Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1998-10-05

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: We didn't want to involve another person who is not part of the SDU's or let me say the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me ask you this.  Even if you had established who these people were, would matters have changed?  Would you then change your plans, and not shoot them?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: If there was information that Gomolo was no longer an area ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I am not talking about - Mr so and so and Mr so and so.

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: Who was at that area that time?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: No, it would not change it because we would not see whether it is their way of operating because these people were doing this on an underground basis.  They can go for fishing, they can do anything which can, it was not necessary that the infiltrators would carry out handgrenades, would carry out firearms, you see.  They would operate underground.
	It would not be proper for us to leave it that way, with the information that the area is used as a springboard and now we see a person who is fishing there, and we say that is enough.

ADV DE JAGER: So you would have killed any white who entered that area?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: That area at that time.

ADV DE JAGER: Even if it was Beyers Naude?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: Come again?

ADV DE JAGER: Even if it was Beyers Naude or Slovo?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: Can you repeat what you are saying?

ADV DE JAGER: You would have killed any white person who entered that area, is that correct?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Because the colour of his skin is white?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So if it was Mr Slovo who entered the area?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: Joe Slovo?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: I don't think in that area there would be any member of the ANC, any top brass member of the ANC at the time when Chris Hani was assassinated.  We didn't expect person was there for fishing and yet he is claiming that he is a member of the ANC or maybe Communist Party at that time.

ADV DE JAGER: So isn't the bottom line that you went there in order to retaliate on the death of Mr Hani?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And on seeing a white person there, in your preset mind to retaliate the death of Mr Hani, you would have killed him?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: Yes.  Yes.

MR SMUTS: Why do you say today that these people were not the target that you were looking for?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: I am taking that from a mere information that one of them was an Attorney somewhere and from the newspaper, let me say so.  There is nothing to prove at the moment to me, that they were, that is the reason.

CHAIRPERSON: They were what?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: They were the people who were really infiltrating or the people who were there for countering the revolution.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but you didn't go there to kill infiltrators, not so?  You went there to kill any white person?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: No, I am referring specifically to the people, the deceased.

ADV SANDI: Yes, they were killed because they were white, not so?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: Yes, and they were in that area which was our area of operation, according to the information that we had.

ADV SANDI: If you found white women and white children there, would you have shot at them?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: If the shooting of that white child or woman would really cause or bring a message to the government, we would have done that.

ADV SANDI: You wouldn't care about his or her political affiliation, the political beliefs of such a person, you would just shoot him?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: As I said earlier on, there was no time for us to go to the specificality or the accuracy of the whole thing.  We trusted the comrades that that area was for the target because the time was not there.  There was no time for us to go and ask whether he belonged to maybe ANC or to the, another political organisation.

MR SMUTS: Was it more important to you Mr Maxhayi, to kill white people in a hurry than to determine whether they were the counter-revolutionary infiltrators that you had heard of?

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: Our aim of killing the people there, was to convey the message to the government and that was due only to the killing of Chris Hani, that was due only because of the killing of comrade Chris Hani.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smuts, when you get to a convenient time.

MR SMUTS: This would be a convenient time Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will break for one hour.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MR ZILWA: Excuse me Mr Chairman.  Chairperson, for the record, at this stage I would like to bring to the attention of the Committee that we do have another amnesty application by this particular witness.  I would like to hand in copies to the Committee, the signed and attested to copies.
	It would, it appears in the original application which I do have, that it was attested to on the 3rd of April 1997.  It is pity Chairperson, the copies do not reflect this date stamp.  I can hand the original of the date stamp for the inspection of the Committee.  Thank you sir.

MLULAMISI MAXHAYI: (still under oath)

MR SMUTS: (continued)  Thank you Mr Chairman.  Unfortunately, for the record, the document now placed before the Committee is not identical in its averments to the document which is filed on page 17 and following.  It is however, identical to the application of the applicant Mazwi, but because there are differences in the averments, it would be necessary for me to canvass the document which is filed and signed by the applicant, to establish whether he stands by those averments as the motivation for his actions.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this not the application form we are going to deal with now, or what is the position?  The one being signed and attested to?

MR SMUTS: It is signed and attested Mr Chairman, but there is another form which is filled in and signed and must have been submitted to become part of the papers, and the averments.

CHAIRPERSON: The fact that it is part of the papers, is neither here nor there Mr Smuts.  The point my colleague was making, initially was that the Act compels us to have an application that is signed and attested to and hence, there was a search for it and we have it.
	My problem, and I haven't got an answer as yet, is which of the two is now the official application with which, to which we will be bound?  It is something that I would have to discuss with my colleagues and perhaps even a comment or two from all the representatives.
	Maybe we better deal with it right now, then we know where we stand.  Mr Zilwa, which of the two is now the official one?

MR ZILWA: Mr Chairperson, in view of the requirements in the Act as you have just pointed out, that the Act requires that it be a signed and attested document, now it appears that the only signed and attested document that we have, is the one that has just been handed up.  So it would appear then that the one that forms part of the record, and which is not in fact signed and attested, it doesn't seem that it would be complying with the Act, and as such it doesn't seem that we would have recourse to it.
	So in view of the fact that the one that has just been handed up, is the one that is signed and attested, I would submit that it should be the one to which we should have recourse.  Those would be my submissions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What would be your view Mr Smuts?

MR SMUTS: Mr Chairman, we don't know whether this is the only one that is signed and attested.  It has a difference reference number.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that, we don't know.  But that is all we have.