Amnesty Hearings — Tzaneen — 1999-06-30

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, I will only callone witness, Gen Fihla only on two specific points to give evidence, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  General Fihla, what areyour full names please?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: Mbulelo Raymond.

CHAIRPERSON: Mbulelo?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: Yes, Raymond Fihla.

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Mbandazayo?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Chairperson. Gen Fihla, can you tell first the Committee where are you presently working,what are you doing at that one?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: I am presently with Defence Intelligence,I am part of the collection team under Major General Steenkamp.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you tell the Committeeyour rank?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: I am a Brigadier General by rank.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Fihla, can you tell theCommittee, before you became a member of the South African National DefenceForce, which of the non-statutory forces did you belong to?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: I belonged to the Azanian Peoples'Liberation Army and I was a member of the High Command and at that time, Directorfor Military Intelligence.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you Gen Fihla tell theCommittee, whether do you know any of the applicants in this hearing?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: The only applicant I know directlyis Brian Thobejane.  How I know him is because when he arrived, I think it was1990 or 1991, I think I was the one who received him and when he did his basicmilitary training and Intelligence courses, I was also in charge of them aswell.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now, Gen Fihla, briefly, theapplicants have testified that they targeted the farm of Mr Swanepoel and thereason why the targeted the farm of Mr Swanepoel is because it was in termsof the PAC APLA policy to attack the farms.  Can you confirm that, can you tellthe Committee whether, what they did was within the scope of operations of APLAor it was outside the scope of APLA?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: If I recall, I got to know aboutthis operation in 1993 when a report on our casualties was given by the thenDirector of Operations, Comrade Lethlapa Mpahlela.  Because we all the timehad to look at the operations to look if definitely they fell within the ambitand the mandate of the Azanian Peoples' Liberation Army and I can confirm thatthis operation specifically fell  within the mandate and the ambit of our operations.

MR MBANDAZAYO: You mention that Lethlapa Mpahlela,former Director of Operations, and you said that when you talk about casualties,can you expand on that?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: What we used to do, occasionallyreports were given to the High Command and specifically to me as well as theDirector for Military Intelligence, to make a review of cases and casualtiesbecause part of my responsibilities was to ensure that the same mistakes don'thappen again and was to ensure that operations were conducted, they were basedon proper intelligence.  That is why specifically also on this operation, Ireceived a report as well.    Lethlapa was given a report in his capacity asDirector for Operations, because all operations fell directly under him.  Thecadres who were conducting operations directly, were accountable specificallyto him.

MR MBANDAZAYO: It was also mentioned here,can you elaborate that it was mentioned that there were two, you also had twocertain Units within APLA, a Repossession Unit and an Offensive Unit, can youbriefly tell the Committee, whether the same Unit can do the same, can be involved- if the Offensive Unit can be involved in the Repossession Unit and the RepossessionUnit can be involved in the offensive operations?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: Basically the Units were operatingseparately, they were operating  parallel.  An Offensive Unit was not part ofthe Repossession Unit, but occasionally it did happen that an Operational Unitwould find itself repossessing, maybe this was because of natural factors, becausewhenever they saw certain things, then they would take some initiative and takesome of the things, but the structure was that the Operational Units were separatefrom Repossession Units.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Chairperson, that is the evidenceI wanted to lead in this aspect from Gen Fihla, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mbandazayo.  MrVan Rensberg, do you have any questions?

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes,thank you Mr Chairman.  General, are you saying that if we make it the policyat the time applicable on these circumstances that you would have expected yourAssaulting Unit, if they arrived on the farm, get the farmer into the house,get him to open the safe and there are guns and cash in the safe, you wouldexpect them to take the guns and the cash, is that not so?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: We wouldn't expect them to do that,because it was not part of their brief, but it is natural as soldiers, whenyou see a gun, particularly in our case, on very rare occasions would some ofthem leave guns idly.  They would definitely maybe take them if the opportunityis there.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes, let's put it this way,you would definitely not expect them to leave it there, is it not?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: No, I would expect them to leaveit there, but if they take the initiative and they deem it fit within theircircumstances and they bring them, as long as they report it, that when theyconducted this operation, then they had this (indistinct), as long as that wasreported and submitted, then they would fall within the mandate, but they wouldbe found guilty if they sustained some casualties because they moved out ofthe way and started to do what was not within their mandate, that is the problem. So the initiative at times, would be there on the cadres.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Okay, let's narrow it down,it was definitely not against the orders of the attackers in that specific instance,to have taken guns and cash if the opportunity arose?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: It would have depended on the instructionsof the Commander at that time, who gave them the instructions, what he had said. If they had gone outside the instructions, then they would have been guilty. But it would depend on the instructions of the Commander, depending on the natureof the attack, that was to be attacked.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes, but if we talk aboutthe general attitude of the High Command towards such a thing, it would nothave been seen as totally strange if they would have taken the guns and thecash?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: The policy was strict, that is whywe separated the Units, because we didn't want to have confusion in this regard. But from practical experience, occasionally some of the Units did find themselvesdoing what they were not supposed to do.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes, and you as High Commanddid not have a serious problem with that?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: We had a problem with that.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Did you ever discipline thosemembers that took money or guns when they were supposed to kill people?

MBULELO RAYMOND FIHLA: I remember an instance in the Transkei,fortunately I was there at the time when they reported him, a Unit had goneout of his way to do what he was not supposed to do and I was part of the teamthat disbanded that Unit because they went out of their way to do what theywere not supposed to do, so I can confirm that disciplinary measures were takenwhen such things came up.  But naturally we would also look at the circumstancesunder which such activities did take place and then take the necessary measureson the basis of that.

MR VAN RENSBERG: Yes, when you started givingyour evidence, I got the impression that you would say and speaking on behalfof the High Command, that you would not frown on the cadres if they do takeweapons and cash perhaps in those circumstances.  Are you now saying that youactually totally disapproved of that, because of the split in the differentdisciplines?