Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-10-28

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: This will be a convenient stage to take the adjournment, we'll resume at 2 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: (s.u.o.)

ADV SANDI: Mr Madasi, I would like to remind you that you are still under oath.

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: (cont)
	Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Madasi, one further aspect on the abandonment of the vehicle, I find it strange that you would have travelled all the way from a squatter settlement or a squatter camp as you described it, to a residential are to abandon the vehicle when you could done quite - you could have done that, the abandonment of the vehicle in Khayelitsha at the squatter area.

JUDGE WILSON: I'm sorry to interrupt but if that had been done, do you think it would have had any tyres or wheels the next day?  Doesn't it show some consideration that it's taken out of a squatter area to an area where it might be safer?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman yes, that is a possibility.
	So after committing the attack that you say you committed, killing the people that were in fact killed, you were concerned that the vehicle was collected by it's owner undamaged, is that the evidence?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: I need to put to you that you seem to have shown more concern for a vehicle an inanimate object, than for innocent civilians, is that correct?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: First of all that car belonged to African people, these people let members of APLA use the car to fight a battle for the country - that was a big contribution.  I think I've answered your question.

MR PRIOR: Mr Madasi you've gone on - opened up another line, according to the record the vehicle wasn't allowed to be used, you took it by force.  The people that entered the complainants house where he was staying had a hand grenade and an automatic weapon, there was a struggle over the keys and shots were fired outside the house after you had gained possession of the keys.  That certainly wasn't the owner allowing you to use the vehicle for the continuation of the struggle, was it?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: That is not so.  First of all, if we had other motives about the car we would have killed the people - it showed that we had specific needs and motives.  We got the car without shedding blood.

CHAIRPERSON: No I don't think it is suggested that you would have shed blood, it just shows that the owner of the vehicle did not voluntarily give it to you, you took it away from him against his will.  That is the point of this question as I understand it.

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: There's something I would like to clarify as I was there when the car was being taken.  It is not all the people that were in the car that gave problems, the owner of the car was able to give us the keys but the lady that was there gave us problems such that we struggled getting the keys, even then we did what we could to get the car without shedding blood.

MR PRIOR: Well you made it quite clear that if they didn't give you the keys you  were going to injure them.

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: That is not what I meant at all.  We were going to make a way and talk to them, show them that we're freedom fighters.  We wanted to do a job and complete a mission - we respected them.

ADV SANDI: Mr Madasi, are you suggesting that the owner of the vehicle was happy to see you taking his car away?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: No, I wouldn't put it that way because first of all when you're pointing a gun to someone, that person is expecting anything.  We did point a gun demanding the keys, we spoke to him - talked to him, whilst we pointed the gun at him.

ADV SANDI: In other words he was afraid that something would happen to him if he didn't give the car away to you?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: Correct.

MR PRIOR: May I refer you to page 35 of the bundle which deals at line 20 onwards, regarding the robbery of the motor vehicle ...[inaudible]

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: I have no document before me.

MR PRIOR: Well it's in Afrikaans and I'll read the passage out to you.  The Judge talks about the Opel motorcar and said the following at line 21
"There was a threat to blow up the house if the keys were not handed over.  Mr Mankanchu as a result threw the keys at the men, a struggle for the possession of the keys then occurred between on of the men and Mr Xewa's wife who was greatly upset that the people who came into the house had the gall to attempt to take the car off the visitors.  Eventually the hostess was also overwhelmed and she was forced to hand the keys to the attackers".
And then line 31:
"It stood some distance from the house and fired a shot into the air"
The reference was to a fourth person who had stood in the street and then fired a shot into the air.

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: What is your question?

MR PRIOR: Well, how do you reconcile that with your evidence or your explanation that you explained you were freedom fighters and they actually were assisting you in allowing you to take their car?  That can't be true can it?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: Our goal was to get the car, that is all.  They way things happened - if it were other people they would have shot at the house, I think the Committee should look carefully at this.  We went there solely to get the car that we did get at the end.

MR PRIOR: But you don't answer my question.

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: Perhaps I'm not understanding the question well.

MR PRIOR: I'll explain the question again.  I read to you a portion of the Judgement that indicated that the vehicle was obtained by a threat to blow up the house presumably with the hand grenade, if the keys were not handed to you people and later - let me finish, and later a shot was fired by a fourth person standing outside the house.  How do you reconcile that set of facts with what you told the Committee earlier, that you had explained to the occupants of the house that you were freedom fighters and that in fact the vehicle would be used in assisting you pursuing the struggle for liberation?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: As a person that was there when the car was taken, the story about the house being bombed - under the conditions at the time and the moment then, the situation warranted us to talk in that manner.  However our aim was not to damage the house.
	The matter about the fourth person shooting, they shot when we had already left to make sure that nobody from the house would look and see which direction we were taking.  We just shot in the air so that nobody would follow us, if we had intended to kill anybody we would have shot the people at the house.

MR PRIOR: Was that shot not intended to intimidate them?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: That's exactly what I was saying, to intimidate them so that they don't come out and look at the direction in which we were going.  We did not intend to shoot the people as such.

ADV SANDI: Mr Prior, I'm sure how far you intend and for what purpose - how far you intend to take this aspect of the matter because I think he's not denying that they used force to take this car.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman, I was just waiting for him to finish, I was going to move onto something else.

MR PRIOR: When you left the tavern - I'm going back a little to the shooting at the tavern, when you got into the vehicle did you simply drive away from the scene - that is from the scene of the shooting, the tavern attack?

CHAIRPERSON: What did you mean by: "Simply drive away"?

MR PRIOR: Did you simply drive away or did anything else happen before you left Observatory?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: We went straight to Site C - we went directly to Site C and some of the comrades alighted, then I left with the man that I mentioned earlier on.

MR PRIOR: Once you got into the vehicle to flee the scene as it were, was there anymore shooting?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: Arrived where?