Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1998-08-13

MR BERGER: I just know him as Mr, and to try and assist you, he was sent by a minister in the kwaZulu Government to come and look after the interests of IFP members in the Vaal.

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: There are a number of Mr Dlamini's that I know of.  When I requested you to furnish me with his first name, I'm not trying to make it difficult for you to question me, but I'm trying to make it easier for me in order to respond right.  It may happen that I will be referring to this kind of Mr Dlamini and yet you are talking about a different Mr Dlamini, so please furnish me with his first name so I answer you correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tshabangu he doesn't know the first name of Mr Dlamini.  We understand you know a number of Mr Dlamini's, is that right?

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: Yes, that's right.

MR BERGER: Mr Tshabangu, you were present when Mr Victor Mthembu gave evidence, and you will recall that I questioned him about this Mr Dlamini, and you will recall that he confirmed the existence of this Mr Dlamini, and spoke about this Mr Dlamini.

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: Yes I do remember, but I don't quite remember as to which Dlamini.  If you may tell me about his job-description, maybe I would be in a position to recall the details and be in a position to answer you correctly.

MR BERGER: Very well, I'll do that.  Just bear with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tshabangu do you know of any meeting that was addressed by Mr Themba Xhosa and a Mr Dlamini?

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: No.

MR BERGER: Thank you, I now have it.  Mr Mthembu was asked
"You state that you were present at the general meeting held in the hostel approximately a week before the attack", and he's asked certain questions.
And then in question 20.4 he's asked:
"Who is Dlamini, who you allege was present during this meeting, and what is his position in the IFP?"
And then at page 31 Mr Mthembu says:
"He is an honourable man who was sent by a minister of the IFP from Durban to look after the members of the IFP in the Vaal Triangle as a whole."
I can tell you further that at page 8 of his affidavit Mr Mthembu talks about Dlamini being accompanied by a member of the kwaZulu Police, a person by the name of Ngabelo, who he says was his bodyguard.  Dlamini at the meeting said, "that the problem of our people who were being killed must be reported to Buthelezi".  And you'll remember I asked Mr Mthembu which Buthelezi, and it was established that it's Chief Mangusotho Buthelezi.  Now having told you all of that, are you now able to identify who the Mr Dlamini is?

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: It becomes clear to me that Mr Dlamini was a representative of the kwaZulu Government in Vereeniging.  I'm not aware of any meeting on which he addressed together with Themba Xhosa.

MR BERGER: Where were you on the Sunday before the attack?

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: I don't want to lie, I don't remember.  I don't remember because I used to come in and out going out to buy some stock.

MR BERGER: Mr Tshabangu, I'm putting it to you that the reason you don't remember the meeting is because it was at this meeting where the attack on Boipatong was discussed - the forthcoming attack.

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: It's not correct, as I've already agreed or accepted, that I was at - I'm sorry ...

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) that on the 14th of June 1992, the attack on Boipatong was discussed?

MR BERGER: Yes, that is what I'm putting to the witness.

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: It's not true that I'm denying or hiding something.  I don't remember being in a meeting which was addressed by Dlamini and Themba Xhosa, and I don't know why I should try to hide anything about it.

MR BERGER: Chairperson I'm also putting to the witness that this was one of the meetings where the plans to attack Boipatong were finalized.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) a fact to the witness, we've got to record that accurately, so that we can hear evidence to that effect at a later stage so that there can be no misunderstanding as to what you put to the witness.  So you're saying the plans to attack Boipatong were finalized at this meeting?

MR BERGER: No, I'm not saying that.
	I'm putting to you Mr Tshabangu - let me tell you why I'm putting it to you, ...(intervention)

MS SIGODI: Mr Berger, my recording is that you put to the witness that this meeting - this is the meeting where the plans of attacking Boipatong were finalized, did I get it correctly?

MR BERGER: I said it was one of the meetings.  Before that I said this was a meeting at which the attack on Boipatong was discussed, the forthcoming attack on Boipatong was discussed.  Because ...

MS SIGODI: It's one of the meetings.

MR BERGER: Advocate Sigodi, I've tried to develop a theme of on the 10th, the 14th and the 17th.

MS SIGODI: Record what you are putting to the witness correctly.

MR STRYDOM: Just to get clarity, I just want to know if Mr Berger is putting this as a proposition or as a fact that he has evidence to that effect.

MR BERGER: Chairperson I'm putting it as proposition.  Chairperson can I just state my position?

CHAIRPERSON: We understand your - don't worry about that, we understand.  All we want to establish is when you put a proposition to the witness which is a matter of argument, that's different from telling the witness that at this meeting this is what happened, putting that as a fact.  Because if you're stating it as a fact, one then expects that there will be evidence to the effect that at that meeting this is what happened.  But when you're stating it as a proposition you want to argue later on, that having regard to the build up of the circumstances leading up to Boipatong, it is very probably that at that meeting of the 14th of June plans to attack Boipatong were discussed or finalized, as a probability.

MR BERGER: Well it goes ...

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) the applicants and every one of us to know what to expect.  Do you understand what I'm trying to explain to you?

MR BERGER: Chairperson I understand it perfectly, but Chairperson when one cross-examines ...

CHAIRPERSON: If you put a proposition, do you understand the difference between a proposition and a fact that you're putting to the witness.  That's all we're trying to say, that if you're putting a fact, let us know, if it's a proposition let us know.  Because then ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: But Chairperson in cross-examination one doesn't have to do that.  With respect one only has to put to the witness, "I put it to you" this and this and this; the witness comments on that, and then at the end of the day I can argue because the witness has had an opportunity to comment.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tshabangu we've heard evidence that there's a meeting that took place on the 14th of June 1992 shortly before the attack.  That meeting was addressed by, amongst other persons, Mr Themba Xhosa we were told.  Also present at that meeting was a Mr Dlamini.  The first question is, do you recall that meeting?

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Part of the reasons why you don't recall this meeting is because at this meeting one of the things that occurred was that the plans to attack Boipatong were discussed or finalized, and you're concealing that fact.

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: No Sir, it's not like that, I don't know of that meeting, and I'm not in a position to hide anything.   The meeting of the 14th, it's unknown to me.  I'm not saying there was no such a meeting, but I wasn't present, and I don't know anything about such meeting.

MR BERGER: Mr Tshabangu, you told the Committee yesterday that you could not explain why there was a delay of approximately a week between the 10th and the 17th before Boipatong was attacked.

MPLUPEKI TSHABANGU: Yes.