Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-09-08

MR WARNER: Okay.  Would you agree with me that you carried out two operations in Cape Town in December of 1992?  The first one, what was the purpose of that one, the direct purpose, the attack on the police at the Khayelitsha station?  What was the main purpose of that attack?

ANDILE SHICEKA: Well it was to attack and disarm.

MR WARNER: Okay, so in other words, because you were unable to disarm and acquire weapons you viewed that operation as being unsuccessful, is that correct?

ANDILE SHICEKA: That is correct.

MR WARNER: But there was also a further reason why you viewed the operation as being unsuccessful, isn't there?  You viewed it as being unsuccessful because you killed an innocent person instead of a policeman, is that correct as well?

ANDILE SHICEKA: That is correct.

MR WARNER: Now why did you not want to kill this other person, is it because - did you know if this was a black or a white person, first of all?

ANDILE SHICEKA: Will you please repeat that question?

MR WARNER: Okay.  In the police station attack, sorry, the train station attack, you fired through a locked door.  Now you knew there were people inside there, you thought they were policemen, did you know as a fact that they were all white people or black people or policemen?  You didn't know that, so what I'm putting to you is that there may well have been a white person in there.  If that white person had got killed, would you then have changed your opinion as to whether the attack was successful or not?

ANDILE SHICEKA: That is correct.

MR WARNER: Thank you.  You also went on to state that your main reason for attacking the room as such, was that you believed, you genuinely believed and had no reason to disbelieve that there were policemen inside the room.  Do I understand that correct?

ANDILE SHICEKA: Yes, I understand that.

MR WARNER: So your target there was the policemen, is that correct?

ANDILE SHICEKA: That is correct.

MR WARNER: You made two affidavits which I'm in possession of, the one the official affidavit, the other one is a sworn statement.  Do you remember making those statements?

ANDILE SHICEKA: Excuse me?

MR WARNER: Do you remember making any statements in connection with your amnesty application?

CHAIRPERSON: If it's part of the bundle, just refer him to the page please.

MR WARNER: Mr Chairman, I don't know if I have the same bundle as the Committee but I have a page 8, a statement made by Andile, and the surname appears to be spelt incorrectly, and in brackets (Thabo).

CHAIRPERSON: Just place that before him.  Yes?

MR WARNER: Do you admit that is a statement which you've made?

ANDILE SHICEKA: That is correct.

MR WARNER: You refer there to a yellow Datsun 1200, is that a car or a bakkie?

ANDILE SHICEKA: It is a car.

MR WARNER: Thank you.

MR WARNER: I'd now like to turn to your statement which you made, your affidavit.  In paragraph 6.1 thereof you said that Power, also known as Mzala, gave you orders to come to Cape Town and carry on operations in which you were to attack members of the then racist South African Police, South African Defence Force and other white people.  You said that you were told that the purpose was to take the war to white areas and to steal by force weapons from the police and from members of the Defence Force, is that correct?

ANDILE SHICEKA: That is correct.

MR WARNER: In your evidence which you gave earlier on today you mentioned something which differs from that affidavit in that you said you were ordered to attack places where white people congregated.  Could you explain why you didn't word it in that way in your affidavit?

NORMAN ARENDSE: Just a correction Chairperson, it's not an affidavit it's just a signed statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, this contradiction, this difference is there nevertheless.  What is the point?

MR WARNER: I'd like to put it to you that what your commander actually told you was that you were to come and attack white members of the South African Police and white members of the South African Defence Force.  What is your comment on that?

ANDILE SHICEKA: If you take a look at this statement, at 6.1 number 6, it is written there that in 1992 a member known as Power or generally known as Mzala gave me an order to carry operations in Cape Town where I was to attack racist South African Police and South African Defence Force and other white people.  He didn't mention that I have to hit only South African Defence Force and South African Police alone.  It is added there: "and white people".

MR WARNER: Okay.  So would you have this Commission believe then that what is written in 6.1 is the truth?

ANDILE SHICEKA: I am not trying to say that, because now when you are talking to me you are talking about two things only, the SADF and SAP, you omit the third one and that is why I read all of that portion there.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think the question is you accept paragraph 6.1 is correct?

ANDILE SHICEKA: That is correct.

MR WARNER: So then it must follow by necessary implication, that what you've said today is not true, is that not correct?

CHAIRPERSON: In what way?

ANDILE SHICEKA: Mr Chair, in that the reference to attacking places where white people gather was not part of their order.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] instructions are to attack white people, does it matter where?

MR WARNER: Mr Chair, what I would like to put to the applicant is that this part about attacking white people generally is something which he conceived on his own and that that was never part of his orders, it was something he took upon himself.  And if one looks at the generality of that statement, it seems unlikely that he would be given such a wide and generalised order or that that would fulfil the meaning of the word: "order".

CHAIRPERSON: You'll recall his evidence where he said the attack on all whites because all whites underwent compulsory military training.  So the direction was that all whites because they all underwent military training.  Do you recall that sentence in his evidence?

MR WARNER: Mr Chair, I do recall that sentence, and if that may lead me on to my next question.
	Are you not aware that female white persons were not obliged to do compulsory military training, firstly.  Secondly, that full-time students did not do compulsory military training and thirdly, that the persons working at that particular restaurant were all either female or full-time students, what is your comment on that?

ANDILE SHICEKA: I don't know that.  All I know is that each and every white person undergoes training.

MR WARNER: Sir, as an APLA ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Which is strictly speaking not correct, is it?  There was a woman who is a waitress working in that place, at the restaurant.  You said: "all whites underwent military training".  That is a general statement and I'm sure you must concede that that is not what you intend to convey or is it?

ANDILE SHICEKA: What I was told is this.  All the South African white people were trained militarily.

MR WARNER: So you Sir, as an APLA soldier, not only a soldier but also a commander of your unit knew your enemy so badly that you were under the mistaken belief that your enemy was 50% female, how can that be?

ANDILE SHICEKA: If we hit white people we don't check whether they are women or men.

MR WARNER: Are you telling this ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: And you don't check whether they have had military training or not?

ANDILE SHICEKA: That is correct.

MR WARNER: Sir, isn't that one of the characteristics of racism, is that a particular group of people are seen as being all the same just because they are white?  In other words, just because they are white they all had military training, they were all oppressors, is that not racist?

ANDILE SHICEKA: We must also remember this, a white man is an oppressor, we were oppressed by white people and that is why we were hitting white people.