Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-02-02

MZOBONA LEONARD HADEBE: I would like to apologise, maybe I didn't answer the question correctly.  I would like to clarify this.
	When we knock off at work, when I'm talking about time as to which the bus was going to drive past the hostel, I'm referring to this because what really occurs is that when we knock off we members of IFP, we take taxis and go home quicker than the ANC members because they used to wait for each other and then take the bus.
	Now where the bus was going to be attacked near the hostel, that's where the operators were waiting and they knew that as from five to quarter past five the bus may drive past that place.  This is what I was trying to put.

CHAIRPERSON: You may not know the precise minute when the bus would be going past but surely you must have told them what time you usually knocked off and what time the bus usually came to pick up workers who would use it normally to transport themselves to their homes?  Isn't that the information that you gave to that meeting?

MZOBONA LEONARD HADEBE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now did you know how many buses would be going past the hostel?  Did all of them go past the hostel or did one of them use a different route from the one used by the other that went past the hostel?

MZOBONA LEONARD HADEBE: They were using one route, all buses but the buses had different colours and therefore one could easily identify which bus one was looking for, but all of them were driving past the hostel.

CHAIRPERSON: The bus that was used by your colleagues, how different was it from the other buses which operated and went past the hostel in the area?

MZOBONA LEONARD HADEBE: Other buses had red and white colour and the other buses had green like that paper I'm pointing here and cream white.  Those with the red and white colour belonged to a certain man, I've forgotten his name, and the green and cream white belonged to Malinga, so I knew these buses.

CHAIRPERSON: To whom did the ones used by your colleagues belong?

MZOBONA LEONARD HADEBE: They were using the green and cream white colour buses.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose buses were they? - you've mentioned two names, Malinga and somebody else.

MZOBONA LEONARD HADEBE: Malinga.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sithole?

MR SITHOLE: Thanks, Madam Chair.
	The perpetrators that you allege committed the offence, were they from Ratanda Hostel?

MZOBONA LEONARD HADEBE: From Ratanda Hostel.

MR SITHOLE: So with all - they actually knew the bus as well?

MZOBONA LEONARD HADEBE: Yes, they knew them very well.

MR SITHOLE: So you're also saying that there was no need for you to go and identify the bus for them?

MZOBONA LEONARD HADEBE: No, there was no need for me to be with them there.

MR SITHOLE: Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sithole, I noticed that the victims, some of the victims are here.

MR SITHOLE: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you had an opportunity to properly consult with them, particularly in view of the earlier testimony given by Mr Hadebe, just to get their reaction to that testimony during lunchtime?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, I did, Madam Chair.  I don't know whether I should put it to the Committee or put it to the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the reason why I'm asking is that if there is anything, if there is a version which - I don't know whether you propose to call in any witnesses to contradict the evidence of Mr Hadebe.  If you intend to do so and there is anything that Mr Hadebe has said that they will probably gainsay, it would be important for you to put it to him what their version will be when you lead them in chief.
	However, if you do not intend to call any witness from their side in opposition, then you can complete your cross-examination without putting anything to him.  But it would be important to put it to him in order to enable him to comment thereon before they come in to give that version.

MR SITHOLE: Thanks, Madam Chair.  The way I think it would be wise to do it, Madam Chair, is to put the version to him at this stage and then I'll take further instructions on whether they are going to testify or anything.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR SITHOLE: The victims have instructed me as follows: 1) That the incident has nothing to do with the ANC and the IFP, the incident has to do with problems that occurred at work.
...(intervention)

MR LAX: Just let him answer to that.

MR SITHOLE: Sorry?

MR LAX: Let him reply to that point.  It's no good putting five points and then you ask him to reply and he gives you one answer and you don't know which point he's replying to.

MR SITHOLE: Thanks, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: However, where you not properly going to tabulate the various incidents that occurred at work?

MR SITHOLE: Yes, that's basically what I was going to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Start with the first incident then.

MR SITHOLE: The victims will testify that there was a labour dispute between them and the employer and you as members of Uwusa, you ...(indistinct) with the employer.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean there was a labour dispute between the members of Fawu and the employer.

MR SITHOLE: Thanks, Madam Chair.

MZOBONA LEONARD HADEBE: All I can say is we were working peacefully and we didn't have any problems.  We as workers never had any problems at work.  The only problem came when in the township they decided that they've decided that they didn't want Inkatha members.  This spread up until at work.
	They decided that they didn't want Inkatha members at work, and we were working and we didn't have a powerful union which we trusted.  The only union which was there was Fawu if I'm not mistaken.
	When we were supposed to choose a union, it was long after we started disagreeing from outside, from the township and then we were told that we should tell them the name of the union which we wanted it to be the one.  Some chose Fawu and others Uwusa.  
	When they said no, we needed one union, we people who chose Uwusa didn't want to be under Fawu because we identified Fawu as an ANC union.  Then the Fawu people also said they didn't want to belong under Uwusa because Uwusa belonged to Inkatha.
	They said they will never mix with IFP dogs.  That's when we had a serious dispute but it had nothing to do with management.

CHAIRPERSON: But that's precisely what Mr Sithole is putting to you, that you as workers had a dispute, a labour dispute with regard to the trade union you wanted to see being active in the area, in your working area.  And you are saying yes, you wanted Uwusa whereas the other people wanted Fawu.  Are you not saying the same thing as what he is saying?

MZOBONA LEONARD HADEBE: I'm trying to explain this because I heard Mr Sithole saying that my colleagues are saying that we had a dispute but which had nothing to do with the politics, it was strictly for the company.  Now I'm trying to explain there that it wasn't exactly about the company or labour related only but it stretched down to politics as well.
	When we were fighting people kept on saying we don't Inkatha, we don't want Inkatha, and this is what caused the problem, that why Inkatha wasn't wanted.  Yes, I can say unions were part of this dispute and I don't know which union ended up being the one.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it not so, Mr Hadebe, that it is common cause that Uwusa members were perceived to be IFP members inasmuch as Fawu members were perceived to be ANC members?  Isn't that common cause?

MZOBONA LEONARD HADEBE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  You may proceed, Mr Sithole, I don't think there really is any difference to what you are putting to him and what he is responding.

MR SITHOLE: Thanks, Madam Chair.
	Secondly, that on the day in question when the incident occurred, on the 28th of September 1992, you were carrying out, that is Uwusa members were carrying out a revenge attack on the victims solely because they were Fawu members.