Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-09-14

ADV SIGODI: Now, coming back to Basie Hladi.  Why would he be labelled an informer?  If for instance, he had seen you killing the policeman and he had gone to identify you, what would be wrong with that?  If somebody sees somebody killing someone, he doesn't know that the killing is a political act, why would you particularly as a unit commander decide that this person is an informer?  Because at least I would have expected a trained soldier to have found out is he really informing on the PAC or is he with the police simply because he witnessed the murder and he's assisting the police in trying to solve the crime which could well be an ordinary crime.
	What reason did you have to believe that he was an informer as an informer was understood in those days?  I would understand if he was somebody who had been with the PAC and had informed on the PAC, but the fact that he went to the police just to assist them in solving the crime, why would it be reason enough to think that he's an informer?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: What prompted me to say that he was an informer was that in what we were doing, the people were aware that policemen were being killed.  That we were pursuing the struggle of liberating the African's from their oppressors.  To show that this person was indeed in collaboration with the reactionary forces, he would have not co-operated or he would have not fought against the people who were fighting for the liberation of those people.  To show indeed that he was an informer he managed to inform the police of our activities as freedom fighters.

ADV SIGODI: But do you know that he knew that you were a freedom fighter?  Did Basie Hladi know that you were a freedom fighter?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: I do not know whether he knew or if he didn't know.

ADV SIGODI: That is the crux of the question, because I would understand if you attempted to shoot him, if he knew that you knew that you were a freedom fighter or you had reason to believe that he knew about you as freedom fighters, but if he didn't know that you were freedom fighters, how could he simply be labelled to be an informer?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: If Basie Hladi knew whether I was an APLA member or not I do not have knowledge thereof.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Buthelezi, did you discuss the intention to eliminate Mr Hladi with your commanders?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: Will you please explain what you mean?  What you mean by commanders because I was also a commander of my unit.

MR LAX: Yes, well, did you discuss it with anybody who was in authority over you in the organisation?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: No.  I took the initiative as a cadre.

MR LAX: So, there was no specific order, instruction that was given to you to act against Mr Basie Hladi?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: With regards to that, I did not have an order to kill Basie Hladi from higher authorities, but as a unit commander I was also guided by the 15 points of attention.  These 15 points of attention are such that whatever action I take should be in line with the protection of the masses, without necessarily getting a specific order, because sometimes orders may come at a later stage but as a guerilla on the ground I have to take the initiative as well.

CHAIRPERSON: So that was - what you're saying is that the action that was taken against Mr Hladi was in line with the policy of the organisation towards informers?  It's within that context that you acted?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: I do not understand that question.  Please repeat it.

MR LAX: You have indicated to us in your affidavit in paragraph 7 that, and I quote
"The bastions and minions of the then erstwhile regime were in terms of the PAC and APLA perspective."
And in subparagraph (d) "Informers".  So, what I'm asking you is, are you saying that the action was taken against Mr Hladi in terms of that general policy?  There were no specific order given to you, but you used your initiative as a commander yourself to act against Mr Hladi because he was an informer?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What, is there a problem with the equipment?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, sometimes he does not hear properly so he's saying he does not hear properly sometimes.

CHAIRPERSON: (Inaudible).  Okay, thank you.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.  Mr Buthelezi, at the time of your trial, and your trial was in 1995, is that correct?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

MR LAX: There was no mention whatsoever of the political nature of these events.  Can you explain to us why?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: Yes, I can.  The courts were presided over by apartheid Judges and the people who were serving the laws of the apartheid regime presided over that.  That is why I did not mention any political motives, but I did mentioned that I was an APLA member.  They knew about that.

MR LAX: You see, we were already under a new dispensation under the new Constitution, in spite of the fact that you're quite right, that Judge may or may not have been an apartheid Judge from the previous regime, but we were in the new dispensation and one would have expected in the light of the changes that were happening in the country at the time, and more particularly in the light of the positions of the different political parties of that time, particularly the PAC, that there would have been no reason to hide the political nature of this matter.

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: I am a member of APLA and secondly, I still believe that the land has not been returned to its rightful owners, and I also believe that even if the law changes but if a person still has apartheid beliefs you cannot expect that person to change.  Therefore at my trial that person was still conducting the trial in terms of the apartheid laws and not necessarily according to the new dispensation.

MR LAX: You said in your evidence-in-chief that you yourself saw Mr Hladi with police who came to look for you at your home when you were hiding at your neighbour's house.  Did I hear you correctly?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: Yes, you did.

MR LAX: Nowhere in any of the statements that are before us in writing anywhere, either the statements attached to your application or the statements in this affidavit do you say that.  In fact you give the exact opposite impression.  Why is that?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: We are in isolation cells and sometimes you may even make mistakes when you consult with your lawyer.  But what I'm saying today is what happened.  Before I even saw Hladi I had heard from my colleagues about him, until such time that I actually saw him personally.

MR LAX: So, are you saying that you forgot to mention that in your statement.

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: Yes, it may be that I forgot.

MR LAX: Now, you were initially confronted just before you were captured at the shopping centre in Katlehong, is that right?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

MR LAX: And you began retreating and you ended up in someone's yard, as you have told us?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

MR LAX: And in fact you were on the roof of a building at the time you were shot in that person's yard.

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: I heard about that, but when I was shot I was on the ground.

MR LAX: You see, the evidence or the statements that are in this bundle indicate that you were hiding away or you were on a roof and that's when they noticed you and that's when they opened fire at you.  Whether they hit you on the ground or hit you on the roof, well that's neither here nor there, but that is so, is it not so?

SHAKESPEARE BUTHELEZI: That is not so because if they had shot at me whilst I was on a roof maybe I would not have only sustained injuries on my leg, I may have fallen and might have sustained other injuries, but to prove that I was shot on the ground, the only injury that I sustained was the one on my leg.