Amnesty Hearings — Sebokeng — 1998-07-13

MR BERGER: I'll then translate for you.  Mr Mkhize says
"I was at my room at the Kwamadala Hostel.  I liver there in room 8.  That Wednesday at that time I was at the stadium inside the hostel.  I and other people at that hostel decided that the people are preventing us from going outside of the hostel to the shops.  We then decided to attack the people who lived in the vicinity of the hostel"
The point is he makes no mention whatsoever of the attack being in retaliation for IFP members who had been killed.  Do you have any comment?

CHAIRPERSON: Does he state anywhere in this affidavit how he'd been prevented from going out of the hostel?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, he just states exactly what I've just read, that's all he states about the reason for the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Do we know how then they were prevented?  Were they prevented by being told: "Don't go out of your hostel" or were they being prevented by killed if they're out or if they've been prevented by being harassed?  I mean do you we know?

MR BERGER: We don't know Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So do you think therefore it's fair to put to the witness that he doesn't say so, in view of the fact that the confession you've just read doesn't indicate, all it says they were preventing people from going out of the hostel.

MR BERGER: Well, I'll ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think the best for you, you could simply say that the confession does not make mention of any persons who were killed.

MR BERGER: That's what I said Chairperson.  I said to Mr Mthembu, the point of this is that Mr Mkhize doesn't make any mention of anybody being killed and I asked Mr Mthembu to comment on that.
	Mr Mthembu?

CHAIRPERSON: In fact a retaliation.  In your question you referred to retaliation.

MR BERGER: Yes, he doesn't make any mention ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What you put to this witness is that Mkhize makes no mention that the attack was in retaliation of the people who had been killed in Boipatong, of preventing them from going ...[intervention]

MR BERGER: Shall I leave out the word: "retaliation"?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm saying that it's a bit unfair because from you've put to the witness by way of, from this confession is that people were being prevented.  There is no indication from this confession as to how that occurred.  Did it occur by way of killing people, harassing them, one doesn't know.  That is why I'm saying that it may well be that that's what it was, they were prevented by being killed but one doesn't know.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the point that I really wanted Mr Mthembu to comment on was that one would have expected Mr Mkhize, if IFP members were being killed and that that was the reason for the attack, one would have expected Mr Mkhize to say so in a confession which ultimately would have been something exculpatory.

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely, that's what you should put to the witness.

MR BERGER: Mr Mthembu, do you understand my question or would you like me to rephrase it?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: I understand you.

MR BERGER: And what is your comment?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: What I will comment on is that as I listened to you while reading the statement it becomes obvious that people were harassed when they went out to buy in the shops in Boipatong.
	Even though he doesn't mention it here I think he knows that the people I've mentioned as being killed in Boipatong were indeed killed because he was also present at their funerals. 
	People would move from the hostel to the township and that's where they would be harassed and even killed.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Berger wants to emphasise is that if the attack on Boipatong was indeed in retaliation of the people who had been killed in Boipatong given the fact that this was a confession dealing precisely with what the attack on Boipatong, one would have expected Mr Mkhize to have said so in so many words in this confession, namely that: "We went to attack them because they had killed".  Do you understand the point that Mr Berger is emphasising?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know Mkhize did that?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: I would not know why he did not include that in his statement.

MR BERGER: Do you know of any other reason why Mr Mkhize agreed to attack Boipatong?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: I think Sir, it was because people had been dying for a very long time, people who had been killed by the comrades in Boipatong.

MR BERGER: Wasn't it because Mr Mkhize was the sole proprietor of beer inside the hostel and his supply of beer was cut off?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: That doesn't mean that the comrades for example were now harassing the bottle store owner from whom Mkhize was getting his supplies, threatening to kill him if he continued the supplies.

MR BERGER: And was that the reason for the attack, because Mr Mkhize's beer supply was being cut off by the comrades?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: Even though I may not say whether that is the reason or not but the main reason is that our people were being killed in Boipatong.  I think that is the reason why a decision was taken because people realised that people were being killed.

MR BERGER: You were asked at page 19, question 17.3
"When was it decided to attack Boipatong"?
Your answer appears at page 29, paragraph 17.3.  In response to the question of when it was decided you say:
"Mr Vanana Zulu was staying at Boipatong and the comrades chased him away and burnt his house at Majola Section in Boipatong.  This they did after they had discovered that Vanana Zulu was a member of the IFP"
That's the first point that you give, is that correct?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: Yes, that is correct.

MR BERGER: When was Mr Vanana Zulu's house burnt?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: Even though I cannot remember but it was burnt before the attack on Boipatong.

MR BERGER: How many months before the attack on Boipatong?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: I have no knowledge of that Sir, it's been long now.

MR BERGER: Well was it a week before the attack on Boipatong, a month before the attack on Boipatong, a few months before the attack on Boipatong?  Can you give the Committee some idea of the time that had lapsed between the burning of Mr Vanana Zulu's house and the attack on Boipatong?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: As I have explained Sir, I am not in the position, it is difficult for me to remember how long it took before the attack.

MR BERGER: It wasn't a week before the attack was it?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: I think Sir, you understand what I am saying here when I am saying that I cannot remember how long it really took before the attack.

MR BERGER: How do you know that Mr Vanana Zulu's house was in Majola Section?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: He was living with us.

MR BERGER: And he told you that his house was in Majola Section?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: Yes.

MR BERGER: And you knew that before the attack on Boipatong?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: Yes, Sir.

MR BERGER: Did all the attackers know that, that Mr Vanana Zulu's house was in Majola Section, would you know?

VICTOR MTHANDENI MTHEMBU: I don't know, I cannot answer on their behalf.

MR BERGER: You go and you say
"Mr Mkhize"
This is now the second point of this paragraph:
"was the sole proprietor of beer inside the hostel.  The comrades discovered that one of the Boipatong Bottle Store owners sold Mr Mkhize some beer and then threatened to kill the owner.  Mr Mkhize became angry and agreed with Mr Chonco to attack the residents of Boipatong"
So in response to the question of: "When was it decided to attack the residents of Boipatong", you identified two events, the one is the burning of Vanana Zulu's house and the second is when Mr Mkhize became angry because is supply of beer was threatened with being cut off.  Those are the two events which prompted the attack on Boipatong, is that correct?