Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-12-02

CHAIRPERSON: How come then if Mr Zulu was your target, that it took you four years, almost four years to get him?  He must have been very illusive, and if he was such a clever man to elude you, you catch him in his house.  It doesn't make sense.  Can you explain it?

MR CHISOMA: In those years, 1990, IFP members were the ones with guns.  We didn't have guns, so we didn't even try but in 1994 it was easy for us because in those years we also had guns.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.  1994, that's three years and some months after he was party to chasing you away from your home, was he still an active member of the IFP?

MR CHISOMA: Yes, he was still an IFP member.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what did he do that irritated you in 1994, the time he was killed more or less, in those few months or weeks?

MR CHISOMA: It's what they've done in 1993.  Some of them ran away.  Those that I know from my section, it was Mduduzi and Mr Zulu and another man.

CHAIRPERSON: What did they do?

MR CHISOMA: We used to call meetings in our section and they never wanted to co-operate with us or with the community, and they supported Inkatha and they would tell the community that they were not involved in those meetings.  And they had guns in those years, so we didn't have a chance to attack them.

CHAIRPERSON: But why would you want to attack somebody who refused to come to a meeting?  What's wrong with saying I don't want to come to a meeting?

MR CHISOMA: He had done a lot from 1990.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what I'm asking, what did he do that you didn't agree with?  You've told me now he refused to come to a meeting, that you didn't agree with, anything else that made him deserving of being killed and kidnapped?

MR CHISOMA: He's done a lot.  We used to call meetings for youth and we never used to continue with those meetings because they would stop us, they never wanted the youth to hold meetings.

CHAIRPERSON: How would they stop it?

MR CHISOMA: They used to harass us.  They would come with guns and we would be scared and ran away because we were scared.  And in those years we didn't have guns.

CHAIRPERSON: I see.  So he was seen as the disruptive force of your democratic processes, like meetings?

MR CHISOMA: Yes, he never agreed with what we used to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything else you want to mention about what he did?

MR CHISOMA: He will attend IFP meetings and I used to consider him as a leader because he never missed any IFP meeting.

ADV DE JAGER: But at that stage, a few weeks before the election in 1994, because you killed him in March/April '94 and the election was in April '94, there was already an agreement at Kempton Park, that all political parties would participate in the election and that they could hold meetings, even the IFP, was it necessary at that stage still to kill him?

MR CHISOMA: Meneer and Ben(?) had given us orders and they never came back to us to tell us to stop, therefore we didn't get that message that we should stop.

ADV DE JAGER: When did they give you the order to kill him or to kill IFPs?

MR CHISOMA: I'm not sure, I think it was four months before the incident.

MS PATEL: But Mr Chisoma, Meneer testified here yesterday, he made no mention of this in his testimony.  If he had given you that instruction, surely he would have said it?  He didn't apply for this incident either, for having instructed you to go out and kill.

MR SAMUELS: Sorry, may I be a bit difficult?  There's a distinct between what a person says: "Go and kill IFP member or IFP supporters" and "Go and kill Mr Zulu".  If Mr Xebe, Meneer, had specifically said that, in my submission that would have been an offence for which he would have had to apply for.  In the case ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) is the question, Mr Samuels, why even at this stage was he not told that, look here your co-applicant is going to say this.

MR SAMUELS: No, that was my decision.  My submission is that if person gives an order as far back as four months ago and a general order, it in itself doesn't link that person to the offence and that is why I did not lead him on that specific - it was only one fact, I appreciate that.  In an attempt to be short and quick, I only focused on those issues that were led.  I appreciate that it's not evidence in relationship to the applications but if it counts at all, it was my specific decision not to testify on that point, just simply because it wasn't relevant to Mr Meneer's, Mr Xebe's application and I wanted to just be specific on those issues.  The hearing can consider that evidence whichever way it wishes, but that is my submission.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Samuels, on a lighter note, I really enjoyed your remark "Mr Meneer", so he's now a double Meneer?

MS PATEL: Be that as it may, Mr Xebe yesterday did not mention that he, that there was a general order that he had given out for IFP members to be killed, regardless of whether there's a link between that general order and a specific incident, as this applicant is applying for.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to explain why he never mentioned it?

MR SAMUELS: Would you please repeat that one for me?

CHAIRPERSON: The Evidence Leader has asked you why Meneer did not mention that he had been party to giving a general instruction for the destruction of IFP and their members in the area, are you able to explain why he never mentioned it, or can't you?

MR CHISOMA: I don't know how to answer this question.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it's simple, can you explain why he didn't mention it, or can't you, or do you think it's his business?

MR CHISOMA: He only talked about one incident, he didn't mention the one of Mr Zulu.  I don't know why he didn't mention that.

ADV DE JAGER: After killing Mr Zulu, did you report back to Mr Meneer?

MR CHISOMA: Yes, we went to his house afterwards.

ADV DE JAGER: And what was his attitude, what did he say about the killing?

MR CHISOMA: We told him in passing, and the soldiers were behind us, we were running away.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, but did he approve of it, did he say it's alright that you did it?

MR CHISOMA: He only asked us if we've killed him for sure and we told him yes, we have already shot Mr Zulu and we ran away, we were looking for cover.

MS PATEL: Mr Chisoma, do you really want us to believe that the only person whom you were involved in the killing of, that you chose to report back to your commander whilst you were running away from the police, and that this serious matter was discussed under those circumstances?

MR CHISOMA: We were running from danger zone to the township.

MS PATEL: And you chose that particular time to report back to him, whilst you were running?  I put it to you that Meneer probably doesn't even know of this incident and that is why he didn't mention it, and that there was no order or instruction to go out and kill IFP generally, from Meneer.

MR CHISOMA: Meneer knows about this.

MS PATEL: Alright, thank you, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

ADV DE JAGER: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you kindly clear up your answer on page 87.  You were asked
"Did you benefit in any way financially or otherwise?"
And you said:
"Yes."
What benefits did you receive, or what did you try to convey to us there?

MR CHISOMA: This is a mistake.

ADV DE JAGER: You didn't write it yourself, or did you?

MR CHISOMA: I was writing.

ADV DE JAGER: But you've made a mistake there?

MR CHISOMA: Yes, I've made a mistake.

ADV MOTATA: Did you understand the question asked there?

MR CHISOMA: I think I didn't understand the question.

ADV MOTATA: Now Mr Ben, did you tell him about the killing of Zulu, because you said you got the instructions from Meneer and Ben?  Now you've told us that you told Meneer, did you tell Ben, Mr Ben?

MR CHISOMA: Meneer reported to Ben on our behalf.

ADV MOTATA: Were you present when he did so?