Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-02-04

MR LAX: When on the same day?

VOICE SAMBO: In the morning, late morning.

MR LAX: Was that after the other police and soldiers came?

VOICE SAMBO: No, what I mean is that Sergeant Ndbane came to my place before to search for the cars, and Ndbane knew this car, the one that they opened the doors.   I never used to use these other cars, because this other car belonged to my wife, I was using the 626.   He searched it on quite a number of times and he knew that the car was clean or it wasn't a stolen car.

MR LAX: Well, nowhere in the events of that day, as related in your statements or in your evidence so far, have you said anything about Ndbane or anyone else coming to check the vehicles as to whether they were stolen or not.   Could you explain why?

VOICE SAMBO: I wasn't given time to talk about Ndbane.   If I was asked something about Ndbane, I would have told you.

MR LAX: Well wasn't it relevant that it should go in the affidavit and explain why you didn't think these people were police searching your car because Ndbane had already done it?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, won't you come to our rescue, I can't remember if I did take a note, but I do recall that there was... (intervention).

MR BLACK: It's in our supplementary affidavit... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...that there was evidence about - the name Ndbane did feature in the evidence.

MR BLACK: It's on page 19, with respect, and it refers, in paragraph 10.

CHAIRPERSON: But wasn't there also reference to the name Ndbane during his oral evidence, as I recall?

MR BLACK: I cannot remember, but I do, with all due respect, recall that when I - we were trying to get through that side of things quite quickly.

CHAIRPERSON: I might have prevented you from doing that, but I think there was a mention of the word Ndbane.

MR BLACK: Yes.

MR LAX: Thank you for that.   I didn't make the connection between the name as it's spelt in the affidavit and the way it's been pronounced by the accused, I apologise.   In your supplementary affidavit and in your application form, you say that these policemen called you by name when they arrived at the property?

VOICE SAMBO: Yes, I heard them saying, "Voice, Voice", I just didn't know whether they were talking about voice, but since my name is Voice, I thought they were talking about me.

MR LAX: Well you haven't said anything of the sort today in your evidence before us?

VOICE SAMBO: I think I've forgotten that, but it's true, it happened.

MR LAX: In your affidavit you said nothing about it either, in your first affidavit, it's only in your supplementary affidavit that you say something about it.   Why is that?

CHAIRPERSON: That's unfair.

VOICE SAMBO: Okay, maybe it's an unfair question, I won't... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: You may not answer that question, I think it's unfair, it is dated, it is dated, it is part of the - your supplementary affidavit is part of the evidence before this committee.

MR LAX: Now, it is your evidence, is it not, that you were sitting inside the Mazda 626?

VOICE SAMBO: I didn't say I was sitting inside the Mazda 626. I don't know, maybe I should explain this to you.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to, just confirm that indeed it is part of your evidence.

MR LAX: Well, you said you were reclining, you were resting inside the vehicle.   Was that the Mazda 626 or was it some other vehicle that... (intervention).

VOICE SAMBO: It was a Mazda 626.

MR LAX: And you were inside the vehicle, is that correct?

VOICE SAMBO: Outside.

MR LAX: So you were lying - where were you lying, on top of the vehicle, on the back of the vehicle?

VOICE SAMBO: On the windscreen, the back windscreen, I was leaning on my back.

MR LAX: Now, how many shots were fired in this incident in total?

VOICE SAMBO: I have no knowledge of how many, but there were too many shots.

MR LAX: Well how many shots did you shoot in this incident?

VOICE SAMBO: I can't remember how many.

MR LAX: So you can't remember how many shots you fired? Gentlemen, would you mind, you're distracting the witness.

VOICE SAMBO: These guns loads 16 cartridge.   I drove 16, the deceased used one bullet to shoot me and I used one to shoot him, and 14 was remaining, and then I used the remaining 14 as I was shooting on the ground, telling Mr O'Farrell to put his gun down.   I didn't count there as I was shooting, warning Mr O'Farrell to drop his gun down.

MR LAX: You didn't check the magazine to see how many shots were left?

VOICE SAMBO: No, I didn't check.

MR LAX: You didn't make the firearm safe after you'd finished shooting it, after this whole thing was over, before you gave it to the police?

VOICE SAMBO: No, I didn't.

MR LAX: So all you can remember is that you fired a lot of shots at O'Farrell, but you don't know how many - not at him, in his vicinity, as warning shots so he would release his firearm?

VOICE SAMBO: That's correct.

MR LAX: Now, why was it necessary at all, once you had disarmed this man, to shoot him?   Why didn't you just tell him to lie flat on the ground, why was it necessary to shoot him?

VOICE SAMBO: The situation, I will explain so that you get clarity.   If people have two guns, then they have power.  I chose to shoot Van der Spuy in order to stabilise the situation.   If I didn't shoot Van der Spuy, he was going to kill people, because he's already shown me that he was a killer.   I didn't have a heart, because he also wanted to kill me.

MR LAX: So you shot him, as he had shot you, as you testified earlier in your evidence?

VOICE SAMBO: That's correct.

MR LAX: And because you thought, "This man's a killer, he's going to kill other people, I may as well just shoot him"?

VOICE SAMBO: That's correct.

MR LAX: It wasn't to defend yourself, because you had already disarmed him?

VOICE SAMBO: That's not so.

MR LAX: Well then why did you say you shot him because he shot you?

VOICE SAMBO: I don't understand your question.

MR LAX: You said, "I shot him as he had shot me", that was your testimony in chief.

MR BLACK: With all due respect, Mr (Indistinct), may I just intervene?   He did also say he'd shot him because there were two people, two guns, he wanted to stabilise the situation as well, and then the record will show that the words, "So you shot him like he shot you" and he said "Yes", don't actually emanate from him.

MR LAX: That was his testimony, Mr Black, in his testimony in chief.   I made a very careful note of it, because it struck me at the time.   What he may have said now in reply to my questions is one thing, what he said in his evidence in chief is a completely different other thing.

MR BLACK: Okay.

MR LAX: Do you understand my question?   You just confirmed you shot the man because, amongst other things, you thought he was a killer, he might kill other people, and you shot him because he had shot you, correct?

VOICE SAMBO: Yes, that's correct, but if I may, so that I'm heard clearly, if one carries two guns and - it's possible that one person may possess two firearm and be of the opinion that he might still have another one, then I had to shoot at him.

MR LAX: That's not your evidence, that's never been your evidence up till now.   When I said to you, "Where was his gun?", you said, "It was on his side", you didn't say, "He might have had another gun", you saw he only had one gun, isn't that so?

VOICE SAMBO: Even now I'm not saying that I did see two firearms in his possession, but I'm explaining that, as  a trained person and I'm of the view that Van der Spuy was a trained official and he could possess two firearms. Despite the fact that I can only see one firearm, it's possible that he might have two, and the second one, he can use it if he realises that I've disarmed him the first one. That's what I'm trying to explain.

MR LAX: Well you are a trained soldier, are you not?

VOICE SAMBO: That's correct.

MR LAX: And you've been quite highly trained, from what you testified in court?