Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-05-20

DITINI THYIDO: On that day we were armed as follows:  I was armed with a weapon called a (indistinct), Zwelitsha Mkhulutha was armed with a bomb known as a M75.

CHAIRPERSON: What is his name?

DITINI THYIDO: Zwelitsha Mkhulutha was armed with an explosive called an M75.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

DITINI THYIDO: Maliqole was armed with a sub-machine gun.  We went to Mr Mpisane's house which was in the R Section of Site B of Khayelitsha, we found Mpisane standing in front of his house and when Mkhulutha asked him where the others were, Mpisane ran away.
	Mkhulutha then decided that Mpisane had to be shot and Maliqole then fired aiming at Mpisane.  I never noticed where the bullet struck him, but I realised that they did strike him.  Mpisane went and hid and we eventually gave up.
	In that way our plan failed.  Because of this act, we were arrested and prosecuted.  I was found guilty on these charges that I mentioned above.  I was sentenced to the abovementioned sentence.
	During our trial I heard that someone had died because of the shooting incident on the day we had attacked Mpisane.  I do not know how this person ended up being injured.  The court also found us guilty of the culpable homicide for the death of this person.
	The act for which I was found guilty was a political act caused by the ill-treatment by the police who were working for the oppressive regime of the time.
	That act happened at a time where those police who were mentioned caused a situation in the residential area which was similar to a war situation.  Although the act for which I was convicted was illegal, we were forced to do that because the community at large in our locations needed to be protected from the members of the Internal Stability Unit and their informants.

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat that again, the last two sentences.

DITINI THYIDO: Although the act for which I was found guilty was illegal, we were forced to do that because the community at large in our locations needed protection from the members of the Internal Stability Unit and their informants.
	The objective of this act was so that those police of the Internal Stability Unit were to leave our locations and not come back again, because the residents in their entirety did not appreciate their presence there.
	That act was aimed at getting rid of the police in the location so that the residents could retrieve their human rights.  Once again, that act was aimed at showing the government of the time that the residents did not want the municipal officers that were being forced upon them.
	The act of attacking informants and members of the Internal Stability Units was allowed, accepted and it was a decision was taken by SANCO at the time when the Self Defence Unit was launched.
	Truly speaking because of that act, for which we were found guilty, it was very evident that the Councillors had to resign.  The police of the Internal Stability Unit left our locations.
	I hence ask the Committee to view my act and the circumstances under which that act took place as qualifying for amnesty in terms of Section 20 of Act 34 of 1995.

JUDGE WILSON: I take it that statement was prepared by you Mr Mathana.

ADV MATHANA: That is correct sir.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

JUDGE WILSON: Does it bear any relation to his application for amnesty that was filed with us?

ADV MATHANA: In what respect sir?

JUDGE WILSON: Have you read the application that he filed as to how the events took place?

ADV MATHANA: Yes, I've read it.

JUDGE WILSON: Does the statement that he has just read, bear any relation to that?

ADV MATHANA: I do not want to answer questions on his behalf, but when I also pointed this out with him in our consultations, because at the time when these statements or applications were prepared, they tell me that they were in the cells, not knowing fully what they were supposed to put in the application forms and having no legal advice as to the requirements.

JUDGE WILSON: I am not talking about that, they have had legal advice for some considerable time before the final date for filing applications, haven't they?

ADV MATHANA: I do not know, because I was not acting for them all that time, I was instructed to represent them only last Thursday.

JUDGE WILSON: Instructed by who?

ADV MATHANA: I received instructions from the interested person that I must act for them.  That was only on Thursday last week, I was not able to see them until only Saturday or Sunday, this weekend and at that stage I was confronted with the applications which had already been prepared by themselves and I had to do the best I could under the circumstances in order to be able to present their evidence today.

JUDGE WILSON: Carry on.

CHAIRPERSON: Before Mr Brink asks any questions, is there anything else that you would like to elicit from your applicant?

ADV MATHANA: No sir, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions you wish to put to this witness or the applicant rather?

MR BRINK: Yes.  Would you just bear with me for one second.  You were convicted of attempted murder relating to the injury suffered by Bongi, is that correct?

DITINI THYIDO: That is correct sir.

MR BRINK: Now, who was the person in respect of whom you were convicted of culpable homicide, who was that person?

DITINI THYIDO: It was said it was a child - that's what I got from the court.

MR BRINK: I understand that you were convicted of the murder of a woman called Zolethu Nqozuma?

DITINI THYIDO: That is not true.

MR BRINK: Weren't you convicted of murdering a woman on the 29th of August 1992?

DITINI THYIDO: No, that is not true.

MR BRINK: You see in your amnesty application, the original one, you indicated in paragraph 9(a)(1) that you were convicted of murder, attempted murder and having illegal firearms.

DITINI THYIDO: That is correct.

MR BRINK: There is no mention of culpable homicide.

DITINI THYIDO: Among the charges, there is an attempted murder but it is not a woman.

MR BRINK: As I understand the judgement which was given in this matter when you were convicted, you were charged firstly with murder together with your co-applicant and another person, you were charged with the murder of a woman called Zolethu Nqozuma, I don't expect you to know her name, but ...

JUDGE WILSON: This is a child is it not Mr Brink, if you will look at page 40 you will see all three accused were therefore found guilty on count 1 which is the murder of the child, Zolethu Nqozuma.

MR BRINK: I am looking Judge, at the first paragraph of the judgement.  The first count with which they were charged appears to be the murder of a woman called Zolethu Nqozuma.

JUDGE WILSON: He then goes on to make that a child?  And a great deal is said at pages 39 and 40 about this particular child.  The child was hit, the child, the child.

SISI KHAMPEPE: I think Mr Brink the problem arises from page 20 of the judgement because the Judge initially refers to the child as lady Zolethu Nqozuma.

MR BRINK: Yes, yes.  Well, tell us about the child, how did this child come to be killed?

DITINI THYIDO: As I've already explained, we don't know anything, we just heard after some time that there is a child who died on that particular day but we didn't even know her.

MR BRINK: But for which murder are you seeking amnesty?

DITINI THYIDO: Because of the lack of knowledge on my side, I applied for amnesty because I thought that since we were in that scene, we thought that it is very important for us to come forward and ask for forgiveness because somebody was injured, somebody died on that scene.

MR BRINK: And you say you don't know anything about this child?

DITINI THYIDO: I don't have any details about the death of this child.

MR BRINK: Do you know whether your co-applicant does?

DITINI THYIDO: I know that he doesn't have any knowledge also.

MR BRINK: Bongi was well known to you, wasn't he?

DITINI THYIDO: That is correct sir.