Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-12

GRAHAM SIMPSON: Certainly.  The importance of this both to this hearing, Mr Chairperson, and in the context of the extenuation case that I was attempting to make, was that there was a very strong suspicion in a highly volatile and very politicised environment.  The report documents the history over 18 months of escalating conflict, repeated killings and I document 12 murders including those of the victim in the case.  The importance was in recognising that there was a strong suspicion, and I argued that this was a very important factor in escalating conflict in the area, there was a strong suspicion that there was collaboration by management in the factory, the IFP and the South African Police Service.
	Certainly from my reading of the situation considering the number of cases that were reported to the South African Police Service and the failure to advance any of those cases to the point of either arrest or prosecution would whilst it may not have indicated the kind of conspiracy that was suspected, would certainly have in a sense sustained those beliefs amongst the people at that time.
	What is less difficult to sustain but equally understandable was the perception of this collaboration between management and IFP.  And partly in order to demonstrate my own objectivity in the matter, I felt it important to cite this paragraph because, to cover this point, because what I did come across was the fact that there were in fact meetings between IFP leadership in the area and the management of the factory, that is may have reinforced the belief that there was this collaboration but that in fact from the correspondence between management and UWUSA, well the IFP, it seemed like they were actually fairly staunch in rejecting the IFP's demands and were fairly committed to a majority unionism approach in the factory.  Nonetheless the perception certainly of the FAWU shop stewards that I interviewed and Mr Kondile, was that there was such a collaboration.  
	What is more important though in my view is the line that I've quoted from Moosa Myeni, IFP leader in the area and that was cited in the minute of the meeting constructed by the management personnel who I think were fairly objective about it, quoting him as saying:
"He told us that as far as he is concerned this is now a political problem and not an industrial problem."
And I think that that is particularly relevant to this Committee.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Are you able to comment, Mr Simpson, about this particular conflict in its broader context on the East Rand?

GRAHAM SIMPSON: Certainly.  At our centre we have done a very extensive, well we had at the time done very extensive research into that conflict in the East Rand, including, and I must emphasise this, a series of direct extensive qualitative interviews with hostel dwellers in the area during some of the high points of conflict in which the hostels were the flash-point and the relationship between migrant labour and political battles or particularly the hostels as an organising battle during that phase of negotiations was very clear to me.  So certainly on the basis of our research in the hostels I would be able to comment on the area more generally.
	I also along with a couple of colleagues have published two articles, reviews of political violence, one referring to 1990 and the other particularly relevant here to 1991, which documents a lot of this.  Amongst other things one of the factors that I pointed to in my report which I consider to be of particular relevance is that one must remember that it was in the course of 1991 that the so-called "Inkatha-gate" scandal broke.  
	And whilst individuals on the shop floor may not have been aware of this, it certainly is reflective of the extent to which politics and the machinations of the workplace had become very substantially enmeshed.  I remind you that the "Inkatha-gate" scandal involved an acknowledgement that funds particularly drawn from, as I understand it South African Police Service funds at that stage, had been used both to fund a couple of Inkatha rallies and had been provided as backing funding for UWUSA.   
	So that the context of the politicisation on the shop floor during that period has been the basis both of extensive research by ourselves as well as a number of other cases during that period, although not specifically on the East Rand.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You interviewed Mr Kondile prior to testifying in mitigation, do you have any recollection of some of the things he might have told you which support you thesis?

GRAHAM SIMPSON: Well most of the material is contained in the report and I've drawn on, I had at the time, drawn on Mr Kondile's interviews where appropriate and where I could.
	There was certainly a couple of areas in which he indicated very clearly to me that he believed, and I think I've quoted it in my copy half way down page 12, I'm not sure what that ...(intervention)

MR VAN DEN BERG: Page 27 of the bundle, Mr Chairperson.

GRAHAM SIMPSON: Where he stated to me
"We were in a war, they were busy killing our brothers and sisters in the streets."
Certainly in relation to Mr Gamede who was killed on the same day prior to his attack of Mr Shandu, he expressed some of the sentiments that I've included in report.  I did try and get Mr Kondile to affirm the statements and the chronology of the events which I had received from elsewhere but obviously some of those things were within his direct knowledge and some of them weren't.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And in your view this all took place in a political rather than a workplace context?

GRAHAM SIMPSON: Yes, part of the reason I was before the Court was to attempt to demonstrate that in fact to view this simply as an industrial conflict would actually denigrate it of some of its most significant explanatory factors.
	I did however extract a number of key issues which in the industrial context resulted in escalating conflict and contributed to the problem but the overall objective of this report ironically presented to the Court on March 28, 1994, which if I recall correctly was the date of the Shell House Massacre, was to demonstrate that this part of an enduring and pervasive political battle being waged in the East Rand, that the incidents that I covered revolved not only around what happened on the shop floor but a number of killings that took place in the communities of the area.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Advocate Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibanyoni?

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, no questions, Mr Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, none, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume you wouldn't have any re-examination?

MR VAN DEN BERG: No, Mr Chairperson, I don't.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: And you want Mr Simpson to be excused?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, he may be excused, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Simpson, you are excused from further attendance.

GRAHAM SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Would that conclude the evidence that you had wished to lead, Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, that is the case for the applicant in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: We will now take the lunch adjournment and we will reconvene at 2 o'clock.  We adjourn.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Steenkamp, are there any other witnesses that will testifying?