Amnesty Hearings — Pinetown — 1998-10-21

M R NDLOVU: I pleaded not guilty in court.  I wanted to deny the charges so that I could be acquitted and because the Commission seeks to learn the truth therefore I find it or I see it important that I tell the truth, the entire truth regarding the objectives and the reason for committing this crime.

MR DE KLERK: In the High Court you were also found guilty on the charge of robbery.  Was it your intention to go to Mr Gumede and rob him of his firearm?

M R NDLOVU: It was not my intention to rob Mr Gumede of his firearm.  We did have firearms at the Mpumuza area.  There was no reason for us to drive all the way from Pietermaritzburg to Durban to attack Mr Gumede just for robbing him of his firearm.  Our reasons for attacking him were to stop him from supplying the weapons that he gave to the ANC members in Pietermaritzburg, that is why we decided to kill him.

CHAIRPERSON: While you're on this point, sorry to interrupt, Mr de Klerk, but while we're dealing with this point, we have before us a copy of the judgement that was handed down at your trial and I'd just like to read one paragraph, short paragraph, from that judgement, it's on page 30 Mr de Klerk at line 9.  This is what the judge said
"The key witness on this issue is one Nkosa Nati Ngobo.  He testified that a meeting took place at Tabani Ndlovu's house in April 1991 at which he, Tabani Ndlovu, the accused and Bright Dlamini were present.  At this meeting Tabani Ndlovu said that they should go to kwaMashu to take a firearm at gunpoint from a policeman."
So that, it would seem Mr Ndlovu, that this witness Nkosa Nati Ngobo says that the prime objective of the mission was to rob a firearm.  What do you say to that?

M R NDLOVU: I disagree with that statement because I was seeing him for the first time when he made this testimony but he had been on goods terms with my elder brother.  He made a lot of statements in court.  He even said that I was responsible and at some other times he would say it was my brother who planned the whole thing, therefore I would not regard him as a reliable witness because at the time he had become a member of the ANC who had fled the Mpumuza area.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you Mr de Klerk.

MR DE KLERK: Mr Ndlovu, if at that stage 1991, you wanted for argument sake an automatic firearm, was it difficult or easy for you to acquire such a firearm?

M R NDLOVU: I did not have difficulty in obtaining a firearm.  If I wanted a weapon or a gun I had many avenues open to me in Pietermaritzburg.  We would have not driven from Pietermaritzburg to Durban when there were guns in Pietermaritzburg.

MR LAX: Just while you're there, sorry to come in Mr de Klerk, what were those avenues?

M R NDLOVU: We could make our own home made weapons to protect ourselves.

MR LAX: Yes, what else?

M R NDLOVU: That was the way in which we obtained weapons.  My brother, Tabani, was also the IFP Youth Leader who had the responsibility of protecting IFP members.  He had legal weapons in his possession.

MR LAX: Well you said you had many ways of getting weapons, you've told us two.  What are the others?  You see a home made firearm is not an automatic firearm.  You said you had many ways of getting other weapons, especially automatics.  If you're here to tell us the truth, well open up about it.

M R NDLOVU: With regards to the conflict in Pietermaritzburg, IFP supporters and members from other areas would come and they will sell us weapons.  Those are the people that we asked for assistance from.

MR LAX: Where would they have got the weapons from?

M R NDLOVU: I would not know where they obtained those weapons because we were only concerned with what they sold to us and we did not enquire from them where they actually got these guns.

MR LAX: Thanks Chairperson.

MR DE KLERK: So Mr Ndlovu, if I understand you correctly, it was easy to buy a firearm in that period of time?

M R NDLOVU: Yes it was easy.

MR DE KLERK: What was the sentence that you received from the High Court?

M R NDLOVU: I was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

MR DE KLERK: And how long have you been in prison now?

M R NDLOVU: This is my fifth year in prison.

MR DE KLERK: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DE KLERK

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr de Klerk.  Mr Mpshe, do you have any questions to put to the witness?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman.
	Mr Ndlovu, do you have an application with you?

M R NDLOVU: No.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Okay I will read to you what is in the application.  On page 3 of your application, page 3 of the bundle, Mr Chairman, I'm sorry.  Responding to a question under question 10(a) where it says
"State political objective sought to be achieved"
You said the following:
"We wanted to eliminate the enemy's supply and by doing that.."
Now here comes my problem:
"..we were defending our organisation."
Did you get that?

M R NDLOVU: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Now from what were you defending your organisation?

M R NDLOVU: We were defending the organisation from attack by the ANC.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Did the deceased in this matter ever attack your organisation or attempt to attack your organisation?

M R NDLOVU: The deceased was behind all those activities organising ANC members and supplying them with weapons to attack IFP members.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Did you, Mr Ndlovu, have any personal knowledge whether this man, the deceased, ever attacked your organisation?

M R NDLOVU: From the information that we received from Sibonelo Dlamini with whom the deceased used to discuss these matters, that was the knowledge we had.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Let's move to page 7 of the bundle, still the application, the second application.  Still paragraph 10(a), question of paragraph 10(a).  Just to mention to you in passing, you're now bringing something different to what I've just read to you and you state
"The political objective sought to be achieved was stopping the confliction of two organisation's supporters which is IFP and ANC.  I've achieved for protecting my supporters on that confliction."

MR DE KLERK: Mr Chairman, I have to object.  To be fair to the witness and the applicant, I don't see the conflict here.  It's just a different way of stating the same thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's hear what Mr Ndlovu has to say.   Mr Mpshe can, if he believes there's a conflict and make submissions later on that point.  I think by Mr Mpshe saying that there was a conflict between this paragraph, telling the others he is expressing his personal view.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That is so, Mr Chairman.
....[inaudible] of two organisations?

M R NDLOVU: The stopping of the conflict between the ANC and IFP, rested on attacking Mr Gumede because he was the one who was perpetrating the conflict because he supplied weapons to the ANC.  Therefore, for the conflict to stop between these two organisations he would have to be removed.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Do you then agree with me that stopping a conflict and defending an organisation are not the same thing?

M R NDLOVU: Yes I would.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Let's proceed.  Now my learned friend, your lawyer, with regard to page 9 of the papers, paragraph 11(a) elicited from you the evidence that you were doing this on behalf of IFP and the Government, do you still recall that?

M R NDLOVU: Yes I do recall.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Was it the policy of the IFP to kill opponents?

M R NDLOVU: It was not the policy of the IFP to kill it's enemies but there was no policy pertaining to attacks on IFP members, they did not say that we should not defend ourselves when we are being attacked.  The IFP policy is that negotiations is what you should endeavour to do but if there were attacks, the IFP had never instructed us to sit back and watch on, we would have to defend ourselves.