: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETHE: I want to go back to your indemnity form on page 34, paragraph 11 which says you must give a political justification.  Why did you give an answer, did you think this answer was a political justification?

LUCKY SITHOLE: As I explained before, during this process when it was announced that people should apply, I took it easy, I thought that people would be convinced by writing this letter.

CHAIRPERSON: Answer the question, did you think that that was political in nature?  That is what you were asked.