Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-11-30

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: I'm not able to explain because I would not identify that kind of a meeting as a Kangaroo Court or what, but I know that it was just a general meeting so that at the end of the day they would question a person then they would make a decision and burn that person.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS PATEL: Under whose instructions did you leave Peter Sewasi at that meeting?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: I left Siphiwe and Linda there in that meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he testified that he requested that he, that the deceased be left there because he wasn't comfortable with riding around with him.

MS PATEL: Was it your understanding that he would be left there so that the persons present at the meeting could question him, could question Peter Sewasi on his activities?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: No, as I've already explained, I requested that he should remain there because the police were roaming around the township, so I was not comfortable that we'd meet the police if we could go around with him.  I did not leave any instruction that they should question him about his activities.

MS PATEL: Okay, then perhaps you could explain to us, persons who were present at the meeting, for what purpose were they gathered there?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: I explain that in many instances we would hold meetings to try to solve the problems in our area, about attacks and about people who were helping the police, so that they should be identified and then we should remove them from the association of the police and come to our side.

MS PATEL: Are you saying that the purpose of the meeting, parties that had gathered there, that their sole function would be to try to ensure that persons who were involved with the police would then through some kind of process with them, cease that activity and become a part of the organisation?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: I'm requesting that you should repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the purpose of this meeting to persuade third force, for example, members to stop their activities against the community and join the community or to join a favourable political party?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: I believed so in short.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Patel, when you get to a convenient stage we will adjourn for tea.  We adjourn for ...
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MS PATEL: Mr Thulo, by the time of the abduction of Mr Sewasi, for how long had you been involved in the Self Defence Units, up until that stage?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: It was about a year and six months then.

MS PATEL: During that time, in terms of your experience, how did the community generally deal with persons who were in Mr Sewasi's position, ie: assisting police generally involved in acts of terror against your community?  How did the community generally deal with people of that kind?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: The community would try to convince them so they can change and be part of the community again.

MS PATEL: And what would happen if they refused?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: I did not experience that kind of an incident, as to what would happen to those people who did not want to co-operate, but in our section we were encouraging people to be rehabilitated.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you attend any meeting where they in fact convinced or persuaded a collaborator to change his views and join the movement?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: I don't remember attending such meetings.

ADV DE JAGER: Have you heard of any person who has been named as a collaborator, who changed his point of view?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: Yes, I do.

MS PATEL: After you had abducted Mr Sewasi, was there a conversation that took place between yourself and the other persons in the car?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: That thing happened in a very short space of time.  We did not have an opportunity to discuss with him because the car was seen when we put him in, by other people.

MS PATEL: Was there a discussion before you had abducted him?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: We requested that he should co-operate with us and go with us to that particular place, that is Unit F, then he denied, then we forced him inside the car.

MS PATEL: And what was the plan, what were you going to do with him?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: Our intention was to get information from him because many parents lost their children and some of them disappeared to unknown places.  Within the black community if a member of the family dies, that family should be informed and therefore they should get the remains of the deceased and bury him.

MS PATEL: Who would authorise this plan, whose idea was it?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: Because I was a driver I explained that the person whose name is Linda Radebe, identified Peter within attackers.

MS PATEL: Do you still stand by your earlier testimony that the purpose of abducting him was to try to persuade him to desist from the activities that he was involved in?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: Yes, I still maintain that view.

MS PATEL: What was the primary objective though, was it to illicit information as to where persons who had gone missing, where they were or what had happened to them or was it to convert him?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: It was that he should be rehabilitated and be accepted by the community because we lived with him in that Unit F.  We did not believe that we should take a decision on our own and ill a person.

MS PATEL: What would you have done with him if he refused to give the information regarding the persons who are missing?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: Our primary objective - I don't know what could have happened to tell you the truth, because we did not have an opportunity to talk with him.  I would not predict and say what would happen if he denied, but I our intention was to rehabilitate him so that he will be acceptable within the community.

MS PATEL: I ask you once again, Sir, what would you expect to have happened to him if he refused to co-operate with you?  Surely that must have been discussed, or in terms of the manner in which the organisation had operated, or the community had operated before then, there were certain expectations that you had, what were those?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: In our meetings as a community, together with the commanders and members of the committee who were responsible to resolve the problems or our area, I believe that they would have an ability to persuade him to give up that information.

ADV MOTATA: No, but when he refused to co-operate, what did you expect to happen to him, would you leave him just like that and say: "You are refusing to co-operate"?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: I would not be able to respond to that question, as to whether what could have happened if he denied because he was taken to a place where he was supposed to be.  That is where they would see what would happen if he denied or if he gave out information.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Thulo, isn't it a fact that during those turbulent years, if he would have refused and he was seen as a collaborator, wouldn't you expect the community to kill him?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: I did not believe that he could have been killed.  As I've explain, we did not have a right to kill.

ADV MOTATA: Were you surprised when they showed you where he was burnt and were you surprised that he was eventually killed and burnt, were you surprised?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: Yes, I was surprised.  I did not even have the ability to ask questions because I was afraid that something would happen to me if I ask questions about that incident.

ADV MOTATA: Was there no bad blood between ANC and such members of the Self Defence Unit and people like Peter Sewasi who was IFP aligned, were you not fighting each other?

MESHACK TSEKO THULO: It was not war in that sense, we were in a position to defend the community against the attacks which was launched by hostel dwellers.