Amnesty Hearings — Benoni — 1998-09-07

ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: The legitimate targets, yes.  The nature of the ANC as I was saying, liberation movement with limited means and resources, South Africa was experiencing an armed propaganda period at that time.  I would term it personally an armed propaganda period because it was not a full scale war where fronts or armies would meet and so on in a battlefront.  You are talking about a guerrilla tactic, an urban guerrilla tactic to hit visibly so that that operation is intended also as well to mobilise and conscientise masses of the people about their presence.

ADV MOTATA: I'm asking you this because I just need explanations.  You said civilians were not your target, hence my question that by looking at Wimpy, taking into account that in things as you have explained of this nature, civilians would be touched in the process, but it would have been of paramount importance for instance in your unit that you weigh up if you go to Wimpy, who are the most, because in fairness to you before you give your explanation, we all know that this was a Saturday and this particular Wimpy was placed in a shopping complex.  Now in terms of civilians vis-a-vis the security forces, we wanted to make our propaganda most felt with the security people.  Would I be right in that context?

ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: No, not at all.  I think all of us at that time I would imagine, we were in the country.  At that time when in Mamelodi a six year/eight year old run down with a Hippo, then in return the reports would be that no, he was stoning the, she will be run down to death by a Hippo armed vehicle, then the reports would be no, she was stoning the armed vehicle.  You talk of situation where people in schools, children in schools would in fact be sjamboked, teargassed and be shot with live ammunition.  We are talking at that situation at that time when the mood of the people was very high.

ADV MOTATA: That I do understand, that what you are answering is that people, and in this instance blacks, would be attacked at random and reasons would be found by the Security Police, that I understand completely, that such information would not.  But I'm saying in relation to say civilians were not uppermost in your minds, you wanted to avoid by all means attacking civilians because the ANC preaches non-racialism.  And I want to say - my question is, this is a Saturday, this is a shopping complex, you have answered that the security people after delivering their reports or deliberating on their reports, would then go for lunch there.
	My question is, did you in the reconnaissance get data for instance, that: "Look, despite the civilians going there we can't avoid that, but the majority would be the security forces", that's the crux of my question.

ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: I think that is what I said.  Because I think it's important also to note that we had the capacity at that time as a regional command structure.  If we were targeting civilians we had all the capacity, the armoury at our disposal to effect that kind of terror, we didn't.   With all, whatever push that the enemy forces were in fact exercising, we didn't.  But in this case we are saying in our submission that the issue of Wimpy came as a result of the frequency of some of the people of the Security Branch of the Benoni.  It's as a resulted of that, well the least expected our attack.  That's how we carried out the operation.  It's true that we took into account the issue of civilians, yes we did.

SISI KHAMPEPE: If I may ask ...[intervention]

ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: I must also add that I also said in this statement, I'm repeating it, that were life is lost whether black or white, it's a shame and we regret that greatly.

SISI KHAMPEPE: If I may interpose Mr Motata.
	What you are saying and you have already said is that you actually recognised that the civilian casualty was something which was inevitable?

ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: Absolutely.

ADV MOTATA: And to give a short answer, you did not have data of the question I asked, you were just interested that civilian ...[intervention]

ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: We had, I think I answered that we had data.  We had data that restaurant, as a restaurant is in fact attended by people of both colour.   We had that information, but the target of interest was of upper most importance to us, particularly the blow that we were to unleash, that was important.
	Though we took into account the presence of innocent lives or innocent civilians.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.  Thank you Mr Sigasa.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sigasa, you know we understand that many atrocities were committed in this country of ours.  Some of them, until today, cannot be excused.
	But we are not here today to discuss that, we are here to discuss your application.  I can understand the anger of the people.  But tell me, you say that the super limpet was used at the Wimpy Bar as you recall?

ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If there was no Wimpy there, what would be the operation then?

ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: I think Judge, one question since we started, came in many forms.  In my submission, explanation or deliberation before, I said that it so happened, unfortunately happened, to be Wimpy.  But if they were going to be it another restaurant or cafe or wherever, where we would define them as vulnerable to our advantage, we would have used that opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand that.

ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Purely as a military strategy, but let's assume that you did not have, or your Unit did not have this information, or that these members of the Security Forces did not frequent a restaurant, and therefore the option of planting a bomb at a restaurant was not an option, how would you attack these personnel?

ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: That was going in fact to be informed by reconnaissance activities and so on.  I am saying that because the actual objective at that time, because we wanted to show or demonstrate to political activists who were detained and tortured in Benoni Police station, we would have found another way.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand your evidence, there was another way which was changed then to the Wimpy.  What was that other way?

ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: The first thing we identified Benoni Police station, and initially if I recall well, was that we would use ourselves when we go in as people who would be visiting detainees and so on, with a pretext of visiting detainees and so on.  But we understand as well that the vigilance, because that is the enemy terrain, the vigilance of that, but that was, but as a result we were saying particularly the people who were inflicting terror in particular to our activists, should in fact be the first targets.
	So our concentration and focus was on them, hence that led to the Wimpy issue.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand that the opportunity presented itself at the Wimpy.  My question is if the personnel was the target, why wasn't the bomb planted at the Police station then?  It is as simple as that?

ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: I think we indicated there were opportunities, the possible ways where we can in fact hit.  In terms of the situation as it stood then, we decided upon the question of hitting where they were going to frequent.  We changed from planting, wanting to plant or make it a target, the Police station, because if you are to plant it outside, the degree of impact as well was going to be very minimal.

CHAIRPERSON: You see when one, I need you to clarify this, by planting this bomb, there was a point to be made that the military and the Security Forces were the targets and they were the targets because the propped up the Apartheid regime as I understand it, is that so?

ERNEST PHUMUZI SIGASA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Given that on the one hand, and on the other is the risk of civilian life, why choose the latter?