Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-09-07

DEPOUTCH ELESE: I will go against that in these reasons.  Because they want to claim now a victory around the whole thing and get a political side because the applicant didn't prove to us that there were people who have been attacked by a gangster in Crossroads.  There was no name whom you mentioned saying that so and so was attacked by a gangster in Crossroads, so and so was attacked by a gangster in Crossroads and each and every gangster have a name.
	He didn't even say it was Americans, Chicago's and etc.  He was keeping on saying it was a gang.  As a person who was staying next to Crossroads, a road which divides, he should know everything that is happening in Crossroads.
	Even if you cannot read papers, even if you cannot, you are not watching the TV, by mere fact people are talking in and out, and as a member of a political organisation, which is claiming, you are eligible to attend meetings, general meetings of your Branch and everything, it is being reported to your Branch.  
	Me, I was a member of MK.  50 percent was politically and 50 percent was military, because as a soldier, in the liberation movement, you have to understand the politics.  Each and every attack which you are doing, you have to be given a motivation why you have to carry that particular incident, so that at the end of the day, it must be linked with the politics.
	In this instance, he is keeping on saying the order was that to attack a gangster, who was attacking PAC members.  As a person who was staying opposite the road, he should know how many people have been attacked by the gangster, and he is supposed to gather information himself as a person.  Are these gangsters armed, what arms are they having, these gangsters?  Are they having knives, are they having firearms?  He is supposed to know that, but in this instance he didn't come up with those information to this TRC so the TRC can believe on him based on the facts which he is putting on the table, but he was keeping on saying, the instruction which he got, is to kill people, is to attack and even on those instructions, there was an instruction that said that they have to defend themselves, but when he was answering, he was giving information which is contradictory from one another.  That is why I am saying the whole thing, it was not a political thing, but it was only a gun for hire.

MS GOSO: Mr Elese, these proceedings are not finished yet.  I would like to hear you saying that if this information is provided later on in the hearing and with the applicant having expressed his regret with you as he has done, you would be willing to forgive?  Would you?  If you are provided with the information which members of the PAC organisation were attacked, during the course of these hearings, if that information is given to you, that is number one.
	Number two, if you read applicant's affidavit, he is saying there his instruction was to follow Tinage to a certain house.  He had no knowledge who lived in the house.  He thought in his own mind that this is where the gangsters would be, and it is in that context that I understand him extending his apology to you.  If you are provided with this information, would you be able to forgive Mr Elese?

DEPOUTCH ELESE: I cannot forgive because one, the information which he is going to be providing, he has to prove to me that Tinage was not a member of the ANC, because in my understanding Tinage was a member of the ANC and he knows our family.
	Not only me and also this Victor Sam who brought the bag, he knows our family.  That is why I said we will need at the end of the day, also them to come and say to this, to come and testify to this Commission, say publicly that our family was a gangster, because they know our family and even me, I know them personally, even before the incident occurred.
	Both of them, in the 1980's, I went schooling with them unfortunately.  That is why they have to come up and explain to the TRC that our family was a gangster.

CHAIRPERSON: Beside Tinage, who else?

DEPOUTCH ELESE: It is Victor Sam which has been written here.  I know him personally.  I went with him schooling in the 1980's.  He cannot come publicly and say our family was a gangster and they were staying in Crossroads, both of them in Section 4, where Mr Jeffery Nongwe was staying.
	They were serving also in that Branch as members of the ANC at that time.  Unfortunately Mr Sam, he was working with Pauli at one place in the electricity thing, firm.  That is why in my mind I cannot figure these things.

DR TSOTSI: Mr Elese, as I understand the evidence of the applicant, he doesn't say that your family were gangsters.  He says he was led to a house which he believed genuinely to be occupied by gangsters.  He himself has no personal knowledge of that fact that in fact, gangsters lived there.  He was led there by somebody else who was supposed to know.
	He is the one who is before this tribunal at the time.  Now, what is it going to help to call the other people to prove that your family is not a gangster?  Nobody is likely to come here and say your family is a gangster in any event.
	I think we should just concentrate on the evidence of the applicant, what he says and whether you believe him.  If you say that I believe that he must have known that they were coming to kill my people at our house, you must say so.  He has told the Committee here that he didn't know, he was led by somebody who was supposed to know.

DEPOUTCH ELESE: In that instance, I can say if you are living in a township, a road opposite another township, everything which is happening on the other side, you have to know.  As me standing here, I know what is happening in Nyanga, I know the gangsters who are there.
	I even happen to know even things which are happening even in Gugs, which is far from Crossroads.  Because as a member of the organisation, you are having meetings.   You are having Branch meetings and all the Branches are being met and you are being briefed what is happening to each and every particular township.
	At this instance, it is supposed to work the same in the PAC.  What is happening in your neighbour, you are supposed to know, but in this testifying, the applicant he said he doesn't attend meetings of his own political organisation.
	That shows to us he was not serious to be that particular member of the organisation, because as a member, as a loyal member, you are supposed to attend meetings of the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: But I think that you must draw a distinction between whether he is a loyal member, whether he is a painstaking member, or whether he is just a nominal member, that follows the organisation, whatever the organisation decides.
	He probably takes no part in the decision making process of his organisation, but he is just a hanger on of the organisation, that could be so, you see?  My colleague here puts it to you on this basis.
	He is not saying that your family were gangsters, he merely says his instructions were to attack the gangsters, because gangsters were attacking PAC members.  He was taken to a house and he was told that this is where the gangsters were.  That is the basis on which his case rests, do you understand?
	He relies on Tinage as the man who led them to this house.  Tinage is not here, we don't know whether that is the truth, we don't know whether Tinage was at your house on that day or not.  So there are gaps.  We have to listen to his story and we are listening to you, but I think that because you are well informed about your organisation, because you are a publicly interested man, there is a likelihood that you are better informed than he would be.  He has had a modicum of education, maybe he doesn't follow the gossip in that area well, and so on, we make some allowances for that.
	Is there anything new that you would like to get from this witness Ms Goso?

MS GOSO: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS GOSO