Amnesty Hearings — Umtata — 1998-06-18

MR DUKADA: Now you see Mr Shabalala you see the reason why Batandwa was not handcuffed. Let me start with your Exhibit E before I put this point to you. Your Exhibit E 10.a you say there
"Batandwa Ndondo was suspected of being an ANC terrorist he was to be abducted and brought back to the Republic of South Africa for interrogation and possible recruitment as an askaris."
When Batandwa after he had climbed into the kombi you second him to be an askaris and he was refusing?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you putting that to this witness as a fact? Is there going to be the evidence to that effect?

MR DUKADA: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Well perhaps you should indicate because otherwise if you put it as a fact you know that is a different.

MR DUKADA: I am sorry Mr Chairman let me just rephrase the question Mr Chairman. I don't want to mislead the witness because there will be no evidence to prove this. So I take the point Mr Chairman. The point I am putting to you Mr Shabalala is that the deceased was deliberately not handcuffed in order to create an opportunity for him to escape and after having escaped from the kombi you shot him in order to justify the escape.

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: No that was not the case.

MR DUKADA: Now if you can turn at page 50 of the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I understand let's just put the other proposition that you want to put to this witness. I think probably you should put it at the level of saying it would be argued that as I understand the position that you will argue that on a probability there was an argue in the motor vehicle with the deceased refusing to be recruited as an askaris which lead to his killing. Is that going to be your argument?

MR DUKADA: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think you should.

CHAIRPERSON: You see what counsel is saying is that he is going to present argument to this Committee to the effect that in the motor vehicle there was an argument between the askaris and the deceased over the refusal by the deceased to become an askaris and that is the reason why it was decided he must be killed.
	Does that accurately reflect the proposition that you want to put to the witness?

MR DUKADA: Yes Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you understand that? Do you want me to repeat that?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: I understand it but it is not so. Indeed it is far-fetched.

MR DUKADA: Thank you Mr Chairman. In your evidence you have already indicated that you would capture the so-called terrorist, recruit him to be an askaris or arrest him and hand over to the police for prosecution. Is that correct?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: Yes that was to be.

MR DUKADA: Did you have a mandate to kill any ANC cadre or PAC cadre from Colonel de Kock?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: Never.

MR DUKADA: What did you say?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: It never happened.

MR DUKADA: No you don't understand my question Mr Shabalala. My question is; did you have a mandate from any of your superiors including Colonel de Kock to kill ANC or PAC cadres?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: No.

MR DUKADA: Then if you turn to Exhibit E paragraph 10.a I will not read the first sentence which I have been reading time and again during the course of my examination. The second sentence reads as follows, it is the fourth page Mr Chairman of Exhibit E, paragraph 10.a. The second sentence reads
"When he escaped it was necessary to kill him as he knew the identity of an askaris, Noma Shosha with whom he had received military training in Lesotho as she was part of the team that abducted him."
Do you see that?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: Can that please be repeated again?

MR DUKADA: "When he escaped it was necessary to kill him as he knew the identity of an askaris, Noma Shosha with whom he had received military training in Lesotho as she was part of the team that abducted him."

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: I do not then get what the question is.

CHAIRPERSON: You see in paragraph 10.a of your application for amnesty you said the following. When the deceased escaped it was necessary to kill him because he knew the identity of Noma Shosha with whom he had received military training in Lesotho as she was part of the team that abducted him. What you are saying here is that he was killed because he had become aware, he could identify Noma Shosha. That is what you said in your statement in your application. Did you say that in your statement I think in the first place?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: Maybe I did not put it the way I wanted to put it. The way I wanted to put it as it sounds now it sounds very strange to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Well what did you want to say?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: I said it happened that he was shot and got killed not because there was an aim that he must be killed. If he could be shot and killed that was to be but if he was shot and not killed that was again another case. As to I do not understand the question as to whether if he identified Noma Shosha what would then happen. But the aim was not to kill him when we were shooting him but that is what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: You see the question is; in your application for amnesty you wrote that at the time when the deceased tried to escape it was necessary that he be killed because he had identified Noma Shosha with whom he had gone to undergo military training in Lesotho.

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: Yes I follow that.

CHAIRPERSON: The question of the legal representative is that you said that?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: Yes I did do that. I remember saying it.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember it as it stands?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: It sounded in another fashion. It sounds very strange to me.

CHAIRPERSON: That it sounds in a strange fashion is something else. But what is written on here is it what you said? What is the answer?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: In my reply to this question I put this question as to how it happened that he got killed or shot. Bra Mos shot because this would have happened with Noma Shosha that is how I put it. The reason why this person was shot or Bra Mos took the decision to shoot him, the deceased is because he thought of Shosha. That is how I put it.

MR DUKADA: Thank you Mr Chairman. This is a sworn statement Mr Shabalala. You took an oath before a Commissioner of Oaths before you signed it. Is that correct?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: Correct.

MR DUKADA: And it is the basis for your application for amnesty. Do you agree with me?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: That is so.

MR DUKADA: Are you realising now that what is contained here is inaccurate?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: But the better part of the statement I think and I hope that it is true. That most of what is written on it. It may happen that there is a mistake but there is no untruth as far as I know it must be mistakes only not untruths.

MR DUKADA: Now can you turn to page 57 of the bundle? I am just interested in the hand-written portion of paragraph b the second sentence. There you say
"We took orders and executed them. We were assigned a specific mission which we had to accomplish."
Do you get that?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: I would like you to read it again because there are sections that I cannot see them.

MR DUKADA: Page 57 of the bundle, paragraph b at the top the second sentence in the hand-written portion
"We took orders and executed them. We were assigned a specific mission which we had to accomplish."
Do you get that?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: I do.

MR DUKADA: And that portion is correct. It is what you intended to say in your application for amnesty?

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: Here I was explaining about my job that at Vlakplaas this is what happened. I was just explaining.

MR DUKADA: Mr Shabalala what I was saying is what was written here as it is, is what you intended to say.

MBUSO ENOCK SHABALALA: I do not know what you want to suggest with your question.