Amnesty Hearings — Umtata — 1998-04-20

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, in fact Mr Dyasophu contests that they were Askaris.  Thank you sir.  Was there any difference that existed between a person who have defected from the ANC in exile and an Askari, during those years, that is 1990 in particular?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: No, there was no difference, because Dyasophu knows as he sits there, if you defect from the army and you cross the borders back to South Africa, you were a security threat to your own comrades, because the Boers were not going to leave you, for you to be free to move around.
	You would be blackmailed, you would be arrested, there would be no difference, it was the same thing.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you.  Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

MR MAPOMA: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV GCABASHE: Just to put this Askari question to rest, certainly for me, did you at any stage see the deceased and Dyasophu with Security Policemen specifically?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: I just saw Dyasophu being surrounded by the Police after there was an attack.  I generally had not seen him walking around with the Police.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you Chair.  Then in the affidavit of Mr Kubukeli on page 22, he talks about the meeting with the ANC, Umtata branch, at Prince Madikizela's house.  You requested that meeting you say?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: Yes, we had called the meeting as a command that was here to brief the ANC leadership in the Transkei region, about the security situation that was prevailing at the time.

ADV GCABASHE: Were any decisions taken at that meeting as to how to deal with Askaris in this region?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: No, we just went to inform them that they must be alert and vigilant because they were targets.  We did not discuss any military points with them.
	We just went to inform them with the data that we had about the activities of the enemy.

ADV GCABASHE: Now, as I understand it again from the same document, on page 22, they wanted to have a meeting with the local ANC, this is what you were told by the people at the office?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: I did not understand your question.

ADV GCABASHE: Phungulua and Dyasophu wanted to meet with the local ANC, that is what is on page 22 of the document?  Is that not correct?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: I heard that they were going to meet with the ANC people at the ANC office, but I can't be sure about that.

ADV GCABASHE: So you wouldn't know what they wanted to talk to the ANC about?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: As they had called themselves the new ANC, it is obvious that they wanted to bring confusion.  Surely they were debriefed by the Security Forces, how can they come here, how can they be so bold and come here and think that they can build a new ANC here at home?
	It was clear what they were doing, they had not even consulted the MK command that was on the ground in the region, at the time.  The ANC Officer was not the one that was going to shoot them, we were the ones.
	They knew that they were guerillas here.

INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the last statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just repeat your last two sentences?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: They took a chance coming to the Transkei, they knew that there was a military structure here.  They knew that going to the ANC wouldn't solve anything, they knew that the ANC was still underground in the Transkei.
	They knew that the Boers were threatening us at the time, Askaris were moving up and down, surveilling and killing people.  Like an incident in (indistinct.  Two years back they shot at people in broad daylight, Zayile Mayape and Gift, those were our comrades.
	We were also under threat then, because we all don't want to die.  It would then depend who would get information first, this is why I am saying it was a military operation.

ADV GCABASHE: What would you have expected them to do had they wanted to reconcile with the ANC at that point, you said they were taking a chance coming to this office.  What would have been the correct thing to you, what would have made sense?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: They would have to go back to the place where they had defected from.   There were no structures here, there were no strong structures, just the branch leadership.
	They could not take decisions, the branch could not take a decision, they were just causing confusion.  They would have to go back to Lusaka or Angola, they were already forgiven after having killed innocent people any way.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.  Thank you Chair.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Matshaya, was the position of the ANC that the deceased and Mr Dyasophu were Askaris?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: The ANC as an organisation, especially from outside, to change base from A to B, would show that you are defecting.
	You couldn't do that, it was not done.  After they had crossed the borders, and all of a sudden they were speaking against the ANC, causing confusion.  They confused people who regarded the ANC as a good organisation.  I don't think the leadership of the ANC would accept that either, it was absolutely wrong.
	As soldiers on the ground, we were under threat.

ADV POTGIETER: But you were acting in your capacity as a member of MK, was that the position of MK that the deceased and the other chap, other person who had defected, were part of the enemy?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: As we were in the command, we used our own discretion.  We knew  the operational situation even the leadership outside the country, depended on our reports.  We took a decision to eliminate any Askari within the Transkeian borders, even in South Africa, if we knew the base, we would go and raid it.
	We took the decision, nobody came to us and said shoot these people or go and report to whoever.  We took the decision, because we were in a position as the leadership of Umkonto We Sizwe, at the time, to take this decision in the region.
	We used our own discretion.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, you were acting pursuant to a general position of MK that Askaris are part of the enemy, and as such the are legitimate targets, and as such you are given the war situation that existed, you were entitled to act against them as you have?  Would that be a fair summary of what the position of MK was on Askaris at that stage?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: As I joined the army, I knew that if you came across somebody who had defected, you are the one who should first hit, because otherwise you would end up being killed.
	It was a law, it was a law.  I am sure, definitely.

ADV POTGIETER: Okay, then if I understand you correctly you say that you could even be categorised as part of the leadership structure of MK, but the position was in so far as MK was concerned, that these two persons, the deceased and the other person, were Askaris, they were regarded as such?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: Definitely, the entire group that had defected.  They complained to comrade Sisulu saying that they had been labelled, that comrade Sisulu who was in the leadership of the ANC, had labelled them as the enemy agent.
	We were just in the military structures on the ground.  The fact that comrade Sisulu regarded them as the enemy, just proves what I am saying.

ADV POTGIETER: And just finally, did this incident happen in June of 1990?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: Yes sir.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you Mr Matshaya.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Matshaya, just one question.  Mr Twala, you say he was an Askari?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you say he was an Askari?

MFANELO MATSHAYA: He was part of the group that defected, that left the ANC illegally and came to South Africa.  The worst part of it was that he became their Chairperson, representing them.
	He is also the one who gave evidence in the press conference talking about Chris Hani as a perpetrator of violation of human rights in Quattro, ANC camps and the way the ANC was run.
	That within the ANC tribalism was rife.  I regarded him as an Askari, just like the others, Phungulua and Dyasophu.