Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — UNKNOWN

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: I can't tell you, he is the only one who knows, but he told me about the operation.

<UNKNOWN>: DV

<UNKNOWN>: EM

<UNKNOWN>: RIDGE Did he tell you, you were going to be involved in the operation?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: No, he didn't.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why then do you say in paragraph7 of your affidavit, that you knew there was going to be an attack?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: On that question, if you mean why, are you really meaning why?

JUDGE WILSON: What was the question? Why did you not say in your affidavit you knew therewas going to be an attack?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: No, why did he say in the affidavithe knew there was going to be an attack?

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't he say thathe was told by Vusi that there was going to be an attack?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: He said there would be an operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe that is a differencein words rather.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: I submit, a significant one.

CHAIRPERSON: Make your point then.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Let's look at that.

<UNKNOWN>: re you referringto paragraph 7 ?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Yes.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You say why didhe say that ...?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: There was going to be an attack.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: If what?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: If all he had been told is that therewas going to be an operation. How did he know that the operation ...

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Did you read paragraph 7, did you read the preceding sentences?

<UNKNOWN>: DV

<UNKNOWN>: EM

<UNKNOWN>: RIDGE Yes. My understanding from all the applicants is that all thatthey knew is that there would be an operation, that they had no further details.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Was Vusi there on the day? On this day, on the Sunday, the 25th?

<UNKNOWN>: DV

<UNKNOWN>: EM

<UNKNOWN>: RIDGE It appears not.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Well, you asked him whetherVusi did tell him as to what was going to happen? Whether there was going tobe an operation, which was apparently on a different day, some days before the25th?

<UNKNOWN>: ertainly, but his evidence is that right up untilthe time of the attack itself, they didn't know the operation or what the natureof the operation was. Now he says that prior to the time, he knew that therewas to be an attack.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, what do you think operation means?

<UNKNOWN>: DV

<UNKNOWN>: EM

<UNKNOWN>: RIDGE It could have been anything with respect Mr Wilson.

<UNKNOWN>: ertainly.

JUDGE WILSON: When he says I was made aware by Vusi that therewould be an operation, but at that time the target was unknown to me, doesn'tthat only mean an attack?

<UNKNOWN>: n operation where the target is unknown?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, clearly then, that is my suggestion, that they were then given more detailsthan merely that there was an operation.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr

<UNKNOWN>: embridge, Imust say in Xhosa an operation is an attack. I think you will have to phraseyour question in such a way that you make it quite clear to Mr Makoma that youwant far much more than what has been put in the interpretation.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: With respect, it is the applicant who makes the distinction in his affidavit,not I.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, this is in the English language, it is done throughinterpreters and I think that you must concede that the word operation and attackcan be read as if they were synonymous, but I don't know whether there is anythingmaterial that turns on it. You wanted to know precisely whether he knew wherethe operation was going to be or where the attack was going to be and he saidhe didn't know. So he didn't know where the operation was going to be or whatit was, he didn't know where the attack was going to be. You are saying thathe knew about it, that is the point you are trying to make, isn't it?

<UNKNOWN>: DV

<UNKNOWN>: EM

<UNKNOWN>: RIDGE He knew more than that it was merely an operation.

CHAIRPERSON: What could be more?

ADV BEMBRIDGE: It could be anything, it could be ...

CHAIRPERSON: Such as?

<UNKNOWN>: t attempt, a bank robbery for funds for the organisation,an apprehension of an informer, an exercise in defense of the party.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it depends upon how he understood the word operation at that time.

ADVDE JAGER: If you have known two weeks before that there would have beenan attack on the church, and that you would be attacking Whites, would you haveparticipated or not?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: When we have told something, they werenot going to ask for permission from you. They were just giving orders. Youdon't have to oppose or ask any questions up until they tell you this is theright time to do that.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, and if you were ordered, youwould have carried out the orders? Is that correct?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes.

<UNKNOWN>: nd if they ordered you a month before the time that you shouldgo and attack a church, you would have gone? You wouldn't have disobeyed theirorder?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: I would have gone there.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

<UNKNOWN>: DV

<UNKNOWN>: EM

<UNKNOWN>: RIDGE Would you have gone if you had known that the church would behalf full of non-settlers, if I can put it that way?

<UNKNOWN>: n orderis an order. You don't think who is there and who is not there. If an orderis being instructed, you just do that.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Makoma, were operativesin your unit ever involved in the actual identification of targets?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: No, it was only the

<UNKNOWN>: ommander who used to do that.

JUDGE WILSON: Had youbeen involved in any

<UNKNOWN>: PL

<UNKNOWN>: operation attack before this?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes.

<UNKNOWN>: DV

<UNKNOWN>: EM

<UNKNOWN>: RIDGE On that occasion, had you been told what the target was beforethe attack?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: No.

<UNKNOWN>: fter the attack, yousay you went to a house in Ottery.

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes, we went to a nearbyhouse, then I didn't know that it was

<UNKNOWN>: ubrey.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Whose housewas it?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: I don't know.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you see thepeople there the next day who owned the house?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: No.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Who was in the house the next day?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: It was me and my colleaguenext to me.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What happened to the weapons after the attack?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: When we arrived at night, the weapons were taken and put back intothe bag and I went to sleep. The following day I woke up, Lester left and

<UNKNOWN>: assieleft and then we were told that we will be leaving in the afternoon. I don'tknow what happened to the arms, maybe we left them in the house, I don't know.

<UNKNOWN>: DV

<UNKNOWN>: EM

<UNKNOWN>: RIDGE You say in paragraph 13 of your affidavit that it is now obviousto you that Vusi and Nonxuba had known of the operation for some time. Why isthat obvious now?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: They were the

<UNKNOWN>: ommanders, both of them. Wewere soldiers.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why is it only obvious now though, why wasit not obvious before the attack? If you have a look at paragraph 13 in thelast sentence, it is now obvious however, that Vusi and Nonxuba had known ofthe operation for some time. Why is that only obvious now, why did you not realisethat before the attack took place?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: The name obvious that iswritten there, maybe it is the English that I don't understand, but what I knowis the

<UNKNOWN>: ommanders are the only ones who are supposed to know.

<UNKNOWN>: ecause if theydidn't know, there was no attack that is going to happen.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: When you were arrested, you were arrested with a bag, is that correct?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes.

ADV BEMBRIDGE: What were the contents of that bag?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: There were books, a diary, a bullet and the cleaning equipment forthe guns and my jersey.

<UNKNOWN>: leaning equipment for which guns?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: I mean guns?