Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-16

MR DUBE: What I said in my question, well if that's the way you perceive it, that's your right, your democratic right to do so, but what I'm saying to you is the answer you wanted I did give you.

ADV SANDI: Yes but Mr Dube that is still very vague to me.  Let us put the question that has been put to you, in a slightly different way.  What is it that you're talking about that you say happened in 1991?  This deployment, what happened?

MR DUBE: I did try to explain the word deployment, and how it functioned, for a person to find himself deployed, it will happen in such a way that you are in a position to get and gather more information that will be helpful, invaluable information in other words, that will be helpful to the opposing group.

ADV SANDI: So do I understand, would I be correct to understand that to mean that in 1991 you infiltrated the security police?

MR DUBE: That's exactly what I'm trying to explain, that I infiltrated the police.

ADV SANDI: These many people you said you are not prepared to mention their names, in what way were they involved in this infiltration of yours of the police in 1991?

MR DUBE: They were involved in a sense that they commanded me.

ADV SANDI: Is that to say that they had sent you, or instructed you, to infiltrate the security police?

MR DUBE: As I explained, that was deployment, yes.

MR RICHARD: So if Mrs Dhlomo says that in and during 1987 she intervened with you who were in and about her house and said that one Pat, which is your alias, should not be killed as an informer because the evidence was not sufficient in her opinion for such a drastic decision, what would you say?

MR DUBE: That was up to her.

MR RICHARD: And then we go to 1991 and we find that the information that was being debated had some substance in it, while people might not have understood it properly, proximity to the police had at that stage become real.  Correct?

MR DUBE: I had said that long time ago.

MR RICHARD: Now the question is, how did you infiltrate the police and what information did you give them?

MR DUBE: I will backtrack a bit.  I think we are playing a merry go round here, because I earlier on highlighted that I will answer you, and I answered you.  It was what I was willing to do, to look into this matter, as I'm an applicant in this matter, as I said to you earlier on.

MR RICHARD: You infiltrated the South African police, which is what we hear now.  My question to you, is how did you do it?  One of the most obvious methods that you used to do it was to give them information so that they would begin to trust you.  How did you do it?

MR DUBE: I have no answer to that question thereon.

MR RICHARD: So that means this Committee must leave this point on the assumption that you did give the police information that they found useful so that the police would believe you.  No reply.

MR DUBE: I did not get the question.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was, as I understand it, that you did give the police information that they would find useful, in 1991.  Now I don't want to go into this in detail, I'm trying to clarify at the moment.  Do I understand what you have said, and I appreciate what you mean about going round a merry go round, that you were instructed in 1991 to infiltrate, your instructions covered how you were to do it, and it is for that reason you do not want to say, because that would involve you naming other people who told you what to do?

MR DUBE: What I'm saying is I don't agree with the words the attorney, Mr Richard that is, has uttered.

CHAIRPERSON: But you confirm, do you, that you had not prior to 1991 worked with the police in any way?

MR DUBE: As I said, yes.

MR RICHARD: Now would you be able to produce proof through the ANC that you were so instructed in 1991?

MR DUBE: Yes.  But not now.

MR RICHARD: Well, who could we call to come and give evidence on it?

MR DUBE: I have said ...(intervention)

DR TSOTSI: Mr Richard, excuse me, what would be the purpose of that evidence?

MR RICHARD: Chairperson the purpose of that evidence is this much, that while the answer is that prior to 1991 he was not working with the police, that's merely his ipse dixit.   Now we also know that in the course of the activities of a plant, a double agent, whatever one wants to call the person, it's a trade-off.  The person will have to give evidence to the South African Police in return for their trust.  That's how he would make his penetration and make himself useful.
     Now firstly, what information was he giving, which means per se that he's an informer. Number two what information was being sacrificed, and we go back to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report, wasn't this one of those credibility operations?  So when I ask the question when did all these things happen it's critical to know.

DR TSOTSI: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

DR TSOTSI: How is that information that you're seeking to establish related to the proceedings in this case?

MR RICHARD: In this case the applicants seek amnesty for the killing of Sicelo Dhlomo.  They say they were justified in killing the deceased on the basis that he was an informer.  Now, once we find that the finger points the other way as well, that this witness was also by and by his own admission involved in informing, the first question we have to ask is when did it start.  One can only be highly cynical about any statement that the witness makes.  And it is all relevant to the enquiry as to why they killed the late Sicelo Dhlomo.

CHAIRPERSON: But if you have no other evidence, what is the point of it?  You have no evidence, as I understand it, relating to his actions as an informer if there were any such, in 1987.

MR RICHARD: The only information I have ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not activated.

MR RICHARD: The only information I have is what the deceased's mother gives me in consultation, and that is that in 1987 she had to intercede with young men in defence of the person known as Pat.

CHAIRPERSON: He has conceded that, and that's an end.

MR RICHARD: And on that I will proceed to a further point.  Right.  Now we go back to the afternoon evening of the killing.  Now, you say that you met up with Sicelo Dhlomo at  dusk.  Do you know what he had been doing beforehand.  As far as I understand, no.

MR DUBE: Yes, that's what I said.

MR RICHARD: Now, from the time that you met up with him until the time that he was shot, how much time elapsed?

MR DUBE: As I have already said it was dusk, just before it  got dark, or it was dark.  It could have been something between two hours, something around two hours.  It was summertime and as we know that the day is longer than the evening or the night during summer.

MR RICHARD: In January we know that the sun sets and it gets dark round quarter past seven.  Now, at what time was Sicelo Dhlomo shot?

MR DUBE: I don't remember the time exactly, but around nine and ten at night.  Because one other thing that I would like to mention here, I'm not sure about time that is certain, because many things occurred within the twinkling of an eye. I'm not sure, not certain.

MR RICHARD: So, you can't give a precise date, precise time of the shooting, but you say it was about two hours later.  Is that correct?

MR DUBE: I've said also that I'm not sure.

MR RICHARD: Was it a short time or a long time after meeting up with him?

MR DUBE: It was not a very long time, but I'm not quite sure as to when or what time it was.

MR RICHARD: We know that at about 12 o'clock, quarter past twelve, there was an anonymous telephone call to the police that there was a dead man under a tree, and it turned out that was the deceased.  Do you know anything about that phone call?

MR DUBE: I don't know anything relating to that.

MR RICHARD: Now, after the shooting, where did you go?

MR DUBE: I left these other cell members.  I went to the base.