Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — UNKNOWN

<UNKNOWN>: leaders and members. I joinedthe aforementioned group. Is that part of your statement, is that correct?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes, it is true.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now, is it that Task Group thattook part in the attack on the St James church on that Sunday?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: No, it is not the Task Group, it is not the Task Force, it is

<UNKNOWN>: PL

<UNKNOWN>: .

NORMAN ARENDSE: Is there a difference between the Task Group and

<UNKNOWN>: PL

<UNKNOWN>: unit?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes, there is a difference.

NORMAN ARENDSE: What is that difference?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Task Force is one of the P

<UNKNOWN>: alliances that was formed to protectthe P

<UNKNOWN>: from the

<UNKNOWN>: ranch originals to the National level?

CHAIRPERSON: What?The

<UNKNOWN>: ranch originals?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: From

<UNKNOWN>: ranch level to the National level,protecting the P

<UNKNOWN>: members.

NORMAN ARENDSE: So would it be correct to saythat the functions of this Task Group or Force was different from the functionor task of an

<UNKNOWN>: PL

<UNKNOWN>: unit when it is put into operation?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now, later on still on page 5, by way of explaining, youremember you were arrested with this bag?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now you explained that you got this bag from Siphiwe Makweso on the 5th of

<UNKNOWN>: ugust1993 at the Nyanga taxi rank, do you remember saying that in court?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now, was that correct, was that the truth?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: No, it was not the truth.

NORMAN ARENDSE: You also say in your plea explanationthat you were not a participant in the St James attack, was that the truth?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: No, it was not the truth.

NORMAN ARENDSE: If you can turn topage 6 at the top? You say there that at the time of the attack you were a standard8 school boy at the Lulhaza High School, is that correct?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes,I was a student.

NORMAN ARENDSE: The next part you say that you were nota member of

<UNKNOWN>: PL

<UNKNOWN>: or the military wing of any other political organisation andthat you do not believe that it is the policy of the P

<UNKNOWN>: to perpetrate suchacts, was that the truth or was that correct?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: No, it was notthe truth.

<UNKNOWN>: nd then the plea ends by you saying that atthe time you were with your girlfriend Francis Shally in

<UNKNOWN>: rossroads. Was thatthe truth?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: No, it was not the truth.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Infact, Mr Makoma, the court found that you were an untruthful witness duringthe trial, is that correct?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes.

NORMAN ARENDSE: You agreewith that finding?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes, I agree but not in everything.

ADVARENDSE: Okay. We will try and deal with the not everything part now. Mr

<UNKNOWN>: hairman, my learned friend Mr

<UNKNOWN>: rink suggests that I should suggest to you thatperhaps it is appropriate to take a short break.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjournfor 15 minutes.

<UNKNOWN>: OMMISSION

<UNKNOWN>: DJOURNS FOR 15 MINUTES -

CHAIRPERSON: Mr

<UNKNOWN>: rendse, you may proceed.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Thank you Mr

<UNKNOWN>: hairman. Mr Makoma,can I refer you to page 7 of the bundle that you have there. Now, page 7, 8and 9 purports to be a statement which was taken from you. The date on page7 on the top, right hand side, is 14

<UNKNOWN>: ugust 1993, do you remember that?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: I do see it.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now, if I can just refer the

<UNKNOWN>: ommitteeand my colleagues to page 48 of the record in regard to this statement whichI have referred to Mr Makoma, the Judge, Judge Marais in the criminal case saidthat and I quote from line 6 onwards that we were not satisfied that it hadbeen proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deprivation of sleep and the persistentand continuous interrogation which immediately preceded the making of the statementto Lester, played no significant causative role in the accused's decision tomake the statement. It is for those reasons that the statements made to Lesterwere ruled to be inadmissible. Do you remember the Judge ruling that the statementwhich I've referred you to and which is on pages 7, 8 and 9, that that statementwas not accepted into evidence by the court?

<UNKNOWN>: re you talkingabout the one in front of me?

NORMAN ARENDSE: The one in front of you.

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now, we are here before the

<UNKNOWN>: mnesty

<UNKNOWN>: ommitteefor you to reveal the true facts of what happened at the incident, when it tookplace, before the incident, during the incident and after the incident, do youaccept that?

<UNKNOWN>: an you please repeat what you have just said?

ADVARENDSE: I am asking you do you accept that you are here before the

<UNKNOWN>: mnesty

<UNKNOWN>: ommittee to say to the

<UNKNOWN>: ommittee exactly what happened before the incidenttook place at St James, what happened during the incident and what happenedafter the incident?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes.

<UNKNOWN>: nd do you acceptthat you must tell the truth about all those things to the

<UNKNOWN>: ommittee?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now, it is for that reason that I want totake you through this statement even though the court ruled that it was notacceptable to the court. Now, in the statement there is a constant referenceto a person called Vusi. Do you see that? In the statement there is constantreference to Vusi.

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes.

NORMAN ARENDSE: There is also referenceto

<UNKNOWN>: assie and it is spelt

<UNKNOWN>: hasi, do you see that?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes, I cansee it.

NORMAN ARENDSE: On page 8 there is also reference to

<UNKNOWN>: ubrey, yes?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes, I can see that one too.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now, it may be putto you or suggested to you that notwithstanding the fact that the criminal courtruled this statement inadmissible, notwithstanding that fact, that ruling wason technical grounds as it were, but and this is the point I want to make, butthat what is in the statement is really what happened before, during and afterthe incident. What would your response be to such a proposition? That what iscontained in the statement is really what happened before, during and afterthe incident?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: No, it is not exactly it.

NORMAN ARENDSE: How did this statement come about?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: What happened is this,when I was arrested the policeman had already had their own information. Theyalready knew about the unit of

<UNKNOWN>: PL

<UNKNOWN>: that was present at that moment and whowas the

<UNKNOWN>: ommander. They already knew about the attack that happened. The names

<UNKNOWN>: ubrey and

<UNKNOWN>: hasi, they knew about them. Even my name too.

<UNKNOWN>: ut how did they findthem, I don't know. Some of the things, most of them, they questioned me aboutwere the things that were asking me, forcing me to say. So I was forced to acceptthose things. The ones that I know and the ones that I don't know. So undersuch circumstances I decided that instead of dying in the police cells, I mustmake my own story. The one that could be closer to what they are telling meto do. So that is how the statement came about.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now, thecourt in your trial also rejected your allegations that you were amongst otherthings, assaulted before or during making this statement or while making thestatement, the court rejected your allegations in that regard, do you rememberthat?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes, I do remember.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Well, what isthe true position then?