Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-17

MR VISSER: Yes. Mr Chairman it's not part of the cross-examination but while we're at page 63 of bundle 2, may I just explain my suggestion during the evidence in chief of Mr du Preez, that Blessing might have been detained in terms of the emergency regulations.  Where I saw it, Mr Chairman, is at this page and you will see in the following, the second following paragraph starting with 	"Sefiso, who had been injured in Chesterville was staying with me in Pietermaritzburg to be nursed.
It goes on and skipping one sentence, two sentences, he says:
"My brother, Blessing, was already in detention under the state of emergency."
That's where I got it from but apparently there are two Blessings, Mr Chairman, which I didn't realise at the time, so I just wanted to explain that evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  Alright.

MR VISSER: Now, can I ask you this, a limpet mine, do you know what that is used for?

MRS NINELA: No.

MR VISSER: You really don't know that a limpet mine is a bomb that kills people and damages property?

MRS NINELA: I have only heard recently but at that moment I didn't know anything about that.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MRS NINELA: Even now, I don't know what it looks like.  I've just heard about it.

MR VISSER: Yes, but you - well, let me ask you this.  Do you know that a bomb is supposed to damage property and kill people?

MRS NINELA: I know.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Do you know that at some stage Mr Blessing Ninela, your son, was in possession of a limpet mine?

MRS NINELA: I am told about that.

MR VISSER: Yes.  And do you know that one of the Bhengu brothers died as a result?  He blew himself up.  Do you know about that?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the reference is bundle 1 page 60 where Senzo says that they received the limpet mine from Blessing Ninela.  A further reference, Mr Chairman, is in Exhibit B, these pages are not paginated unfortunately, but somewhere towards, I've paginated mine, it's 25, page 25 of Exhibit B, there's a statement by Humphrey Senzo Bhengu and at page 27 as I've marked it, it's page 3 of his statement, basically the same evidence is repeated.  Did you know that your son, Blessing Ninela, was training people in the use of limpet mines?

MRS NINELA: No.

MR VISSER: Right.  You say you went to a police station at C R Swart and you were told by somebody that Blessing was suspected of being a member of MK?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Was this a uniform police or a plain clothed?

MRS NINELA: Yes, he was uniformed.

MR VISSER: He was in uniform?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Right.  Just incidentally who is the person that you refer to, Mhloti?

MRS NINELA: What I know is that Mr Mhloti, that is all, I can't say anything more than that.

MR VISSER: Was he attached to the TRC?

MRS NINELA: I think so, I'm not sure.

MR VISSER: And he showed you the statements of du Preez and Wasserman, I'm sorry of Taylor?

MRS NINELA: No, no.  He never showed us a statement.

MR VISSER: He just told you what was...(intervention)

MRS NINELA: Mr Richard Lister gave me a statement from Mr Taylor about Blessing's death.

MR VISSER: Right, but he told you what Taylor said?

MRS NINELA: Pardon?

MR VISSER: He told you what Taylor said in his amnesty application so that you knew for the first time then that your son had been killed?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Yes.  And if Taylor had not, and Wasserman and du Preez had not applied for amnesty you would never have known what would have happened to your son?

MRS NINELA: No, it was very hard for me to know.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Now what do you expect from them to tell you more than that?  You say that they didn't make a full disclosure, what more do you want?  They came forward and they told the world that they killed your son.

MRS NINELA: I wanted to know what the family, the Ninela family, what have they done to them, he stated clearly that they hid the body away so that the family couldn't find it.  Why?

MR VISSER: To protect themselves.

MRS NINELA: What have we done?

MR VISSER: No, you've done nothing.  It was to protect themselves, Mr Ninela, because they murdered him and they knew that they did not have the right to kill him the way they did.  That's why they've applied for amnesty.

MRS NINELA: I don't think that is the right reason, because what they did, they knew they were doing a lawful thing.

MR VISSER: Unlawful thing.

MRS NINELA: If at all it was unlawful, why did they do it unlawfully?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just going to stop this debate at this stage.  We are covering ground.  Will you, Ms Gabriel ...

MR VISSER: Alright.

CHAIRPERSON: We are going to be arguing here.  The evidence in chief yesterday I think ought to have conveyed to you what her real grievance is, well one of her grievances is, is why did they blow up the body?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, the family is hurt because of that.  Why wasn't he tried in a court of law and so on and we've heard evidence as to why those steps were not taken.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, the ...

CHAIRPERSON: The rest is a matter of argument, isn't it?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, the only dilemma is that I can't let the evidence go uncontested, I've got to put to her, because that is the basis upon which the objection has been made.  I've got to put to her that she's wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: No, what you've got to put to her is what else have they not disclosed?

MR VISSER: That's exactly what I'm asking her Chairperson, what do you expect them to tell you?

MRS NINELA: They have not told me...

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Ninela, can you just give me a little time?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If they hadn't applied for amnesty you would have never known what had happened to your son.

MRS NINELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You now know what happened to your son.

MRS NINELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: They're now explaining why they did what they did.  It is unacceptable to you because you think they ought to have done something different.  That much is clear from your evidence.  You believe that he, your son, ought to have been tried in a court of law.

MRS NINELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand all that.  We have reached a stage in the evidence where you are opposing this application for amnesty and one of the grounds on which you are opposing is that they have not told the truth.  What counsel is trying to get from you and what we are interested in is what else should they have said, which they have not yet said, apart from what we have already been ...

MRS NINELA: Okay.  One of the men said, Blessing Ninela was found with a bomb.

MR VISSER: No, No, I'm going to stop you because that is not true.

MRS NINELA: But it was said yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no I think you misunderstood the evidence.  You see, the men said that they were told by Taylor that Blessing was found with a limpet mine.  They did not know that, they were told by Taylor.  Taylor is dead now so we're not concerned with Taylor.  He is not here to give evidence, he's dead.  Do you understand?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So we're now talking about these people whose evidence is what they were told by Taylor, they did what they did because they were told to do that.  All that is quite clear to you.  I get the impression that you have a very intelligent understanding of what has happened.  We are now narrowing the question down to the next point and that is ?

MRS NINELA: And why is this amnesty today when Mr Taylor is dead.  Why wasn't it done before his death?