Amnesty Hearings — Ermelo — 1998-07-20

MR HATTINGH: And all the information that you had and all the names and particulars of the victims that you obtained from the community you included in your list, annexure A1, is that correct?

JOHN MNDEBELE: Could you please repeat?

MR HATTINGH: The information that you had, as well as the particulars and names of victims that you obtained from the community with regard to the period 1990/1992, all that information was included in annexure A1, is that correct?

JOHN MNDEBELE: Yes, that is correct.  It was included.  So, we had the information.  All we needed were the names and the particulars of the victims and all that is included in the annexure A.

MR HATTINGH: Would it further be correct to say that there was no reason to exclude any information of violence against ANC people during the period 1990 to 1992 from this list, annexure A1?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, before you answer that question.  When was this list drafted?

JOHN MNDEBELE: This was compiled during the year 1996, but the secretary had the other lists or the other names and we had to go and find out from the respective members of the community as to the names and their particulars.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  The question was, was there any reason for you to exclude any names or particulars of victims or incidents from this list?

JOHN MNDEBELE: I wasn't the only one who had the information.  Quite a number of us had the information and it's not that only one person knew of any incident.  We would be quite a number of people who knew about one incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me put it to you this way, Mr Ngwenya.  As I understand your evidence as a whole, that in trying to - sorry, Mr Mndebele.  In trying to draft this list, you did this in consultation with some of your political colleagues and by memory, and with the help of the community of incidents you could remember in 1996, is that correct?

JOHN MNDEBELE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand your evidence also, is that naturally those incidents that you had forgotten of, forgotten about would not be included in that list drafted in 1996?

JOHN MNDEBELE: Yes, as I've already pointed out that this list is not conclusive.  We never used to write them as they occurred, we only wrote about them at a later stage.  But if we kept lists of the occurrences as they occurred we probably might be accurate, but due to the fact that we wrote about these occurrences only after they had occurred, I cannot say this list is hundred percent (100%) correct or conclusive.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Mndebele, could you then just respond to my question.  Was there any reason for you to exclude any information from this list?

JOHN MNDEBELE: Whatever I know or I knew is included in that list.

MR HATTINGH: According to the list, there is a distinction made between incidents where the police were allegedly the aggressors, and incidents where IFP impis were the aggressors, and incidents where the Black Cats were the aggressors, is that correct?

JOHN MNDEBELE: Yes, I could say that is true.

MR HATTINGH: If you have a look at annexure A1 on page eighteen (18) which starts in 1990.  Every time it is mentioned which party you considered to be responsible for this particular incident.

JOHN MNDEBELE: Could you please repeat the reference.

MR HATTINGH: If you have a look at page eighteen (18) of the bundle of documents, annexure A1, as from 1990 where the list starts on the twenty seventh (27th) of July 1990, every time a party or grouping which you considered to be the aggressors or the people who caused the incident were mentioned.

JOHN MNDEBELE: And what's your question?

MR HATTINGH: Was it just by chance that this distinction was made between either Black Cats, police or IFP impis or what was the reason for this distinction?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, it could hardly be expected to be any different considering the nature of the application, is it not so?  The nature of the application is based on a dispute between political parties and alleged SAP complicity etcetera.  So, one would expect the list to indicate and to fortify the application in such a manner.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I merely would like to get confirmation in this regard.  From the paper, from a first glance it would appear that to be the reason, but I merely would get confirmation from this witness that it was in fact the case, that it was possible at the time to note that the responsible party was either the police or Inkatha impis, IFP impis or the Black Cats.  Mr Mndebele, I could phrase the question differently.  When it is noted that the Black Cats were responsible for a particular incident, was that entry made on specific information that it was in fact the Black Cats and no one else?

JOHN MNDEBELE: The people who were being attacked would be able to identify these certain groups, but at that time the people were scared to come forward and report on these groups because they knew that the Black Cats worked with the police.

MR HATTINGH: The IFP impis were not the Black Cats, is that correct?

JOHN MNDEBELE: It was one and the same thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, when you get to a convenient stage we'll take the lunch break.  When you get to a convenient stage we'll take the lunch break.

MR HATTINGH: What is your response?

JOHN MNDEBELE: The Black Cats and the IFP were one and the same thing.

MR HATTINGH: I'm referring to the Black Cats and the IFP impis.  Was there a distinction between those two parties?

JOHN MNDEBELE: If you could just explain to me what is the difference between IFP and IFP impi.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Mndebele, I'm not going to explain anything from my point of view.  What I'm asking you is, in your annexure A1 it is sometimes stated that the perpetrators of a particular offence were the IFP impis and in other instances it is mentioned that the perpetrators were the Black Cats.  Now, all I'm asking you is to explain why this distinction was made?

MR SANDI: Ja, but sorry, before he answers that question, Mr Hattingh.  Does it not perhaps go without saying from what the witness has said, that in those individual instances where it is specified as to who the perpetrator was, naturally it must have been the source of that particular information who says the perpetrator was IFP, it was Black Cats, it was impis and so on and so on?  I thought he had told us some moment ago that whilst they were compiling this report they went around asking people about these various incidents and people were telling them about the incidents and they would go on to say the perpetrator in that offence was this, it was Black Cats, it was IFP.  I'm not sure how far you're hoping to take the matter.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, while I appreciate the assistance, I really believe that the question is not this difficult for this witness not just to ask him to say that in his own mind there was a distinction between ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let's put it to him then as a last question before lunch.  Mr Mndebele, is there a difference between IFP impis, as you refer to in that list, and the Black Cats?

JOHN MNDEBELE: The Black Cats and the IFP were one and the same thing.  They used to disguise themselves as the Black Cats, but whenever there was a problem they were being led by the IFP members.  Whenever there were funerals, that is IFP funerals, the Black Cat members would also be present.  So, whether you choose to call them the IFP or the Black Cats, they're one and the same thing.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, perhaps it would be a convenient time for the lunch break.
[ADJOURNMENT]
[ON RESUMPTION]