Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1997-06-11

SISI KHAMPEPE: In your application you have made reference to the fact that I think that is on page 9 of your formal application which is under number (f) of the bundle, you say we got all the weapons from MK guerillas.
	Who are you referring to in that sentence, who are these MK guerillas you are referring to?

CONRAD NKUNA: This is Derick Skosana and Soli.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: When Derick came to you to come and stay with you, was it not by coincidence?  Did he not come and stay with you people because he had come to collect some allowance here and when he couldn't get that kind of allowance, he was then offered to stay with you?  He was offered accommodation at your place?

CONRAD NKUNA: I don't think it was like that because he arrived together with Soli, they came straight to our house.

CHAIRPERSON: But he was coming from Witbank wasn't he or don't you know?

CONRAD NKUNA: That is what they told me, they were from Witbank.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you then saying that he brought these weapons with him from Witbank?

CONRAD NKUNA: I would say so because they were coming from Witbank and I didn't know where they got from Witbank, where they got the arms through, I should think they brought the weapons from Witbank.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure that they brought their own weapons or are you not sure about that, could they have been issued with these weapons by the MK in Nelspruit?

CONRAD NKUNA: The first time I saw them, they were carrying arms.  So I thought they came with the arms from where they were coming from.

CHAIRPERSON: I see.  Now if we were to look at your application form where you speak of factions, the factions that you are talking about, were they not really firstly the one faction which accused your brother of having embezzled some funds on the one hand and on the other hand, a faction consisting of your brother's supporters?

CONRAD NKUNA: I would say that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't this the cause of the division within the members of the ANC, that region?

CONRAD NKUNA: I don't understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Were the allegations against your brother and his ousting from his position at some stage, not the real cause of the division, the real cause of the factions?

CONRAD NKUNA: I don't think so because after he was suspended there had been an enquiry and it was found that there is no evidence that points that he misused funds.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't quite understand what you mean by saying that there were two factions and the other faction was as it were, a faction consisting of informers or agents.  I do not understand that especially the only member of that faction you can tell us about or the only member that you knew, was Mr  Shabangu.

CONRAD NKUNA: Yes, Mr Shabangu was known at the time.  When his name was mentioned as one of the agents, after Joe was injured, we suspected but we didn't know the real name of the agent.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Shabangu not attacked simply because it was suspected he had taken part in the attack on your brother?

CONRAD NKUNA: I would say it was one of the reasons, but the reason behind the killing of Mr Shabangu, it was because he was suspected as one of the State agents.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Nkuna, you have just stated to us that you didn't know the real name of the agent.

CONRAD NKUNA: That is correct.

SISI KHAMPEPE: You have obviously heard the evidence from your brother and he has made it quite, crystal clear that there was a suspicion that Mr Shabangu had had a hand in his attack long before the two cadres arrived at your brother's home.
	And he goes on to say I think specifically at paragraph 49, this belief was common to many others around him, including his family, other ANC officials and many of the cadres loyal to him.
	That is what is appearing on his application and that is his evidence and he has repeated that again I think at paragraph 53.  Now are you saying that before the two cadres arrived at your brother's home, you did not know that Shabangu was suspected of having had a hand in your brother's attack because that is not the evidence of your brother?

CONRAD NKUNA: The first time I heard the name mentioned was a time when I met Derick and his friend, we did suspect it but we didn't know the real person.

SISI KHAMPEPE: So you suspected that someone had had a hand and you didn't know, you didn't suspect that it was Mr Shabangu, you didn't suspect Mr Shabangu at that stage?

CONRAD NKUNA: We suspected a lot of people working closely with Joe, I would say that included Shabangu too.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know Mr Shabangu before Derick and Soli came to tell you about him?

CONRAD NKUNA: Yes, I knew him but I wasn't that close to him.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew his name that he was Johannes Shabangu?

CONRAD NKUNA: Yes, I used to know him as Ngqa Shabangu.

CHAIRPERSON: Under paragraph 10 (a) on page 9, I know Mr Patel asked you this question, but I didn't want to interrupt you because I didn't want to disturb his line of cross-examination.  I don't understand what you mean by saying the aim was to eliminate the people siding with our opponents because there was a fight and our Commander, Joseph Harold Nkuna, was the first to be attacked and nearly killed.
	The impression I get from this sentence is that this fight existed well before the actual attack, the actual attack on your brother.

CONRAD NKUNA: I call it a fight right from the beginning when my brother was attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you don't understand my question.  You must tell me whether I read this sentence of yours correctly.  As I understand this sentence, it is conveying to me that there was a fight as you say but this fight existed and in fact had been there well before the actual attack of your brother, in other words the impression I get here is that there was a fight in existence, it culminated in the attack on your brother, but even before the actual attack on your brother, there was in fact already a fight.

CONRAD NKUNA: When I wrote this statement, I was referring to a fight which started from the time Joe was attacked because no one was attacked before Joe got attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not in fact here by a "fight" referring to the squabble that existed around your brother's position and allegations of misappropriation of funds?

CONRAD NKUNA: May you please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: Were you by a "fight" here, were you not referring to a squabble that centred around the allegations that your brother had misappropriated money?

CONRAD NKUNA: No, I wasn't referring to that.  As I stated it started, I am talking about a physical fight when my brother was attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you understand, why would you understand an attack on your brother as a fight?

CONRAD NKUNA: It was because at that time, the ANC was fighting against the old regime.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.   Mr Tee?

ADV TEE: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Nkuna, you were asked about the attack that took place on your brother and you were asked a lot about hired assassins.
	What made the attack on your brother so peculiar, can you explain the circumstances of that attack?  For example, was any money stolen from your brother?

CONRAD NKUNA: As a leader within the ANC structures, fighting against the regime, I suspected that the regime would do anything to kill him and when he got injured, the car was not stolen, the money in his possession wasn't stolen and I came to think that the intention to attack was merely to kill.

ADV TEE: How much money was he carrying at the time of the attack?

CONRAD NKUNA: I can't remember the exact amount, but it was about R2 000-00.

ADV TEE: Where was that money recovered?

CONRAD NKUNA: In his clothes at the hospital.

ADV TEE: Was there anything missing from the car?

CONRAD NKUNA: Only his briefcase which contained documents relating to his work, disappeared.