Amnesty Hearings — Kimberley — 1997-10-27

LAURENS MBATHA: I told him exactly that immediately when the protestors, the march, the people who were involved in the march are moving away, he must throw the grenade inside the building.

PROF DE KOKER: Did he ask you why he should do this?

LAURENS MBATHA: At that stage when I told him I gave him a motivation.

PROF DE KOKER: What was the motivation that you gave him.

LAURENS MBATHA: That as part of the anti-Bop march, because we are moving over to that process, I explained the objective over to him in terms of sending the signal over.  This was the reason that I want that he should, actually, execute that instruction of which, at that time, he did not, actually, decline or refuse to do it.

CHAIRPERSON: I must tell you, Major, that sometimes you speak in very convoluted language.  I, personally, do not understand some of the things you say.  For example, you speak of a signal over.  I do not know what that really means.  Should you not speak in your, in a way that is so simple that even people who, perhaps, have not received military training of any kind can understand precisely what you are saying?

LAURENS MBATHA: Oh, sending a signal over, what I, actually, referred to, I am really sorry for that language, it is to send a message over.

PROF DE KOKER: I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to page 40 that is day two, Walter Smiles was giving testimony and, again, under oath administered by Mr Potgieter.  On page 40 Mr Smiles ... (intervention).

SISI KHAMPEPE: Forty?

PROF DE KOKER: Forty, 40, and that is about the seventh, eighth line.  We can start about three lines before that.
"We went all the way to town ...",
this is relating his experiences in connection with the march,
"... to town and when we arrived here and I was not told what the whole cause of the trouble was when I got into the car.  That was never explained to me.  What then happened is that the Major asked me, this Laurens Mbatha I am referring to, Commander of the Northern Cape, when we went up and he then took me to the Oakley centre at the fourway, it is a fourway stop, and there are lots of people and it was time to go home.  We got off there.  When I got out of ...",
... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Mr, Prof de Koker, could you kindly go a bit slower.  It should be interpreted by the people there.  They are giving me a sign they cannot interpret at that speed.

PROF DE KOKER: Thank you very much, with pleasure.  I proceeded on this fast basis on the assumption that the Committee had the documentation in front of me and I beg the pardon of the translators.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja.

SISI KHAMPEPE: It is probably being translated for Mr Smiles as well.

PROF DE KOKER: Thank you very much for the indication.  If I may start where I left off.
"When I got out of the car there, I was not informed of any grenade or anything.  I was just given a piece of paper, a wrapped up piece of paper and there was a grenade inside."
Is that correct, Major Mbatha?

LAURENS MBATHA: It is true that the grenade was wrapped when I gave it to him, but before I gave it to him, it is where I have just initially said, the explanation and the purpose of what he is going to do.

PROF DE KOKER: Mr Smiles failed to refer to any such explanation.  In terms of the explanation and if you look at his testimony, it seems as if all that was given was the hand grenade and that he took that as a command, no explanation given.

LAURENS MBATHA: I really do not agree with that, because definitely, sure, he might not have even known where to throw that thing if that was the case.

PROF DE KOKER: Major Mbatha, you have, we will return to the specifics of the hand grenade.

ADV DE JAGER: While you are on that page, perhaps, I would like to ask a question too.  He further testified,
"... but you see I have no experience of this type of thing and when we went up it was all right and when we got there the petitions were handed over, the first petition."
Did he have experience about hand grenades?

LAURENS MBATHA: Yes.

PROF DE KOKER: If I may follow on that question.  If Mr Smiles, then, had experience why did he testify under oath that he had no experience and I could, perhaps, also refer the Committee to page 41, about the tenth line from the top regarding Mr Smiles and the injury that was caused.
"I would not have done it if I had more experience, because I should have known that I was risking my life, but what about the other people."

CHAIRPERSON: Where, we are reading page?

PROF DE KOKER: Page 41, that is about the tenth line from the top and then the third line also from the top,
"It was not my intention to do this.  If I had experience no one would have been hurt.",
and the following,
"That experience I only gained later in the camps when I learnt about various kinds of arms and ammunition."

LAURENS MBATHA: Unfortunately, the circumstances that the member did that statement under oath, he is, actually, the best one to respond to.

PROF DE KOKER: Quite correct and we will certainly ask him to explain it too, but there is an interesting contradiction with the evidence that you give.  Do you agree that that evidence which he gave is correct or was it, in terms of your evidence, incorrect?

LAURENS MBATHA: I am referring to the circumstances in the sense that, because the last statement that he has submitted, I think also varies from the one that you are referring to.  Hence, I am referring the situation that he was in then, he is the one best to explain to it.

PROF DE KOKER: Oh, quite correct, Major Mbatha, there are very interesting differences between all the affidavits that we have available and all the testimonies received from Mr Smiles, but, in particular, you have stated this member has experience.  Unfortunately, that member, under oath, is on record saying I had no experience.  As the ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I do not know whether you should lead by the point, because the witness says that, you know, let the witness explain, because your statement is not, actually, correct, you know, because when you read further he said,
"I would not have done it if I had had more experience."
You see what I mean?  If a person says,
"... if I had had more experience.",
to me it suggests that he is saying that he did have some experience.

PROF DE KOKER: Unfortunately, I agree, Mr Chairman, that this is unclear.  Unfortunately ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that ... (intervention).

PROF DE KOKER: ... on two ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ... that is why the witness says to you leave that to the person who made that statement.

PROF DE KOKER: Right, but apart from that, the specific issue which I am, would like Major Mbatha to address is as to the experience that he knows that this person possesses, because he elected him from the 120 cadres that he had available and the whole of his command structure which he had, at that morning in his car, according to his own testimony, he chose this specific member.

CHAIRPERSON: That is another thing ... (intervention).

SISI KHAMPEPE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... and we can simply ask him why do you say this man had experience.

LAURENS MBATHA: It is basically because of I prepared him for the first incident.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Why was he chosen for this operation out of the 120 members in your unit?

LAURENS MBATHA: Because at that stage he was the only member that I have prepared in grenades, except those members who came from outside.

PROF DE KOKER: According to your evidence, you had trained him in hand grenades.

LAURENS MBATHA: Sir, it is true.

PROF DE KOKER: Major Mbatha, according to your earlier statement this morning, no one, it was not your aim that anyone should have been killed in the attack.  Is that correct?

LAURENS MBATHA: It is true.

PROF DE KOKER: You also said this morning that the attack was solely aimed at the building.

LAURENS MBATHA: It is true.