Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-04-07

MR STUART: Mr Chairman, I apologise to my learned friend, if I might just intervene.  In accordance with the suggestion from yourself Mr Chairman, I am in the process of preparing a schedule which at the time of argument will then detail each incident and the possible charges or offences in respect of each, for which amnesty will be applied.
	But as stated by this applicant, right at the outset of his evidence in chief, all the incidents mentioned in these papers, amnesty will be applied for in respect of all of them, but we will attempt to do is put it in a more workable form.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, to tabulate them and specifically identify each incident?

MR STUART: That is so.  It may serve my learned friend some time if he knows that, rather than to try to go through and confirm every one, because I can confirm now, we are applying in respect of everything mentioned herein.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, then I think perhaps going through each one individually would be probably wasting time at this stage Mr Mpshe.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, perhaps I do not understand my learned friend, but I am embarking on what I am doing because evidence was never tendered by the witness on these incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but he confirmed the contents of his affidavit, and that is part of it, that is all before here, that is what I understood.  At the very commencement of his evidence, he said he confirms the contents of it, the affidavit, and he abides by the contents of the affidavit.
	Are you - that affidavit do you consider it to be part of the evidence before this Committee as evidence because of that?

MR STUART: Most certainly Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so it is there Mr Mpshe.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, then that will mean that all those incidents I was just about to enumerate, are subject of cross-examination then, which means I cannot stop now.
	I will have to with respect to the Chair and the Committee members, I will then have to look at these incidents for purposes of cross-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that was quite clear that they were there, he wasn't only coming here, because he did confirm the affidavit.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I recall that very well Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: May I then suggest Mr Chairman, if there is going to be re-examination by my learned friend, that I stop my cross-examination now, I may continue tomorrow on these other incidents?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think the re-examination comes after the cross-examination Mr Mpshe.  It wouldn't be right for him to re-examine and then you cross-examine, because then he will have the right to re-examine again.
	There has got to be the cross-examination or questioning before the re-examination, that is the whole purpose of re-examination.

MR MOTATA: I suppose Mr Mpshe, if I understood counsel for the applicant and the applicant himself, he says there would be incidents which he is not presently aware of, but if implicated, he takes responsibility for those because he was the Overall Commander.   Would I be right Mr Stuart, did I hear the witness correctly?

MR STUART: Well, Honourable Member, that is not quite how I recall it and how I understand it.  The point is this, it is that the applicants was involved in a number of incidents over a long period of time.  What he has attempted to do is to remember as much as he can, and that has been put in his papers, and indeed some of it has been elaborated on in evidence.
	There may be other incidents which he is reminded of, which he can then, he will then be able to say I remember, yes, I confirm that incident, but it is not to say that he takes responsibility for every incident that was committed by Caprivians wherever they may have been.
	It will be wrong to say that he is accepting responsibility for that, they may have been doing things he did not know about, which were outside of his orders and so on and so forth.

MR MOTATA: Thank you.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Then Mr Chairman, I think I am in a position to can round up my cross-examination as requested.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Luthuli, incident number 45, that is the Glover remark.  You were cross-examined quite lengthily on this by my learned friend, Adv Hewit.  Would you agree with me if I say that the killing of these people, was done because you got annoyed in that you were referred to as a Glover, will I be right?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, that is correct.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you.   Incident 52, that is the Rainbow staff bus retaliation, do you remember that is an incident wherein the IFP members were taken out of a bus when they were from the base of employment?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: When you were told, you went back there, because your wife worked there and some people were shot and killed, do you remember that?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, I do remember the incident.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Would I again be correct then to state that this Rainbow staff bus was simply carried out and people were killed, in order to revenge the killing of certain people?  It was another revenge?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, I would say that is correct.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: The last incident, that is the BMW motor car incident, incident number 56, I would remind you, that is the incident that took place when there was a funeral of an IFP and that of an ANC and there was the killing there of, they had killed a person who was an IFP who drove through an ANC funeral, do you remember that?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: And can I again safely say that this also had nothing to do with politics, but a revenge on the killing of a member who happened to be in that area, will you agree with me there again?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: No.  I would say the people who did this, were going to a funeral of a certain UDF member and on crossing at Three, that is the place, they saw this BMW, belonging to the IFP member and they stopped him.  They were actually on their way to a funeral.
	That is how he was killed, burnt and the car too, that is how it happened.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: But the IFP ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe is referring to what happened after that killing.  Perhaps you can just explain it.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Luthuli, I am referring to what happened after the killing of the IFP member who was in the BMW  and the other passengers who were therein.  Thereafter, you went back and an attack was launched on UDF to kill, do you remember that?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, I do.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: And certain members of the UDF were killed, do you remember that?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: Yes, I do.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: What I am saying is that this was another revenge attack which cannot be linked to any political objective, do you agree with me?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I would say this was an IFP member being killed by the UDF members, and therefore on that revenge attack, it was assumed that it was a revenge on the IFP member who was hurt or injured.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Let me put the question this way again.  By revenging this man's attack, or killing, what did you expect to achieve politically?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: It was actually to show that there was no one who had the right to kill an IFP member and get away with it.
	That is how I can answer that question, I don't know whether that is the correct way to answer it.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I hear you and I accept your answer and it means then that you were just showing people that no member of the IFP should be killed, but this has nothing to do with politics, but the protection of an IFP member, am I right?

DALAQOLO WORDSWORTH LUTHULI: I disagree with that.  I would say that was to show that they too had an organisation that can protect them and also to show other members that if such a thing happened to another member, he too is going to suffer the same fate.