Amnesty Hearings — Kimberley — 1997-10-28

PROF DE KOKER: What did you do yourself or did you only leave it up to Mr Rodney Isaacs and other people to do something about it?  You gave the instruction, you were the commander, you were the person who were prepared to interpret your mandate so wide as to perpetrate acts of violence without being instructed to it.  What did you do as commander to save your comrades?

LAURENS MBATHA: By fact that I've said I've made a disclosure to the Legal Department - a senior body, it was clear that I was subjecting to what they were saying from them.

PROF DE KOKER: So apart from leaving it in their hands and entrusting the matter to them to handle, you the person who gave the instructions took no further steps?

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, hence I subjected myself to them.  The matter was already on the pipeline, the liberation's of the case were already on.  Hence I'm saying the Legal Department that with their best knowledge regarding the matter, they are the ones exactly to come up with a position from there.

PROF DE KOKER: What did  you do when your two comrades who were then innocent according to your evidence, were found guilty?  Which steps did you take then?

LAURENS MBATHA: My subjection at this stage by disclosing that information by going over to Smiles, the ...[indistinct] actually came as a surprise.  Like I said I knew that what was taking place was not true because besides that once I've conveyed the message over I'm subjected to them.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mbatha, I think the answer is clear, you did nothing because according to you you've reported it to your seniors and then you did nothing about it, isn't that so?

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, if somebody says that at a senior level there are negotiations, it simply means that I will have to ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: No, but I'm asking to interpret your answer and not to give a whole history about it.  You did nothing about it except to report it to your seniors - that was the only thing you did, isn't that so?  And then you left it to them to decide what should be done.

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, there you are correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, now why can't you give a straightforward answer?

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, if you imply that a person has done nothing it goes back to the question as if all along I've played no role and I've distanced myself from the thing.

PROF DE KOKER: Major Mbatha, that is the impression which your answers create because apart from internal communications to the Legal Department, you did not report this to your senior command, you did not report this to the ANC leadership in the Northern Cape.
	There's some illusive statements made yesterday of a report that you made to an unnamed representative from headquarters on a day which you can't recall, and that is all the evidence that we have that you yourself reported your involvement to the organisation.  Do you have any proof that you can offer this Committee to prove your statement?

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, like I said yesterday, I remember when you referred to Mr Molefi when I said to you: "Mr Molefi came, I was not there", I had to be reminded yesterday that Mr Molefi - that is contrary to the source that you claim that you had, came to Kimberly for Operation Barcelona because he had to mediate between that problem, between COSAS and the Youth League - nothing about the grenade.  And then I said to you: "Somebody came, I cannot recall exactly is it Thabo because the matter at that time was subjected to investigations".

PROF DE KOKER: Major Mbatha, we will return to Mr Molefi's visit to Kimberley and my sources.  What happened after the people - your comrades were then innocently imprisoned, what did you do to get them out of prison?  Did you maintain contact with them?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes.

PROF DE KOKER: Did you visit them prison?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes.

PROF DE KOKER: Did you give advice to them in prison?

LAURENS MBATHA: I was actually informing them about the developments.  From the time when we attempted to take Smiles, I also went to them to inform them that finally Smiles is going in.  It became so unfortunate, the statement that I uttered to them was: "You are coming out" because the agreement by then that we knew Smiles will be handed over, then investigations will continue - they will be released.
	Up to the time of the appeal at that early stage because through Mr Isaacs there was an attempt that the case will be appealed because of this fresh evidence and new evidence that did come up and I was always keeping them informed about those developments.

PROF DE KOKER: Appeal was allowed but the appeal was apparently never pursued, why not?

LAURENS MBATHA: Mr Isaacs actually might respond to that.

PROF DE KOKER: Did you ever give any advice to your comrades who were in prison after they were found guilty?

MR TSHOLANKU: Mr Chairman, advice pertaining to what?

PROF DE KOKER: Advice pertaining to their particular case and to the pursuit of other legal remedies.
	Did you ever give them such advice on the steps that they should take to get out or prison - the legal remedies that are at their disposal?

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, can you just clarify the question for me?

PROF DE KOKER: Did  you advise them or perhaps the easiest would be - could I draw the attention of the Committee to page 49 of bundle 2 containing a report of the Investigation Unit by investigators K Chirstensen and Zuku Komagu, the 4th paragraph of the statement
"On 13 August 1996, both victims were re-interviewed at Kimberly prison and they were concerned about the safety of Walter Smiles as he was the key person in the case against them.  Their concern was based on talks they had had with Major Laurens Mbatha who tried to persuade them to apply for parole instead of previewing the case"
Is that correct, did you give them that advice?

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, the statement is incorrect, what I can tell you that thing of the parole was pursued at the level of the Secretary's office, I didn't have the capacity to advise them to undertake something of that nature.

PROF DE KOKER: If we may also proceed to the following sentence
"According to Sipho Mbatwa, Major Mbatha was of the view that the TRC had dumped them and that Smiles was discredited"
That was the basis for their advice according to the report of the Investigation Unit,  is that correct?

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, can you just repeat it again?

PROF DE KOKER: I'll repeat the whole paragraph because I realise you probably don't have it in front of you.
"Their concern was based on talks they had had with Major Laurens Mbatha who tried to persuade them"
And the "them" is Mr Sipho Mbatwa and Mr Nkozinati Nkotla.
"who tried to persuade them to apply for parole, parole instead of reviewing the case.  According to Sipho Mbatwa, Major Mbatha was of the view that the TRC had dumped them and that Smiles was discredited"
That is the report of the Investigation Unit.

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, the issue that the TRC has dumped them, up to so far I must say it doesn't make sense to me at all.

CHAIRPERSON: I think leave it there, it doesn't make sense - full stop please.  Yes, next question Mr de Koker?

PROF DE KOKER: And the statement that Smiles was discredited?

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, by whom?

PROF DE KOKER: I've no idea.  Did you give - did you ever tell Mr Mbatwa that they should rather wait for parole and they should not have their case reviewed, that the TRC had dumped them and that Mr Smiles was discredited?  Have you ever told that to Mr Mbatwa because that is what he related to the Investigation Unit of the TRC?

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, that statement is incorrect.

PROF DE KOKER: So, a further incorrect statement according to you, made by Mr Mbatwa.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no, it has not been made by Mr Mbatwa, it was made by the Investigating person.