Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-10-28

ADV SANDI: I think you do not understand - you have not understood the question Mr Madasi.  In an operation like this, I take it that you were concerned that it would have to be successful, not so?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: Correct, so what is your question?

ADV SANDI: Now, if you use a stolen vehicle, isn't there a chance that you could be apprehended by the police even before you undertake the operation?  Surely the owner of the car would go to the police station to lay a charge and the police give chase after you and they find you with those arms even before you go and attack the Heidelberg Tavern as you were intending to do?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: I will try to answer this question as follows:  They did not know where we were going with the car and what we were going to do, we just told them that we were going to hit the oppressors.  Where we were going to do it or how we were going to do it, they did not know.  It would have been difficult for the police to know our whereabouts - that is how I will answer your question.

ADV SANDI: I hear what you say but why not take the car back to the owner once you have finished what you wanted to do with the car?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: The place where we left the car at reflected a respect for the people - for the owners.  We did not know whether they had gone to the police, this is why we left the car there.  The owner got the car back in good condition.

ADV SANDI: Did you contact them by telephone or whatever means to let them know that you have returned the car and you've dumped it somewhere?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: There was no chance to do that.

ADV SANDI: Okay, thank you Mr Madasi.

JUDGE WILSON: So why did you take the key of the car with you?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: First of all, the reason why I took the key - I don't know the people in the area well or what they will do with the car, I could not leave the key next to the car - that's why I took the keys with.

CHAIRPERSON: Well ...[inaudible] purpose of the question, the real purpose of the question was - you had borrowed this man's car or rather taken his car, used it, why did you not return it to him?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: I think I've already answered this question.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] for my sake, why did you not return the car to the individual from whom you had taken it?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: The same question that I'd answered.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]  I'd like to know why didn't you have the decency to return the car to the owner?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: We didn't have time or a fair chance to return the car to the owner and we did not know whether these people had gone to the police to report this matter, this is why we abandoned the car.  We showed respect by not damaging the car - I hope I've answered your question.

ADV SANDI: Next time when we ask you questions, you must not say: "I've answered that question before", Mr Madasi, you must simply
answer the questions as we ask you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior?

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Madasi, you say you received training in the Transkei before you joined APLA or was it after you joined APLA that you received the training?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: After I joined APLA.

MR PRIOR: And that was in 1992, is that right?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: Correct.

MR PRIOR: Can you - how long before the Heidelberg attack was that - that you had joined APLA?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: A year and a few months.

MR PRIOR: Thank you.  You say your instructions before the Heidelberg attack were simply that you were to carry out this attack, you were following orders and you said in your evidence a short while ago
"We were told we were going to hit the oppressors"
Is that correct?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: Yes, I was told that we were going to hit the White man who took our land, who oppressed us - where we were going to hit them, I was not told at the time.

MR PRIOR: Did you understand that you were going to kill White men on that evening?  Is that your understanding?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: Yes, I was told that we were going to hit the White man - everybody knows who the oppressor was.

MR PRIOR: And did the White man also include young women as well?  For example university students, was that included in your understanding - were they included?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: According to the education I received, the battle within - the battle APLA was lodging was fighting the oppressor, who you were or what you were was irrelevant, if you were an oppressor we would fight against you.

MR PRIOR: Please explain to this Committee how the patrons at Heidelberg on that evening - and we know it was a mixed audience with Black people, Coloured people, Indian people and White people - predominantly young students, how did they fit into your description of the oppressor?  Could you answer that question please?

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: I've never been to the Heidelberg Tavern before then, it was the first time I went there - the night of the incident.  I saw no young people or children, I don't know the tavern well.

MR PRIOR: Please answer the question.  On your own version now you admitted going into the premises, shooting at least one person who you saw moving in the tavern.

VUYISILE LEBRAN MADASI: I'm an APLA soldier, I obey orders.  I was told that an order is an order.  I was given an order, I didn't go there to assess the situation.  I had to carry out the mission, I obeyed an order from my senior.

MR PRIOR: Would you agree that the statement that was prepared on your behalf yesterday, made no mention of you entering into the tavern?

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, can I object to that being raised with the witness?  These statements were obviously given to assist us on a "without prejudice" basis, it wasn't before the Committee, it wasn't placed before the witness for him to comment on it, it was my draft.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] to ask whether the draft is correct or not.  Let him answer that.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, I corrected that I pointed out this morning before I started with the witness that I wish to effect certain amendments to the statement ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You did, you did.

NORMAN ARENDSE: No, no, I mean otherwise I must give evidence - did I misunderstand my instructions, did he not tell me?  I don't think it's fair to put it to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that the corrections you made related to paragraph 7 only of the statement, isn't it?

NORMAN ARENDSE: Well the paragraph 7 is the one - if I'm not mistaken, that Mr Prior intends to refer to because it doesn't mention him, it confirms the role that Gqomfa had given - the task that he had given him to fire the rifle grenade.  It doesn't mention him going inside the tavern and in that - I think that is what Paddy is going to deal with.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, one will notice page 23 of the bundle, Mr Madasi's application which was made for amnesty and dated the 3rd of March 1997 of this year, gave absolutely no detail of what occurred at Heidelberg as he was enjoying to do.  It was at a late stage - as of yesterday that a draft statement that was going to be his submission or his evidence, was handed to me.
	Now it's clear that up until that stage, those must have been the instructions he had given to his legal representatives.  It must have been his submissions he intended to give.  My line of questioning I submit, is a legitimate one because after hearing Mr Gqomfa's categorical denial that any - on his version, any of them entered the premises and after we had seen the video and also seen that the cartridges which had been ejected from the firearm were very close to the bodies, Mr Madasi now obviously has changed either his instructions to his legal representative or his changed his submissions and I submit that I'm entitled - ought to be entitled to cross-examine him on this change.