Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-17

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: We were trying to gather weapons for the defence of the people, weapons such as firearms, so that our strategy as SDU's was to disarm the police.

MR LEOPENG: You said your strategy was to disarm the police.  What were you going to do with these weapons that you disarmed the police officials of?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: We were going to use the firearms to defend the community against attacks by Inkatha and vigilantes and other people who were troubling the community.

MR LEOPENG: Was your action to disarm the police official, authorised by the Overall Commander of the SDU's?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: Yes, that is correct because the idea was to reinforce within the structures of the SDU's.

MR LEOPENG: If I just for a  while go back to the evidence that you had given, you said that on that day you were patrolling in the Mandela Squatter Camp, so are you telling this Court that during the patrol, you deemed it necessary to disarm the police official, or that was within your instructions again during the patrolling?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: It was an order that had already been issued, that if we happened to see policemen in the area, we should disarm them to reinforce.

MR LEOPENG: Where did this order come from?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: This order was issued by comrade Winki who was in charge for the patrols on that day.

MR LEOPENG: If I go back, who was this comrade Winki that you are referring to, was he an ANC member or what was his rank within the ANC if I may just ask you?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: He was a member of the ANC as well as a member of MK.  He was a Commander of the Unit within the structures of the SDU's.

MR LEOPENG: So he was your superior, you were under his command on that day, to patrol and to disarm the police officials, is that correct?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LEOPENG: Now tell this Committee, what was your political objective that you wanted to achieve during the patrol and during the process of disarming police officials?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: Our objective was to augment on the firearms that we had, so as to be able to defend the community against the IFP and the vigilante attacks.

MR LEOPENG: Was the ANC office in Diepkloof aware of the activities of the SDU's and the command of comrade Winki regarding the patrolling and the disarming of police officials?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LEOPENG: You said in your evidence that your intention was to disarm the said two police officials.  Did you intend during the patrolling or during the process of disarming to kill anybody in disarming the police officials?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: No, our objective was not to kill.  We were just intent on robbing them of their firearms.

MR LEOPENG: Are you now telling this Committee that you are sorry that the deceased died during your ...

MR LAX: Mr Leopeng, please try and contain your leading.  He hasn't said anything about what he feels or thinks about this matter.  You are putting words in his mouth.

MR LEOPENG: I beg your pardon.  What do you feel about the whole incident on the 4th of August 1993?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: It makes me feel sad.  Our intention was not to kill, but to get the firearms.  That so happened and I don't feel good about that.

MR LEOPENG: Now tell us, what happened to the other four comrades that you are referring to, that is Nyao, Pat, Xolani and Winki?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: After the integration, comrade Winki was now stationed here in Johannesburg where he was a policeman, he died last year.  Other comrades ended up joining the army and others are still around.

MR LAX: Can you be a little bit more specific?  I think that is what your Counsel is wanting you to do.
	Who did what and where are they today?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: Winki died last year.  He was a police.  Pat is in the army, I don't know where he is stationed.  I have lost contact with comrade Xolani, Daniel is still around.

MR LEOPENG: And what about Pat?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: Pat is in the army.

MR LEOPENG: Tell us briefly, what active role did you play during the disarming of the said two police officials at which one died?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: I was part of the whole thing.  I was armed with a pistol, but after this Peter took the firearm and we fled.

MR LAX: Sorry, who is Peter?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: Pat.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR LEOPENG: So that day your role was that you were armed and you opposed these two officials, is that the only thing that you did?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: Yes.

MR LEOPENG: Lastly, why - let me rephrase the question, after you achieved the objective of disarming the police official, what were your intentions to do with the said firearm?

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't that ground already been covered Mr Leopeng, unless you are trying to get new evidence, we already have evidence in that regard.  It was to augment the weapons that the SDU had, which they intended to use in order to protect the community against attacks by the IFP and other people, against the community.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you Madam Chair.  I will leave the question.  How can you justify the act that you committed together with other comrades on the 4th of August 1993?

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't that been covered by your questions when you questioned him on his political objective?

MR LEOPENG: I beg your pardon, I will also leave that question.  I have no further questions.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just before Ms Thabete comes in, just clear something up Madam Chair.  Mr Leopeng, if you could just have a look at paragraph 9(a) on page 219, you haven't led any evidence specifically as to which acts your client is applying for amnesty.
	Is it that only covered in 9(a)(i)?

MR LEOPENG: Yes, I think so, but let me lead him on that.

CHAIRPERSON: AS you do so, have regard to the sentence which was imposed by His Honourable Justice Levison.

MR LEOPENG: Mr Mononi, you are here before this Committee to apply for amnesty for what act that you committed?

VUSI SIDNEY MONONI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LEOPENG: What specifically do you apply for?  You apply for amnesty for a specific act that you committed on the 4th of August 1993?

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Leopeng, before you tie your client down to a specific thing, amnesty may be sought for an act, an omission, an offence or a delict.  He may be applying in respect of offences, he may be applying in respect of acts, we don't know.
	I think before you tie your client down to a particular act, maybe just think about the position and then put the question to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng, have you had an occasion to study the judgement of Judge Levison?

MR LEOPENG: Yes Madam Chair, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: And in the light of that judgement, and in the light of the instructions that you have already obtained from Mr Mononi, you may be able to advise us without having to ask your client in respect of which acts he is seeking amnesty.  You may just tell us without having to lead his evidence in that regard.

MR LEOPENG: Well Madam Chair, my difficulty is that as already consulted with the applicant and as already he gave evidence, he is not the one who shot the deceased.  He is applying for amnesty for solely the purpose, the common purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he was convicted of murder, his evidence is that he was there even though he did not fire a shot that led to the killing of the policeman concerned.

MR LEOPENG: Yes, that is true and that is what he is applying amnesty for.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so can you just tell us which acts or offences he is seeking amnesty for.

MR LEOPENG: He is seeking amnesty for the murder and the robbery of the service pistol of the deceased.

MR LAX: He was convicted of attempted robbery, not robbery.  If you look at page 38 on the issue of sentence, you will see where he is sentenced in respect of what offences he has been convicted of.  It is neatly set out there.