TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION AMNESTY … AMNESTY HEARING TRANSCRIPTS - Page 1 of 199 TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION AMNESTY HEARING TRANSCRIPTS

TRC AMNESTY HEARING TRANSCRIPTS - http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/index.html Page 1 of 199

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

AMNESTY HEARING TRANSCRIPTS

JOHANNESBURG - 6 (8 - 10 June 1998)

Hlasa, Mporeng, Thadaku PART 1, PART 2, PART 3



AMNESTY HEARING

DATE: 8TH JUNE 1998

NAME: PITSO JOSEPH HLASA

APPLICATION NO: 2739/96

DAY: 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, this is the resumed hearing of the matter of Hlasa,

Mphoreng and Thandakubona. You'll remember it was heard in April this year but

was aborted by reason of fact that the microphones and hearing machinery wasn't

working properly. I think a little bit of evidence was lead but it was virtually

unintelligible and I think you Mr Chairman, decided to virtually start today day

novo.

The next of kin are now represented by Mr Ameen who will put himself on record.

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman, I appear for the next of kin in this application. My

name is Saleh Ameen: S-A-L-E-H

A-M-E-E-N.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you start all over again please?

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman, I appear for the next of kin of the parties involved in

this matter. May name is Saleh Ameen. For the record, I act on instructions of the

Legal Aid Board.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, let's just formalise it. Today is the 8th of June 1998,

resuming the applications of:

Pitso Joseph Hlasa, spelt: H-L-A-S-A, application

number 2739/96

Motlana Atasios Mphoreng, spelt:

M-P-H-O-R-E-N-G, application number 2740/96

Mxolisi Ernest Thandakubona, spelt:


T-H-A-N-D-A-K-U-B-O-N-A, application number

2745/96

Mr Tloubatla, you are appearing for all the applicants?

MR TLOUBATLA: I'm appearing for all the applicants, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

Mr Ameen, we are starting now, only now at a quarter to twelve because you had

wanted to consult with your clients by reason of the fact that you got instructions

some time last week. Are you now ready to proceed or what is the position.

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman, I got instructions very late on Thursday and these

were confirmed again on Friday. I was not able to consult with my clients over the

weekend. I have started consulting with them, I have taken statements from them. I

was busy going through the application, a copy of which was provided to me in the

middle of the morning today. I have not completed that process yet but I'm happy

for the evidence to be led and once

the applicants have completed their evidence, I will then cross-examine them after

I have consulted with my clients in order not to hold up the proceedings for the

morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, do you have a problem with that?

MR BRINK: No, I don't.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla?

MR TLOUBATLA: I do not have any problem Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we will then proceed on that basis. Mr Tloubatla?

MR TLOUBATLA: I thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I will start by

leading Mr Hlasa, Mr Pitso Joseph Hlasa. He is Sotho speaking, I don't knew

whether there is an interpreter.

PITSO JOSEPH HLASA: (sworn states)

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Hlasa, you are one of the applicants in this matter. Firstly I

will go through your statement that you submitted to the TRC and then we'll go, I'll

lead you therein.

In paragraph 1 of your statement - that will page 4 of the bundle Mr Chairman, you

say that:


"The political conflict between AZAPO and the UDF, the United

Democratic Front, had reached unprecedented levels in 1986. The

conflict started in the Eastern Cape"

Can you briefly tell the Committee firstly what happened in the Eastern Cape. You

say that it started in the Eastern Cape and it reached unprecedented levels. What

happened in the Eastern Cape?

MR HLASA: Yes, I have mentioned earlier on that there was a problem in the

Eastern Cape and that was in 1985, between AZAPO and the UDF. Members of

AZAPO were accused in many ways. It was about ideological differences between

AZAPO and UDF.

Now the main issue was the exclusion of whites by AZAPO and UDF on the other

hand felt that the white people might be of help in the struggle but this then spread

because of the Cradock 4 who disappeared. There were now accusations that the,

the conflict started just there until the conflict spread to Gauteng in early 1986.

MR TLOUBATLA: In, that is where you were staying, you were staying in

Soweto at the time? Where you staying in Soweto at the time?

MR HLASA: Yes, I stayed in Soweto at that time.

MR TLOUBATLA: Can you briefly outline, you know give us a brief outline of

the conflict around Soweto at that time, what was happening and how did you

conduct yourselves. Was there any violence, what happened?

MR HLASA: When this started in Soweto there were certain areas that were

controlled by UDF and some were controlled by AZAPO. For instance my area

which is Orlando East was predominantly controlled by BCMA and even the high

schools. I'm now referring to Bona Orlando High, Silelekela and Lufenze Girls

School.

Most students were not members but because the school was situation in an area

controlled by BCMA, we used to have meetings. I remember at one stage the then

Transvaal President of AZAPO. He was a teacher, and his presence there helped a

lot and there were other areas then like Diepkloof and Orlando West and these

were predominantly ...[indistinct] and there were areas that we shared, like Dlamini

1 and Dlamini 2. They were Black Consciousness Movement and others were

UDF.

Now after this tension has reached Soweto it was quite difficult for one to leave his

own area to go to another. I would not leave my area and go to Diepkloof. Yes, I

would do that under certain circumstances, wearing just private clothes, not any

organisation's clothes.


Now there was a problem in Dlamini. There were fights and comrade George

Oukop's house was attacked. He was the Secretary General at that time. We found

ourselves having formed a group to go and assist because in Orlando, I mentioned

earlier on that we were Black Consciousness Movements, there was not threat as

such, like in other places.

CHAIRPERSON: You mustn't be too fast because we are trying to write what you

are saying.

MR TLOUBATLA: You also mentioned that some of you were permanently

displaced by this violence, can you elaborate on that? Were you personally

displaced and then when you say displaced, can you just explain what you mean?

MR HLASA: When I refer to permanently being displaced, there were some

comrades that I can mention like Thebogong Komezulu. His house was burnt and

Lerato, I do not remember Lerato's surname, they were in Zola. Lerato was a

member of AZAPO.

It happened that we tried to accommodate them in Orlando because their areas

were fighting, for instance Dlamini and Sinawani and Alexandra. We held camps

in Orlando for the sake of accommodating them so that they can have shelter over

their heads, trying to find food for them so they don't starve. Those people were

permanently displaced, they did not have homes.

Now the main reason again for these camps was to protect because when we

walked one by one we found ourselves in problems during the attacks, that is the

meaning of displaced, permanently displaced.

MR TLOUBATLA: These camps that you are talking about, how were they run? I

want you to explain the camps. In other words, in the camps what did you do and

who was in the camps?

MR HLASA: The displaced comrades and local comrades would be in these

camps. The camps were made for the sole reason of protection and we tried to

make the comrades understand what the policy of the organisation was. It was not

for us to out and attack the people, we had sit a certain spot and defend ourselves,

not to leave.

Political education was also involved. We were engaged in many other activities of

the organisation, that we would not engage in when we are not together. Those

were the activities at the camps.

MR TLOUBATLA: How big were the camps? In fact, let me put it this way, how

many camps do you know of and how big were the camps, in other words in terms

of people who were inside the camps?


MR HLASA: These are not the military camps as such, these are houses. For

instance, the community of Orlando East was very sympathetic and there were

houses that we used.

In some of these houses you'd find that, well some of us stayed at our homes but at

night we would be 40 but when we disperse at night about 15 members would be

left behind. I can count at least five houses in Orlando East where such camps were

conducted. During the day we would be in large numbers.

Some of us who resided in Orlando East would be together during the day and at

night we would leave for our homes. If you felt very secure to sleep at your house

you were entitled to do that.

MR TLOUBATLA: And what was the specific reason for camping as you were

camping, what was the main reason for people to have to come together to come

and protect themselves?

MR HLASA: The main reason to conduct these camps was to defend ourselves as

such from the UDF. Many people were attacked at night, many houses in Dlamini

were attacked at night. Houses in Zola were attacked at night. Comrades were

arrested if they were found in smaller groups, for instance one or two but if you are

in a large group you are in a position to defend yourself.

The other thing that was done in the camps was the political education as I've

already eluded earlier on, to carry forward the aspirations of the organisation. That

is basically that, yes to take forward the programmes of the organisation and to

protect ourselves from the UDF.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean by saying: "Comrades in small groups would

be arrested"?

MR HLASA: Not to be arrested as such. If we are two and we want to go to

Diepkloof and one recognises you, that you are a member of AZAPO, you would

land in danger. They would capture you and anything could have happened at the

time, they might have killed you, interrogate you, comrades from the UDF and its

alliances, SOYKO and SOSCO.

MR TLOUBATLA: You also mentioned that the homes were burnt down and so

on, do you know of any specific homes or parents that were either subjected to this

violence or homes that were burnt down?

MR HLASA: Yes. I said already that Thebogong Komezulu's house was burnt and

Lerato's home was also burnt. Ghots Lingani's home was very lucky because

information leaked before they could come and burn the house, then we organised

ourselves and we camped at that house.


To verify whether it was truth, the whole issue of attack was true, we went to

Moletsane High and we indeed found them. They were quite a few of them. We

went back to the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just a minute. I think you should allow your counsel to

lead you. The question which he asked you was: "Give examples of houses which

were burnt" and to which you should have said: "Komezulu's house, Lerato's

house, Lingani's house" and then wait for him to guide you.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you take charge of your client and direct him according.

MR TLOUBATLA: I thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Because he is just flowing and we have difficulties in following

him.

MR TLOUBATLA: You also mentioned - on page 5 Mr Chairman, of the bundle. I

think it's paragraph 3 there"

"Meetings were held in vain regarding the violence"

Do you know of any meetings? Did you attend any meetings and who were the

people who were attending those meetings?

MR HLASA: Yes, there were meetings that I attended. I explained in my

application that I remember very well there were many people, Mr Aubrey

Mkwena who resided in Orlando East was member of the UDF and there were

several meetings with him. I remember Mrs Sesulu, she worked at Doctor Asvat's

surgery. There were meetings there as well.

People such as Seti Mzibuko and Amanda Kwadi were discussing this whole issue.

The person who spoke on behalf of the Dlamini people was Kenneth Fitla. Now

there were meetings held on different times, discussing this issue. I remember our

leadership talking to Mr Tutu when this spread from Eastern Cape, so that this can

come to an end but it didn't.

MR TLOUBATLA: On page 6, paragraph 3, you are saying that - page number 6

of the bundle you are saying that:

"It was the policy of our organisation to avoid retaliation

at all costs, however my attitude changed completely

after the death of comrade Sipho Komezulu in Zola"

Can you briefly just tell us about the death of Komezulu, what happened?


CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to interrupt you and go back to paragraph 3. What was

the purpose of these meetings?

MR HLASA: It was to get rid of the violence that existed. It appeared that there

was no relationship between UDF and ourselves with regards to politics. They

must have been aware at that time that the local struggle can be fought with whites

included and it was not our vision, we saw whites as part of the problem but you

must understand then that this violence had left Port Elizabeth and it was now

spreading to our area. Now the main issue here was the difference in ideology.

...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: The meeting was between which group and which group?

MR HLASA: Between UDF and AZAPO.

CHAIRPERSON: Now these people that you mention here, from which grouping

were they? You've just spoken about Archbishop Tutu for a while.

MR HLASA: Ja. These were members of the UDF. Mr Aubrey Mkwena, Mrs

Sesulu, Amanda Gwadi, Seti Mazibuko. SOSCO was a subsidiary of UDF,

SOSCO was following the characteristic ideology.

CHAIRPERSON: So these people were from UDF and/or its affiliates or its

associates?

MR HLASA: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the purpose of this meeting then to try and bring peace

between your organisation and its affiliates or associates on the one hand and the

UDF and its associates or affiliates on the other hand?

MR HLASA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did it then succeed in doing that? Did the meeting then succeed

in doing bringing about peace?

MR HLASA: No, it did not because these meetings took place at the leadership

level. I do not believe that the grassroots level of these two organisations

understood exactly what was taking place up there but what I believe was

discussed up there was not put into practice down here.

CHAIRPERSON: So the conflict continues, the meetings notwithstanding?

MR HLASA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?


MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Sorry, just before you proceed, may I just ask, at these meetings,

you said you were present, who were the leadership of AZAPO present at these

meetings?

MR HLASA: Let me start at the meeting held at DOCC in Orlando East. I

remember well Mr Mabaso was there, comrade Jefferson Lingani was there,

comrade Sisi Baloi, I think she was the administrative secretary of the

organisation, she was present. There was a meeting held at Doctor Asvat's surgery

in Dlamini. The late Tiny Motlago was present at that meeting, comrade Sam

Siyema was present. I do not remember the others very well because this took

place many years ago but I have given you a few names of those who were present

at these meetings.

MR MALAN: And you were present at both meetings?

MR HLASA: I was present at these that I've mentioned but not as part of the

leadership.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR TLOUBATLA: You have mentioned specifically two meetings, are these the

only meetings that were held with the leadership of both organisations or were

there more meetings?

MR HLASA: There were more meetings held at the national leadership level but

they were not futile.

CHAIRPERSON: They were futile?

MR HLASA: They were not of importance.

MR TLOUBATLA: On paragraph 6, there is a paragraph numbered 3 there, you

say that:

"It was the policy of the organisation to avoid retaliation

at all costs"

When you say there was a policy to avoid retaliation, were there any specific

instructions to avoid retaliation and from whom did such orders come from, that

you must not retaliate?

MR HLASA: I remember the late comrade Muntu Miyeza addressed us and he told

us not to try and attack the comrades in the UDF, he said we must wait for the


leadership to give an instruction so that we can act thereafter but the whole

leadership of AZAPO and AZAZIM discouraged us from retaliating.

You will understand that many comrades who died in Soweto were members of the

BCM. It was because we didn't retaliate, we always waited for the leadership to

hold meetings and come back to report. It has been the policy of the organisation

not to act without instructions from the leadership.

MR TLOUBATLA: You also mentioned that your turning point was after the

death of comrade Sipho Komezulu in Zola:

"This funeral became our turning point, for me and the

others who always advocated for retaliation and attack

as the best form of defence"

Now can you briefly just tell us what happened? How did comrade Sipho

Komezulu die or meet his death and then what happened at his funeral?

MR HLASA: Many things were committed by members of the UDF and we just

ignored them. Sipho Komezulu was on his way to work and he was kidnapped. He

was working for a trade union in Nuhaza. He was kidnapped in the morning and it

was only after a few days that he was discovered. He was brutally murdered and

his corpse was covered with stones.

I say it's a turning point because it was the first comrade to be brutally killed.

While organising for his funeral in Zola, I was out with, it was after the night vigil

on the day of the funeral, when we came back comrade Komezulu's coffin was

burnt, it was thrown in the street, there were no mourners and the fence was down

and this affected me a lot.

I did not understand how it came about that a person be killed and to be killed the

second time in the coffin on the day of the funeral. We went to the graveyard

Avelon. We left with this partly burnt coffin to bury him. We came back after the

ceremony and we walked through Tladi Molesani. The comrades from the UDF

attacked us because we were now going back home and there was no convoy

anymore, they attacked us.

The car that was severely attacked was one that was transporting the late Martin

Mohau. He had been released a few months before the funeral and he was also

brutally killed on the same day of the funeral. We lost Martin Mohau. He'd just

been released a few months from Robben Island.

Myself, I realised that the position of the organisation not to retaliate would not be

of any assistance to me because I've witnessed people dying brutally and we've

been waiting for the leadership to tell us what steps to take. On the other hand the

UDF was continuing with the series of attacks, now this was my turning point.


MR TLOUBATLA: You also mentioned there that you were attack by SOSCO

members. These people, how did you know that they were SOSCO members?

Were you able to identify them?

MR HLASA: In those days you'd identify a person and his organisation by the type

of songs they sang. You'd be in a position to tell that these are UDF or these are

AZAPO because songs that are normally sung are those belittling the other

organisation.

There were UDF T-shirts, they were RMC, Release Mandela Campaign T-shirts,

SOSCO T-shirts, AZASO and SOSCO T-shirts, those were associates of UDF. So

we identified by those T-shirts and we identified by the songs. We also identified

them by their locality. If I was in Kladi I would know that this is a stronghold of

UDF.

MR TLOUBATLA: You were burying one of your comrades, that is Sam

Komezulu and then you are coming back from the funeral and then another

members is attacked, Martin Mohau is attacked and killed but why did you not, or

did anybody approach the police regarding these matters?

MR HLASA: I do not know anything about the police. I don't know whether

anyone reported this to the police but there were reporters always because you'd

even see incidents in the newspapers. I don't know how the police got hold of the

information, whether it was the parents who reported or the organisation, I do not

really know.

MR TLOUBATLA: Now coming to the specific act for which you are applying for

amnesty ...[intervention]

ADV BOSMAN: Might I just come in here with a question to clarify?

MR TLOUBATLA: Certainly.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hlasa, you spoke about the meetings that were held between

the two leadership, were these meetings held after your comrade - if I can just get

his name, was killed or was it soon after that or before that time? Do you

remember?

MR HLASA: It was before the killing. The conflict was still in the Eastern Cape, it

was not yet in the Transvaal.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Hlasa, now coming to this incident for which you are

applying for amnesty, do you remember the date on which the four members, the

four young men were killed?


MR HLASA: I do not remember the date but I think it was in 1986 in August.

MR TLOUBATLA: Did you at that time know the names of the people that were

killed?

MR HLASA: I did not know them. I only knew them when I got hold of this

document.

MR TLOUBATLA: Alright. Can you in detail now tell us how you got into the

whole incident, where it started, what you did and so on? Just start from the time

when you started being involved in this attack.

MR HLASA: Comrade Jefferson Lingani stayed in Orlando West and we got a

report that his house was attacked and burnt with petrol bombs. He was in Orlando

West, he came down to Orlando East where we had our camps and he got hold of a

few comrades and they went back to clean the remains of the burnt house.

There was also an anticipation of a further attack. Now they armed ...[intervention]

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Hlasa, just slow down, don't be so fast.

MR HLASA: Okay.

MR TLOUBATLA: You say who came to report to you about Mr Lingani's house?

MR HLASA: He personally came to Orlando East the following morning to report

that his house had been burnt. He came to Orlando East because he knew there

were camps and he would be assisted and he told the comrades and they went to

clean the remains.

MR TLOUBATLA: Did you personally go and - I mean, did you go to his house to

go and clean that house?

MR HLASA: I did not got. I stayed behind because I was fixing a car, the clutch

plate was not functional.

MR TLOUBATLA: And do you know which people went to go and assist in the

cleaning of the house of Mr Lingani?

MR HLASA: I know some of them, Motlana, Spieu, Kanu and Kadelolelanga, the

brother to Jeff. Those were the members. I do not know who else was with them.

MR TLOUBATLA: Alright. So you remained behind, you were fixing your car

and what happened next?

MR HLASA: At about half past two to 3 o'clock if I remember very well, Nkolisi,

Speedo and Kabelo came to me. They told me that they had been to Jeff's place and


now they were back to come and wash but they caught up with some members,

with some culprits and they were at the DOCC.

They told me that those people were kept at the DOCC, so I should rush to see

them, then we all left and we found them at Orlando at the DOCC building. We

took them and put them into the car. We had two cars, it was a Mazda and my car,

a Chevrolet and we drove with them to Orlando West to Jefferson Lingani's house.

They were told to get inside the house. I remember that I remained behind because

the car was dirty, so I had to clean off the oil. Now the comrades took them into

the house to ask them questions.

MR TLOUBATLA: How many people were - let's say, for the want of a better

word, kidnapped in that form?

MR HLASA: Six people, there were six.

MR TLOUBATLA: Aright, and then I think they were taken into the house. You

didn't personally go into the house and then what next happened?

MR HLASA: I did not personally go into the house but I know they were being

asked questions as to who burnt the house, on whose order, such questions. I did

not ask them anything but later on I heard that a decision had been taken that these

boys were members of SOSCO and they were present when the house was burnt

and we had to take them to Showela where they would be killed because a decision

had been taken already that, yes, we are being killed. Now as AZAPO, we will

have to kill as well.

MR TLOUBATLA: Just one second, don't rush. Do you know, do you personally

know why these boys had to be interrogated at Lingani's house? What was the

purpose of interrogating them there?

MR HLASA: It was to verify that they are members of the UDF and to find out

whether they took part in the burning of Jefferson's house. That was the main

reason for interrogating them, and to find out on whose order they committed that

act.

MR TLOUBATLA: Did you personally verify whether these people were UDF

members or SOSCO members, whatever organisation? Did you, on your personal

level, did you verify that?

MR HLASA: I had a lot of confidence in the people who were interrogating them.

I did not go in because I knew that I would not tolerate asking questions, that is

why I decided to wash a car. I left everything in the hands of those who were

asking questions. Jefferson was one of the leadership and I was sure that he would

come up with a decision based on who they were and it was verified that they were


members of the UDF. The thing that I did not verify was whether they took part,

but yes, I verified that they were members of the UDF but about taking part, I did

not.

MR TLOUBATLA: So thereafter, I mean they were taken into a house, they were

interrogated, what happened next?

MR HLASA: Late, at about 5, 6 o'clock members of the leadership arrived and

they spoke to the people who conducted the interrogation to get the report from

them. At about 7 to 8 o'clock they said they must be taken and be killed. They said

we should choose our own place. We went to comrade Glen's house who was also

part of the leadership in Showela. ...[intervention]

ADV SIGODI: You mentioned that about 5 or 6 o'clock some members of the

leadership came and they spoke to the interrogators, do you know the names of

those members of the leadership who came?

MR HLASA: Yes, I remember. It was the late comrade Sam Siyema and the late

comrade Tammy Moglegwa.

ADV BOSMAN: Where were you when the leadership interrogated the victims?

MR HLASA: The interrogation took place inside the house. I was outside but in

the yard.

MR TLOUBATLA: So you remained ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just a minute. Did the leadership themselves interrogate

these people or did they just get a report from the people who had previously been

interrogating the victims?

MR HLASA: The leadership got a report but I have explained that the person

whose house was burnt was also part of the leadership. He was at the BLAKO, it

was a black ...[indistinct] union and he was in the leadership.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know, was he the only member in the leadership who

interrogated these people or did other members in the leadership also interrogate

them?

MR HLASA: He is not the only one, Kabelo Lingani was his brother and he was in

the National Executive of AZAZIM. I think he was the publicity secretary and part

of the branch leadership was also in charge.

CHAIRPERSON: Who said these people should be killed?


MR HLASA: I would not exactly say who said that they must be killed but it was

the general understanding within the organisation that if we have verified that a

person has committed an act, we can deal with him in an appropriate way.

MR MALAN: Could you please explain this to me because you say the policy was

not even to retaliate and I think you say in your statement that at that day it became

clear to you that the policy was wrong and you decided to retaliate and now you

tell us it was a general understanding in the organisation that people should be deal

with. Can you explain that to me?

MR HLASA: These things happened in different time spans. There was an

understanding within the organisation that if you feel you are under pressure and

there are people who have done something wrong you can deal with them. But

later as the attacks continued, I remember comrade Montumeza in particular, he

said:

"We do not mean you should just, you shouldn't do

anything. If you are being attacked and you are in a

position to defend yourselves, do it. Defend yourselves

in a way that will suit you". Now I do not know who

took out an order on that day but the understanding was

already there, that you should defend yourselves in any

way possible.

MR MALAN: I'm not sure that I understand you. You made it clear to us that the

policy was, that defence was not to go out attacking but sit - I think you used the

word sit in the translation, and defend yourselves, that's why you got together and

stayed together not go out.

Now this instance, if I understand you correctly, you went out to find these people,

you took them to the house, interrogated them and then killed them. Isn't that very

different from the police?

MR HLASA: It's not true, we did not go out and look for them. Well, I was not

present when they were caught but I got a report that the comrades were moving

from Orlando West to got to Orlando East to go and wash and when they were at

the turnoff at DOCC they realised that they did not buy a newspaper on that day. It

was a normal thing to read a morning as well as an afternoon newspaper, so they

wanted to go to Orlando Police Station to buy a newspaper.

On their way towards the bottle store buying a paper, they recognised - that was

the report, comrade Jefferson recognised these six boys who were part of a group

that was singing in his area, that's how they were caught. We did not go out and

hunt them, they were caught because they were seen. It is not true that we went out

for them. That is how they were caught and they were interrogated and it was part

of our defence.


CHAIRPERSON: You don't seem to understand the purpose of this question, I

must explain it to you. You see, there are two possibilities. The one possibility is

that you acted in killing these people, you did so without getting instructions or

authority from your leadership.

The other possibility is that you got such instructions from the leadership, so really,

either you got instructions from the leadership on that particular day to kill those

people or you didn't. And the question is, if you did get orders or instructions or the

go-ahead from your leadership to kill them, who were those people, who were

those people in the leadership who told you to kill these people?

MR HLASA: The leadership did not say to us: "Kill", but I have explained that

there were negotiations that failed. Now the leadership compromised and said we

should defend ourselves in any way possible so that the organisation may go on

with its activities.

On the day of this particular incident, I explained already that I was not part of the

people who interrogated the victims. The understanding that I got from the

comrades who were inside the house was that these people were going to be killed.

I had faith in my comrades, I knew that they would not take such a decision

without the concern of the leadership. Maybe the people who were inside might be

in a position to give a better explanation.

I'm saying it was a general decision but they might put it specifically, who gave

orders because I was not inside.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there a general anger following the attack on Mr Lingani's

house?

MR HLASA: Yes, but when these people were caught emotions were a little bit

down.

CHAIRPERSON: But was there still some anger?

MR HLASA: Yes, anger is anger. We wondered what was it that these people

wanted from us, it wasn't an avenge.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it so that right from the beginning when you people went

out to go and interrogate these people, the general feeling was simply that: "Well,

today we are going to kill these people"?

MR HLASA: No, it wasn't our feeling. We interrogated them to verify as to

whether they were present and they took part in the burning of the house and

whether they were members of SOSCO and on whose command they committed

the act. After the interrogation it was discovered that they were members of UDF


and then the decision was taken to revenge as members of AZAPO so that in future

no-one attacks us, no-one takes an advantage of us.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you say the decision was taken but that's what

Commissioner Malan asked you, who took that decision?

MR HLASA: I explained that the leadership came but I do not know who among

the leadership took out such an order. I was outside fixing a car.

CHAIRPERSON: So you answer is that you personally Mr Hlasa, you don't know

who took that decision, except to say that it was the leadership?

MR HLASA: That's my answer.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hlasa, who conveyed to you that these people had to be

killed, do you remember?

MR HLASA: Kani told me to start the ignition of the car because we were going to

Showela to kill these people.

CHAIRPERSON: We're not asking you who asked you to start the ignition of the

car. Committee Member Bosman's question has nothing to do with the ignition of

the car, she simply asked you: "Who told you that these people had to be killed"?

MR HLASA: It's Ikaneng.

CHAIRPERSON: Please try to speak to the questions which are being put to you,

thank you.

MR MALAN: May I just ask here again, you say that what was verified was that

they were members of UDF but do I understand you correctly that it wasn't verified

that they were indeed part of the group and it wasn't verified that they burnt the

house, simply that they were members of UDF?

MR HLASA: I was talking for myself because I asked a question: "Guys, are you

sure these are members of the UDF"?, then it was confirmed but I was not sure as

to whether they were part of the group that burnt the house.

ADV BOSMAN: Why were you not sure Mr Hlasa? What worried you that you

asked that question?

MR HLASA: I did not interrogate people, I was outside. When I asked the

question, the question was directed to a comrade who was coming outside. I asked

a comrade a question.

ADV BOSMAN: Why did you then not ask him whether they took part in the

burning of the house? I mean, that was really the important question to ask.


MR HLASA: I did not want to know whether they took part in the burning of the

house, I wanted to verify that they were members of the UDF so that we can set an

example with the members of the UDF. Not that I was acting because they took

part in the burning of the house, I was acting because they were members of the

UDF and it was the UDF that we were fighting.

ADV BOSMAN: So if you were told that they had not taken part in the burning of

the house, would you still have killed them to make an example of them? Did you

understand the question?

MR HLASA: I understand your question. As long as we had a confirmation that

they were members of the UDF, that was fine. The conflict between these two

groups was not about what you did, it was about belonging to the other

organisation. Now it wasn't the main issue. The burning of the house was not the

main issue, the main issue was being members of the UDF.

MR MALAN: Mr Hlasa, I'm not sure that I understand you again. You say you

killed them simply because they were members of the UDF, it was a question of

which organisation?

MR HLASA: I'm now telling you about my participation in the killing of these

people.

MR MALAN: Let me just take it further from that. Are you saying that you were

killing UDF members and UDF members were generally killing AZAPO members,

was that the conflict?

MR HLASA: That is what I mean.

MR MALAN: And were you part of that conflict?

MR HLASA: That is correct, I was.

MR MALAN: Was this the first killing or were you involved in other killings?

MR HLASA: This was the first to kill a person but it was not the first to defend the

comrades in other areas. We went out to places such as Randfontein, Dlamini and

Alexandra and there would be a shootout. I don't know whether people died in

those incidents but I do not remember handling people in the way we did with

these ones.

MR MALAN: And then, just a last question. Did you ever find out who gave them

the instructions to burn the house? You said you wanted to find out were they part

of the UDF, were they part of the group that burnt the house and on whose

instructions. That was the major theme of the interrogation, so did you ever find

out who they got their instructions from?


MR HLASA: I did not find out, I don't know whether other comrades did. I have

testified already that I did not interrogate them, I only verified that they were

members of the UDF.

MR MALAN: No, but if I heard you correctly you said you didn't go in with the

interrogation because you were, you felt that you wouldn't be able even to tolerate

and that's why you stayed outside, because of your anger. You weren't waiting on

the outside to just get a report, you were so angry that you clearly wanted to kill

them, if I understand your evidence correct, you wanted them to be killed, that's

why you didn't ask for any further information, simply that they were members of

the UDF, isn't that so?

MR HLASA: That is not so, I did not wait outside because of anger. I was cleaning

the car because it was full of oil. It's not anger that made me stay outside. I said I

did not even want to get inside to interrogate them because I knew they were

involved and I would not stand what was going to be said inside. I cannot say my

attitude was similar to that of other comrades.

MR MALAN: This is a new development, you say you knew that they were

involved. You didn't even want to interrogate them because you knew they were

involved, is that what you're telling us?

MR HLASA: That is not what I want to tell you. If I discovered that they were

members of the UDF, I didn't get in because I knew that if I discovered that they

were members of the UDF something would have happened.

MR MALAN: I heard the translation saying: you didn't go, you were cleaning the

oil and you didn't go in because you knew that they were involved, you had no

need of the interrogation, you knew they were involved

MR HLASA: No.

MR MALAN: That is what the interpreter said to us.

MR HLASA: I did not go inside because I was washing a car outside, that is the

first reason. The second reason, I was avoiding the fact that if I discovered that

these were members of the UDF, that was going to make me very furious, that is

my reason.


Mr Hlasa, you also told the Committee that much as this was your first killing or

an incident where people were killed, nevertheless you were involved in some

other incidents where you had to protect your members. Can you - you spoke about

Randfontein, Alexandra and I think Dlamini or something. At Dlamini, I mean at

Randfontein, who were you defending and what happened there?


MR HLASA: We had our comrades there, comrade Xlomiso was the then

President and they used to phone us and tell us that we're being attacked and we

would go and assist. Every time when we arrived we would find them in a group

and the members of the UDF would come and fight us and we would defend

ourselves. That is an incident in Randfontein.

There is yet another incident at comrade Jeff's place in Moletsani. We defended a

house that was going to be burnt because members of SOSCO arrived and they

found people inside the house, it was ourselves. I do not know whether they were

many. We shot and they dispersed.

In Alexandra we went to comrade James Chauke's house. There was fighting and

we defended the house. After we had left they came back and burnt the house. I

think the comrades were weakening just after we left.

MR TLOUBATLA: In these incidents where you were defending these properties

or the lives of these people, what used to happen? Was there just a shootout in the

streets? You know, you are just simply saying you went there, you defended, I just

want the specifics. How did the defence go about?

MR HLASA: We received a telephone call from Alexandra. Sometimes

information would leak that tonight there's going to be an attack, then we went to

Alexandra and we stayed at James Chauke's house and they arrived at night and we

had firearms. We would not even wait for them to arrive at the house, we would

shoot just to repel them. I did not aim because I was not trained in the use of

firearms, we would just shoot so that they run away. This also happened Kabelo

Lingani's home in Moletsani. If there is anyone who was injured I do not know but

we shot. I shot until the magazine was empty and they wall ran away.

MR TLOUBATLA: That is before this particular incident, was the general pattern

that you adopted? You waylaid them in a specific house and they would come and

then you'd start shooting, was that the general pattern you followed?

MR HLASA: Yes. When we had information we would be in a position to defend

the house. If we didn't get information the house would be burnt or people would

die.

CHAIRPERSON: Were there many such incidents which occurred when you had

some confrontation with members of UDF and its affiliates?

MR HLASA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And in some instances, was property damaged and/or people

killed?

MR HLASA: Yes, property was destroyed in many instances.


CHAIRPERSON: And did some of these incidents take place before the killing of

the victims, of your victims?

MR HLASA: All these activities took place before the incident that brings me

here.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see the burning of Lingani's house as part of the

continuous conflict between AZAPO and UDF and its affiliates?

MR HLASA: That is correct, it was a continuation of the conflict.

MR TLOUBATLA: Before I even continue, you personally and your family, were

you ever affected by this, by the violence?

MR HLASA: Yes. My mother relocated to East Rand, she left Soweto.

MR TLOUBATLA: What had happened when your mother was compelled to

leave Soweto to the East Rand?

MR HLASA: She was afraid of the attacks and the harassment from the Security

Branch.

MR TLOUBATLA: These attacks or counter attacks on each other, did they

always invariably happen at night or did some of the incidents happen during the

day?

MR HLASA: Many of them happened at night but I remember there was an

incident that took place at Sinawani during the day, it was around 4 or 5 o'clock.

MR TLOUBATLA: That incident, what happened at that incident that happened

during the day at four?

MR HLASA: We had a meeting at St Hilda's Church and they came to attack us.

Fortunately we had firearms and we defended ourselves, we shot and they ran

away.

MR TLOUBATLA: When you say you shot when you defended yourself, you

mean you shot, I mean you fired shots at their direction and they ran away?

MR HLASA: We shot at their direction.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then, this incident, although it happened during the day,

didn't the police intervene or something, let's say this specific one at St Hilda's

Church?


MR HLASA: The police didn't even arrive. I think the uniformed police were

aware of the situation and they were afraid of coming in but the security branch

used to come into such situations.

MR TLOUBATLA: Let's go back now to this incident at Lingani's house. The

interrogation, you say you didn't participate in the interrogation of these boys

personally, but do you know how the interrogation was conducted? Did you get

information thereafter how the interrogation was conducted?

MR HLASA: I do not know.

MR TLOUBATLA: And thereafter, after the interrogation had stopped, your

leadership had come in, what happened, where did you go?

MR HLASA: We put them in two cars and we drove to Showela at comrade Glen's

house who was part of the leadership at that time. From comrade Glen's house they

were taken in two groups. The first group, I was in the first group even though I do

not remember who the members of the first group were. We left with them and we

went to the veld. That's ...[intervention]

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Hlasa, I just want to find out something. When you

transported these people, Jeff's or Lingani's place, were is it and where did you

travel to?

MR HLASA: Jefferson Lingani's house is in Orlando West. We left Orlando West

for Showela.

MR TLOUBATLA: And the distance, what kind of distance are we talking of

between Lingani's house and Showela?

MR HLASA: Plus minus 10 kilometres.

MR TLOUBATLA: Fine. When these people were ...[indistinct] I mean, I suppose

that you were the owner of one of the cars in which they were travelling or they

were transported, you probably must have seen these boys when they were put into

your car, is that so?

MR HLASA: Yes, I saw them.

MR TLOUBATLA: Did they look normal or were they injured, were they

bleeding, were they crying, what was the, how were they?

MR HLASA: It looked like they've been assaulted.

MR TLOUBATLA: Alright, and then from Lingani's house where did you go to?

MR HLASA: Went to comrade Glen's house in Showela.


MR TLOUBATLA: Right. On your arrival there, what did you do? Did the

interrogation continue, what happened when you arrived at the destination?

MR HLASA: There was a caucus and it was discussed, the way forward and it was

decided that they should be killed immediately because it was already late.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then amongst yourselves ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The Chairperson's mike was not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is the caucus taking place, is it at Glen's house or

somewhere else?

MR TLOUBATLA: At which house did you go?

MR HLASA: The caucus was at Glen's house. I think we were in the kitchen and

they were in the dining room.

CHAIRPERSON: Why to Glen's house, why were they taken to Glen's house?

MR HLASA: I do not remember, but what I do remember is that Glen was one of

the leadership.

CHAIRPERSON: What position did he hold?

MR HLASA: He was in BLAKO as well.

ADV BOSMAN: What was your position at the time Mr Hlasa?

MR HLASA: I did not have any position, I was just a member.

ADV BOSMAN: I think in you application ...[intervention]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

ADV BOSMAN: In your application if I remember correctly, you say that you

were a general commander? If you can just go to page 1. It says there:

"State capacity in which you served in the organisation"

and I see you qualified there saying:

"From 1990"

So at that time you had no position, is that correct?


MR HLASA: I did not have a position as yet. I was still inside the country and that

was in 1986.


CHAIRPERSON: Can I ask, when I asked of Glen's position in the leadership you

said he was a member of something, what did you say?

MR HLASA: BLAKO. Black General Workers Union.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it affiliated to AZAPO?

MR HLASA: Yes, it was.

CHAIRPERSON: And firstly, what position did he hold, do you know?

MR HLASA: I do not remember, I only remember Jefferson Lingani's position. He

was the Labour Secretary of AZAPO.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we were at a point where you said you caucused there at

Glen's house and then a decision was taken that it was getting late, these people

should be killed.

MR HLASA: That's what I said. We then left to search for a sport where they

would be killed.

MR TLOUBATLA: Yes, can you proceed then, what happened?

MR HLASA: We came back and we took the first group of three. I had explained

already that I do not know their names. We left with them and we went to the veld

outside Showela. We were three and they were three, each one of us shot one of

them. I do not remember among the people we shot, who it is exactly because I

was told later that two of them survived. We went back to the house and the second

group left with the remaining three.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you in this first group who took out the deceased?

MR HLASA: Yes, I was in the first group.

CHAIRPERSON: You must tell us what happened there at the scene.

MR HLASA: We loaded them in the boot of the car and we drove to the spot and

we parked the car next to the house and we offloaded them. We had guns, each one

of us had his own gun and we took one, one from them and then we went up the

hill and we made them stand on the edge and we shot them there and they fell. We

left them and we drove back and we gave guns to the other comrades and they took

the next group. I wouldn't know then what happened with the second group.


MR TLOUBATLA: In your first group, with whom were you?

MR HLASA: I do not remember very well who the members of the first group

were. I remember that I was in the first group and I was driving but I know that the

people who shot was myself, Matlana, Kani, Speedo. I do not remember the others.

I remember the ones I've mentioned, I don't just remember in which groups we

were.

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr Hlasa, you want amnesty but you must remember

that there's a price you pay for getting amnesty if you are to get it. You've got to

tell us in particular what your role was in a particular incident.

I notice that you have the tendency of speaking in general, you have a tendency of

not telling us what you did. In your evidence you keep on saying this: "We did

this, we took the people to Glen's house, we took them out of the car, we took them

to the hill, we shot them, we went back, that is not good enough. If you - you know

for you to get amnesty, you have to embarrass yourself by publically telling us of

the horrible things you did, then so be it. That is the price you must pay if you are

to get amnesty.

And if these people have to know about the horrible things you did as an individual

then so be it, then people must hear about what you, Hlasa as an individual did.

You can't keep on using a general language and say: "We took people into the

car, we took them to the hill, we turned back". That is not good enough for the

purpose of these proceedings. You must tell us what you did, do you understand?

For one, I don't think that it was just a question of we taking them out of Glen's

house, you must have dragged them, pushed them and they said: "No, please don't,

it's not us who did this", you said: "No, we are going to kill you anyway" and they

tried to resist, we took them out, we opened the boot, one of them did not want to

get in, we kicked him in his stomach, we pushed him", why don't you tell us these

things? We are here to hear those things.

You can't just come here and say: "We took people out of the house, we put them

into the boot of the car, we took them to the hill, we shot, we came back and

another group went off. They took them there, they shot them and they came back.

I'm beginning to have serious problems with the way you are giving evidence. You

must give us details of what you did, make a full disclosure. Didn't they tell you

that you must make a full disclosure if you want amnesty? You should please do

that, it is the price you pay for getting amnesty. Do you understand?

Now, these people you had taken to Glen's house, the caucus that they be killed,

what happened? And you must lay emphasis on your personal participation.

MR HLASA: I think I am telling the truth because when we took these people

there was no resistance, we had guns and it was evident to them that if they resisted


we would shoot them. They did not know that they were going to be killed. We

pointed the guns at them and told them we are going to such a place and they

cooperated because we had guns.

When we left comrade Glen's house to take them to a spot where they would be

killed we pointed the guns at them, they did not just freely walk. We pointed the

guns at them, we loaded them into the boot and they realised that there was no

chance of running away. I don't know what was in their minds. I explained that we

left and then we reached the identified spot. I would not lie and say I was with so

and so.

I remember the people who took part in the shooting but I would not remember

who was with me. I don't want to make a mistake of naming someone who was not

with me. I know I shot. Gabie, Speedo and Motlana shot. I do not remember

because this happened a long time ago, 1986. I only remember ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just a minute, you are a little bit too fast. You say you

shot who and who?

MR HLASA: Myself, Ganie, Speedo and Motlana. Speedo is Mr Thandakubona

and Mr Ikaneng.

CHAIRPERSON: So those are the people you went with?

MR HLASA: Yes, these are the people I was with but I know one of them was not

in the car driven by myself but I do not remember well who it was.

CHAIRPERSON: I got only two names, Ganie, Motlana and did you mention

another name?

MR HLASA: Mr Thandakubona.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR HLASA: We went up the hill and I shot one of them and I shot him once. The

comrades with me shot once and they fell and we went back.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Hlasa, I just want to find out, when you were caucusing at

Glen's house, what is it that you were specifically caucusing about?

MR HLASA: The caucus was about what to do. The decision was already taken

that they be killed but we had to find a spot and plan our movement. The first car

was supposed to take three of them and they be killed, come back, then firearms be

handed over to the next three so that they can also do their part.


ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hlasa, when the first person was shot you went back alone

and surely the other two must have heard that shot and they must have seen that the

person was not with you anymore?

MR HLASA: We made them stand on the edge next to each other and then we

stood behind them and we shot. I did not shoot an leave. I shot him, he fell, the

next one shot, he fell and the third one shot and the third person. All of them were

lying down there. We did not go to confirm whether they were dead, we just took it

that they were dead and we came back.

ADV BOSMAN: Sorry, I misunderstood you the first time, sorry.

MR TLOUBATLA: Alright, I think the question - perhaps just to take it further,

coming back you had taken people out and now you are coming back and those

people are no longer in your company, that is the victims. What was the reaction of

the other victims, the ones that had been left behind? How did they take that?

MR HLASA: We were asked whether we shot them and we responded: "Yes" and

it was decided who are the next three to go: "take your guns, go" and that was that.

MR TLOUBATLA: Perhaps you don't understand my question. Basically I want

the reaction of the victims, not your comrades or your friends.

MR HLASA: I would not know their reaction but I already told you that the

comrades were in the kitchen and they were in the dining room and they did not

know that the three of us went with the three of them. We were in separate rooms. I

would not know what their reactions were.

CHAIRPERSON: So did you yourself speak to any one of these victims at any

time?

MR HLASA: When we arrived at Glen's house it was not necessary really to speak

to them but it was to inform that: "Even though you do not give us information you

are going to shit". That is what I told them.

MR TLOUBATLA: You were carrying about three people in your car when you

drove to Glen's house, how did you, in the first place, where were they, were they

in the boot as you were travelling to Glen's house and how did you take them into

the house itself?

MR HLASA: They were in the boot. We drove the car into the yard and we opened

the boot and they got out of the boot and into the house.

CHAIRPERSON: How many people were in your boot?

MR HLASA: ...[end of tape]


CHAIRPERSON: ...[start of new tape]

MR HLASA: It was a Chevrolet 4.1

CHAIRPERSON: Did they all manage to fit into the boot?

MR HLASA: Yes, they had no choice.

CHAIRPERSON: And before shooting them, from Glen's house right up to the

point where they were shot, did you personally speak to any one of them?

MR HLASA: I did not say anything specific to them, I just told them to tell us the

truth. If they were not telling us the truth they were going to shit. That's what I told

them if I remember well.

CHAIRPERSON: So up the hill there you did not, before shooting, you did not say

anything to anyone of them?

MR HLASA: Nothing Sir, I did not say anything.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you personally assault any one of these victims?

MR HLASA: No-one Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Not even once?

MR HLASA: Not even once.

CHAIRPERSON: You never touched any one of them?

MR HLASA: I did not touch one of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloublata, would this be the appropriate stage to adjourn

until 2 o'clock?

MR TLOUBATLA: I think so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we'll adjourn until 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

PITSO JOSEPH HLASA: (s.u.o.)


MR TLOUBATLA: We were at a point when you told us that you shot these

people and then they fell down a ravine or something like that and then after

shooting these people what did you do?

MR HLASA: We went back to Glen's house and we reported that we shot them

and the second group took over. I explained already that they were six in number.

We took the first three and our fellow comrades took the last three.

MR TLOUBATLA: During the lunch adjournment I was consulting with

Thandakubona and then he mentioned that he personally didn't participate in the

shooting itself, he was involved but nevertheless the shooting in itself he was not

there, what do you say to that?

MR HLASA: I said this took place in 1986 and many things happened thereafter, I

would not perfectly remember everybody who was there but according to my

recollection I thought he was there. I would not refute that we took part in different

ways.

MR TLOUBATLA: The firearms that you were using, who supplied those

firearms?

MR HLASA: Some of the firearms we bought. I remember well, it was in the

morning of the burial of comrade Khomezulu. I was not there, we went to the East

Rand to fetch the firearms. ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry to interrupt you, the gun that you used that day, they're

asking about the gun you used that day, where did you get it from?

MR HLASA: The firearm that I had with me had been in my possession for quite

some time and I think it was bought in East Rand. There is another one that was

taken from a security guy that was shot in Orlando. I do not remember where the

others came from but we bought most of them.

MR TLOUBATLA: Can you just sit back a little bit, just sit back because you are

disturbing the mike, sit back. What I want to know is, alright, they were bought,

were they bought by yourself or somebody within the organisation supplied the

firearms, that's what I want to know.

MR HLASA: People were assigned and given tasks within the organisation, that

you and somebody else will go and find us firearms. If I remember well, two of the

comrades that have applied for amnesty were given the task of getting the guns.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla, I don't know if there is a misunderstanding

between your client and the interpreter. A pertinent question has been asked: "The

firearm that you used to shoot, you personally, the firearm that you used that day,

where did you get it from"? And then he answered to say that he had been having


that firearm for a long time before that, but that doesn't tell us where you got the

firearm from. The questions still stands: "Where did you get the firearm from that

you used that day"? Where did you get it from?

MR TLOUBATLA: Who gave it to you?

MR HLASA: The firearms that we used were the property of the organisation. It

was not mine per se, it belonged to the organisation. I know of the firearms that

were disarmed from the security personnel. Some were bought in East Rand. I have

explained already that when we arrived on the morning of Khomezulu's burial we

were out to buy firearms, that cannot be an individual's property.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that your answer to the question?

MR HLASA: Yes, that is my answer.

MR TLOUBATLA: Perhaps just to clarify it a little bit, you say the firearms were

bought, did you have money, did you take out money from your pocket to go and

buy those firearms or did somebody give the money so that these firearms could be

purchased?

MR HLASA: Branches collected money and bought firearms, each branch would

collect money for its own defence. These were not individuals firearms, they

rotated.

MR TLOUBATLA: So the firearms ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Tloubatla. What kind of weapon did you shoot your

victim with, was it a pistol or a revolver or an AK47?

MR HLASA: It was a pistol.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to ask you for the last time, where did you get that

pistol from?

MR HLASA: I would not specifically say I got it from somebody but I do

remember firearms were bought for the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you get it from the Dutch Reformed Church?

MR HLASA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, where did you get it from Sir?

MR HLASA: We took the firearms from the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Which organisation?


MR HLASA: AZAPO.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should we have such a great difficulty in simply getting

from you: "Where did you get the weapon you used from"? "I got it from

AZAPO". Mr Tloubatla?


And then, after using the firearms, who was responsible for the safekeeping of the

firearms or did you keep them with you individually? What happened with the

firearms?

MR HLASA: We kept them individually but if there was anything in Alexandra,

maybe a problem, we would borrow them to other people but you'd know exactly

who you lent your firearm to.

MR TLOUBATLA: Alright.

ADV BOSMAN: One moment please Mr Tloubatla.

Mr Hlasa, did you regularly carry a firearm with you?

MR HLASA: Regularly I had a firearm.

ADV BOSMAN: And the particular firearm you used on this day, how long had it

been in your possession?

MR HLASA: It was quite some time. I took part in many incidents, I think three or

four incidents if I remember but it had been a long time having that gun with me.


MR MALAN: May I just ask, can you remember who you gave the gun to when

the other three went out? You say you handed them the firearms, the second group,

and then they went out to kill the other three. My question is -it seems you're not

getting the drift of it, if I heard you correctly you said that after the killing of the

three, when you returned you reported and you gave the firearms to the other three

and they went and they killed the next three people.

MR HLASA: I think I did not hand my gun, it was with me. When we arrived I

think comrade Kabelo and comrade Mxolisi Thandakubona went to Dlamini to

look for other firearms and when we arrived, they had returned already.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Hlasa, just to take you slightly back, besides the leadership

of the two organisations, that is UDF and AZAPO, were any other efforts to try

and quell this conflict that was existing between the two organisations? Were there

other efforts from the community?


MR HLASA: I remember a Priest such as Reverend Siwoka, they tried to intervene

in this violence but they did not succeed.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Hlasa, I have got a press cutting here which says - it is

dated April 1986, The Sowetan, and therein they're saying:

"Priest in Bid to end Conflict: Clerics on the Westrand

yesterday said they were trying to end a bloody conflict

between members of, affiliates of the United

Democratic Front and the Black Consciousness

Movement".

I would like you to look at this, would this be part of the efforts that would be

waged by the Priest to try and quell this conflict?

MR HLASA: I think it's one of them because it refers to the situation in Bekkersdal

and Randfontein. Those were the two areas which were violent.

MR TLOUBATLA: Alright, I also have ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Tloubatla, is there a date on that publication?

MR TLOUBATLA: On the publication, yes, it's The Sowetan of 1986, April 1986.

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn't we have it as an Exhibit?

MR TLOUBATLA: Ja, definitely the - but even though I was intending to make

copies and a bundle for the Committee, so that when I am addressing then I'm

going to hand it in.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, other people may want to use it during cross-examination.

MR TLOUBATLA: It can be taken in, it can be used yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So we'll have it as Exhibit A.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Sir.

I have got another publication, it's: Die Burger dated the 29th November 1986. It

says:

"Four members of the student council in Soweto who

are affiliated to the UDF were yesterday by a interdict of

the Witwatersrand Supreme Court prohibited to attack

the Secretary General of AZAPO, Mr George Oukop, or

to damage his property" ...[transcriber's own translation]


You mentioned Mr Oukop in your evidence repeatedly, is that, was this arising

also out of the conflict that you had with the other organisations?

MR HLASA: This is written in Afrikaans and I did not quite understand it.

MR TLOUBATLA: Well, it simply says that Mr Oukop obtained an interdict in

the Witwatersrand local division of the Supreme Court to interdict some people

from either assaulting him or destroying his property, that is people affiliated to the

UDF.

MR HLASA: I remember that, it referred to Kenneth Fitla and them.

CHAIRPERSON: That will be Exhibit B.

MR TLOUBATLA: I also would like to refer you to The Star of 9 June 1986 and

then the interview was given by, in fact it's Bishop Desmond Tutu who was quoted

at the funeral of Mr Delisa Matjoba and he was also condemning the violence

between the two organisations, that is AZAPO and the UDF affiliated

organisations. That is The Star of June 1986.

MR HLASA: It is not only in this article, Bishop Tutu has many articles where he

pleaded that the black on black violence stop because it was senseless.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he also referring to the conflict between BCM and UDF?

MR HLASA: Yes, he was referring to that.

CHAIRPERSON: We will it as Exhibit C.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then Mr Chairman, I would refer to two more

publications, they others I'll use during my address to the Committee. This was a

Sowetan publication of Tuesday, May the 27th of 1986 and apparently The

Sowetan undertook a survey:

"In a snap survey the man in the street yesterday

appealed for peace between the warring political groups

in the black community. The appeal comes in the wake

of an alarming increase in violence between the UDF

and the Azanian People's Organisation and Inkatha"

Are they referring to the type of conflict that was, that is this particular publication,

is it referring to the type of conflict that you both had, that is AZAPO and the

UDF?

MR HLASA: Look at the date, it is May 27th, it was at the time when violence was

very strong in Soweto. Yes, I agree with this article.


MR TLOUBATLA: And then I have here also a publication that is The Weekly

Mail dated the 18th of December 1986, do you know the late Mr Mhieza?

MR HLASA: Yes, I know him very well.

MR TLOUBATLA: And at that time, what position did he hold in your

organisation, that is AZAPO?

MR HLASA: He was the National Publicity Secretary.

MR TLOUBATLA: I'm going to read from The Weekly Mail of the 18th of

December 1986 and I'm quoting one of the paragraph there. It says:

"Mhieza says AZAPO has its own code of conduct

which all our members subscribe to and deviances are

viewed in a serious light, however where and when the

need arises for our members to defend themselves, their

family and property, they should do so with means

commensurate with the danger they apprehend"

I've just quoted from what Mr Mhieza said, that was in December 1986. You spoke

about ...[intervention]

MR HLASA: Can you please repeat, I did not understand what you said?

MR TLOUBATLA: Mhieza says:

"AZAPO has its own code of conduct which all our

members subscribe to and deviances are viewed in a

serious light, however where and when the need arises

for our members to defend themselves, their family and

property, they should do so with means commensurate

with the danger they apprehend"

Did you get it now?

MR HLASA: Yes, that is correct, he once mentioned that. I mentioned earlier on

that the organisation's positions was not to retaliate but if we were under pressure

we were supposed to defend ourselves according to the situation.

CHAIRPERSON: That would be Exhibit E I guess.

MR TLOUBATLA: According to the publication, that publication came, I mean

that statement was in December 1986 and the incident that we are talking about

now occurred in August 1986. Can you perhaps explain when that type of order

was given?


MR HLASA: I do not remember but within the organisation we knew already that

if we were being attacked we were supposed to defend ourselves, but I wouldn't

specifically know when the order was issued out. The newspapers say it was

December.

MR TLOUBATLA: Alright, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla, can you ask your assistant to take those copies of

the Exhibits and circulate them to Mr Ameen please?

MR TLOUBATLA: Let's say the general order now that I'm talking about where

you are called upon to defend yourself and property, how was it communicated to

you? Let's say to you personally, were you called aside in one private room and

told that this is what the organisation wants or expects of you? How were such

orders communicated to you?

MR HLASA: Individuals were not called. Such people planned that in meetings

and took out their feelings about the violence.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Hlasa, the act of killing those young boys, for whatever

reason it was, that they had destroyed your comrade's property or threatened his

life, do you think under the circumstances that the act itself, was it warranted, was

it commensurate with what they had done?

MR HLASA: I have explained already that their acts were piling up until such time

that we decided to take an action. We never thought that violence would go as far

as Orlando.

ADV BOSMAN: You said that their acts were piling up, who do you mean, these

boy's acts?

MR HLASA: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike was not activated.

MR HLASA: Yes, I'm referring to the acts conducted by the UDF.

ADV BOSMAN: And not the boys that were killed?

MR HLASA: No, not the boys, acts conducted by the UDF and not particularly

these boys.

MR TLOUBATLA: Do you know Mr Hlasa that for you to be granted amnesty

that your act must be politically motivated, in other words there must be a political

motivation. What political motivation was in this act that you conducted? What did


you hope to achieve in terms of, politically, that is your organisation and your

members?

MR HLASA: I was hoping to send forth the message to the members of the UDF

that we can also defend ourselves, that was point number one. Point number two, if

we were able to protect our members then our organisation was going grow. If we

have members and we don't defend them they became disillusioned and resign. We

were protecting our organisation to grow like any other organisation. We wanted to

exist freely, we wanted to practice our political right freely. We were sending the

message.

ADV BOSMAN: In what way did you make it clear that it was the AZAPO people

who had killed these boys? How did the community know it was an AZAPO

murder?

MR HLASA: The community would not know it was AZAPO but we know that

the UDF was going to know that AZAPO killed them. I can give an example with

Fana Umshlongo who was kidnapped and killed. We did not scratch our heads, we

knew that he was kidnapped by the UDF, he was killed by the UDF but it was hard

luck for the community to know but those were lucky enough would have known.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hlasa, I don't understand, you said that you also intended to

let your membership grow, now certainly your membership would come from

members of the community? Did you know think that the community should know

about this in order to impress them to become AZAPO members?

MR HLASA: We used to go out to the communities and lay before them the

political objectives of AZAPO. When we recruited people we did not tell them

about UDF, we told them about the aims and objectives of AZAPO. If people had

joined us already it was difficult to fully identify themselves with us because of

this violence that even appeared in the newspapers, the conflict between AZAPO

and UDF. So it was important for us to protect our organisation and its growth.


Mr Hlasa, how many - I mean, after how many days were you arrested after the

killing of these boys?

MR HLASA: I do not remember, I think two or three days thereafter. I was

arrested two or three days thereafter and I was sent to Morroka Police Station.

MR TLOUBATLA: Alright. When did you go into exile?

MR HLASA: After appearing at the Protea Magistrate's Court we were sent to the

Johannesburg Central Prison for about a week and the South African Council of

Churches helped us with bail, we were bailed out and we skipped the country. It


was myself - it was after three weeks when this happened, it was myself Motlana,

Jeff and Thandakubona, we skipped the country for exile.

MR TLOUBATLA: Who assisted you into going into exile and what was the

reason for that?

MR HLASA: Let's put it that way, AZAPO assisted us to go into exile. The reason

for that was that when we were arrested at Protea the case was regarded as a

criminal case and the organisation felt that it was difficult for them to rescue its

members and we had to go. It was a choice of an individual whether you wanted to

go or not and we expressed our feeling of leaving and then we left this country.

MR TLOUBATLA: Did you join any organisation when you were in exile?

MR HLASA: Yes, we joined the Black Consciousness Movement of Azania.

MR TLOUBATLA: Can you describe what you, I mean your activities when you

were in exile?

MR HLASA: We arrived at different times in Botswana. I think I arrived much

later than the two comrades who have applied and I went to Dukwe in the camps

and many comrades were there and I participated in the activities or the

organisation. I remember before I was trained I was the Secretary of Welfare. I was

actually looking at the welfare of the comrades and later on I went to Zimbabwe

...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute. Did you - during your exile, did you at all times

take part in the programmes of the BCM and were you an active member of BCM?

MR HLASA: Yes, I was the Secretary of the Welfare and later ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just answer my question. During the whole period while you

were in exile, were you a member of a political organisation until you came back?

MR HLASA: Yes, that's correct.


And then into the country, when did you come back to the country, into the

country? When did you come back?

MR HLASA: When I finally came back - I don't understand your question clearly,

but when I finally came back it was in 1994. It was in September of 1994.

MR TLOUBATLA: You also mentioned something about training, did you

undergo any military training when you were abroad?


MR HLASA: Yes, I received a military training. I spent 11 months in Libya, 1989

until early January. After 11 months I went back to Zimbabwe.

MR TLOUBATLA: So you were at all times in the organisation, in your

organisation?

MR HLASA: All the time.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Chairman, I think that will be all unless there is something

specific that the Chairman would like me to perhaps elicit from the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time of the incident, was he a member of AZAPO?

MR TLOUBATLA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: For how long before this incident had you been a member of

AZAPO?

MR HLASA: Before this Showela incident, it had been a year and a half.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

Mr Ameen, what do you plan? Do you want to defer your cross-examination?

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman, I would like to defer my cross-examination. I just

want to know, would the other two be giving evidence as well, the other two

applicants?

CHAIRPERSON: That is true.

MR AMEEN: I suggest that they be allowed to give their evidence and then I'll

cross-examine all of them if we could finish that by the end of today Mr

Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hlasa, how old were you at the time of the incident?

MR HLASA: I was 22 years old.

ADV BOSMAN: And what was your level of education?

MR HLASA: JC.


ADV SIGODI: And what was your occupation, were you employed or were you

unemployed?


MR HLASA: No, I was not, I was in the organisation.

MR MALAN: Sorry, were you full time in the organisation at the time of this

incident, is this what you're saying to us?

MR HLASA: Yes, it was the early stage of the formation of the youth of Azania.

MR MALAN: So what was your responsibility?

MR HLASA: I was responsible for organising, I was working under the Organising

Committee.

MR MALAN: So were you appointed organiser of AZAPO?

MR HLASA: Yes, for the branch.

MR MALAN: Did they pay you?

MR HLASA: No.

MR MALAN: Where did you get your livelihood from?

MR HLASA: I was still under the care of my parents.


CHAIRPERSON: Did you say you did not know any of the six people?

MR HLASA: Even today I do not know them, I only saw their names on the papers

this morning. Well, I did not care much to look them in the newspapers.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, do you prefer to put questions before Mr Ameen?

MR BRINK: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: Well put questions if you want to.

MR BRINK: I've just got one Mr Chairman, it depends on the answer, maybe two

or three.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: I wonder if you can tell me please Mr

Hlasa, am I correct in understanding your

evidence that Ikaneng Nani took part in the interrogation of these youths?


MR HLASA: Yes, Nadi took part as well as the comrades who have applied for

amnesty.

MR BRINK: Was it Ikaneng Nani who told you that the youths had admitted being

UDF members, after interrogation?

MR HLASA: Yes, it's Nani and he said one of them had a T-shirt written RMC on,

Release Mandela Campaign. This was an affiliate of UDF.

MR BRINK: Was Ikaneng Nani an active members of AZAPO?

MR HLASA: Yes, he was.

MR BRINK: What position did he hold?

MR HLASA: He did not have any position.

MR BRINK: Was he an ordinary member?

MR HLASA: He was an ordinary member.

MR BRINK: And am I correct in understanding your evidence that he gave the

instruction to - I amy to wrong so correct me if I am, he gave the instruction that

these youths should be taken out and killed?

MR HLASA: He did not give instructions, he was not a senior member of the

organisation.

MR BRINK: He took part in the killings though?

MR HLASA: Yes, he took part.

MR BRINK: You see, I think what the Committee really wants to know is who in

fact, as an office bearer in AZAPO, gave an order that these youths must be killed.

MR HLASA: I'm the first to testify today, maybe the other comrades would come

and testify better. Those who took part in the interrogation, they would say and

explain who gave them instructions.

MR BRINK: You never made any enquiry from anyone as to where the

instructions had come from?

MR HLASA: I made investigations now when we adjourned for lunch.

MR BRINK: And what did you find?

MR HLASA: I was told Tiny Motlago and Sam Siyema gave an instruction.


MR BRINK: Did you not know that before this hearing today? I mean you have

had ample opportunity to make these enquiries and you do it in the lunch

adjournment, approximately an hour and a half after the hearings had started today.

I find that very strange Mr Hlasa.

MR HLASA: I knew that instructions were taken out by the organisation, who in

particular I did not know.

MR BRINK: But you say you know now?

MR HLASA: Now I know.

MR BRINK: Thank you.

MR MALAN: May I just follow up on that. If I understood your evidence correctly

you didn't know of any instruction, you only knew that if the interrogation would

show that these people were UDF people, if that could be confirmed they would be

killed, that was the evidence you gave us.

MR HLASA: Not to be killed but to deal with them. If there was a proof that they

were members of the UDF we were to deal with them, not that if we proved that

they were members of the UDF we were going to kill them, it's not like that.

MR MALAN: So when did you for the first time learn that they were to be killed?

MR HLASA: ...[inaudible]

MR MALAN: Sorry, let me assist you in this because really I get confused now. I

think you told us you were working on the car, you were cleaning it because there

was oil, you didn't take part in the interrogation, when they came out you were told

to put on the ignition, to turn the ignition because these people were to be killed,

that was your evidence. ...[indistinct] and you say Nani told you that. And you

went to the other house, you had the caucus in the kitchen, you arranged and you

went out and you did the shootings in the two sessions.

MR HLASA: Ja, ...[intervention]

MR MALAN: Sorry, this is the point I want to get to, you never had an order to

kill, this is what you are saying, you were ready to kill. They were ready to be dealt

with, you were told to put on the ignition, it was just communicated to you that you

must drive, "we're going to kill these people"?

MR HLASA: No, that is not true, an instruction was taken out that these people

were going to be killed, we should start the car and go. Truly, we would not kill

them in Orlando West because the area was predominantly UDF.


When Kani went out of the house he said: "Let's go, we're going to kill these

people", "whereto"? and the answer was: "We're going to comrade Glen's house.

We arrived at comrade Glen's house, they were put in the diningroom and we

caucused in the kitchen. The instruction was already issued out to be killed. The

caucus was about how and where, those were the two issues for the caucus in the

kitchen.

MR MALAN: But again if I understand you correctly, you never had any

knowledge of any specific instruction, you were simply told by Nani: "Put on,

we're driving away to this other house, these people are going to be killed"?

MR HLASA: That's what he said. He said an instruction had been issued out, an

order was taken out that they be killed. He even gave me a reason, he said they had

been tortured already and we can't just leave them.

MR MALAN: Did he say they had to be killed because they were tortured?

MR HLASA: No, because they were members of the UDF.

MR MALAN: Now where does the torture story, where does that part fit in?

MR HLASA: He told me that they were tortured during the interrogation and they

told the truth and it was confirmed they were members of the UDF, that's how

torture is involved in this, he was explaining to me now.

MR MALAN: Did he say to you that there was the RMC T-shirt, one of them had

an RMC T-shirt, is that what you said?

MR HLASA: Yes, he explained that.

MR MALAN: ...[inaudible] give evidence that they were wearing various T-shirts,

UDF T-shirts, Release Mandela Campaign T-shirts, did you tell that to us earlier?

MR HLASA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it was in a different context.

MR MALAN: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You may stand down Mr Hlasa, we will proceed to call one of

your colleagues with the understanding that we are not through with you yet, you

must still come back so that Mr Ameen can put some questions to you.

WITNESS EXCUSED



AMNESTY HEARING

DATE: 8TH JUNE 1998

NAME: MR MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG

APPLICATION NO: 2740/96

DAY: 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla, your next witness?

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I am going to call

upon Mr Atasios Motlana Mphoreng.

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mphoreng, you made a statement wherein you are applying for amnesty for the

killing of four youths in Showela on the 1st of August 1986, is that so?

MR MPHORENG: That is correct.

MR TLOUBATLA: In the first paragraph of your statement you say that:

"The political conflict between AZAPO and the UDF

reached an unprecedent level in 1986. In Johannesburg

in particular it got very ugly when some of our members

were brutally killed and set alight by student members

alliant to the UDF"

and you mention Khomezulu, Martin Mohau and Mr Buks Leo(?). Can you briefly

tell us how the situation was then, that is during this period of around the 1st of

August 1986? That is the relationship between you and the UDF affiliated

organisations.

MR MPHORENG: In 1986, especially here in Johannesburg, it was a general thing

that the UDF and AZAPO were in a state of war. What clearly showed this was

that in that year AZAPO lost many prominent members and among members we

lost in AZAPO I can mention comrade Sipho Khomezulu who stayed in Zola.

Comrade Khomezulu was very prominent in the organisation and it had not been

long since his return from Robben Island. Comrade Khomezulu was killed by

members of the UDF Alliance, SOSCO because he was a member of AZAPO.


CHAIRPERSON: What does this SOSCO stand for in full?

MR MPHORENG: Soweto Student Congress.

MR TLOUBATLA: Were you at the funeral of Mr Sipho Khomezulu?

MR MPHORENG: I did not attend the funeral because, but I was at the night vigil.

MR TLOUBATLA: The night vigil, did it go uninterrupted? Were there any

incidents at the night vigil of Sipho Khomezulu?

MR MPHORENG: There were no problems if I remember very well.

MR TLOUBATLA: You also mention Mr Martin Mohau, do you know how he

was killed?

MR MPHORENG: Martin Mohau was a comrade in AZAPO and he had not been

back from Robben Island for a long time, when they came back from the cemetery

at Avelon, comrade Mohau was killed by members of SOSCO.

MR TLOUBATLA: How did you establish that the people who killed Martin

Mohau were members of SOSCO?

MR MPHORENG: I have explained earlier that it was general knowledge in 1986

among the community in Johannesburg that there was a conflict between UDF and

AZAPO. Comrade Martin if I remember well, had an AZAPO T-shirt and that's

how they identified him.

MR TLOUBATLA: You mention in your second paragraph that you were

permanently misplaced, can you give us some more information on that? Were you

personally misplaced, how did you live, where did you stay and then any other

members of the organisation that you know that were misplaced and where did you

stay?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mphoreng, are you fully conversant with Sotho? Is that your

mother tongue or is there any other African language that you more conversant

with? The interpreters want to know whether you are fully conversant with Sotho.

MR MPHORENG: I'm comfortable in Sotho and Tswana.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your mother tongue?

MR MPHORENG: Tswana.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, well maybe you should - what language have you been

speaking, I haven't been listening? Were you speaking South Sotho or Tswana all

along?


MR MPHORENG: Tswana.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] Yes? I had to interrupt because there was a

complaint from the interpreters that they can't hear you clearly.

Yes Mr Tloubatla?


The last question was, you are speaking of misplacement, that you were misplaced

and I want you to give us more details about the misplacement. Who was

misplaced and then where did those people stay, how and so on.

MR MPHORENG: I have mentioned that ...[intervention]

MR TLOUBATLA: Just take it slow, don't be fast okay, so that we can follow you.

MR MPHORENG: I have mentioned earlier on that in 1986 I was a member of

AZAPO and in that year AZAPO and UDF were fighting. As a member of AZAPO

it was not safe for me as well as other comrades of mine to stay with our families,

that is why we were misplaced. That is why we had camps where we could stay,

thinking that we are safe in those camps. Unlike staying in our respective homes

because you sleep alone at home and it's not safe in that way.

CHAIRPERSON: The interpreter uses the word misplaced, I think they are saying

displaced.

INTERPRETER: Thank you Chairperson.


You home, where was it at the time and then where were you staying to try and

avoid these attacks from your opposition organisation?

MR MPHORENG: In 1986 I stayed in Orlando East and I went to stay in one of

our hide-outs in some parts in Orlando East far from home.

MR TLOUBATLA: You also mention, that is on the second page of your

application, that is page 15 of the bundle, you say:

"Parents were killed because they fathered members of a

wrong political organisation"

You mention Khomezulu, Sitlejani, Lingani's houses were burnt down. Do you

know of any particular parents of members of your organisation who were perhaps

harassed or killed, that is the parents who were either harassed or killed simply

because they were the parents of members of your organisation?


MR MPHORENG: The parents that I remember who were killed in 1986 because

their children were members of AZAPO, I remember Mr Jacob Lingani. Mr Jacob

Lingani was killed because his children were members of AZAPO. I remember Mr

Buks Leo who was also killed because his child was a member of AZAPO. In Zola

I remember an incident where Lerato Sitlejani's was burnt down because Lerato

was a member of AZAPO at that time.

MR TLOUBATLA: You further mention that:

"In avoidance of retaliation and bloodshed we were

continuously on the run and appealed to key leaders of

the UDF to control the situation"

When you say you were continually on the run, what was happening, can you

explain that?

MR MPHORENG: We are members of AZAPO, which is a political organisation

which had discipline and a political programme. Most black people were part of

our political programme, that is why it took us time to realise that we were

supposed to defend ourselves by killing in other instances because members of

SOSCO were black people. Before they became members of UDF - I will put it

this way, before we had problems with them we were displaced at all times, trying

to run away from them, trying to avoid conflicts.

MR TLOUBATLA: When you say you were continually or continuously on the

run, would I be correct or is that, what you mean? In other words that you didn't

keep one place, you didn't stay at one place all the time, is that the meaning that I

should put into that?

MR MPHORENG: In English I would say we were nomadic because we did not

stay at one place, the reason for that being that of security measure. If it could have

been identified, our hiding place would be in danger and that is why we were

nomadic, not staying in one place.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed to something else Mr Tloubatla, are you

reading from, where are you reading from in leading your witness Mr Tloubatla?

Are you reading from the statement which is an Annexure?

MR TLOUBATLA: Yes. This bundle, I don't know whether the Chairman has got

this ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Where precisely are you reading from?

MR TLOUBATLA: Page 15 of the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have a copy of what is being read to you?


MR MPHORENG: I have it Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: This is a letter that you wrote to the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission?

MR MPHORENG: That is correct, this is my statement.

CHAIRPERSON: And it is not dated is it?

MR MPHORENG: No date in my statement Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: That signature on the last page, is that your signature?

MR MPHORENG: That's correct, this is my signature.

CHAIRPERSON: Has this letter been written by yourself, is this your own

handwriting?

MR MPHORENG: This is my handwriting Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm that what stands in this letter is the truth? Do

you confirm the truth thereof now under oath?

MR MPHORENG: I confirm.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Tloubatla?

MR TLOUBATLA: Yes, thank you.

You are mentioning in your statement that a meeting was attended by the late

Doctor Asvat and Mrs Sesulu at the doctor's surgery ...[indistinct], do you know of

any other efforts by the leadership nationally, either of UDF or AZAPO, to try and

control this violence that was between the two organisations?

MR MPHORENG: The meeting that I remember very well was a meeting between

Doctor Asvat who was a prominent leader of AZAPO and Mrs Albertina Sesulu

who was also a prominent leader in the community at that time. This is a meeting

that I remember very well, a meeting trying to bring an end to the problems

between UDF and AZAPO,

MR TLOUBATLA: Besides this - before I even go into that, did you attend this

meeting personally?

MR MPHORENG: Yes, I attended.


MR TLOUBATLA: Besides this meeting, are you aware of any other efforts from

the leadership of the community or from any other members of the community to

try and control the violence that was going on?

MR MPHORENG: Churches were involved if I remember very well because this

was a community problem, a problem that affected the whole community.

Churches took part, trying to solve the problems of the day. I remember Reverend

Sibedi was involved in trying to solve this. If I remember well, Archbishop Tutu

got involved in some of the cases, trying to stop violence.

MR TLOUBATLA: At the time, how old were you Mr Mphoreng, in 1986?

MR MPHORENG: I was 21 years old.

MR TLOUBATLA: What was your occupation?

MR MPHORENG: At the time of the incident bringing us here I was a full time

member of the organisation. I

was involved at the branch level in Orlando, I was the

secretary of the organisation.

MR TLOUBATLA: You were not employed in the sense of receiving payment,

salary and so on?

MR MPHORENG: I was unemployed.

MR TLOUBATLA: Okay. Now coming to the incident of the killing of these boys

at Showela, can you tell us how you got involved, who came to you, what

happened, just from the very beginning.

MR MPHORENG: After Jeff's house was burnt down in Orlando West, Jeff came

to Orlando at one of our hide-outs. It was in the morning when he arrived, I think it

was round about half past six to 7 o'clock in the morning, and he briefed me that

his house had been burnt.

After briefing me, I left together with him to Orlando West. Indeed when we

arrived the curtains were burnt to ashes and the paint was also burnt and the

blankets were burnt. He briefed me and he told me that petrol bombs were thrown

into the house and they even shot into the air.

MR TLOUBATLA: With whom was he when he came to give you a report?

MR MPHORENG: When he came to fetch me he was alone.


MR TLOUBATLA: And then, was it just the two of you that went back to his

house?

MR MPHORENG: He found me with a certain boy at our hide-out but this boy

was not a member of the organisation, that is why we did not take him with, we left

him and I left with Jeff.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then you went back and what did you do when you went

to his house?

MR MPHORENG: When I arrived at his house I found two comrades and we tried

to clean the bedroom, yes, the curtains were burnt down and some of the blankets

were also burnt down and we cleaned the room.

MR TLOUBATLA: The house, was it still standing normally, was it okay except

that there had been some burnings inside?

MR MPHORENG: Yes, at that time the house was still standing. The main

bedroom was the only room affected or was the room affected.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then you started cleaning the house and then, what

happened thereafter?

MR MPHORENG: Other comrades arrived in the process of cleaning the house.

Probably news had spread already that Jeff's house was attacked. It was a tradition

within AZAPO that when one of your comrades is in trouble we had to go and help

him, now comrades were coming during the course of the day and leaving.

MR TLOUBATLA: Do you know who could possibly have alerted the other

comrades to come in and check at Jeff's place?

MR MPHORENG: I don't know but I think it's Jeff himself.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then you stayed there until when?

MR MPHORENG: I spent the whole day at Jeff's place, I left at night.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then during the day when you were there, except Jeff,

any other members of the organisation with whom you were there that you can

recall?

MR MPHORENG: When I arrived at Jeff's place in the morning I found comrade

Sam and comrade Tammy already there and during the course of the day, comrade

Pitso comrade Thandakubona and comrade Nani arrived. Yes, when I arrived I also

found comrade Kabelo.


ADV BOSMAN: What time of the morning was it that you arrived at the house

that had been burnt?

MR MPHORENG: If I can remember very well it was about 10 minutes to seven.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then you spent the whole day, were there any

disturbances whilst you were there for, let's say from members of UDF?

MR MPHORENG: While busy cleaning Jeff's house I think about 15 or 20 boys

passed and they were singing intimidating slogans and the impression that I got at

that time and the suspicion at that time as that yes, these are members of AZAPO.

ADV BOSMAN: At what time was it that the boys passed? How late was it when

they passed?

MR MPHORENG: This happened at about half past eleven, a quarter to twelve.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, did you say that this group belonged to AZAPO or to UDF?

MR MPHORENG: I said, when we were busy cleaning a group of boys, and I

suspected that these were members of SOSCO, they were singing intimidating

songs.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you.

Did they just - they sang walking past the house where you were, they didn't do

anything?

MR MPHORENG: They sang, passed, and went back and sang, passed, and went

back and we just ignored them because we were cleaning.

MR TLOUBATLA: So in other words they were going up and down the street in

front of this house?

MR MPHORENG: That is correct, they were singing up and down.

MR TLOUBATLA: Can you recall perhaps how many times they went up and

down the street?

MR MPHORENG: I do not remember how many times but it was a few times, I

can't remember whether it was five or six times but I do remember they were

singing up and down.

MR TLOUBATLA: Okay, then you were there, you were cleaning and ultimately

what transpired?


MR MPHORENG: After cleaning I did not leave for Orlando, I remained behind.

During the day comrade Kani and comrade Ernest went to Orlando, I think they

were going to wash and after 30 minutes or 45 minutes after they had left they

came back with certain boys who were in the car.

When they arrived with these boys in the house I managed to identify that these

boys were among a group of boys singing intimidating songs.

MR TLOUBATLA: When they came back, who came back and with how many

boys was he?

MR MPHORENG: If I remember well, there were six in number.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then who was travelling with those boys?

MR MPHORENG: They were with comrade Pitso, comrade Joey, comrade Kani

and comrade Jeff.

MR TLOUBATLA: Okay. Then they arrived there, you are at the house and then

what happened?

MR MALAN: Sorry, were all six of them with the four comrades in one car?

MR MPHORENG: They used two cars.

ADV BOSMAN: How did you identify them as having been part of the group that

sang the intimidating songs?

MR MPHORENG: While we were busy cleaning I went out now and then because

it was scary because AZAPO and UDF were fighting. If you saw a group of people

you would not rest and I identified them, I saw them, that they were in the group of

people singing.

ADV BOSMAN: How big was the group that was singing?

MR MPHORENG: In 1986 during the conflicts, the youths, the school children

were the most involved in the conflict, now the people who were singing were my

age.

ADV BOSMAN: No but I don't mean their size I mean how many people were

singing in that group, how many people were in the group?

MR MPHORENG: I mentioned earlier on that there might have been 15 to 20, I'm

not sure about the exact number.

ADV BOSMAN: So how did you distinguish these six people, on what did you

distinguish them?


MR MPHORENG: The six suited the description of the people I saw.

ADV BOSMAN: But what were the distinguishing factors, what was special about

them that you remembered these six out of twenty people?

MR MALAN: If I may just add on here, give us the description of the six people

then.

MR MPHORENG: You would normally identify a person by the kind of clothes,

that helps a lot in identifying. If a person is wearing a red jersey ...[intervention]

MR MALAN: Mr Mphoreng, I asked you a specific question please, I asked you to

give us a description of these people, not on how one would normally identify

people. The question that Advocate Bosman put to you was: "How did you identify

these six amongst the 15 or 20"? Your answer was: they fitted the description of

the people you saw, now we want to know why did you know that they were there?

What did you see on them, was it their faces, was it their clothes, if it's there

clothes, what was the clothes, how did you know that those six were among the

15?

MR MPHORENG: I have problems as to how I identified them exactly but what

happened was that these boys, these six boys who were in the company of our

comrades were among a group of the boys singing intimidating songs.

ADV SIGODI: I just want clarity on this aspect. In your response you said that

they fitted the description, were they described to you or did you see them, did you

identify them?

MR MPHORENG: Nobody identified them to me, I saw them myself.

ADV SIGODI: So when they were brought to you, did you see the people you had

seen or did somebody describe them to you, because the word that was used by the

interpreter was that they were described, they fitted the description. I just want to

clarify the interpretation between the word: "description" and: "identification".

MR MPHORENG: Nobody told me that it was them, I saw them myself.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, I understand you perfectly but the problem is that the

confusion came because you yourself Mr Mphoreng, used to the wrong words to

express yourself. In your own language you said: "basuti description", you said so

instead of simply: ...[no translation]

I don't know why you used that word, when in fact what you meant simply that

they looked like the same people who passed on earlier on. You must be careful in

using words because they can cause a unnecessary confusion.


MR MPHORENG: Yes, Judge, I agree with you, I should have used the word:

"They were like those I saw in the group".

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Mphoreng, these people were brought to you there and

then can you just go on from there, what happened, where did you take them to,

what did you do with them?

MR MPHORENG: They were six and we split them in two groups, three were

taken to the one room and three were taken to the other room and thereafter we

started with the interrogation. I was personally involved in the interrogation.

MR TLOUBATLA: I want you to give us a detailed description of how you went

about interrogating them, that is particularly yourself. How did you go about

interrogating them?

MR MPHORENG: I said earlier on that I strongly suspected that these boys were

members of SOSCO, now when we interrogated them I was actually confirming

my suspicion. This is how we interrogated them: I severely assaulted them. If I

remember very well I was using hangers(?), I was using bottles, I was kicking

them, I was beating them with my fists.

During the interrogation I observed that two of these boys had UDF T-shirts on,

one of the T-shirts was printed: RMC, which is Release Mandela Campaign, the

other T-shirt was UDF. As I was busy with one of them I got the information that

yes, indeed they were members of SOSCO and they had been instructed that

members of AZAPO are the enemies and they must be killed.

MR TLOUBATLA: Did they, during that interrogation, did they mention who

gave them such instructions to assault members of AZAPO?

MR MPHORENG: One of the victims in the group that I interrogated mentioned

that Masichaba - I think her surname was Luate, Masichaba was a prominent

member of the UDF, now one of the boys informed me that Masichaba told them

that members of AZAPO are not right, they just need to be killed. That is the

information that I got during the interrogation.

MR TLOUBATLA: Would you agree with me that because of the pressure, the

assaults that you were inflicting on them, the answers might not necessarily have

been correct but they had said to please you as the interrogators?

MR MPHORENG: I have mentioned that there was a conflict between AZAPO

and UDF, we were not fighting as individuals and that is why these members of

UDF, when they got hold of AZAPO they killed him. An example is that of Martin

Mohau, they killed him just because he was a member of AZAPO and the same

applies to Sipho Khomezulu.


MR MALAN: Will you please answer the question that was put to you.

Will you repeat that question please Mr Tloubatla?

MR TLOUBATLA: Would you agree with me that because of the pressure that

you had exerted on these boys, some of the answers that they gave you may not

necessarily have been true but they were just simply said in order to try and

appease you as the interrogators? In other words, some sort of confession through

force might not necessarily be true. Do you agree with me on that?

MR MPHORENG: Yes, I fully agree with you.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you. And then - right, you interrogated them, you

assaulted them and then what happened thereafter?

MR MPHORENG: I assaulted them with hangers and bottles and as I was busy

one of the victims names Oscar confirmed that they were members of SOSCO and

that they received an order from Masichaba Luarte that members of AZAPO were

enemies.

MR TLOUBATLA: Who was with you during this interrogation of these boys?

MR MPHORENG: I was with comrade Nani Kani, I was with comrade Kabelo and

Jeff was also present.

MR TLOUBATLA: It was just the three of you in the whole house all the time?

MR MPHORENG: It was not the three of us, I've mentioned the people who were

with me in the room. Remember we split in two groups, the three victims were in

this room where I was and the other three in the other room.

MR TLOUBATLA: What I want to know is, in total - that is the people that you

would regard as your comrades who were assisting you in interrogating these

people, who else was there and how many people were there?

MR MPHORENG: The people who were with me when we interrogated these

comrades were myself, Kabelo, Jeff, Pitso, Kani and Joey.

MR TLOUBATLA: So you proceeded to interrogated them and until when did you

interrogate these people?

MR MPHORENG: We interrogated them for almost the whole afternoon until it

was getting dark.

MR TLOUBATLA: Okay. What happened when it became dark?


MR MPHORENG: Comrade Sam Siyema arrived together with comrade Tammy

Moglegwa. These two comrades were prominent leaders of our organisation. When

they arrived we briefed them about the situation and after briefing them an order

was issued out, they said: "Yes, we hear your report, now must happen is that these

boys be killed". What I'm trying to say it, I received an order from the two

comrades at that time.

MR TLOUBATLA: Just to clear something, if my memory serves me well, I

thought you mentioned that when you were called to Jeff's house you and arrived

there you found Tammy and Sam or something like that, I don't know whether I

was correct.

MR MPHORENG: Yes, you read me perfectly well, it was in the morning when I

found comrade Tammy and comrade Sam but they left during the day and they

came just towards sunset.

MR TLOUBATLA: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, the Pitso that you mentioned, is that the applicant?


MR TLOUBATLA: Alright.

CHAIRPERSON: That is - what did you say about him? When you were asked as

to who was present during the interrogation, you said something like you were

divided into two groups and then you mentioned some names and you mentioned

him. I don't quite follow in what context you mentioned him.

MR MPHORENG: The reason why I mention his name is that he was in the same

yard where the interrogation took place.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. He was not present during the interrogation, isn't that

what you said?

MR MPHORENG: I have mentioned already that we separated and went in two

rooms, I did not see him in the room where I was.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why are you giving us his name? If he was not part of the

interrogation why are you giving us his name?

MR MPHORENG: I mentioned his name because when these boys were caught up

in Orlando East one of the cars that was used was his.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, we'll check the record.



So when Sam and Tammy arrived, what happened, that is in the evening now?

CHAIRPERSON: You briefed them and later they said that these people must be

killed and you are saying that, you say they said to you: "Yes, we hear you but

these boys must be killed" and you said that for that reason that is why you say that

you received an order from the two comrades to kill, is that what you are saying?

MR MPHORENG: I said an order was taken out by comrade Tammy and comrade

Sam, these are the two comrades who arrived when it was getting dark. They were

prominent leaders of the organisation and we briefed them as to what happened

during the day. We told them about the information that we got out of the victims

and it was then that an order was issued out that these people be killed.

MR TLOUBATLA: Just to deviate slightly, in your application or in your

statement wherein you apply for amnesty for the killing of the security guard - I

beg your pardon Mr Chairman, I just want to refer to something ...[intervention]

MR MALAN: The loose statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Why are we moving to something else now?

MR TLOUBATLA: Now I just wanted to refer to something specific Mr

Chairman, I'll leave it out for the moment. I can't find that statement anyway.

At B you said that comrade Tammy and comrade Sam gave you an order to kill

these people and then what happened thereafter, what did you do? What was the

next action that you took?

MR MPHORENG: After comrade Tammy and comrade Sam gave out an order we

implemented the order. The order was that these members of SOSCO be loaded

into the boots of the cars and kill them thereafter.

We took them and we went to Showela. I was involved and I had a firearm. When

we arrived at Showela I had Oscar with me and I grabbed him from behind by his

belt. We arrived in an open veld in Showela and I implemented the order, I shot

Oscar.

MR TLOUBATLA: You mentioned that you grabbed Oscar by the belt, shot him

and so on, did you know these boys before? How did you know that the person you

were grabbing by his belt was Oscar? Did you know these boys before?

MR MPHORENG: I did not know him before but during the interrogation his

name cropped up because I was actually dealing with him, that's how I knew it was

Oscar. I did not know him before, it was only during the interrogation that I got to

know him.


MR TLOUBATLA: Before you went to Showela - I want your role, the role that

you played, how did you transport these people, how did you manage to get them

into the cars?

MR MPHORENG: It was clear after the order was issued out, that we had to force

them. We just packed them into the boot and we drove to Showela.

MR TLOUBATLA: Perhaps you don't understand my question. You can literally

pick a person up and dump them in a boot, alternatively you can give him an

instruction: "Get into the boot", what I want to know is, how did you do that and

you personally, did you perhaps stand back and keep quiet and somebody ordered

them to go into the cars? What was your role in getting these people into the boots

of the cars?

MR MPHORENG: I grabbed Oscar by his belt from behind and I pushed him and

roughly pushed him into the boot, others did the same.

MR TLOUBATLA: Alright, ...[intervention]

ADV SIGODI: Do you remember how long this interrogation took?

MR MPHORENG: It took a long time. If I remember, I think they arrived at about

3 p.m. at Jeff's place until it was dark.

ADV BOSMAN: Why did it take so long to interrogate them? I mean, all you

wanted to know was whether they were members of SOSCO and who gave the

instructions.

MR MPHORENG: It took time to interrogate them because they did not confess

quickly. One other thing is that we were waiting for an instruction from above,

from the senior members of the organisation as to yes, we have information from

these people, they confirm that they are members of SOSCO, what should be the

next step then, that is why it took so long.

ADV SIGODI: And where were the other people, I mean in which room were they

in the house, the other three?

MR MPHORENG: I'm not sure as to the measurements but Jeff's house was an

ordinary four roomed house but it wasn't a long distance, it was just a short

distance.

ADV SIGODI: So they were in the next room?


ADV SIGODI: And you were busy assaulting them in one room?


MR MPHORENG: Yes, the interrogation carried on even in the other room.

ADV SIGODI: Were they screaming?

MR MPHORENG: If I remember well, they did not scream.

ADV SIGODI: Did you hear screams from the other room?

MR MPHORENG: I did not hear screams from the other room.

ADV SIGODI: And how badly injured were they when you took them into the

boot of the car?

MR MPHORENG: They were badly injured because we interrogated them for a

long time with bottles, with hangers, those are the things that I used.

ADV SIGODI: But they did not scream?

MR MPHORENG: I do not remember Chairperson, whether they screamed or they

did not scream but there is a probability that they screamed because we were

interrogating them.


Alright. From - okay, even before we get there, what I want to know is, what was

the need for you to interrogate them? I mean they had been picked up, you say you

were sure that they looked like the people you saw during the course of the day

walking up and down, singing songs, what was the need, can you perhaps explain?

What was the need for you to interrogate them any further, why didn't you just

simply execute them?

MR MPHORENG: The reason to interrogate them was that during the morning I

had a strong suspicion that they were members of SOSCO because they were

singing intimidating songs, intimidating and belittling our organisation but at the

time I did not have facts that they were members of SOSCO.

Now with the interrogation I was trying to confirm my suspicions and the

information clearly came out during the interrogation that they were members of

SOSCO and one other point, some of them had T-shirts of Release Mandela

Campaign and the UDF T-shirts. Two of the SOSCO members in the room where I

was, one had a UDF T-shirt and the other one an RMC T-shirt.

MR TLOUBATLA: If these boys had told you that they were not members of UDF

or SOSCO or so on, what would you have done after having assaulted them?

CHAIRPERSON: Well sorry, maybe they did. Didn't they tell you at some stage

that they were not members of UDF or SOSCO?


MR MPHORENG: At the beginning of the interrogation they said they were not

members but as the interrogation went along they confirmed that they were

members of SOSCO.

CHAIRPERSON: Now we can get to the next stage of Mr Tloubatla's question.

When they told you that they were not members of UDF or SOSCO, what did you

do?

MR MPHORENG: I think our enemy was clear and it was a general knowledge

that the UDF was fighting with AZAPO. Now the fight was between the members

of the UDF and the members of AZAPO. We were not only fighting ordinary

members of the community, we were fighting members of UDF as AZAPO.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether the interpretation could be inaccurate but I

thought I asked you: "When they told you that they were not members of UDF or

SOSCO, what was your reaction, what did you do"?

MR MPHORENG: When the interrogation began and they told us they were not

members of SOSCO, we did not agree with them because at that time we had

already seen that some of them had T-shirts aligned to the UDF which was an

organisation we were fighting.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, I didn't ask you whether you agreed with them, I asked

you - and this is for the third time, I asked you: "What did you do, if anything"?

MR MPHORENG: We harshly interrogated them and we assaulted them.

CHAIRPERSON: Why, why did you assault them? I mean they tell you: "We are

not members of the UDF or SOSCO, why do you assault them"

MR MPHORENG: The reason for us to assault them was because they were not

telling us the truth, it was clear that they were lying because during those days you

did not just wear an AZAPO T-shirt if you were not a member of AZAPO, you

would not put on a UDF T-shirt if you were not a member of the UDF.

ADV BOSMAN: Were you not more concerned with the issue of whether they

were members of SOSCO? It seemed as though you were more interested in

identifying them as SOSCO member, is that not so? That is what I gathered.

MR MPHORENG: We were more concerned with whether they were members of

the UDF which was aligned to SOSCO.

ADV BOSMAN: Then why did you assault the people who were wearing UDF T-

shirts?


MR MPHORENG: The motivation for the interrogation was that in the morning

these boys sang intimidating songs and they belittled our organisation. Now they

were found in Orlando in the vicinity of some of our comrades and they released

the information that they were going to reconnoitre the houses of some of our

comrades so that they can be attacks that evening.

In the interrogation they mentioned that the reason for going to Orlando was to

reconnoitre the area to identify houses so that in the evening they can be attacked.

Parents were being killed, they were being harassed because their children

belonged to AZAPO.

ADV BOSMAN: I don't really follow you now Mr Mphoreng, exactly why did you

assault them? First I got the impression, and I may be wrong, but I got the

impression you were assaulting them because they were SOSCO members, you

wanted the to acknowledge that they were SOSCO members, then you indicated

no, you wanted them to acknowledge that they were UDF members and I asked

you then: "You knew they were UDF members, some of them, because they were

wearing the T-shirts, why did you assault them", now I get the impression you

were assaulting them because you wanted to know about their indication that they

were reconnoitring to identify house to attack. Could you just clarify this, I don't

follow.

MR MPHORENG: One of the reasons to interrogate them, we wanted to know

exactly who gave them orders to burn our homes and to kill our leaders, we were

not just assaulting them. That the members of the UDF was not the only reason for

the interrogation, we also wanted to know who issued out orders, who sent them to

kill our members of burn homes of members of our organisation.

ADV SIGODI: Did you ask them if they were responsible for burning Jeff's house?

MR MPHORENG: Yes, we asked them.

ADV SIGODI: And what was the response?

MR MPHORENG: The information that we got from Oscar is that he was present

when Jeff's house was petrol-bombed.

MR MALAN: Mr Mphoreng, Advocate Bosman put the three answers to you

which you gave at various stages, you say one of the reason that you gave for the

interrogation and the assaults was that they released information on the

reconnaissance in the area to those comrades of yours that brought them in, is that

correct?



MR MALAN: Now, if they were already have given to your comrades bringing

them in, the information that they were doing these reconnaissance trips, why

would they have to be assaulted in order to admit that are of UDF? Why would

they deny the UDF or the SOSCO ties if they before that already admitted to

reconnoitring for the purposes of bringing attacks to the homes of comrades?

MR MPHORENG: According to us, that information was insufficient, we wanted

to know exactly who sent them, who sent them to attack members of AZAPO, to

burn down homes of AZAPO members.

MR MALAN: Let me try this again. You say they voluntarily gave the information

that they were on these reconnaissance trips but at the same time they had to be

assaulted and beaten in order to admit that they were of the UDF, that they were

affiliated to UDF?

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Chairman, I wonder whether I should not object to that.

MR MALAN: I'm trying to find out if you could help me, if I understand it

incorrectly then please help Mr Tloubatla.

MR TLOUBATLA: I don't think the word voluntarily was used, I don't know

whether it makes any difference.

MR MALAN: No, sorry, let me withdraw the word voluntarily indeed

...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It makes a lot of difference.

MR MALAN: That wasn't used but what was indeed, evidence was given if I

understood that correctly, and the witness can correct me if I'm wrong, that one of

the reasons for the interrogation was that they released information on these

reconnaissance activities to the comrades that brought them into the house even

before they were interrogated and it was to get further information on that that they

were interrogated. That was one of the reasons advanced to Advocate Bosman on

here question.

Now my question is, despite divulging this to the comrades that brought them

there, this is before any assault as I understand it, why do they now suddenly deny

even membership or affiliation to UDF and that acknowledgement, that confession

has to be beaten out of them - to follow your own questioning at an earlier stage

Mr Tloubatla.

MR MPHORENG: All the information that we got from members of the SOSCO

was retrieved during the interrogation. As a member of AZAPO I disbelieved that

information, I felt that it was insufficient, we wanted to know exactly where the


orders came from, we wanted to know who sent them, we wanted to know why

they were executing that.

MR MALAN: Did they tell you?

MR MPHORENG: Yes, they told us.

MR MALAN: Will you share that with us please?

MR MPHORENG: They mentioned Masichaba's name who was a prominent UDF

leader, she lived in that area.

MR MALAN: Was that the only name?

MR MPHORENG: That is the name I clearly remember.

MR MALAN: Were there no other names?

MR MPHORENG: I only remember the name of Masichaba, I don't know whether

in the other group names were mentioned.

MR MALAN: Did they admit to having burnt the home that you were cleaning up

after the bombing?

MR MPHORENG: Yes, they agreed.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean by that?

MR MPHORENG: They agreed that they were present when Jeff's house was

petrol-bombed.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not what you said a short while ago, you said only Oscar,

you said Oscar is the one who admitted that the was present.

MR MPHORENG: I mentioned Oscar's name because he is the one I interrogated a

lot.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you know it's not the same thing. If you say Oscar

admitted, it's not the same thing as saying that, as the answer that you have just

given now. You must listen to yourself when you give evidence.

I think maybe we could adjourn here.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS



AMNESTY HEARING

DATE: 09 JUNE 1998

NAME: MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG

HELD AT: JOHANNESBURG

DAY 2

______________________________________________________CHAIRPERSO

N: It's the 9th of June, we are continuing the same matter. Mr Tloubatla?

MR TLOUBATLA: With due respect Mr Chairman I think I maybe lost a little bit

in the sense I can't remember where we stopped last time. My assistant is

unfortunately not here.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry that's your point where we stopped, according to my

recollection although it was really not the thrust, the thrust of the evidence was at

the point where I admonished the witness to listen to himself as and when you

testify because we were at a point, it was on a point where I told him that earlier on

he had said that it Oscar said that he was the one, the only one who was present

when the attack to place and yesterday later on, in the late afternoon, when we

were about to adjourn he conveyed to us that, all of them said that they were

present when the attack took place, but I don't know whether that was at the time

the main direction, I think there was a main direction, that was an (indistinct). I

think the main thing was about - let me not commit myself.

MR TLOUBATLA: I think I can recollect slightly, I think we were at a point when

he was telling us how they took them from the house into the cars and we were at

that point.

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Mphoreng do you recall yesterday I

asked you how were these boys taken into the cars and I even put they question

were they not resisting and so on?

MR MPHORENG: I remember that question and I answered as follows: I said I

said I grabbed Oscar by the belt behind when we took them to the cars. I pushed

him roughly into the boot. Other victims were also pushed in the same manner into

the boot.


MR TLOUBATLA: Just to take you a little bit back, you were saying that during

the interrogation you assaulted them with wires, hangers, bottles and so on. I just

want you to give us the detail as to how did you assault them, I mean with a bottle

one can hit one with a bottle, one can stab one with a bottle. How did you assault

them with that assortment of weapons?

MR MPHORENG: This is how I assaulted Oscar: I hit him with a bottle on the

head until it broke and thereafter I stabbed him with the same bottle and I assaulted

him again with a hanger. I think he was bleeding already because the bottle had

broken. I stabbed him with that bottle.

MR TLOUBATLA: Alright. You then put them into the car and then the car in

which you were travelling, who else was there with you except the victims?

MR MPHORENG: The people who were with me were comrade Sam Siema (?)

who was the driver and comrade Tamee who was seated in the front passenger seat

and myself seated in the back seat.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then where did you go to from Orlando West?

MR MPHORENG: We went straight to Shawella (?) if my memory serves me

well, that is where we shot them.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Tloubatla where is the first applicant Mr Hlasa?

MR TLOUBATLA: He had not yet arrived sir, I don't know. I did indicate that he

hasn't arrived.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he in custody or what?

COUNSEL (?): No he's not.

CHAIRPERSON: Well as long as he's (indistinct) he's on his own, I don't think he

will have any problem. I got concerned because for a moment I thought he was in

custody or something so if it is through fault of no one else then well that's alright.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman. I'm sure Mr Mphoreng you were

listening when Mr Hlasa was speaking here yesterday and then he told the

committee that you first went to another comrades house in Shawella before you

went to go and shoot them. Do you recall that?

MR MPHORENG: I recall that.

MR TLOUBATLA: Now the question is, what he said is it true that you went to

another comrades house before you went to go and shoot them, where you were

(indistinct) in the kitchen?


MR MPHORENG: We used two different cars to go and shoot these people. The

car that I was in went straight to the spot where they were shot.

MR TLOUBATLA: So your group didn't go to Shawella?

MR MPHORENG: If I remember very well, our group did not go to the comrades

house, the car that I was in went straight to the spot where we shot them.

MR TLOUBATLA: But do you know the comrade that Mr Hlasa was speaking

about yesterday? The house in Shawella, I forgot the name, Glen yes. Do you

know that house, did you ever go there that evening.

MR MPHORENG: If I remember very well our group did not go to comrade

Glen's house.

MR TLOUBATLA: Alright then tell us what you actually did when you arrived

where the people were shot?

MR MPHORENG: When we arrive at the spot where they were shot we parked the

car opposite to the open space, we got out of the car. Comrade Tamee (?) opened

the boot. After opening the boot I took out Oscar, still grabbing him by his belt

behind. We went to a spot where I shot him and this was a sort of a hill. Now I put

him on the edge. If I remember well I shot him with three bullets on the head. After

shooting him I pushed him towards the bottom of the hill slope.

MR TLOUBATLA: Did you witness the shooting of the other three boys?

MR MPHORENG: Yes I witnessed that.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not clear, what three boys are you referring to because if you

say the other three boys then it means that you are referring to the other group.

MR TLOUBATLA: The other group yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Does he understand you the same way? The question is when

the other three boys were shot by Hlasa and others, when they were shot did you

see that?

MR MPHORENG: My answer was directed to the boys who were in our car, not

those in Hlasa's car.

CHAIRPERSON: The other two I imagine because you shot one, obviously you

witnessed that one and if you wanted to know about the remaining in your group

he would have said the other three so I thought when your lawyer speaks of the

other three you are referring to those who were shot by Hlasa and others. Did you

see that?


MR MPHORENG: (indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: No, just answer my question. Did you see the other three people

when they were shot by Hlasa and others?

MR MPHORENG: No I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman, thank you very much, that was my

question basically.

CHAIRPERSON: But, sorry. Do you know whether or not the people you shot was

at the same point where the other three were shot by Hlasa and somebody else,

were also shot, because both of you speak of up the hill, the ravine and the like?

MR MPHORENG: We're talking of the same place, but there are distances

involved in this. The other group might have shot at this spot and the other group

about 10 meters from the first spot.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if there was no meeting at Glen's house to (indistinct) and

to finalise as to how these people were to be killed and where, then how come that

they happened to be shot at more or less the same spot? Was it agreed previously

and if so where?

MR MPHORENG: I was implementing and order from Orlando West. An order

had been taken out already that these boys, members of SOSCO, were going to be

shot and we were going to shoot them in Shawella, that is what I remember very

well.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, thank you.

MR TLOUBATLA: When you were given the order to shoot these boys, did the

order also include the place where you had to shoot them?

MR MPHORENG: Yes the order included the spot.

MR TLOUBATLA: But you personally didn't witness the shooting of the other

three boys, not the ones with whom you went?

MR MPHORENG: No I did not see them.

ADV BOSMAN: Just a moment. Mr Mphoreng how was the spot identified, how

was it described when the order was given?

MR MPHORENG: They said we were going to Shawella which is an open space,

in other words it was an outside area, it was outside Shawella.


ADV BOSMAN: Was there any mention of the hill or the ravine or did you just

choose that by your own accord?

MR MPHORENG: The people who took the decision, who gave the orders as to

where the deceased had to be killed, did they also accompany you to the spot

where these people were killed or did some of them accompany you?

MR MPHORENG: The people who were with me in the car, comrade (indistinct)

and comrade Sam Siema (?) were the people who took out an order.

CHAIRPERSON: They also went with you to the spot where the people were

killed or shot?

MR MPHORENG: Yes, I left with them.

MR TLOUBATLA: I thank you Mr Chairman. The other boys, that is you say you

shot Oscar and then you push him down the hill - the others, the other two, did you

see how they were shot and would you describe how they were shot?

MR MPHORENG: When I took Oscar from the boot the second victim was taken

by comrade Tamee, the third victim was taken by comrade Sam. We went to the

same spot. After shooting I went back to the car, on my way to the car I heard

gunshots. Now the impression that I gained at that time was that comrade Tamee

and comrade Sam were shooting the last two victims.

MR TLOUBATLA: After killing those boys and then where did you go?

MR MPHORENG: After killing these boys comrade Tamee and comrade Sam

dropped me at Orlando East and one of our hideouts.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then how many days after this incident were you

arrested?

MR MPHORENG: If I remember well, I was arrested after two if not three days.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Mphoreng I just want you to give us the background to -

you know a slight background to this violence that existed between your

organisation and the UDF. In fact even before I come to that, there was a question

if you will recall yesterday where you seemed to - was there any difference, in fact

you use UDF, SOSCO so interchangeably one doesn't know which is which. Was

there any difference between SOSCO and the UDF. Did you regard the people of

SOSCO as different people, did you regard the UDF as a completely different

group that has got nothing to do with SOSCO?


MR MPHORENG: According to the political organisation structures, this was the

situation: UDF was the mother body and SOSCO was the student wing of the

UDF.

MR TLOUBATLA: So in your dealings, or let's say in this conflict, did you

differentiate between the UDF or SOSCO?

MR MPHORENG: UDF and SOSCO were one thing, the only difference was that

SOSCO was a student wing of the UDF.

MR TLOUBATLA: So what ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand your evidence, you attitude towards UDF and

SOSCO, you really regard them as one thing. In fact you just referred to SOSCO,

you see SOSCO as being UDF and as I understand the trend of your evidence you

see them as being one to such an extent that sometimes when you refer to a

member of SOSCO you simply refer to him as a UDF member because they're the

same thing?


MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Do you have an idea as to when

exactly did this conflict between AZAPO and the UDF associated organisations

commence?

MR MPHORENG: This is how I recall the start of this conflict: the conflict

between UDF and AZAPO started in Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape, I think the

conflict was worse in that area because that is where most of our comrades were

killed. If I remember very well some of the members of the UDF were also killed.

That is where the conflict started and later on it came to Johannesburg and Soweto.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla I think you went into the background in details

yesterday, you even handed up some documents. What you could ask your client

though, perhaps you could ask him whether, apart from what the previous

applicant has said with regard to the background, whether there's anything more or

anything new that he wants to add onto that one. Maybe he's got his own personal

perspectives which may come on to a new dimension of the conflicts. But really it

doesn't help a lot for him to repeat the same thing what the (indistinct) said.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman. We had Mr Hslasa yesterday telling

us about the background, where it started and what was happening in other parts of

the country. Mr Mphoreng do you perhaps have any other aspects that you can -

perhaps even other examples that you would like to mentioned in as far as this

conflict between AZAPO and the UDF were concerned?


MR MPHORENG: Thank you very much Chairperson. Some conflicts that I

remember, I remember the one at the Teflo (?) University. There was a time where

Lymon Mbasa and Tamee (?) were attacked at the University at the North. They

were going to address the Azanian Student Movement. They were attacked by

AZAZCO. At that time AZAZCO was an organisation related to the charterists, in

other words it was also a charterist organisation. The other incident that took place

if I remember very well, it was at the University of the Western Cape. Comrade

Lymon Mbasa was a prominent leader of AZAPO at that time, it was in 1985 if not

early 1986. He was attacked because he had gone to that university to address the

students of an organisation that was related to AZAPO. He was attacked by

members of AZAZCO.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Mphoreng one of the incidents actually that you have just

described - Mr Chairman I will hand in, I think I've got a press cutting here, it's

from the start date of the 23rd of April 1985.

MR MALAN: Mr Chairman if I may just come in here. As far as I'm concerned I

accept that there was conflict between the UDF, its junior or affiliated

organisations. This conflict, to my knowledge, apparently started in the Eastern

Cape, it moved virtually country wide, I'm not aware of Natal but certainly in other

Provinces it was there and I don't know what Mr Ameen (indistinct), but I certainly

don't dispute the fact that there was and we can save a lot of time, there was

conflict between those two organisations indeed.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman, I don't think I'm going to go into

detail, it's just the he mentioned something and it happens that I've got actually a

press cutting, I thought I'd ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have enough copies for everybody there?

MR TLOUBATLA: Unfortunately not, I will make them during the ...

(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Where does it relate, to which incident does it relate to?

MR TLOUBATLA: It relates to the attack on members of AZAPO at the

University of the North.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that?

MR TLOUBATLA: This was the 23rd of April 1985.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, we'll have that. I wouldn't like to ask Mr Ameen what

his attitude is at this stage, I don't want to put him in a very difficult position, I

don't want him to commit himself at this stage. It may be that he has not finalised

his consultation. I think let's have it up as EXHIBIT F?


MR TLOUBATLA: Exhibit ja, I'm not so sure if it's F.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it will be F, yes. What's the date Mr Tloubatla?

MR TLOUBATLA: It's 23 April 1985, it's from the Star.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Tloubatla.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Mphoreng did you see the article, the one in the Star, the

one that I gave it to you?

MR MPHORENG: I saw the article. Yes, I've seen the article and it confirms what

I've just said.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then lastly, these guns with which you were shooting

these boys, where did you get them. Who supplied you with the guns?

MR MPHORENG: Comrade Tameen (indistinct) gave me the gun that I used, he

was my leader, he gave me that firearm.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then after - alright, let me rather put it this way - when

did he give you the firearm and how long did you keep that firearm?

MR MPHORENG: In early 1986 I received para-military training in Zaminie, this

lasted for 2 weeks. This was just a short course and I was trained as to how to use

firearms such as 3.8 which is a revolver, 3.7 Magnum and 9mm firearms. During

that period, because of the conflict of the war, I had the firearm with me all the

time. This was the firearm provided by comrade Tamee.

MR TLOUBATLA: Who was giving you the para-military training and where was

this?

MR MPHORENG: The training was in Zaminie (?). I was trained by comrade Sam

Siema and comrade Tamee (indistinct).

MR TLOUBATLA: Is it true that after this incident you actually went into exile?

MR MPHORENG: That is true.

MR TLOUBATLA: And did you joint any organisation, which organisation and

what did you do?

MR MPHORENG: I joined the military wing of the BCMA which is AZANLA,

Azanian Liberation Army.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then, yes just tell us, what did you do in the AZANLA?


MR MPHORENG: I skipped the country into Botswana, we went to the BCMA

organisation and immediately thereafter we joined the military wing, which is

AZANLA and we got a further training.

CHAIRPERSON: Because of the tenuous, if any, relevance of his activities post

the incident, I don't think we need to go into details.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman, I won't go into any details further

but - when did you come back to the country?

MR MPHORENG: It was in 1984, 1994 in August, I am sorry.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Chairman I think that will be all for the moment, I don't

have any further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you can just say, throughout your period in exile, were

you involved in the programmes and activities of BCM or AZANLA?

MR MPHORENG: I was involved in the activities of BCMA and AZANLA

throughout my exiled life.


MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Chairman I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR TLOUBATLA

CHAIRPERSON: How do you think or what possible political purpose would the

killing of these boys or boy have served?

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson yes there was a political purpose for the killing of

these boys. Before these comrades were killed,

I was a member of a political organisation called AZAPO. AZAPO was a political

organisation and it had a political programme of conscientising the people about

the political situation in the country. There were conflicts between AZAPO and the

UDF, now our work of conscientising the people and teaching them the politics of

the country and making them aware of the cruelty of the apartheid regime. We did

not manage to carry forward our political programmes because there were no-go

areas. We could not go to areas such as Pafeni, Mpumalong, Dumi (?) because

these places were dominated by the UDF - places such a Diepkloof also. Now we

had to commit this act so that we can recruit people to join our organisation which

is AZAPO, to join in large numbers to fully understand the political situation at

home without any fighting.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you through Mr Tloubatla?


MR TLOUBATLA: I'm through sir.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mphoreng didn't AZAPO and the UDF have a sort of

common goal in that they were fighting against the apartheid regime?

MR MPHORENG: According to my political knowledge there was a common goal

between AZAPO and UDF, but the difference between the two organisations was

that there strategies to fight the apartheid regime were not the same, that is where

we differed with the UDF. We believed that the political problems in this country

were problems affecting mostly the Black people. The Black people were supposed

to be in charge of their own freedom. We did not see White people as having

contribution in this whole problem because they were part of the problem.

ADV BOSMAN: And today how do you feel, is AZAPO still in existence and is

the UDF still in existence and is there still this essential difference in approach?

MR MPHORENG: Things have change politically, we have a new government

elected by the people in their majority. AZAPO still exists, but there is no UDF

anymore.

ADV BOSMAN: And how do you feel about AZAPO's position in the community,

are you still at loggerheads with other groups within the community? When I say at

loggerheads I mean is there still strife between AZAPO and other groups in the

community? The reason why I'm asking you this question Mr Mphoreng is that the

Amnesty Committee must also take into consideration whether amnesty in a matter

like this would benefit the whole reconciliation process and I'm trying to ascertain

what you feelings are at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Bosman wants to know is, we know there will always be

political parties and no the same parties and the like, we accept there will always

be opposition in politics, contests for turf and all that but we want to know whether

there is still violent strife going on. Violent conflict between the two groups as it

were?

MR MPHORENG: Thank you Chairperson. I have mentioned that things have

changed. We have a new government elected by the majority of the people. There

are no conflicts anymore between AZAPO and UDF. The fights that we

experienced in the early '80s are no more.

ADV BOSMAN: Do you feel that the killing of these victims had in fact served

any purpose?

MR MPHORENG: Yes I believe the killing of these boys served a certain purpose.

We were members of a political organisation and we had to defend our members

and defend our organisation. There's no person who'd join a political organisation

and thereafter not be provided with security.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink do you want to put questions now or after Mr Ameen?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Mr Chairman I'll do it now, I'll be

very brief. I want to go back to the interrogation of these six youths. You wanted to

find out whether they were supporters of UDF or members of UDF?

MR MPHORENG: We wanted to know whether they were members of UDF and

SOSCO.

MR BRINK: Right and on your evidence they admitted to being members or

supporters of UDF or SOSCO after they'd been beaten up?

MR MPHORENG: After I had assaulted Oscar he agreed that he

was a member of SOSCO.

MR BRINK: And the other people there, the remaining five, were they also beaten

up as a result of which they said they were supporters or members of SOSCO?

MR MPHORENG: According to the reports that I got from comrade Tamee and

comrade Sam Siema and comrade Cadalo (?) who were part of the interrogation,

they told me that the boys they assaulted agreed that they were members of

SOSCO.

MR BRINK: Now lastly, I just want to be absolutely clear, who gave the order that

these six youths should be murdered?

MR MPHORENG: I got the order from comrade Tamee (?) and comrade Sam

Siema.

MR BRINK: Can you tell me what their position was in AZAPO, what office they

held. Were they senior to you or were they ordinary members such as you were?

MR MPHORENG: Comrade Tamee (?) was a senior leader of the organisation. He

was in the national leadership of Azanian Student Leadership and comrade Sam

Siema was a senior member in AZAPO but I do not quite remember his position

but he was a very senior person in AZAPO.

MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Mphoreng.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ameen?

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman I would prefer to defer cross examination. If the last

applicant could be heard, I will have a short consultation with my clients and then

cross examine all three of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn't we now go back to the initial procedure.


MR AMEEN: We could, if I could have a short adjournment just to consult with

them, I won't be long.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just confer with my colleagues.

MR AMEEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Ameen, before you proceed. Mr Tloubatla it will be

recalled that your client has also made an application for amnesty in respect of the

killing of somebody who is believed was a security guard. Now you haven't led

evidence in chief on that and we are of the view that at any rate that particular

matter is not yet ripe for hearing, by reason of the fact that we are not satisfied that

proper investigation into the matter has been done. We feel extremely

uncomfortable to adjudicate on the particular application or aspect of you client's

application at this stage and unless you'd argue otherwise ... (inaudible - end of

tape) such time that some reasonable effort shall have been expended in the

investigation of certain aspects of the incident. You will of course no doubt diarise

the matter and keep the TRC on it's toes to (indistinct) the matter as soon as

possible so that your client's should have the matter disposed of. I do not believe

that the Amnesty Committee or the TRC would just indefinitely refrain or fail to

investigate the matter properly and thereby prolonging your client's agony. I think

you'd be entitled to demand of them to round up the investigations within a

reasonable time and have the matter set down, but for now unless you convince us

otherwise, we are of the view that that particular leg of your client's application,

that is his application in respect of the killing of the person I've referred to should

be stood down indefinitely.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Chairman thank you. I do agree with Mr Chairman in that

respect, wholeheartedly I've got no problem. We have discussed the matter with

my learned colleagues and we might actually address the committee on the matter

later on but for the moment I think if the matter is stood down indefinitely I am

quite comfortable with that, I have no problems.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that apply to the third applicant as well?

MR TLOUBATLA: No it doesn't affect Mr Hlasa, it doesn't affect him at all. He

was not involved in that matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Thandakubona is not involved either?

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Hlasa?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Thandakubona. I think Mr Thandakubona is involved. Yes

he is.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Hlasa is not involved in the security ... (intervention)


CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Thandakubona and Mr Mphoreng are involved.

CHAIRPERSON: That is correct. We will therefore stand down both the

applications in respect of that particular incident and for the record and in order to

make issues quite clear, one of the considerations why we would like to place on

record that we are not adjudicating that incident today, one of the reason why we

want to place it on record is to leave the door open for the matter to be heard by a

differently constituted committee and therefore that's why we want to (indistinct)

have it off the rest of the proceedings.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ameen please proceed.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR AMEEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr

Mphoreng you've given evidence to this committee and your evidence can broadly

be divided into two parts, one which deals with the political conflict which you

spoke so much about and the other about the incident itself as a result of which you

are now applying for amnesty. Is that correct?


MR AMEEN: Now let us go to the incident itself, let's confine yourself for the

moment just to the incident. When these six youths were first apprehended, were

you a part of the group of people that apprehended them?

MR MPHORENG: I was not part.

MR AMEEN: Where were you at the time that they were

apprehended?

MR MPHORENG: I was at Jeff's house in Orlando West.

MR AMEEN: I want to put it to you that there were two survivors out of the six

and that, depending on which one of them or both of them that testify, they will say

that the three applicants, that is the three of you present today applying for

amnesty, were the three people who actually accosted them near the Presbyterian

Church in Orlando and that a gun was pointed at them and that they were taken

under gun point to two cars about two streets away. What do you say to that?

MR MPHORENG: I agree that they were accosted in Orlando, but when they were

apprehended I was not present.


MR AMEEN: Under threat of gunpoint again, they were forced to get into the two

cars and they were brought to you comrade Jeff Lingani's (?) house where they

found a group of about ten or eleven young men busy painting the house or

engaged in an activity which seemed to say that they were busy painting the house.

You were at the house at the time. Do you agree with that?

MR MPHORENG: There were people cleaning the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ameen, sorry, it's not clear in my mind. Are we here - is the

witness and yourself talking about two different things when you speak of being

accosted and apprehended.

MR AMEEN: No Your Worship it's the same thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright so Mr Mphoreng when this people were - you admit that

this young boys were arrested near the Presbyterian Church at gunpoint. You agree

with that?

MR MPHORENG: I agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: But are you saying that you were not there or are you saying you

were there at that stage when that happened?

MR MPHORENG: When they were arrested at Orlando East I was not present.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you say it is true that they were accosted in the

manner that Mr Ameen has said, why do you say, were you told by somebody that

that is in fact what happened and now you agree with it?

MR MPHORENG: What I agree with is that they were arrested at Orlando East

and some of my comrades had firearms. At that stage I was in Orlando West. My

comrades told me what happened.

MR AMEEN: Thank you Mr Chair. Alright, these youths were then brought to the

house and there were these other men who were present in the house. They will say

that they were taken into the kitchen of the house where there was an assortment of

weapons, including guns, an axe, iron bars a motor car aerial. Is that true?

MR MPHORENG: I request the Amnesty Committee to understand that we are

talking about an incident that took place twelve years back, it is therefore normal

not to remember all the details related to that incident. Nevertheless it doesn't mean

those things did not happen.

MR AMEEN: You have given quite detailed evidence about for example the

political conflict, remember all of that. By your own account you were involved in

a vicious assault on at least one of these youths and you don't remember the things


that I'm talking about, that these weapons were there. Have you not thought of

these things during the course of your application for amnesty?

MR MPHORENG: I am not saying I do not remember some of the details, yes it is

true there was a firearm that was handled by me, yes it's true there was a bottle,

there was a hanger. Those are the details I remember well.

MR AMEEN: Was there a motor car aerial there as well?

MR MPHORENG: Those I details I cannot remember.

MR AMEEN: Now in the kitchen, were you the only one who assaulted these six

youths or were there others with you?

MR MPHORENG: When the assault started I was not alone. I have mentioned

earlier on, I do not remember whether we assaulted them in the kitchen or in the

bedroom, but I remember it was in the bedroom, it was myself, Kabelo ...

(intervention)

MR AMEEN: Could you just confine your answer to what happened in the kitchen

first please. I'll ask you again, in the kitchen were you the only one who assaulted

these youths or were there others with you who assaulted them?

MR MPHORENG: I do not remember well whether they were assaulted in the

kitchen but I remember they were assaulted in the bedroom.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you assault anyone of them in the kitchen?

MR MPHORENG: There is such a probability that I participated in the kitchen, as

well as in the kitchen, but the one that I remember well is the incident in the

bedroom.

CHAIRPERSON: But you do not recall assaulting them in the kitchen?

MR MPHORENG: It might have happened that I assaulted someone in the kitchen,

but this is something that happened twelve years back, I would therefore not be in

a position to remember all the details, it had been a long time since this incident,

but there is such a possibility that I started assaulting them from the kitchen to the

bedroom.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Ameen.

MR AMEEN: Thank you Mr Chair. I put it to you that the assault in the kitchen

took place for at least - for between an hour and an hour and a half, that people of

your group restrained these youths by holding them, stripped them of their

clothing, took away their money, their shoes, expensive shoes, expensive clothing,


took away their watches and that they were given old clothes in return and that

they were restrained and assaulted, beaten with iron bars and the buts of guns and

the axe. Does that detail jog your memory, can you remember that?

MR MPHORENG: Mr Ameen if I say I do not remember what happened in the

kitchen, I do not mean this did not happen at all. It is possible that it might have

happened in general, they were heavily assaulted, yes I might agree, it might have

happened. If I say I do not remember it happening I don't actually mean it did not

take place.

MR AMEEN: In this group that were busy ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, sorry to interrupt you Mr Ameen. This question has two

legs, you have answered the first leg. The first leg of it was whether assault did

take place in the kitchen. Now you have told us that you don't remember assault

taking place in the kitchen. The second leg of the question is, which you haven't

responded to, which I think you should, is that this people were restrained in the

kitchen area for about one and a half hours, their clothes taken away, their watches

and they were given old clothes. That is the second leg of the question. Were their

clothes taken away from them, given old clothes, watches taken away, expensive

shoes taken away? That is the second leg of the question.

MR MPHORENG: Can I ask Mr Ameen a question before answering this. Is he

referring to three people?

MR AMEEN: Whether six or three or two or what, any number of people that you

remember had their clothes taken off or away from them, their watches, any

number of them.

MR MPHORENG: Truly speaking I do not remember whether such a thing

happened but still it does not rule the probability that it happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that it is possible you've forgotten that

somebody had his clothes taken off his body, his watch taken away, his shoes

taken away? Are you saying that you might have forgotten that?

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson I do not remember well, but I do not disagree that

it might have happened.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, if their clothes were taken away and their watches and their

shoes, what would have been the purpose of taking away their clothes?

MR MPHORENG: I mentioned earlier on that I do not recall such an incident but I

am not disputing the fact that it might have happened, but I do not recall it

happening.


ADV SIGODI: You're not answering the question. You say you do not dispute that

it might have happened, therefore you are saying there is a possibility that it might

have happened. What I'm asking is, if there is this possibility and you foresee that

it's something that could have happened in your presence, but you've forgotten

about it, what do you think would have been the purpose of taking away the shoes,

the watch, the clothes and stripping them?

MR MPHORENG: If ever it happened, if people are engaged in a state of war any

means brutal is used to get information. It might be one of the reasons why their

clothes were taken away from them.

ADV SIGODI: Where would you have obtained the old clothes from?

MR MPHORENG: I am talking of the probabilities, I'm not talking of something

that I am sure of, that is why I cannot give you a clear indication as to who, where

they got the clothes from, the old clothes.

ADV SIGODI: Do you remember what the victims were wearing that day?

MR MPHORENG: I do not remember.

MR MALAN: May I just ask you, what did Oscar, what was he wearing that day?

MR MPHORENG: I do not remember what kind of clothes he had on that day.

MR MALAN: Do you remember that he wore a belt?

MR MPHORENG: Yes, he had a belt.

MR MALAN: But you can't remember the clothes?

MR MPHORENG: I do not remember, I don't remember what kind of clothes they

were but he had clothes on.

ADV SIGODI: When the victims were brought to you, you said you could

remember them from the clothes that they wore when the were walking up and

down the street. Do you remember that?

MR MPHORENG: I remember.

ADV SIGODI: Do you remember who was wearing a T-shirt with an RMC

written, Release Mandela Campaign?

MR MPHORENG: The one who had an RMC Campaign T-shirt was in the other

bedroom with Oscar but on top of the T-shirt he had a shirt.


ADV SIGODI: And do you remember who was wearing a T-shirt with a UDF

sign?

MR MPHORENG: Yes, he was also in the room with Oscar, they were three in

that room.

ADV SIGODI: But you can't remember what Oscar was wearing?

MR MPHORENG: Oscar had clothes, but I cannot remember the details as to what

kind of clothes they were.

ADV BOSMAN: Was he wearing a watch, was Oscar wearing a watch?


MR AMEEN: I put it to you earlier that the six youths had been kept in the

kitchen, assaulted, restrained, clothes taken off, all of that for about one to one and

a half hours and thereafter they were moved, separated into two groups and were

moved into two bedrooms. Is that correct?

MR MPHORENG: That is correct, they were split up into different rooms.

MR AMEEN: And you were in the group which has Oscar in that group, of which

Oscar was a part?


MR AMEEN: Now you testified yesterday that you did not know these six youths,

that they were not know personally to you, that you had recognised them as being

part of a group which had been chanting and singing in front of Jeff Ngani's (?)

house, you didn't know them personally. Is that correct?

MR MPHORENG: That is correct, I did not know them personally.

MR AMEEN: How then do you keep referring to Oscar as if you know him

personally. You've referred to him in the way you manhandled him, in the way you

held him by his belt and in the way you pushed him into the boot and in the way

you took him personally and shot him. Tell me how you know him personally. Did

you know him personally?

MR MPHORENG: I did not personally know Oscar. During the interrogation I

came to know about his name, when I was interrogating him I got his name.

MR AMEEN: Did you get the names of the others during interrogation?

MR MPHORENG: I mentioned yesterday that I concentrated a lot on Oscar, that is

the reason why I remember him.


MR AMEEN: Explain to this committee why in particular you concentrated on

Oscar. There were six people altogether, all of them according to you had been

seen as being part of the group which had intimidated you people and which

according to you had been responsible for burning your comrade's home. Why

chose on one of them in particular?

MR MPHORENG: The reason why I concentrated on Oscar - we split them up in

two groups because we wanted to do a thorough job. We didn't want to interrogate

them haphazardly, we had to separate them in two groups. The first group was in

the other room and we were in the other room and I assigned myself to Oscar and

other comrades of mine assigned themselves to the other victims. There isn't a

more specific reason. We wanted to make a thorough job that is why we split up.

MR AMEEN: So let me understand this clearly. You and your comrades spent

between an hour and an hour and a half beating them up in the kitchen, stripping

them and then you separate them to do a more thorough job. All you wanted to

know from them was whether they were members of the UDF, that is all you

wanted, an answer to one question.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you are mis-stating the evidence, that is not the evidence.

The evidence is not that all they wanted to know was whether they were UDF, the

evidence was they wanted to know if they were UDF, who had given them

instructions, if anybody, who are those people and so on and so forth.

MR AMEEN: My apologies Mr Chairman. I will rephrase that. One of the things

that you wanted to know was whether they were members of UDF. You have

already spent an hour, an hour and a half beating them up and then you separate

them again to make a more thorough job. What did you hope to get. Did you get

the answers by that time already?

MR MPHORENG: Mr Ameen I have details for what happened in the bedroom, I

will confine myself to those details because I remember them well. The reason

why we took such a long time to interrogate them was because they did not provide

information at the same time. It took them time to take out the information, that is

the reason why it took us long to interrogate them.

MR AMEEN: Can you remember Oscar now, as you sit can you picture him?

MR MPHORENG: Yes I can picture him.

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman I have been given two photographs, there are four

people in these two photographs by my clients, Oscar is one of the people here. I

ask permission to show these photographs to the applicant and for him to identify

Oscar?

MR MPHORENG: I can recognise Oscar on this photo.


MR AMEEN: And which one is he?

MR MPHORENG: The witness is pointing ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ameen you can approach the witness to satisfy yourself as to

what his identification is.

MR AMEEN: The identification is correct, ja. Now, in the bedroom you asked -

there were three people in your group or of the six youths, you and people with you

had divided them into two and you had three of them. The three of them I put it to

you was the late Oscar, Msilana and Mbulelo. Is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just repeat the names?

MR AMEEN: The late Oscar, Msilana and Mbulelo.

MR MPHORENG: Repeat your question sir, I did not get it?

MR AMEEN: Part of the group of six youths, you took three of them with your

comrades into one bedroom and the three youths who were with you were the late

Oscar, the lat Mbulelo and the late Msilana?

MR MPHORENG: I do not know the other names of SOSCO members, I only

know Oscar.

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman I would have a little bit of a difficulty here, I'm not

going to proceed on cross examining him on what happened in the bedroom

himself because I do not have any instructions on that. I will be putting a fair

number of questions on what happened in the other bedroom to Mr Hslasa. I will

now proceed from the time they then took the youths away from the house.

ADV BOSMAN: Can I just ask one question before you proceed please?

MR AMEEN: Thank you advocate.

ADV BOSMAN: Just tell my why Mr Mphoreng did you particularly assign Oscar

to yourself or let's look at it differently, how were these victims assigned. Who

assigned them or did each of you pick a victim to interrogate?

MR MPHORENG: We decided ourselves at that time, myself and the comrades

who were with me at that time.

ADV BOSMAN: Why then did you assign yourself to Oscar?

MR MPHORENG: It automatically happened. I don't think I have a specific reason

why I got into that room where Oscar was because we were splitting up, others got

into the other room and others went into the other.


MR MALAN: Sorry just before you proceed again Mr Ameen, just on the question

that was put to you by Mr Ameen that you were found painting that house, you

said you were cleaning that house. Were you also repainting some of the walls or

anything. Was paint involved?

MR MPHORENG: The house had been burnt down, the curtains were burnt down

now there was smoke.

MR MALAN: The question was a straightforward question, can you remember

that part of the cleaning up was painting, that's the only question, it's a simple yes

or no.

MR MPHORENG: We were not primarily going to paint, we were going to gut the

house and be with the comrade because his house had been burnt.

MR MALAN: Mr Mphoreng the question is, were you also painting, even if that's

a small part of it, were you painting?

MR MPHORENG: I do not remember anything about painting, I do not remember

whether paint was there.

MR MALAN: Are you saying that there was not paint or is it possible that some of

the others or yourself might have been painting?

MR MPHORENG: There is such a possibility that some of us were painting, but I

do not remember.

MR MALAN: Thank you Mr Ameen.

MR AMEEN: Thank you. Mr Chairman with your permission I just want to retrace

and raise two issues which I have failed to do and which I want to bring up now.

The survivors who are present today will also say that there was drinking of liquor

while they were being assaulted by the group that was assaulting them. Was there

liquor on the premises and was there drinking by you people?

MR MPHORENG: I did not use liquor in 1986. There might be a probability that

there was liquor.

MR AMEEN: The bottle which you used with which to assault Oscar, what bottle

was it?

MR MPHORENG: I do not remember whether it was a beer bottle or a cooldrink

bottle, but it was a bottle.

MR AMEEN: How bit was it, what colour was it?


MR MPHORENG: It was a big bottle but I do not remember the colour, I do not

want to commit myself but I do not remember the colour, it was a big bottle.

ADV BOSMAN: Where did you get the bottle from, do you remember that?

MR MPHORENG: It was in the house.

ADV BOSMAN: Where in the house was it, one doesn't usually keep a bottle in

the bedroom or was it in the bedroom?

MR MPHORENG: I think I found the bottle in the kitchen.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. During the interrogation of Oscar and the other two

in the bedroom, did the other people who were with you drink in the process of

interrogation?

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson this incident happened twelve years ago. This is

one of the details I do not remember very well, but there is such a probability,

maybe some of them were drinking.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you must tell me, on what basis do you reach that

probability? Why do you think that could possibly have been true?

MR MPHORENG: I bring it in because some of my comrades were drinking in

1986, they used to drink.

CHAIRPERSON: Drinking during interrogation, would it not be something that

you should really remember?

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson I do not remember.

MR AMEEN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mphoreng we, what has struck us during your evidence is

that you time and again use the word probable or probability and do you

understand there is a difference between possible and possibility on the one hand

and probable and probability on the other hand. Do you appreciate the difference?

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson can I please withdraw those words so that I

express myself thoroughly.

CHAIRPERSON: So that you express yourself well?

MR MPHORENG: Yes.


CHAIRPERSON: Well you see you must be careful in using words the meaning of

which you are not very sure because you would mislead us unintentionally but still

you would mislead us. Yes Mr Ameen.

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman I have a bit of a problem with that. He has used those

words in relation to the evidence relating to clothing earlier on. As I sit here I

cannot recall specific examples but he definitely has used them. Does he want to

correct all that previous evidence. I also want to put it to the witness that when he

has pressed on certain matters he uses one of two techniques, either not

remembering or saying that it is probable and conceding that. Now part of the

purpose of this hearing is to establish the truth and to have full disclosure from

him. These are matters I have to raise in my address but I think I should draw them

to the attention of the committee and to the witness at this stage.

MR MALAN: Chair perhaps if the interpreters could help us, because on occasion

there was reference to the concept of possible, now did the interpreters use

different words in interpreting it or was it put in the language, in the Tswana that

he's giving evidence in, in two different forms. We need in a sense a reference to

the original language of the witness.

INTERPRETER: Chairperson the witness used words, two words possibility and

probability and each time he uses probability the interpretation came out as

probability, each time he uses possibility the interpretation came out as possibility.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ameen I don't know, you may decide what to do but I think

for my part, I'm not terribly worried or perturbed or merit to whatever meaning the

witness may attach to the word probable because even to some lawyers, the

concept of probable or probability is a very difficult one so I'm not very keen to tie

a witness to a technical meaning of the word probable.

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman I would go along with that.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say - well let me ask you this, just to clear this once

and for all. It was put to you that these people were assaulted in the kitchen. What

is your answer to that?

MR MPHORENG: When I started assaulting these people we were in the bedroom

not in the kitchen, but there is a possibility that they might have been assaulted in

the kitchen - let me say, if I say I do not recall having been assaulted in the kitchen,

I do not dispute that, I remember what happened in the bedroom that is where I

was involved.


CHAIRPERSON: So whenever you use the word probable or probability, we

should understand you as conceding that it is possible, such and such a thing could

have happened?

MR MPHORENG: The word that I am using now it is correct, it happened in the

kitchen but I remember the details of the bedroom where I took part.

MR AMEEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now, let us go to the burning of the

house. You've described the house as having been burnt. Earlier today you

described that it was gutted, can you tell us exactly how badly the house was burnt,

if it was burnt because my clients, the two survivors, will say that on that day they

did not notice any signs of burning, any signs that the house had been burnt that

day. They did hear that the house was burnt a few days after the assault, on the

Tuesday following the assault?

MR MPHORENG: In the morning when I arrived at Jeff's place, after I he had

informed me that his house was burned, it was not the whole house that was

burned down, the bedroom, the main bedroom, was burned down, the curtains

were burned down and when the house is burning there will be smoke and that is

why there was smoke on the walls. Maybe it's the reason why one of the witnesses

say there was painting, but I do not recall that point clearly.

MR AMEEN: Now you've testified that you were given order to kill these youths

and that the two people who gave you ... (inaudible - end of tape). Is that true? The

two people I'm referring to are comrade Sam and comrade Tamee.

MR MPHORENG: Comrade Sam and comrade Tamee gave me an order that these

comrades from SOSCO be shot. Now the order was issued out after sunset. When

they arrived we brief them, we told them that they were comrades from SOSCO

and we gave them the information that we got from them.

MR AMEEN: Could you just bear with me Mr Chairman?

MR MALAN: While Mr Ameen is looking at his notes, who gave you the order,

Sam or Tamee or did they speak simultaneously?

MR MPHORENG: They did not speak simultaneously but they gave me orders.

MR MALAN: But the order to shoot and kill somebody, you need one order from

one person. Why would two have given you the order?

MR MPHORENG: The order came out from the two of them, they were my

commanders. Can I explain further that comrade Tamee and comrade Sam were

underground members of AZANLA, that is why I keep on saying that they are the

two who gave me orders.


MR MALAN: No Mr Mphoreng my question is, somebody said to you go and kill

these youths or go and kill Oscar or whatever your order was. Somebody told you

that. It couldn't have been both of them speaking at the same moment. It would

probably not have been both of them giving you an order. One of them would have

said it or at least said it first. Who said it first, can you remember?

MR MPHORENG: Comrade Tamee (?) spoke out and it was confirmed by

comrade Sam who said yes, it must happen.

MR MALAN: Why is it so difficult to get that information out of you?

MR MPHORENG: Maybe I did not understand your question.

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman if I can get some assistance from the committee. My

impression was that the evidence given by Mr Mphoreng earlier, I can't find it in

my notes, was that comrade Sam and Tamee were present when the assaults took

place. Is that the understanding of the committee?

The evidence by him in particular.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not sure, my vague recollections have been perhaps not

when the assault took place, but when the interrogation took place, I'm not sure I'll

have to check on that.

MR TLOUBATLA: Perhaps I could come in slightly. I remember asking that very

same question to Mr Mphoreng. What he mentioned specifically was that when he

arrived at the house Tamee and Sam were present, but they subsequently left and

came back later but in terms of when they left and when they came back I don't

think I took it further than that. But I remember, that's what I asked him.

ADV BOSMAN: If I can assist you Mr Chairman, according to my notes, the

applicant said that Nani and Kabela were with him and Jeff was also present and

the other three in the other room were Pitso, Khani and Joey. This is what my notes

say. A little further on he says particularly that Sam Siema and - I missed the name

- arrived later, I take that was (indistinct).

MR AMEEN: Okay. Alright just to clarify your evidence, can you tell us when

comrade Sam and comrade Tamee arrived at Jeff's house. They had been there

earlier in the morning when it was discovered that the house was burnt, they then

left. Now the youths had been brought to the house - from that time up to the time

they left, can you tell us at which point comrade Tamee and Comrade Sam arrived?

MR MPHORENG: When I arrived at Jeff's place in the morning I found comrade

Sam and comrade Tamee already there but they left for the day, they were not

present. They came back the second time when it was getting dark.


MR AMEEN: Did they participate in the interrogation?

MR MPHORENG: When the interrogation took place comrade Sam and comrade

Tamee were not present. We were the interrogators, yes they arrived a little later,

we brief them and they came in and when they got in they just kicked them but the

better part of the interrogation was conducted by ourselves.

MR AMEEN: Now the interrogation is over, the assaults are over, you've received

your order to kill these youths and you are now preparing to execute your order.

Your comrade Hlasa, the first applicant, testified yesterday that all six youths were

taken, and you were present when this happened, that all six youths were taken to

comrade Glen's house in Shawella. You have given a different version, that you

took them directly to the spot in Shawella where they were killed. How do you

explain that difference, both of you were part of the same squad carrying out the

order to kill, we have one version from Mr Hlasa and we have another version

from you. Which is the correct version?

MR MPHORENG: When I said we went straight to the spot where we shot these

comrades and on the other hand comrade Hlasa saying they went to comrade's

house, it takes me back to what I said earlier on that we are relating an incident that

took place twelve years ago, I remember taking them straight to the spot where we

shot them and comrade Hlasa recalled having gone to comrade Glen's house but I

remember going straight to the spot, but there is a possibility that we went to

comrade Glen's house but I do not remember it clearly, it's human to forget. This

happened twelve years back.

MR AMEEN: Mr Mphoreng it's a very simple and straightforward question, an

answer with a yes or a no. Did you or did you not go to comrade Glen's house with

the youths that were with you.

MR MPHORENG: I did not go to comrade Glen's house.

MR AMEEN: Are you then saying that comrade Hlasa is lying?

MR MPHORENG: I am not saying he is lying, I said there is such a possibility that

I forgot that little detail, I do not remember it well.

MR AMEEN: He also said that the reason for going there was to caucus on how to

carry out the order because comrade Glen was a senior member of an AZAPO

affiliated union. Yet you say that you had already received orders on how to do the

killing from comrade Sam and comrade Tamee. Can you explain that?

MR MPHORENG: When we left Orlando West an order had already been taken

out that we were going to Shawella, but the exact spot where they were supposed

to be killed was not clear and I was just following the order at that time.


MR AMEEN: My clients, the two survivors, will say that they were taken, that all

six youths, the two of them and the four deceased were taken to a house in

Shawella, they did not know whose house it was but they were taken to a house in

Shawella and from there they were taken to an open veld near a beer hall where

they were shot. What do you say to that?

MR MPHORENG: I do not dispute that it happened, but I do not recall it.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mphoreng there was also testimony by you co-applicant, Mr

Hlasa, yesterday that when the order was issued it was said that they have already

been hurt, something to that effect, and now they must be killed. Do you recall

that?

MR MPHORENG: I recall that, I recall that they were injured.

ADV BOSMAN: Can you more or less just formulate what was said about them

having been hurt? Can you more or less remember the words that were said that

they have already been injured or hurt?

MR MPHORENG: I remember that they were injured because of the interrogation,

I saw them that they were injured and I also took part in the interrogation.

ADV BOSMAN: No but what I'm referring to is that Mr Hlasa said somebody, it

may have been the two leaders, had said: they have now been injured so now they

must be killed. Do you recall that?

MR MPHORENG: What I remember is that these people were killed because of an

order issued out by comrade Tamee and comrade Sam, they were not killed

because they were injured already, we were just implementing an order issued out

by our senior members.

MR MALAN: You are saying you don't remember having ever heard any words on

the line: they have been injured now, badly injured, they must now be killed. You

don't remember such words?

MR MPHORENG: I do not remember those words, I remember the order being

issued out.

MR AMEEN: You also testified yesterday that the youths who were being

assaulted did not scream when they were assaulted, that they just took the assault

passively. You didn't use the word passively, but they just took the assault without

screaming. Do you still stand by what you said?

MR MPHORENG: I still stand by what I said. I pointed him with a gun, I said

once you scream I'm going to shoot at you. I did not want him to scream so that the

neighbours could hear what was happening.


MR AMEEN: The survivors will testify that there was loud music being played on

the radio and that this sound of the loud music stifled their screams or covered up

their screams, that they were in agony, that they were in pain, that they did respond

by screaming and trying to protect themselves. What do you say to that?

MR MPHORENG: There is that possibility that the music was playing high.

MR AMEEN: Mr Mphoreng, let's not dice with each other, let's not play with each

other. This is a serious matter, you come up with possibilities each time. Tell us

yes or no. Was the music playing loudly, were these youths screaming when they

were being assaulted? The more - can I just encourage you - the more honest your

answer, the more disclosure you make, the more clear your answers, the better

your chances of getting amnesty.

MR MPHORENG: I agree the music played high.

ADV SIGODI: How badly was this house burnt?

MR MPHORENG: (no interpretation).

ADV SIGODI: Was it burnt by means of a petrol bomb?

MR MPHORENG: Yes, we found petrol bombs.

ADV SIGODI: And was it, did it come in through the roof of the roof of the

window, through the roof or through the window, the petrol bomb?

MR MPHORENG: The windows were shuttered, it means therefore that the petrol

bombs went through the windows.

ADV SIGODI: And was it electrified this house? Did it have electricity?

MR MPHORENG: I do not remember well, but I believe there was electricity. Let

me put it this way, there was electricity.

ADV SIGODI: Are you sure?

MR MPHORENG: I do not have full evidence as to whether there was electricity

in the house, I'm not sure.

ADV SIGODI: Where Jeff stayed or the area, was it electrified then or was it not

electrified?

MR MPHORENG: There is electricity in Mpumalong.

ADV BOSMAN: Was it there then, was there electricity in Mpumalong then?


MR MPHORENG: Yes there was electricity then.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know if the petrol bomb destroyed the electricity?

MR MPHORENG: I do not remember that point Madam.

ADV SIGODI: And this radio that was playing, do you still remember it?

MR MPHORENG: I mentioned earlier on that there was music, now it takes us

back to the point that Jeff's house was electrified. ADV SIGODI: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Could you just on the question - you were asked how badly was the

house damaged by the petrol bomb and your response was petrol bombs, you

referred to more. How many petrol bombs were used in this attack?

MR MPHORENG: I do not know how many petrol bombs were used.

MR MALAN: Do you know whether it's more than one?

MR MPHORENG: I think it was more than one, but I do not know how many

there were.

MR MALAN: Did you see any remains of a petrol bomb, how did you know it was

a petrol bomb?

MR MPHORENG: There were broken bottles smelling petrol.

MR AMEEN: Mr Mphoreng can I ask you, where is Jeff Lingani today?

MR MPHORENG: Jeff he lives somewhere in the Vaal.

MR AMEEN: Does he know about this application of yours for amnesty?

MR MPHORENG: Yes he knows about it.

MR AMEEN: And did you or your attorney try and get hold of him to support this

application by giving evidence here today?

MR MPHORENG: According to my knowledge Jeff has applied for amnesty.

MR AMEEN: Comrade Sam and comrade Tamee, where are they?

MR MPHORENG: They have since died.

MR AMEEN: Being and adopting a very cynical attitude, I put it to you that you

used their deaths to say that they are the ones who gave you orders. That you

actually did not receive any orders from these people.


MR MPHORENG: It is true that I found my orders from comrade Tamee and

comrade Sam. The people who were active in politics in those years know comrade

Tamee (?) and comrade Sam Siema. Comrade Tamee was the leader of the

Azanian Student Movement, he was involved in politics. The two of them were

underground members of AZANLA.

MR AMEEN: Can I interrupt you. I am not questioning their political credentials,

I'm putting it to you that you are being opportunistic, you know that they are dead,

you know that they cannot be called here to give evidence and you are using their

senior positions within the organisation to say that you were given orders by them

and so absolve yourself of an extremely cowardly deed, a criminal deed. What do

you say to that?

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson what Mr Ameen is saying is not true. What

happened was a political situation, unfortunately comrade Tamee is dead and I do

not involve him just because he is dead. I got the orders from comrade Tamee and

comrade Sam.

MR AMEEN: What I can't understand is that if the order was given for these

people to be killed and the order were included to say go and kill them in Shawella,

your colleague the first applicant has testified that they still went to, not a member

of AZAPO, comrade Glen, who was a senior member of an affiliated organisation,

someone outside of the organisation, for guidance on where to kill. I put it to you

that your version is not true, that you are lying to this amnesty committee.

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson I have told the full truth. Mr Ameen sees it

differently because - I am aware that the TRC will consider your application if you

give a full disclosure. I have given a full disclosure, I have even given out who

gave instructions.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Ameen can I just come in here please. Tell me Mr Mphoreng

when comrade Tamee and Sam, when they left that morning did they say that they

would be coming back? You told us that they left and they came back later, when

they left did they say where they were going?

MR MPHORENG: When they left they did not tell us where they were going to

but the indicated that they will come back to check the situation.

ADV BOSMAN: Now if they had not come back, these people were badly injured,

what would you have done?

MR MPHORENG: I was a trained soldier, I worked through orders. An order of

killing a person it's a serious order, I would have never taken that decision on my

own.


ADV BOSMAN: Who else would you have consulted. Let's just - I know it's

hypothesis, but let's assume they were arrested on their way and they could not

return and you were there sitting with these six seriously injured persons, what

would you have done about it?

MR MPHORENG: If they had not come back we were going to consult with other

senior members of our organisation, would have explained to them the situation

that we have members of SOSCO here, they have given us information, what do

we do then.

MR MALAN: Could I just ask you here, you say killing a person is serious and

you work through orders, you're a trained soldier. At the time, according to you

evidence, if I remember correctly, you said you had two weeks para-military

training by comrades Siema and Tamee. Is that correct, you didn't have any other

formal training when you say you were a soldier?

MR MPHORENG: That is the only para-military training I had received then.

MR MALAN: Yes and if you took it seriously and only operated on orders, who

gave you the orders to manhandle the youngsters and to attack and assault them

and hit them with a bottle and break the bottle and stab him with the bottle, who

gave you those orders?

MR MPHORENG: When comrade Tamee and comrade Sam trained me in the

early months of 1986, they had taught me that if there were issues involving people

I shouldn't take decisions on myself but with orders such as interrogating people,

assaulting them those are decisions I can make on my own. There was a general

order from the senior leadership of the organisation to defend ourselves because

the UDF was fighting with AZAPO at that time. Such orders were issued out by

senior members of AZAPO organisation.

MR MALAN: So are you saying then to us that the assault and the hitting of at

least Oscar with the bottle and stabbing of him with the broken bottle, those were

decisions that you took by yourself, you acted on your own, it wasn't under

instructions. Is that what you're saying?

MR MPHORENG: Let me put it this way. The top leadership issued out a general

order ... (intervention)

MR MALAN: I heard about the order please Mr Mphoreng, I understand that, I

understand the broad order that you could take the decisions yourself. Now the

assault that was a decision that you took yourself in terms of what you believed to

be the broad mandate?

MR MPHORENG: It was a decision taken by myself ... (intervention)


MR MALAN: So the assault on the youths wasn't an assault in terms of order, but

in terms of this broad mandate of self defense? I just want to get the frame of the

political background which you sketched to us.

MR MPHORENG: The comrades did not issue out an order to assault them, an

order was that they should be shot.

MR MALAN: Okay, so the assault was just your decision there on the spot?

MR MPHORENG: That order was related to the general order of the organisation.

MR AMEEN: Thank you. Mr Mphoreng I want to put it to you that the

information you say you got from the youths - and at least my clients who are now

the survivors of those six - they will say that they did not give you any of the

information you claim to have got from them, that they did not admit to being UDF

members, they did not admit to burning the house, they did not admit to (indistinct)

any other houses for purposes of burning or any similar information which you got

from them, the will deny that. What do you say to that? Is there a possibility that

that is true?

MR MPHORENG: I would not agree with what they say because we got

information out of them during the interrogation that they were members of

SOSCO and they burnt the house and the reason for being in the vicinity of

Orlando, they were going to (indistinct) for the purpose of attacking our homes

later that evening.

MR AMEEN: You said earlier in your evidence that comrade Sam and comrade

Tamee shot the other two youths in your group, you shot Oscar and the two of

them, Sam and Tamee, shot the other two. You were arrested with your co-

applicants and and (indistinct). Why were the other two not arrested? Do you know

if they were arrested?

MR MPHORENG: They were not arrested.

MR AMEEN: Right, why not, do you have an explanation for why they were not?

MR MPHORENG: It's because when we were being fetched by the police from

Protea for interrogation, we did not mention their names, we did not mention that

they gave us orders.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know - sorry Mr Ameen - do you know how the police go

to know that it was you who killed the SOSCO members?

MR MPHORENG: The police came to my hiding place with Jeff, they might have

known it from Jeff.


ADV SIGODI: And why would Jeff not have mentioned Tamee and Sam, do you

know?

MR MPHORENG: I do not know, but what was happening was that when the

comrades were arrested, we did not give information related to our activities.

ADV BOSMAN: Who was arrested first, you or Mr Hlasa?

MR MPHORENG: I was arrested first, that was after Jeff.

ADV BOSMAN: And how did it come about that Mr Hlasa was arrested, who

mentioned his name to the police?

MR MPHORENG: When the police arrested me they had his name already, they

were searching for him.

MR AMEEN: Now, you had been questioned by members of the committee and by

your attorney about the purpose of the killing of these youths and the attempted

murder of the other two and you testified that you wanted to send out a message to

the community. I want to dispute that and I want to say to you that the reason you

killed these youths and attempted to kill the two survivors, was that you had

abducted them, very very severely assaulted them, taken away their clothes and

money and watches and shoes, all these are criminal acts and they were now so

badly injured that the only way that you wanted to escape the law catching up with

you was to execute them and that is what you and your co-applicants did. That this

had nothing to do with the political conflict which you so clearly remembered,

details of which you so clearly remember, yet details of this incident you have

chosen to forget or not remember. That is the reason you killed these people?

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson that is not so. Our act is not a criminal issue, it

was a political issue involving AZAPO and UDF. We did not just randomly shoot

these people, we confirmed their membership to SASCO after the interrogation.

Mr Ameen I do not agree with you when you say our activities were just criminal

activities, this was a political activity.

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR AMEEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla.


CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute, let me just find out from members of the

committee whether they've got any questions to put to the witness so that you

should have the last word in re-examination.


MR MALAN: I have two brief questions. You gave evidence that when you went

to execute Oscar and the other two in your group, that you were the first to shoot

Oscar, before the other two youngsters were shot by Tamee and Sam.

MR MPHORENG: That is correct, that's how I put it.

MR MALAN: And you also gave evidence that after the shooting you turned back

to the car, after you had shot Oscar you walked back?

MR MPHORENG: I remember putting it that way.

MR MALAN: So you didn't witness the shooting by Tamee and Sam of the other

two victims?

MR MPHORENG: I did not witness that. I only heard gunshots on my way to the

car.

MR MALAN: Did you look back when you heard the gunshots?

MR MPHORENG: It was dark, even if I had turned back I would have not been in

a position to see what was happening.

MR MALAN: The three of you took the three youngsters out of the boot of the car

simultaneously, you walked them to the hill simultaneously. Is that correct, it

wasn't one by one, the three of you went together with the three youngsters, with

the three boys?

MR MPHORENG: When we arrived there I was the first to grab Oscar by his belt

and other comrades were coming behind with other victims.

MR MALAN: Alright and then you also gave evidence that the political purpose,

apart from conscientising the people, that you were teaching them the politics of

the country and that there were no-go areas. The impression of that purpose is not

one of a defense purpose, of a passive defense purpose but a very active one of

going out, almost like a strike force. Could you clear my mind there? There were

no-go areas, it was important for you to liberate those areas to AZAPO access or at

least then to switch it to make that no-go areas for the UDF. Was that the political

purpose?

MR MPHORENG: This was the situation: AZAPO was not on the offensive side.

When this conflict between UDF and AZAPO started our comrades from AZAPO

were mostly injured, now we were doing this to defend our organisation, to defend

our comrades. We were not on an offensive side, we were on the defensive side.

MR MALAN: I understand that but I talk about this specific action. If you believe

that you were defending yourselves I understand that but how were you defending


yourselves, by passive resistance or by active intervention. I mean if the area's a

no-go area and you want to liberate that area or you want access to AZAPO in that

area, how can you achieve that goal by simply defending yourselves?

MR MPHORENG: We were defending ourselves as AZAPO, defending ourselves

so that we can have a political movement in the areas dominated by these people. I

have mentioned earlier on that when a person belongs to your organisation, such a

person must feel free and must feel protected.

MR MALAN: My question is this about your concept about defensive and

offensive activities. If an area for AZAPO is a no-go area, how do you get there,

how do you get in there, you get in there by moving in there and have some

activity and action there probably some domination, some occupation exerted,

show yourself, attack people. Isn't that what you were doing?

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson that is now how we did things. No-go areas were

very dangerous for our members. We were defending ourselves, for instance what

happened at comrades Jeff's place, we went there because his house had been

attacked the previous night ... (intervention)

MR MALAN: Was his house in a no-go area?

MR MPHORENG: The area was dominated by UDF.

MR MALAN: And then, just one question again. I have the same difficulty in the

sense as Mr Ameen. You're very clear on the political conflict, but you're not very

clear on the incident. I take it this was the only execution style killing that you

were involved in or was this one of a number in the sense that you simply haven't

applied for others. You don't have to answer this question but if this was indeed the

only execution style killing that you were involved in, wouldn't you have

remembered it much more clearly?

MR MPHORENG: I remember the main details of the act that brings me here. It

was the first incident that I took part in.

MR MALAN: Thank you Chair.

FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman if I can

have the indulgence of the committee I've just had a look at the application itself

and there's a couple of questions I'd like to put from the application of Mr

Mphoreng and then there was - I've just been reminded about an aspect of the

interrogation which I want to put directly to Mr Mphoreng. Mr Mphoreng could

you please turn to page 16 of your application. ... (inaudible - end of tape) before I

do that, can I just ask you is that your handwriting?

MR MPHORENG: This is my handwriting.


MR AMEEN: And you wrote this personally without any assistance from anyone?

MR MPHORENG: I was alone when I wrote this.

MR AMEEN: Thank you. You say here and I read: "In the course of the day as we

were cleaning the debris a group of about fifteen people kept on singing

intimidating songs and passed

intimidating remarks at us. They were ignored because confrontation was the last

thing we were looking for". Yet that very afternoon when these youths were

brought to you, according to your version, and I want to repeat this, you assaulted

them and then killed them. How does that tie in with your stated objective here that

they were they were ignored because confrontation was the last thing we were

looking for? In the morning you are not seeking confrontation, in the afternoon you

go all out to interrogate, abuse, assault and kill. Explain the change in attitude that

took place, that caused you to do this?

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson it was not AZAPO's programme to go around

assaulting and killing people. We were in a state of war that was between AZAPO

and UDF, now the reason why these comrades were assaulted in the late afternoon

and ended up being killed is that some of them were found in Orlando and they

agreed that they were going to (indistinct) our homes so that they come back in the

evening and attack us that is what made us change our attitude.

MR AMEEN: In the morning when your attitude was still that you were not

seeking confrontation, there was still a state of war between UDF and AZAPO. Is

that correct?


MR AMEEN: In the afternoon - let me just go back a bit - if your attitude was not

one of confrontation it was one of reconciliation, it was one of making peace. Is

that not correct?

MR MPHORENG: When war takes place it's not easy to make a peace treaty ...

(intervention)

MR AMEEN: Can I interrupt please. Mr Mphoreng, in the morning you were not

confrontational, you did not want to look for confrontation. If I follow that through

it would be correct for me to say that you were reconciliatory in your attitude, you

wanted peace. In spite of that in the broad framework there was a state of war

between the two organisations. Would you agree with me on that?

MR MPHORENG: I agree with you.


MR AMEEN: In the afternoon these youths are brought to you and you say that

they gave you this information which angered you so much that they were

(indistinct) and they were going to burn your houses. You had them in you power,

they were at your mercy. Could you not have extended mercy to them and spoken

peace to them and said look we've got you here, you are under our power, why

don't we talk peace. Could you not have done that. Did that ever cross your mind?

MR MPHORENG: The situation did no allow. During war you don't talk peace.

MR AMEEN: The point I'm trying to make is that that statement of yours in your

application that they were ignored because confrontation was the last thing we

were looking for is intended specifically to mislead this committee and does not

reflect you true intention or you true state of mind on that morning. I want to

proceed and go further ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You must be careful with what you're saying because unless you

contextualise it, it could well mean that he didn't want - there were only about four

or five of them in the house and the last thing four or five people could have

wanted to have that morning was a confrontation with twenty people.

MR AMEEN: I take the point Mr Chair. I want to put it to you that as far as your

state of mind about confrontation is concerned, that that is not the case. Even

though there were fifteen to twenty people, you may not have wanted to confront

them, but had that been your intention of being non-confrontational, you would

have carried on that attitude of being reconciliatory when the youths were brought

to you in the afternoon and there were a lesser number of people to deal with. I

also not a factual inaccuracy in the second paragraph of that page. We have been

talking about six youths who were brought to the house and here, on the fifth line,

you say: "Within the vicinity of some of our homes in Orlando East the same faces

were spotted but the number had been reduced to four". Can you explain that

mistake? Second paragraph of page 16 Mr Chairman.

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson yes I see. This might be a detail that I have

omitted. I mentioned earlier on that this is an event that took place fifteen years

back. I cannot remember some of the things, I am saying four here instead of a

certain number. I did not clearly point out here, I have forgotten, this happened

many years ago.

MR AMEEN: I want to refer you to page 11 of your application.

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Ameen, I find this very difficult. There must be a different

reason, clearly when you drafted this statement you weren't under the impression

that there were only four youths, clearly you must have known then - we're talking

about two years ago - you recollection from the time you wrote this letter till today

would not have changed from four to six. There must be a different reason maybe

it's simply a misprint, you wrote four instead of six but I don't believe for one


moment that two years ago you would have written four, believing it to be four

whilst now being able to tell us about the two rooms and the groups of three and

three and the killing in three and three. Was it, it might have been a glaring

mistake, but not a different memory. Chair if I may just follow up with Mr

Ameen's permission ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I think let's give the witness - just read that paragraph to

yourself before we ... (intervention)

MR MALAN: Page 16.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson I see the point that is being referred to. I was

recollecting the event that took place in 1986. Yes there is a possibility that I was

not accurate with numbers.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, at the time that you drafted this statement, did you know

how many people had died as a result of the shooting?

MR MPHORENG: Yes I knew that there were four.

MR AMEEN: With the permission of the Chair. Mr Mphoreng I refer you to page

11 of this application, point 12.c.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr - just a minute - I assume it's Mr Thandakubona, it is not

desirable that you should speak to the witness while he is in the process of

testifying. I have noticed that on one or two occasions you have said something to

him, you must not do that. Neither is it in the interest of anybody, not even in the

interest of the witness applicant himself, because you will just confuse him but at

any rate it's undesirable of you not to do that if you were in fact doing it and you

should refrain from doing that.

MR THANDAKUBONA: Sorry Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry I interrupted you Mr Ameen.

MR AMEEN: Not a problem sir. Page 11, point 12.c. If prosecution followed, on

which charge - now you've mentioned five counts of murder, two counts of

attempted murder. Now we know that of the five counts of murder the one relates

to a security guard which is not a subject of this enquiry, so that's four counts of

murder and two of attempted murder. There were two other people that you tried to

kill, they were part of the group that you brought there and yet in your statement

you made this material mistake, call it that. I'm putting it to you that you were

actually - while you were alone drafting this letter, your state of mind was that you

did not want to be fully open with this commission, with this committee. You've


spent a fair amount of time on the political background and a little bit on the

incident itself and at the end of that letter you say that you are prepared to tender

your apology. You don't do that. You are willing to meet the family, but the

apology is not contained here. To me it shows a state of mind where you haven't

really acknowledged the extent of your wrong doing. On evidence you have given

before this commission, I put it to you that you really haven't understood the

purpose of this application.

MR MALAN: Mr Ameen, with respect, it's not necessary to be sorry in order to get

amnesty, it's necessary to make a full disclosure.

MR AMEEN: I withdraw that Mr Malan.

The last point that I want to raise ... (intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry Mr Ameen don't you want an answer to what you've just put

to the witness, to the applicant?

MR AMEEN: If he will answer, yes.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, let him answer.

MR AMEEN: Thank you advocate.

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson can I please read the last paragraph of my

statement? I think this paragraph will respond to Mr Ameen's question. This is how

it stands, I will read it in English: "I want deeply and sincerely regret the incident

because precious human life was lost in line with the objective of the TRC it is for

this reason that I made a voluntary disclosure for the exact truth to be known. I am

ready and truthfully willing to meet the family of the deceased to tender my

apology. I've made a mistake and the paragraph that I want to respond is about this

one. I think the committee has that.

ADV SIGODI: Yes I would like to get your response in relation to your

application on page 11. In fairness to you, were you not charged with the - before

you left the country in the indictment with four murders and two attempted

murders. You had seen the indictment before you left, you appeared in court, had

you appeared in court before you left?

MR MPHORENG: Yes I appeared before the court.

ADV SIGODI: Had you been charged when you left?

MR MPHORENG: These counts, the counts that appeared here made us go to the

court.


ADV SIGODI: I see because from what we have, it's four counts of murder and

two counts of attempted murder in the indictment that we've got on page 28. And

then you also add the security so perhaps is that why you put five counts of murder

and two counts of attempted murder in your application, in the formal application,

in the form? Can you look at your form, the one you submitted to the TRC. It was

paragraph 12.c, page 11 of the said bundle. Page 11. Because Mr Ameen I don't

know if I misunderstood you, you should have implied that he put five counts of

murder and two counts of attempted murder if he was involved in all of them

simultaneously, I thought that was the impression you gave to the committee, I just

wanted to clarify that for the record.

MR AMEEN: No, the five counts of murder includes the security guard and that's

not part of this hearing. So that's four count of murder for this hearing and two

counts of attempted murder, six people were involved. What I am saying is that he

saying that there were only four people in his letter, he only makes reference to

four people.

ADV SIGODI: Is that the discrepancy that you are trying to show?

MR AMEEN: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Can I just follow up on that. When did you learn for the first time

Mr Mphoreng that two people had survived the shooting, because I take it that you

were under the impression that all six were dead?

MR MPHORENG: I heard in Protea when we were arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: So this information on page 16, you got it from - did you get it

from your comrades or is it personal observation that people, some of them when

they were seen in the vicinity of Orlando East and the like?

MR MPHORENG: This is the information I got from the comrades.

MR AMEEN: Thank you. Right Mr Mphoreng I just want to go back to the assault

and the division of the groups into three, into two different bedrooms. You were

with one group of people, right ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Before you do that I'm going to ask you, of your survivors

where were they, in which group were they?

MR AMEEN: I'm coming to that Mr Chairman, the survivors were in another

group, were in Hlasa's group right, but I've just been instructed that there was

movement inbetween, interchange, that the applicant's were moving from one

group to another, that they did not confine themselves to one group and that is

what I want to put to him and I want to put to him certain other atrocities that he

has (indistinct) committed. Right, I put it to you earlier and I'm repeating that, that


in your group at the start there was Msilana, Mbulelo and Oscar, all of whom are

deceased and that in Mr Hlasa's group, the first applicant, there were the two

survivors and Vuyani. I also now want to put it to you that there was movement of

people assaulting from one group to another and that you were one of the people

that was moving from one group to another and that in the course of this moving

from one room to another room during the assault, you used a plier on the genitals,

on the private parts of these youths, including the two survivors and that you used

it in such a way to cause them pain and degradation. Do you admit this, because

that is what they will say?

CHAIRPERSON: Who, him as an individual used the pliers?

MR AMEEN: As well as the others but him particularly, I'm directing the question

to him.

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson I agree we used brutal ways to get information

from these people.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is not whether you used brutal ways, the question

is did you use pliers?

MR MPHORENG: A used a pair of pliers.

MR AMEEN: Explain to this committee why you did not disclose that in your

evidence today, in your evidence yesterday, anywhere in your application?

MR MPHORENG: I did not mention yesterday but I admit that I used a pliers, a

pair of pliers.

MR AMEEN: Is there anything else that you have not disclosed that you may want

to disclose?

MR MPHORENG: I do not recall anything.

MR AMEEN: That is all from me Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No before you leave that, Mr Mphoreng I think the previous

question was why did you not disclose this yesterday and today, why? In other

words he wants an explanation, Mr Ameen wants an explanation as to why

yesterday and today you did not tell us about this, the use of a pair of pliers.

MR MPHORENG: I cannot explain well why I did not mention it yesterday but I

admit though that I used a pair of pliers.

CHAIRPERSON: Who else used that pair of pliers to torture the victims?


MR MPHORENG: I was with comrade (?) Nani and comrade Kabelo. Now there

is a possibility that they also used a pair of pliers.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean by saying there's a possibility? Are you

saying that you don't remember whether they used it?

MR MPHORENG: I'm saying I do not remember whether they used it but I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Using a pair of pliers on the private parts of a person is such an

atrocious thing that I would have thought that you would be in a position to

remember whether they did use it or not. I mean before you did that you probably

had to remove their clothes, at least their pair of trousers? It's not a casual exercise

to press somebody's private parts with a pair of pliers. It's not like touching

somebody on his forehead with your finger, you've got to remove his pair of

trousers to reach his private parts and to open up his thighs. Now you're saying you

don't remember if those things happened.

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson I admit that I used a pair of pliers. I didn't mention

yesterday and this morning, but now I

admit.

CHAIRPERSON: And the other people, you say you don't remember whether they

used it, is that what you're saying?

MR MPHORENG: That is what I'm saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the other applicant, Hlasa, use it to your knowledge, Mr

Hlasa?

MR MPHORENG: Hlasa was not a part of the people who interrogated.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, if I may ask you, (indistinct) and when you applied or

tortured them in that way by means of pliers to their genitals, did they not scream?

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson I do not remember well that they screamed or not.

They might have screamed because a pair of pliers would put more pain.

ADV SIGODI: When you were using this pair of pliers, did you remove their

trousers?

MR MPHORENG: I don't remember whether I applied it on top of the trousers or

whether the trousers were put down, but it was used.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mphoreng yesterday I got the impression that you were just

in the one room all the time. Do you now also admit that you had moved between

the two rooms?


MR MPHORENG: The explanation that I gave before the committee yesterday

was that for the better part of the interrogation I was in the other room.


MR MALAN: Sorry I just want to get clarity, but you also did go to the, on

occasion during the interrogation to the room where the other three boys were. Are

you admitting to the statement put to you by Mr Ameen?

MR MPHORENG: I explained that for the better part of the day I was in this room,

but there is such a possibility that I went into the other room.

MR MALAN: Can you remember that you did go into the other room or can't you

remember it at all?


MR MALAN: Why do you remember that for the better part you were in this

specific room. The other parts, where were you then if you remember that only for

the better part and not for the full duration of the interrogation, you were in the

specific one room. Where would you have been for the lesser or worse parts, in

which room?

MR MPHORENG: I remember spending enough, a lot of time in the room where I

was.

MR MALAN: Can you recall ever having left that room during the day, during the

interrogation?

MR MPHORENG: Yes, I used to go outside or to the kitchen.

MR MALAN: For what purpose?

MR MPHORENG: To stretch my legs or even drink water.

MR MALAN: Can you recall that you went out to drink water?

MR MPHORENG: I said perhaps I went out for the purpose of drinking water or

stretching my legs, I do not remember specifically whether I went out to drink

water.

MR MALAN: Mr Mphoreng I think it's time you start answering the questions, I

asked you the question whether you can remember, whether you had at any stage

during the interrogation left the room. I think you said then yes you did on

occasion leave the room, you can recall that.

MR MPHORENG: I'll put it that way Chairperson.


MR MALAN: Yes, in other words you did leave the room, you weren't there full

time during the interrogation, in that one room for the whole of the afternoon?

MR MPHORENG: I am saying for the better part of the day I was in the

interrogation room but there were moments where I briefly went out and went back

to the room.

MR MALAN: Now those moments that you briefly went out, can you recall them?

MR MPHORENG: I do not remember sir.

MR MALAN: How do you know that you were outside, why do you say that you

were out? You say that clearly without qualification, when I ask you about them

you say you don't remember them.

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson I do not recall how many times I went out but the

important point is yes, I went out but how many times I do not remember.

MR MALAN: Can you remember any single time that you went out for any

specific purpose?

MR MPHORENG: At one stage I remember I went outside, I mean completely

outside to get fresh air and thereafter I went back, it was also for stretching my

legs.

MR MALAN: Do you remember another time, for another purpose?

MR MPHORENG: That is the reason I remember why I went outside.

MR MALAN: Yes on this one occasion, I'm asking you can you remember any

other single occasion that you left because you say you left on a number of

occasions?

MR MPHORENG: I remember that occasion Chairperson, only that occasion.

MR MALAN: You also remembered earlier that you went to the kitchen. Did you

not say that?

MR MPHORENG: Yes I said that.

MR MALAN: So now you remember two occasions, one to go outside and once to

go to the kitchen?

MR MPHORENG: The first time I went to the kitchen and as time went on I went

outside to stretch my legs.


MR MALAN: Can you recall that you ever went into the other room where the

other people were being interrogated?

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson I do not remember well whether I got into that

room but there is such a possibility that I did go into that room.

MR MALAN: I'm not asking you about the possibilities Mr Mphoreng, I'm asking

you about your memory. If you think back can you remember, even if vaguely, that

during that afternoon that you also went into the other room, either to look into the

other room or to participate in the assaults?

MR MPHORENG: I do not remember that it happened sir.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mphoreng on how many people did you use the pliers?

MR MPHORENG: I used it on one person.

ADV BOSMAN: And was that on Oscar?

MR MPHORENG: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Now can you explain how these people in the other room knew

that you'd used the pliers, because they are the ones who came up with it today.

How did they come to know about it?

MR MPHORENG: Can you repeat your question, I do not quite understand it?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mphoreng you say you only used the pliers on Oscar in the

room where you were in and today the two survivors said that you had used the

pliers and they were in the other room. Is that correct? Do you agree?

MR MPHORENG: What I remember very well is that I was with Oscar in the

room and other SOSCO comrades. I do not recall their faces at all. According to

some of the issues that came out during the cross examination it came up that those

who were with me in the room all died, that is why I remembered that, yes I used a

pair of pliers and I used it on Oscar.

ADV BOSMAN: My question is, how did the two survivors know if you had not

been in their room with the pliers, in the other room with the pliers. How did they

know about the pliers that you had used.

MR MPHORENG: I don't know how they came to know about that.

MR MALAN: Sorry Chair, I know you'd want to go for a break. You say ...

(intervention)


MR AMEEN: Sorry. My understanding was that - just before you proceed with

your questions - my understanding was that when I put this to him, he actually

agreed with the way I put it to him that he had been going from room to room and

that he did use it. Is that a correct understanding? I just want to clear that with the

committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that could have been an impression but let me tell how I

understood this. You put it to him in the plural, you put it to him that according to

your instructions you used a pair of pliers on these people. You put it in the plural

and then I interjected and tried to find out what, are you referring to him as a

particular individual and his answer was, yes. Now he agreed to doing that so in

some sense you are right in saying that an impression was created that the pliers

was applied on more than one person because you had put it in the plural and his

answer was in the affirmative and for my part that impression stands until and

unless Mr Tloubatla deals with it in one way or another.

MR AMEEN: Thank you Mr Chairman, sorry ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Of course that's just my personal impression.

MR AMEEN: Thank you. Sorry Adv Bosman, Malan.

CHAIRPERSON: The only thing on which he did not commit himself and simply

said it was possible was whether the other people had also used the pliers, then he

said it was a possibility.

MR MALAN: Chair I just wanted to know from Mr Hlasa, he said that he didn't in

his evidence yesterday - sorry, Mr Mphoreng - he said that in your evidence

yesterday and this morning you did not refer to the pliers, but you admit it now.

That is what you said, is that correct?

MR MPHORENG: I admit that I used a pair of pliers.

MR MALAN: My question now is did you remember only now or did you know,

did you remember before, that you used the pliers? Could I put the question

differently. Did you hide the fact from us earlier and now admit to it or what is the

reason?

MR MPHORENG: Chairperson I was not hiding out this point. If I intended to

hide it I would never have admitted to it now.

MR MALAN: You were asked about the taking off of clothes of people, giving

them other clothes. You say it was possible but you have no recollection. I mean in

any assault, in assaulting a person, you remember hitting him with a bottle on the

head but you don't remember applying the pliers. You don't remember taking off

clothes. I guess can you comment that, how are we to understand that?


MR MPHORENG: I did admit that I applied a pair of pliers on a person and

whether I removed his clothes or I applied it whilst his clothes were on, but I

admitted that I used a pair of pliers.

MR MALAN: I will try a last time. Is it not more serious to use a pair of pliers on a

person's private parts than hitting a person with a bottle over his head and if I were

the torturer I think I would have remembered the more serious parts of the torture

and not the less serious. What is your comment on that?

MR MPHORENG: I agree Chairperson I did not mention yesterday but I am

mentioning it now and I am not under pressure that I mentioned it, yes it is an

important point to be mentioned.

MR MALAN: Sir, with your permission a last time. Why did you not mention it

yesterday?

MR MPHORENG: I did not mention it yesterday, I believe it's one of the

important points that must be mentioned.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we should adjourn now until 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mphoreng on the question of the

pliers. Did you use it, I mean on how many of the victims did you use that pliers?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: (s.u.o). I used it on one victim.

MR TLOUBATLA: There was a question that how could the survivors possibly

have know that you were using the pliers if they were not in the same room with

you. Do you have an explanation?

MR MPHORENG: I don't know how they knew.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Siema and Mr (indistinct) were not arrested in this

incident. Do you have an explanation why they were not arrested?

MR MPHORENG: It's because there names did not appear with those of the people

who had been wanted.

MR TLOUBATLA: But you personally knew that they were part and parcel of ...

(inaudible - end of tape). Why did you not mention this to the police?

MR MPHORENG: As members of AZAPO we were not supposed to disclose

information.


MR TLOUBATLA: So this was a deliberate political act to try and protect Mr

Siema and Mr (indistinct)?

MR MPHORENG: That is correct, it was a way of safeguarding the information.

MR TLOUBATLA: When you left the country who was responsible for your

leaving the country?

MR MPHORENG: There is one comrade called comrade Max he was an

AZANLA operative. He was in exile at that time but he was here with a specific

aim of taking us to join AZANLA in exile.

MR TLOUBATLA: So do I understand you correctly that after this incident the

organisation intervened and removed you to go into exile?

MR MPHORENG: We were assisted by the organisation to go into exile.

MR TLOUBATLA: Now Mr Mphoreng, looking with hindsight, do you have

anything to say to the families of your victims. Is there any message, do you have

anything to say about this incident, in particular to the families of the victims? That

is with hindsight, looking now, seeing what happened just from a moral point of

view.

MR MPHORENG: What happened in 1986 should have never happened. It was

not our style to kill other people, it was just unfortunate that their children, their

brothers were killed because of the political problems that existed between UDF

and AZAPO. It is regrettable and very unfortunate that they lost their loved ones. I

know how they feel, I've also lost people very close to me in the past, I know the

pain of losing a family member and I understand the pain they are feeling and the

way in which their children died.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Chairman thank you, I don't have any further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: You are excused, you can stand down Mr Mphoreng.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hlasa would you please come back.

PITSO JOSEPH HLASA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: We are calling you back because you only gave your evidence

in chief and Mr Ameen on behalf of the victims has not as yet had the opportunity

to put questions to you. It is for that reason that you have been recalled to the

witness box. Mr Ameen.


CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR AMEEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Hlasa

in your evidence yesterday you said that meetings were held between AZAPO and

the UDF leadership to resolve differences. Is that correct?


MR AMEEN: And that you personally attended two such meetings, not as part of

leadership, but as an ordinary member of AZAPO?

MR HLASA: That is true.

MR AMEEN: And you understood what was being discussed at these meetings?


MR AMEEN: You also said that these meetings were not successful because the

people at grass roots level did not understand what was being discussed up there at

leadership level?


MR AMEEN: But you were present at these meetings and you understood

perfectly what was being discussed here and what the leadership of both

organisations were trying to achieve. Is that correct?


MR AMEEN: You understood clearly that (indistinct) and violence was wrong and

that your own leadership disapproved of it. Is that correct?


MR AMEEN: Now in your evidence in chief yesterday you also sketched to the

committee and to us here your role in AZAPO, the fact that you were a member, an

ordinary member, the fact that you were part of the organising committee, the fact

that you followed orders. In short, that you were a disciplined member of the

organisation. Is that true?


MR AMEEN: And you prided yourself on that, that you were a disciplined

member of AZAPO?

MR HLASA: Correct.

MR AMEEN: And as such, you understood and felt yourself to be bound by the

policies and principles of AZAPO. You respected their policies?



MR AMEEN: And one of their policies was that of non-retaliation. Is that correct?

MR HLASA: Yes, that's correct.

MR AMEEN: Now I want to refer you to page 6 of your application.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ameen I'm going to interrupt you and ask you something.

Where is you jacket Mr Ameen. I'm not necessarily saying put it on but I get the

impression that you leave it somewhere, at you office and just walk into the

proceedings without a jacket. Sorry?

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman it is here.

CHAIRPERSON: In the courtroom?

MR AMEEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR AMEEN: Shall I put it on?

CHAIRPERSON: No you don't have to. We will give you that concession not to

put it on if you feel to hot, we will grant you that concession. I was getting

worried, I got the impression that you left it somewhere in the car or maybe just

walked here.

MR AMEEN: It's right here, I was formally attired.

CHAIRPERSON: No you don't have to put it on, we grant you that leave not to put

it on.

MR AMEEN: I appreciate that, thank you. I refer you to page 6 of your

application, which is a continuation of paragraph 3 of the letter which you have

written to the amnesty committee. I'm not going to read it in full, but in there you

describe the murder of Mgomezulu (?) and Martin Mihau (?) and you give specific

details of how these people were murdered and in the next paragraph you say:

"From then on my attitude was clear ...", in paragraph 4, "From then on my attitude

was clear, it was retaliation orientated", but there's nothing in your application

which says that this change, this change in your personal attitude was brought

about by a change in your organisation's policy. Is there?

MR HLASA: There is no such thing in my application.

MR AMEEN: So this change in attitude was a personal decision on you part to

attack who you thought were enemies of AZAPO, to avenge attacks on AZAPO. In


short, to take revenge. You were not acting on orders, but you were acting from

what you felt was personally right. Is that correct?

MR HLASA: That is not correct. Within a political organisation we are people, we

are in large numbers, we have different emotions but at the end of the day all of us

have to agree on certain principles. There was a principle of democratic centralism.

If I did not believe or I did not agree that a certain action should be taken, it

wouldn't matter, at the end of the day all of us would have to engage, yes the

organisation was still that way but I was a member of the organisation and I was

supposed to follow the principles of the organisation.

MR AMEEN: But the principles of that organisation was non-retaliation. An

incident happened when two members were killed, nothing came from the

organisation to say the policy has changed and you then changed your personal

attitude and you say that: "From then on my attitude was clear, it was retaliation

orientated".

MR HLASA: Let me put it this way - let me not refer to a principle because it puts

me, it gives me a problem. Let me talk of the code of conduct of the organisation.

Each member was supposed to follow this code of conduct. I have explained that in

some of the principles of the organisation there was that one referring to

democratic centralisation that even if you did not agree with what the other people

were saying, but if the majority of the people would have said something it would

have taken that line. Now the leadership itself was the majority, if the leadership

told us not to do so it means we would have follow what they said. I explained

yesterday that when time went on even the leadership, through the publicity

secretary of AZAPO, explained that the situation is different, the leadership was

not going to tell the followers what to do. They were supposed to defend

themselves in a way appropriate. I explained yesterday that even comrade Muntu,

the late comrade Muntu, did explain this.

MR AMEEN: Now just going back a bit to those meetings. When you were present

at meetings at which two organisations were trying to resolve major political

differences which had resulted in a lot of violence, yet understanding that, knowing

what the leadership was trying to achieve, you, given the first opportunity, took

part in a series of actions which resulted in a great deal of aggression and the

murder of four people and attempted murder of two others, knowing that at

leadership level people were trying to resolve differences. You were not defending,

you had six helpless youths whom you had at gunpoint. The survivors deny that

they agreed or admitted that they were members of SASCO or that they were

(indistinct) or any of the others things that they are supposed to have admitted. You

had them at your mercy ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let's make it less complicated please. the question is, on the one

hand you say you were involved in negotiations trying to bring peace and yet you

took part in the killing of people. How do you explain that?


MR HLASA: Let me explain. I think I gave two meetings that I recall. There had

been meetings, many. I even mentioned that even the ministers of religion on the

other side were trying to bring end to this violence. Leadership was talking but the

situation on the ground did not change. In other words things were happening here

on the ground and we would not just fold our arms and say we don't defend

ourselves. I have explained yesterday that there were many incidents which we

defended ourselves successfully. Now it was after a long time of talking,

unfortunately these ones were then captured.

MR AMEEN: When did you learn of the order to kill these youths?

MR HLASA: Whilst we were still at Orlando West.

MR AMEEN: At Jeff Lingani's house?

MR HLASA: That's correct.

MR AMEEN: And who told you about it?

MR HLASA: (indistinct) Nani told me about an order.

MR AMEEN: Right, I refer you to page 3 of your application, 11.b, where

particulars are requested of such order or approval and the date thereof and if

known, the name and address of the persons who gave such order or approval. You

talk here, your answer is: "The order was generally to defend every member of the

organisation". Your amnesty application is in particular related to these six youths,

four of whom were killed and you don't mention the order that you are told of.

Why is that omission, can you explain that omission?

MR HLASA: If you look at page 1 of this document and it's written form 1 and

there's my name, my surname, my first name and the address. This is my

handwriting, look thoroughly you'll see it's my handwriting. When you turn to the

next page which is page 2 and the last page which is the page you are referring to,

those two page are not my handwriting, but at the end on the page that you have

referred to is mine. There might have been a mistake, I did not realise it, I just

signed. To show you that there was a mistake, on point 12.c on which charges, they

have written five counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder. It explains

that I did not fill this form. On the docket it was written like this, five counts of

murder and two counts of attempted murder. These five counts of murder referred

to Mr Thandakubona and Mr Mphoreng because there were four counts of murder

and this matter only the security guard. It explains the discrepancy. This is not my

handwriting, I did not just see this.

MR AMEEN: If I can continue on this. There's a signature at the bottom of page 3,

above the word deponent. Yes this is my signature, it's mine.


MR AMEEN: And according to the certificate after that, it says that the deponent

has acknowledged that he/she knows and understands the contents of the

declaration. This declaration was duly sworn to before me or solemnly affirmed

before me on this 10th day of May 1996 in Banks City and there's a South African

Police stamp there. You swore to this Affidavit and at the time you signed it you

signed it in front of a Commissioner of Oaths and by doing so you confirmed that

everything in that application or in this Affidavit was true and correct. You are

now telling this committee that there are mistakes in this application. You had

chance subsequently to go through this application, did you not pick it up, did you

not pick up these mistakes so that they could be rectified?

MR HLASA: It's not true that I had a chance subsequently to look at this Affidavit,

my attorney called me in after we have applied for amnesty, he told me that I had

to sign the documents. He told me that they were supposed to be stamped by the

Commissioner of Oaths. I remember I signed this document and I went to Bank

City Police Station. They just put the stamp on and they gave the documents back

to me. I do not remember whether this person who put a stamp here, read this

document to me. I think I took my lawyer into my confidence.

ADV SIGODI: When did you realise that there were mistakes in this application?

MR HLASA: Now, when it was referred to page 11 of Mr Mphoreng's application

and I realised that there were mistakes on mine as well.

ADV SIGODI: And did you bring that to your lawyer's attention?

MR HLASA: Yes, during lunchtime I told him. I told him that when Mr Mphoreng

was questioned about this five murders I realised that it also appeared on my form.

CHAIRPERSON: What are we busy with now Mr Ameen?

MR AMEEN: I beg yours?

CHAIRPERSON: What's the problem?

MR AMEEN: The problem is that the applicant has signed an Affidavit in which

he sets out his application. I referred him to paragraph 12, 11.b where he speaks of

a general order to defend members of the organisation. I asked him about specific

orders and my point was that that specific order, relating to the death or the killing

of the victims, of the four deceased and the two survivors, is not mentioned in here

and that he has not fully disclosed that and he now explains to the committee that

there's an error in this. I pointed out to him that he had sworn to this Affidavit and

all of that.

CHAIRPERSON: What transpires is that what is mentioned in 11.b is a general

order?


MR AMEEN: That's right. What I'm saying Mr Chairman is that the question asks

for specific orders, now he's covered it with a general order and he hasn't

mentioned a specific order which he says he received, even if it was passed

through leadership, he doesn't mention it.

CHAIRPERSON: But he's mentioning it in he's evidence now. He mentioned it in

his evidence. What big problem - look at page 11 and page - what is the other page,

page what?

ADV BOSMAN: Page 7.

CHAIRPERSON: So where were you - where's that other form - someone else's

application form as well, Mr Mphoreng's application - Mr Hlasa's application,

where is it, page what? It's 3 and page 11, to me they're identical. It' not a

photocopy but word for word it's the same thing so it's quite obvious that they must

have sat with somebody who helped them complete this application forms,

probably maybe even to beat the closing date or the deadline, so really.

MR AMEEN: Alright. In your evidence yesterday you testified that you were not a

part of the group that assaulted the victims. I put it to you that survivors, my

clients, will say that you were a part of the group that accosted them near the

Presbyterian Church, that they were taken to Jeff Lingani's house in two cars, one

of which was a Chevy driven by you. What do you say to that?

MR HLASA: I would disagree with them. I remember well, on that day I was

fixing a car. When Mr Mphoreng and Mr Lingani, Mr Thandakubona arrived the

were driving a white Mazda 323 belonging to Mr Lingani. They told me they had

been at Jeff's place. I knew already that Jeff's house had been burnt and there were

comrades present. When they arrived they told me that they have arrested some

members of SOSCO, they were rounding and they captured them, they told me to

come and assist quickly. I did not hesitate ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Somewhere along the line you know, you can't just go on and on

like that. You've answered the question, they put it to you that you were there when

these people were arrested and you said no I deny that. Now you just go on and on,

you must stop somewhere Mr Hlasa you know, you must restrict yourself to

questions. Mr Ameen.

MR AMEEN: Thank you. When the victims were brought again by yourself and

your two co-applicants to Jeff Lingani's house, they were taken into the kitchen

and they were assaulted there by yourself and your co-applicants. Is that correct?

MR HLASA: That is not true.

MR AMEEN: When exactly did you get involved in the murders, at what point in

this whole incident did you get involved?


MR HLASA: I became involved when a decision was taken as to where would

they be shot at. I remember it was myself and comrade Glen who went out to

identify a spot and we came back, we gave a report to the other comrades and it

was at comrade Glen's house.

MR AMEEN: Comrade Sam and comrade Tamee, were they at the premises or at

Jeff Lingani's house when the order was given or when you learned of the order

from (indistinct), as far as you know, were they there?

MR HLASA: They were present at Jeff's house, I only saw them late in the

afternoon at about half past five to six o'clock.

MR AMEEN: And when this order was given did you approach them or question

them about it? As to the reasonableness or otherwise of this order.

MR HLASA: I did not question the order.

MR AMEEN: Now I'm going to go back and I'm going to spend some time just

putting things to you, you have already denied that you were in the house, but just

for the record, my clients will say that you were one of the people who assaulted

them in the kitchen with a range of weapons which included guns, iron bars, and

axe and a motor car aerial, that you were one of the group that stripped them of

their clothing ... (intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry Mr Ameen, do you want an answer to that, I think we must

take it step by step.

MR AMEEN: Thank you.

MR HLASA: I disputed the fact that I interrogated them. There would be no reason

to dispute that I have interrogated a person and yet concede that I killed a person. I

did not participate in the interrogation because I had my own problems fixing a car.

MR AMEEN: You particularly used iron rods on the survivors. Is that correct?

MR HLASA: That is not correct, it's a mistake in identity perhaps.

MR AMEEN: The two groups - or when these people were divided into two

groups in the houses, you were part of the group of comrades who took the two

survivors and one of the others into a bedroom and you further assaulted them

there?

MR HLASA: That is no correct.

MR AMEEN: You blindfolded at least one of them. What do you say to that?


MR HLASA: Truly speaking I remembered the issue of blindfolding because one

fellow appeared and said his brother was blindfolded. I remember at Shawella in

the dining room one of the was blindfolded, I think comrade Vayli Indebela (?),

who has since died, was doing the final interrogation.

MR AMEEN: Now, after you received the order and the youths were now being

taken to Shawella, where were they taken to first, specifically where were they

taken to. All six of them, can you just describe that for me again?

MR HLASA: The six of them were taken to comrade Glen's house.

MR AMEEN: Can you stop at that point please and say, just explain something to

me. You heard your second co-applicant, Mr Mphoreng refer to the fact that only

three of them, that is those that were with you, were taken to comrade Glen's house

and the other three who were with him were taken directly to the spot where they

were killed in Shawella. There's a clear difference in the versions given by the two

of you. Who is telling the truth?

MR HLASA: I believe Mr Mphoreng had made a mistake, he explained that he

cannot remember things well. I was driving a car, they were in my car, my car was

driving at the front and the other car came behind and the other one was outside.

When we went to identify the spot, we used the car that was outside. We came

back and reported to the other comrades that is why even when he referred to the

spot of killing he referred to the spot I also talked about.

MR AMEEN: Now comrade Glen was not a member of AZAPO, he was a member

of a union affiliated to AZAPO. You had to senior members who had given the

order to kill with you, comrade Sam and comrade Tamee. Why would you people

take these youths to comrade Glen's house when the leadership was with you?

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Chairman I wonder whether I can interrupt? I can't recall

clearly the evidence that Glen was not a member of AZAPO, but what I know is

that it was mentioned that he was holding a particular position in the union that is

affiliated to AZAPO but not that he is not a member of AZAPO, that I didn't hear.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not so sure, Mr Ameen how sure are you ... (intervention)

MR AMEEN: Yes, what Mr Tloubatla is saying is correct. I think the evidence is

that he was not one of the leaders of AZAPO but that he was a senior leader of the

Black Union - some workers union which was affiliated to AZAPO. Is that

correct? Alright, to put the question to you again, you had two senior members of

AZAPO who had given you the order to kill, they were with you, why then did you

have to go to comrade Glen's house who was not a leader of AZAPO but was a

leader of a union affiliated to AZAPO. What was the purpose of that?


MR HLASA: I do not understand why do you separate the union from AZAPO. Mr

Mphoreng mentioned today that when he referred to SOSCO he was also referring

to UDF. When you talk of Black and AZAPO you're talking of one thing.

MR AMEEN: The caucus in comrade Glen's house, who was present at that

caucus?

MR HLASA: We were about six or seven. I was present, I was in the kitchen when

the discussion was on and we were told to go and look for a spot. We were about

six or seven but the rest of the comrades were in the dining room and the others

outside.

MR AMEEN: So you then left the six youths there with some of the other of your

comrades and you and comrade Glen then went to look for the spot where these

people were going to be executed?


MR AMEEN: And how far away is this spot from comrade Glen's house?

MR HLASA: Plus minus five kilometres.

CHAIRPERSON: I noticed that, unlike yesterday, today in the witness box you are

putting on and testifying behind very dark glasses. Is there any special reason for it

or are you afraid that if we see your eyes we may see that you are perhaps not

telling the truth or you are telling the truth?

MR HLASA: That is not so, there is no reason. I can take them off.

CHAIRPERSON: I just wanted to satisfy myself whether there is any particular

reason why you are testifying today behind such very dark glasses, because

sometimes it is useful to, in a tribunal, to be able to look a witness in his eyes as

part of general methods of trying to assess the credibility of the witness. Can I ask

you something, why did you people from me Lingani's house take these boys to Mr

Glen's house?

MR HLASA: When (indistinct) got out of the house he told me that we were

heading for Shawella, it meant that an order had been issued out already that these

people be killed. I did not ask him why because I did not take the order direct from

the people who issued it out.

CHAIRPERSON: So as far as you're concerned, you don't know why you people

had to go to Glen's house first, even though a decision has already been taken to

kill these boys, you personally don't know why you had to go to Glen's house?

MR HLASA: I personally do not know the reason why.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ameen.

MR AMEEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now when you took - right, were all six

together taken, all six of the youths who were going to be killed, four of them were

killed, two survivors, were all of them taken together to the spot or were they taken

separately?

MR HLASA: They were taken separately.

MR AMEEN: The one group of three was taken by Mr Mphoreng, comrade Sam

and comrade Tamee. Is that right?

MR HLASA: I do not recall comrade Tamee and comrade Sam taking part in the

killing, but I remember comrade Mphoreng was involved, comrade Thabo Matlala

(?) was involved.

MR AMEEN: They went first and then you took your group of three?

MR HLASA: No, our group went first.

MR AMEEN: Your group went first. Who accompanied you, which of your

friends accompanied you taking the three people to their deaths?

MR HLASA: It was myself, comrade Tamee and comrade Thabo.

MR AMEEN: And who is comrade Thabo?

MR HLASA: He is not present here and he'd never been arrested.

MR AMEEN: The third applicant, Mr Thandakubona, was he any part of these

people with you that went to the spot to kill these people, to kill the youths?

MR HLASA: No.

MR AMEEN: And he was not part of Mr Mphoreng's group?


MR AMEEN: If I can just get some assistance from the committee. He's also

applied for amnesty for the same murders, four counts of murder and two of

attempted murder, but he has not been part, according to the evidence here, Mr

Thandakubona.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I don't know, we can't (indistinct). Where is his

application?

MR MALAN: Is that really relevant at this stage Mr Ameen?


MR AMEEN: There's just something I want to get clear in my mind, but it's fine.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR AMEEN: Coming to the scene of the murder, and your killing of these three

people and attempted murder of the two, how did you shoot them, what did you do.

When you took them there you were in the car, they were in the car, tell me what

happened, tell the committee what happened?

MR HLASA: ... (inaudible - end of tape) ... once. I might have indicated yesterday

that I do not recall who it was and I won't know who did I really shoot and then I

pushed him towards the bottom of the hill slope.

MR AMEEN: I'm going to put it to you that the three people, two of them are

survivors here, were ordered to get out of the car and were ordered to run towards

the old Shawella beer hall, a disused beer hall. They were ordered not to look

sideways and they were ordered when they reached the wall to sit with their backs

facing the wall, that is they were facing you. Is that correct?

MR HLASA: Repeat your question sir?

MR AMEEN: At the spot where the two survivors and one of the deceased was

going to be killed, that is the three people that were in your group destined to be

killed. When you reached the spot where they were going to be killed they were

ordered out of the car, they were ordered to run towards the old Shawella beer hall,

a disused beer hall, they were ordered not to look sideways and when they reached

the wall they were ordered to sit with their backs towards the wall, facing you?

MR HLASA: I was not in that group. I was in the group that went to the hill, they

were shot and they fell to the bottom of the hill slope. I don't know (inaudible)

second shooting took place.

MR AMEEN: May I just clarify something with my clients (indistinct)? Thank you

Mr Chairman. I just clarified something with my clients, they say that there was -

one of them was shot once, he survived, the other was shot three time, he received

three bullets in his body, he survived, but he was also shot a further seven time,

seven bullets were fired at him but those bullets did not hit him and that they are

adamant that they were made to sit the way I described to you earlier, their backs

towards the wall of the Shawella beer hall, facing you?

MR HLASA: I have explained which group I was in.

MR AMEEN: Was it the first group or the second group?

MR HLASA: It was ... (inaudible)


MR AMEEN: That is correct, they will say it was the first group.

MR HLASA: They say they were blindfolded, his hands were tied up, I would

really urge them to tell the committee how they came to know about that they were

in the first group.

MR AMEEN: At that point they were not blindfolded, their hands were not bound,

they were not blindfolded.

MR HLASA: When were their hands tied up?

MR AMEEN: Their hands were not tied and they were not blindfolded.

MR HLASA: Well I would not dispute that because it's only yesterday when I

learned about the blindfolding issue and I remember there was one in the dining

room who was blindfolded but I am saying I was in the first group.

MR AMEEN: After the shooting was completed they heard you congratulating

yourselves on having done a good job?

MR HLASA: I dispute that. I do not know whether the committee would like me to

expand on this? Yesterday I did explain that I trained in Libya for 11 months and I

went up until I was a general. I trained more than 200 people, I know a reaction of

a firearm, if I shoot you with a firearm, whether you are wearing a bullet proof or

not, you will react and if a person had been shot without a bullet proof on he would

not have heard that.

MR MALAN: Excuse me Mr Hlasa are you saying you didn't congratulate each

other?

MR HLASA: I do not see a reason why we would shoot at people and to wait, we

would be - I remember after shooting I went back to the car and my comrades shot

and they followed. To stand there and congratulate ourselves is - nothing like that

happened.

MR AMEEN: I want to take you back to yesterday's testimony. At some point in

the course of your evidence you mentioned that there was anger on your part, that

there was anger. Can you recall that?

MR HLASA: I recall that.

MR AMEEN: And that this was at the point when the youths who were killed and

the two survivors had been brought in for interrogation. You used words to the

effect that if you participated in the interrogation, something would happen. Can

you recall that?



MR AMEEN: Can you expand a bit on that, what did you mean when you said that

if you would participate something would happen?

MR HLASA: I explained my position as an individual. I said I could not tolerate

the killings that were happening anymore, now what held me was the court of

conduct of AZAPO. I have told you already that there was this principle of

democratic centralisation. Even though I was an individual and not agreeing with

what the majority were saying because they were outnumbering me, I would have

... (intervention)

MR AMEEN: We are at the point when the boys are being interrogated, the youths

who were killed and the two survivors are being interrogated. You are very angry

and you've told this committee that if you would have participated in this

interrogation, something bad would have happened. I want you to explain what

you meant by that something bad. Just confine yourself to that.

MR MALAN: Mr Ameen, sorry, my recollection and my notes are a little

different. His reference to his inability to tolerate was advanced as a reason for not

going in and participating in the questioning. He said there that when they arrived

he stayed outside, they arrived in the two cars, one of which was his, he stayed

outside and he cleaned the oil and he didn't want to go in because he said I knew I

would not tolerate it. I'm not sure that we have the same time, I may be mistaken.

CHAIRPERSON: Taking the lead from Adv Malan, what would you not have been

able to tolerate at the time that the youths were being interrogated. You remained

outside, you said you would not have been able to tolerate. What would you not

have been able to tolerate?

MR HLASA: It would be difficult to explain what is it that I would not tolerate.

We are not the same emotionally and I felt that I should not go in.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let me tell you how we understood you, to save time. We

understood you to convey that you didn't want to go in there because had you gone

in there you might have been very angry and perhaps harmed them or assaulted

them or done something terrible to them, that is how we understood you. Are we

right in so understanding you or are we wrong?

MR HLASA: That is correct Chairperson.


MR MALAN: While we're at this point Mr Ameen. You arrived there

simultaneously with the youths, the six victims arriving there because in your

evidence yesterday you said you put them into two cars, the Mazda and your Chev.


You say you had to clean, the car was dirty, you had to clean the oil therefore you

did not go in. Is that correct?

MR HLASA: That is the main reason that held me outside.

MR MALAN: Just a follow up question on this. And for the whole time that the

interrogation took place you remained outside, you never went into the house. Is

that correct?

MR HLASA: That is correct. If there was anything I wanted inside the house I

went in, for instance soap, even eating.

MR AMEEN: Two organisations were at war. People who had harmed your

organisation, these youths, who alleged to have harmed your organisation were

being interrogated and yet you busied yourself with cleaning oil in a car. How long

did that take you because this interrogation lasted for a good few hours?

MR HLASA: I do not recall how long it took me but it was quite a long time.


CHAIRPERSON: Even after finishing with your car, after you'd finished cleaning

your car, you nonetheless did not go to go and interrogate them?

MR HLASA: I did not go inside. There were other comrades outside who were not

part of the interrogation, I was just chilling around with them.

CHAIRPERSON: You were not the only person outside?

MR HLASA: No.

ADV BOSMAN: I just want to interfere please. Did you hear any loud music being

played?

MR HLASA: There was music but only normal level.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you hear any screams?

MR HLASA: I do not recall hearing screams.

ADV BOSMAN: You heard the evidence of Mr Mphoreng, yesterday he testified

in what manner these victims were tortured. Does it surprise you then that you did

not hear screams?

MR HLASA: It does not surprise me because when these people were captured

they were six captured by one person. It would not surprise me because even when


they were captured there were six captured by one person and it was about past two

to three in the afternoon.

ADV BOSMAN: But you heard Mr Mphoreng testifying that he used a pliers and

applied it to the private parts of the victims, would you not have expected screams?

MR HLASA: There is a possibility that when a person is being tortured with a pair

of pliers would scream, such a possibility exists that he would be ordered not to

scream.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla. ... (indistinct)

ADV BOSMAN: No questions.

MR BRINK: No questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Hlasa

today with hindsight, looking and examining this particular event, what would be

your message, if any anyway,

be to the families of the victims or how do you look at the whole incident and what

can you say perhaps to the families or to the nation as a whole?

MR HLASA: I would start first by saying the conflict of the past between Black

organisations was an unfortunate incident. As members of AZAPO we did not

perceive Black people as our enemies, we knew that we were fighting White

people. The loss of life, Black man's life, is something that disturbed us a lot, that

is why we also took so long to decide upon the life of a Black person. Therefore

I'm saying please forgive me, I have come before this committee to tell the only

truth, to tell what I know. If there is anything that I did not know, it's not because

I'm hiding it.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman, I haven't got any further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if I may just ask him. Do you know where the Shawella

beer hall is?

MR HLASA: I know where it is.

CHAIRPERSON: How far is that beer hall from the spot where you say you shot

these people?

MR HLASA: It can be metres, not a kilo, but metres.


CHAIRPERSON: About how many metres, could it be from the wall behind me up

to that wall or whatever distance you can, please indicate?

MR HLASA: It's can be 20 - 25 metres.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. Is there any fixed particular object at the spot where you

shot these people? It may be a difficult question but I'm trying to find out whether

you shot them, where you shot them was next to a toilet or next to something, a

house or an old house?

MR HLASA: There were electric pylons but I have indicated that it was a hill but

there was nothing fixed except those electric pylons.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that is why I asked you that questions because on the,

some of the facts accompanying the (indistinct) they say they were shot at a beer

hall so I just wanted to see whether perhaps that description for convenience or a

matter of preciseness. So you say it was about 25 metres from a beer hall, from the

beer hall in Shawella?

MR HLASA: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising from my question regarding to the beer

hall?

MR TLOUBATLA: Nothing, no Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused.

Shall we have the next witness Mr Tloubatla? You are excused Mr Hlasa, you can

stand down please.

WITNESS EXCUSED



AMNESTY HEARING

DATE: 09 JUNE 1998

NAME: MXOLISI ERNEST THANDAKUBONA

HELD AT: JOHANNESBURG

DAY 2

______________________________________________________ADV SIGODI:

Will you testify in English or Xhosa or Zulu?

MXOLISI ERNEST THANDAKUBONA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: For the benefit of the interpreters, in what language are you

going to testify Mr Thandakubona?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I'm going to use (indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I am a Xhosa who grew up around here.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm just asking you because I don't want later with a

situation where there is some argument as to what precisely you said, whether you

meant it or you did not mean it. We want you to use the language that you best

command and having said that we leave that to you to decide which language you

want to use, but use the language that you best command to avoid problems later

on. Very well then. Mr Tloubatla here again this applicant had made an application

in respect of the murder of a security guard and likewise we will stand down his

application in respect of that particular incident, we will stand it down indefinitely

for the same reasons as we've already mentioned and bearing in mind again the fact

that a differently constituted committee may hear his application in respect of that

particular incident so we want to leave it neatly out of the present proceedings.

What are your full names?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I am Mxolisi Ernest Thandakubona.


EXAMINATION BY MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr

Thandakubona is it true that you have applied for amnesty for the killing of some

four boys on the 1st of August 1986 and the attempted killing of another two?


MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes I was present.

MR TLOUBATLA: I am going to concentrate on the events of the day, on that

particular day. It is common cause that you had a comrade by the name of

Jefferson Lingani. Is that so?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes that is correct.

MR TLOUBATLA: And that his house was either damaged or burnt, whatever but

that is also common cause that something had happened to his house. Is that so?


MR TLOUBATLA: At what time did you know that Mr Lingani's house had been

damaged?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I was sleeping with comrade Ghani (?) that day at one

of the houses that used to be our hideout but the comrades knew what places were

used as hideouts. Jeff came to us, woke us up at dawn, around 3 or 4 in the

morning. He knocked at the door and we refused to wake up, we hid ourselves

because we were tired and we did not want to leave at the time. Jeff then left. He

went to other places to ask for other people.

MR TLOUBATLA: There is something that is not amusing, but sort of you know,

it's attracting my attention, you keep on taking off your hat. Did you have to leave

by hiding yourselves all the time, you're talking of a hideout?

MR THANDAKUBONA: We were leading a kind of life of hiding out because we

were fleeing from the police and the UDF members. The UDF was of course the

opposite camp that was fighting us.

MR TLOUBATLA: So did your comrade Jefferson come back later and what time

was that when he came back?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes Jeff did come back. It was round about half past

eight, nine o'clock. We had just come back from buying breakfast at the shop and

when we entered the gate he was just arriving himself as well. We did not cook the

breakfast, we got into the car and we went to his place to assess the damage.

MR TLOUBATLA: How many of you left that hideout of yours to go to

Jefferson's place?

MR THANDAKUBONA: It was myself, Ghani and Jeff, that was when we were

going to his place.


MR TLOUBATLA: And then on your arrival at Jeff's place, who did you find

there?

MR THANDAKUBONA: When we arrived I saw people like Kabelo, Dick, Vayli

was also present, Mklana as well. Those are the people we found when we arrived.

I may have forgotten other but I am sure about these ones. These are the ones that

we found when we arrived.

MR TLOUBATLA: So it was quite a number of your comrades at Jeff's place, it

was quite a sizeable number?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes there were several comrades that I found there, they

were trying to help by cleaning and establish how much damage has been caused

and we were guarding because we feared that the people might come back during

the day.

MR TLOUBATLA: I see also, that is in page 21 that is page 1 of your application,

you say on the second paragraph, the second sentence you say: "It started when

comrade Jefferson Lingani's house, who was a member of AZAPO, was petrol

bombed for the second time". In fact I think it's for the first time that we hear that

the same house was petrol bombed for the second time?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Would you please refer me to the paragraph, what page

is it on? I'm referring to the paragraph that you've just read.

MR TLOUBATLA: In the bundle it's page 21 but otherwise it's page 1 of your

application, the second paragraph, the second sentence.

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes that is correct. I concur with what I have written

here because you know Jeff was a prominent member of AZAPO, prominent

leader, he was well known he could not hide himself, he was within the Soweto

Eleven that was arrested during the 1976 riots and he resided in the UDF area. The

area in which he resided was predominantly UDF and that was not for the first time

that he was attacked, he was attacked for the first time but nothing happened. He

reported the matter and this was for the second time that he was attacked and his

house was burnt, that's when he called for help from his comrades.

MR TLOUBATLA: Before this particular incident, was Jeff's house petrol

bombed, how long before this particular incident?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I would not know exactly the month but it was not

something that had happened a long time ago, it was around within three months I

think. Three months had not lapsed when this second attack was launched.

MR TLOUBATLA: Right, you arrived there and then with the other comrades,

what did you keep yourselves busy doing there after arriving at Jeff's place?


MR THANDAKUBONA: We were cleaning the house, cleaning up the broken

glasses and making sure that the place was clean, that is what we did at the time

and guard the place so that in the event of these people coming back we would be

there.

MR TLOUBATLA: Is there anything that happened during the course of the day

whilst you were there that you can perhaps tell us?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes something did happen. As we were busy cleaning

and moving around people were walking past and singing and their songs were not

the kind of happy songs, they were actually communicating to us at the time. The

kind of songs sung and the T-shirts worn were the kind of songs and T-shirts that

would identify one's political stance and therefore one would identify them as

SOSCO or UDF.

MR TLOUBATLA: You heard the other co-applicants when they were testifying.

Are you saying that they just passed there, they walked past the house and then

was it the end?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes they walked past singing and they came back again.

It was an up and down movement that happened several times whilst we were still

there. We ignored them.

MR TLOUBATLA: Then, except that particular incident of these people singing

up and down, then what happened thereafter?

MR THANDAKUBONA: After that I would say during the day around past two to

three, I indicated to Ghani that I wanted to go and take a bath. We requested Jeff

and he said no let's wait and take guard and we requested him that he release us

and he then offered to take us home so that we could take and bath and he would

wait for us. When we left Orlando West we took the direction towards the Orlando

stadium, driving under the bridge. We took a right towards the police station and

we would take our left at the library and on turning at the turnoff Jeff indicated that

he had forgotten a paper and he made a U-turn back towards the police station to

buy a newspaper and before he parked his car and he said: "Here are the boys." and

on looking I could identify some of these boys. We bought the newspaper, we saw

these boys walking up towards the station and we followed them. They took a

passage, they were talking and pointing and when they approached nine and

eleven, that is nine hundreds and eleven hundreds numbers in Orlando, we stopped

them ... (intervention)

MR BRINK: Chairman I'm sorry to interrupt. I wonder if my learned friend can

just get his witness to get to the point. I don't think it really matters which nine

hundred or eleven hundred rows and buying newspapers and things, quite

irrelevant with respect, can we get to the point?


CHAIRPERSON: Did you hear that Mr Thandakubona we are here especially to

hear about the manner in killing of the certain six people, we're not so much here

about the newspapers and the buying of newspapers, we're here about the killing

and assault of six people. Let's talk about that, that which we are here for. You

understand the point? Thank you.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Thandakubona then at what

stage did you intercept this youths?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Around three in the afternoon.

MR TLOUBATLA: The place, where was it?

MR THANDAKUBONA: It was at the passage.

MR TLOUBATLA: And after you intercepted them?

MR THANDAKUBONA: After stopping them Ghani remained behind with a gun,

guarding them, Jeff and myself went to pick up comrade Pitso (?) and on arrival

we indicated to comrade Pitso that we had now apprehended the boys. We started

his vehicle and we went to eleven and we brought them into the two vehicles and

we drove them to Jeff's house in Orlando West.

MR TLOUBATLA: What time was it when you arrived now back at Jeff's place?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I didn't have a watch but I think it was around the same

time, three or past three but I cannot commit myself to the exactness of the time.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then after arriving there can you tell us what did you do

on arriving there? You in particular and then you can tell us about the others, but

basically we want you activities after this boys were brought into that house.

MR THANDAKUBONA: When we arrived we got out of the vehicle and went

into the house and the damage was indicated to them and the interrogation started.

We wanted to know ... (intervention)

MR TLOUBATLA: Where did the interrogation start, where did you do it. You

heard questions from Mr Ameen, the victim's lawyer saying that people ...

(intervention)

MR THANDAKUBONA: The interrogation started in the kitchen.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then you also heard that they was made to undress and

then left naked and then assaulted at the - would you confirm that, is that what

happened, where they undressed, all of them?


MR THANDAKUBONA: I do not remember anybody naked but yes they were

beaten up. I do not remember anybody being undressed.

MR TLOUBATLA: Ja, just tell us then you started assaulting them in the kitchen

and then where did you go to - as it is said that you went into the bedrooms, is that

what happened?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I was not stuck to one room in which the interrogation

was taking place. There was one person whom I was beating in the kitchen. I went

to another bedroom and I was moving between the bedrooms beating them up,

assaulting them, that's how I can put it.

MR TLOUBATLA: Can you recall any specific weapons that you used when you

were assaulting this boys. Any specific weapons that you specifically used when

you were assaulting the boys?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I used my bear hands mostly, fists and (indistinct),

kicking them.

MR TLOUBATLA: Just out of interest, before I forgot this point, how old were

you then at that time?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I was 20 years old.

MR TLOUBATLA: Okay. So you never used any specific weapon, the pliers, a

hammer, an axe, the part of a gun or anything, you just used your hands?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes if my memory still serves me well, I used my bear

hands. I did not have a gun on that particular day.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then, until what time did you assault this boys and torture

them?

MR THANDAKUBONA: They were assaulted for quite a long time. They were

assaulted until dusk.

MR TLOUBATLA: Were they crying, asking for help and when you were

assaulting them what specifically did you require them to do or to say?

CHAIRPERSON: You are asking a very compound question, were they crying, did

they ask for help. What are you looking for? I think take it in instalments. Did they

scream for help?

MR THANDAKUBONA: People in pain react, they cry. As their cries could not

be heard by the immediate next door neighbours, the person next door did not

know what was happening.


MR TLOUBATLA: And then as you were assualting them, what is it that you

wanted them to do, what is it that you were asking them to do? In other words the

reason for the assault.

MR THANDAKUBONA: First of all we assaulted them because we wanted to

know who their leaders were. Immediately when we found a T-shirt associated

with the UDF we confirmed that these are the people - we wanted to know who

gave them instructions, that is why we assaulted them.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Mphoreng you mean that at that time you didn't know who

were the leaders of the UDF, at that time. You say you asked them who were their

leaders, didn't you know the leaders of the UDF at that time?

MR THANDAKUBONA: We knew prominent UDF leaders but we basically

wanted to know who organised them in Orlando West and we also wanted to know

where their camps were.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words you wanted to know who their leaders were, if

any, who had ordered them to do this thing. Is that what you're saying?


MR TLOUBATLA: And then ultimately just tell us what happened after you now,

let's say now late just before you had to leave that house, what happened?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I will refer to myself. On that day I'd say during the

weekend Kabelo's car broke down or - and in the evening we had to go and pick

the car up. He had to use it. Kabelo and myself took Jeff's car, drove to town to

pick up this other vehicle. We came back with the vehicle. Kabelo drove his

Renault, went straight to Orlando West. I went to Orlando and I followed him to

Orlando West and when I arrived the Chev had already gone, that is the first group.

I came across comrade Sam at the door and I asked him what was happening now

... (intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Please Mr Tloubatla try to control you witness then we can take

notes and follow.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you, thank you Madam. Right you apparently went out

with, with whom did you go out?

MR THANDAKUBONA: With Kabelo.

MR TLOUBATLA: And you later came back. You say that the Chevrolet had

already left. Did I understand correctly?


MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes that is correct, that is when we came back from

town, the Chevrolet has left already.

MR TLOUBATLA: Right and did you also, did you follow the Chevrolet and

which car were you using and with whom were you when you followed the

Chevrolet?

MR THANDAKUBONA: We were not following the Chevrolet. When we arrived

it had already left. When I arrived there was this Renault Nine, the one that we had

picked up from town and I was using Jeff's white vehicle.

MR TLOUBATLA: Okay. Right, let me rather put it this way. We have been told

by you co-applicants that they went to Glen's place. What I want to know is did

you ultimately get to Glen's place in Shawella?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes I did go to Glen's place in Shawella.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla just a little bit to be fair to the witness because

later on it may be put to him that he didn't say certain things. Let him complete the

picture he's trying to give us. He arrives from town - you arrived from town and I

suppose you mean arriving, when you say you arrived in Orlando I assume you

mean arriving at Jeff's house?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I can say I made a mistake, when I referred to Orlando I

meant that I just made a turn at Orlando and proceeded to Jeff's place.

CHAIRPERSON: Arrived at Jeff's place?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In the Renault?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I was driving Jeff's Mazda at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. How many cars were there at Jeff's house?

MR THANDAKUBONA: There was this one Renault, the one that we had just

picked up from the garage in town.

CHAIRPERSON: The Chevrolet had already left at the time with three others who

were in the boot?

MR THANDAKUBONA: The last thing, what about the boot?

CHAIRPERSON: The Chevrolet had already left with three boys who were in the

boot?


MR THANDAKUBONA: When we arrived we were told that the Chevrolet had

already gone to Shawella and we too should follow.

CHAIRPERSON: Follow in which car?

MR THANDAKUBONA: They were loaded into Renault Nine, accompanied by

comrade Sam, I don't know who else was present. I remained behind and followed

in Jeff's Mazda and in the company of Jeff himself and this Mazda did not have

any one of these victims.

CHAIRPERSON: You Mr Thandakubona?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes myself and Jeff left his house for Shawella in his

Mazda.

CHAIRPERSON: The Mazda then followed the Chev or at least drove to

Shawella?


CHAIRPERSON: And the other three boys, you say they were in the boot of the

Renault.

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes if I still remember very well, they were loaded into

the boot of the Renault. I was there at the time, I did see them being loaded into the

boot of the Renault.

CHAIRPERSON: Then you drove to Shawella and you arrived at Shawella I

believe?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes we did arrive at Shawella.

CHAIRPERSON: Take it further from there, what happened there.

MR THANDAKUBONA: We found the Chevrolet parked outside and the Renault

had also arrived. We were expected to get into the house and establish what was

happening. Indeed we went into the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Just take it slow just to allow us to make notes and so on but

give us the details, they're quite all right but just take it a bit slower.

MR THANDAKUBONA: Okay.

MR MALAN: Sorry, was this now Jeff's house at Shawella?

MR THANDAKUBONA: No.


MR MALAN: Which house, you went into what house?

MR THANDAKUBONA: That is Glen's house.

MR TLOUBATLA: Alright you arrived there and then ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry I'm going to interrupt you, I'm sorry about that. I don't

understand how can three people have been in the boot of a Renault Nine?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I don't know Chairperson. They fitted well in the boot,

there was nothing they could do.

CHAIRPERSON: If my knowledge of vehicles doesn't let me down, it's a very

small car surely?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes, the boot of the Renault Nine is spacious, a little

spacious because it proceeds inwards. There was nothing the boys could have

done, they had to fit into the boot.

CHAIRPERSON: You then went to Glen's house?

MR THANDAKUBONA: That's correct.

MR TLOUBATLA: Right, when you arrived at Glen's house in Shawella, do you

recall who you followed there?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I still remember very well. People that I saw there on

arrival were Glen, the owner of the house, his friend, Madrix, that's his name and

he was with his girlfriend, comrade Pitso was also present, comrade Ghani as well.

The whole group from Orlando West was now at Glen's house now everything was

being conducted at Glen's house.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then what is it - anything specific that you discussed, that

is let's say with the group or something that was said to you?

MR THANDAKUBONA: When we left Orlando West I had knowledge already

because comrade Sam had already told me that these boys were going to be killed.

When we arrived at Shawella I already had that knowledge except to say I didn't

know what spot they were going to be killed at. When it was being discussed as to

the killing spot, Jeff requested me to accompany him to Dlamini where guns had to

be fetched from other comrades so that we should be in the position to defend

ourselves, after the killing, in the event of these people coming back to attack us.

We indeed went for these other guns, we could not find them, the people that we

wanted were not there and then we went back into the house and on arrival, I

wanted to know what the next step would be and it was indicated that everything

was finalised. I then understood that that meant that the boys had now been killed.


ADV BOSMAN: Where were the boys were at this stage, when all this was taking

place, the victims.

MR THANDAKUBONA: What are you referring to?

ADV BOSMAN: When you came back where were the boys, did you see them, the

victims?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Are you referring - are you asking in which room of

Glen's house these boys were, in the boot of the car or where. Would you please

explain?

ADV BOSMAN: ... (inaudible) clear to me, according to your evidence, whether

they got out of the cars, whether they were taken out of the boot?

MR THANDAKUBONA: They were taken out of the boot into the house.

ADV BOSMAN: ... (inaudible)

MR THANDAKUBONA: I think I remember, that is if I am correct, I think we

had already blindfolded them from Jeff's house into the boot at Jeff's house, the

reason being that we did not want them to know where they were or where they

were being taken to.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you left with Jeff to go to Dlamini, they were still

blindfolded?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I can testify that I did see one of them lying down being

asked the final questions, his eyes still blindfolded.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you say when you came back from Dlamini with Jeff,

after you failed to find the guns, when you came back you were told that

everything had been done and finished with and to you and then you understood

that to mean that the boys had already been killed?



MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Was everybody still there at Glen's

house? I mean when you were told that now the mission has been accomplished,

the boys had been killed.

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes they were still present. We arrived at the time when

everything had been done. When we arrived I thought that we were still going to

kill the boys but I learned that everything had been done, the boys had now been

killed.


MR TLOUBATLA: And then from there, what happened, where did you go?

MR THANDAKUBONA: We then dispersed. It was indicated that now that we

had accomplished our mission we dispersed to our respective places. We left the

Chevrolet behind because it could not move anymore. We tool the Renault and the

Mazda, we went to Kabelo's place to establish or check out as to whether his home

has been attacked or not and later on we were dropped off at Orlando and that was

now at night.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Chairman I think, okay just one last thing. Did you also go

into exile after this incident.

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes I went to exile with my very same co-applicants,

my comrades.

MR TLOUBATLA: Any specific thing that you were doing, were you part of the

organisation and what were you doing and when did you come back?

MR THANDAKUBONA: When we left the country we were actually were

collected by a comrade at Tamee (indistinct) in Dlamini, we went to Botswana and

we went to a refugee camp and that is where found other comrades at the camp. I

was trained on certain military activities and I ended up being commander of that

very same camp. At that very same time I had been shot in another place, isolated

from this incident, and I then went to Zimbabwe where medical treatment could be

given to me properly, right up to the time when Samora Michelle died.

CHAIRPERSON: We are not interested (indistinct), we are not getting there. Did

you then come back into the country at some point?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I came back in 1994 in August.


MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Chairman I think that will be all from me. I don't have any

further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until tomorrow, half past nine.

WITNESS EXCUSED

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION ON 10 JUNE 1998 - DAY 3

MXOLISI ERNEST THANDAKUBONA: (s.u.o.)


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ameen.

MR AMEEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Thandakubona you testified yesterday

that you were not part of the group of people who had accosted the six youths. Is

that so?


MR AMEEN: When was the first time that you saw these six youths on that day?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I saw them for the first time when they were walking up

and down singing.

MR AMEEN: And how did you identify them?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I was able to identify them because of the clothes they

were wearing. I will try to remember. I recognised people who were wearing grey

flannel school uniform and there was one who was wearing something like a brand

(indistinct) trousers, white shirts, that's how I can remember that these were the

people that we saw at Orlando West earlier on.

MR AMEEN: So, there has been testimony earlier by your co-applicants that some

of these youths were wearing T-shirts. Do you remember that?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes I do remember that.

MR AMEEN: Then why didn't you mention it just now when I asked you what

they were wearing?

MR THANDAKUBONA: You will remember that they had worn the T-shirts

underneath and a shirt on top, not that they were just wearing the T-shirts.

MR AMEEN: So if they were wearing these T-shirts under their shirts, you could

not have seen them as they were walking up and down, you could not have seen

the T-shirts that they were wearing because they would have been covered with

their shirts and their blazers probably?


MR AMEEN: So the evidence given earlier by your two co-applicants that they

recognised these youths by the T-shirts they were wearing is incorrect?

MR THANDAKUBONA: It is true, you see the T-shirt story comes when we were

in the house.

MR AMEEN: But the point - when these youths were allegedly marching up and

down in front of Jeff Lingani's house?


CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether anybody said that, that they identified

them by their T-shirts which they had been seen wearing during the time when

they were going up and down the street?

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman that is my impression.

CHAIRPERSON: I do recall that they said that amongst the people who were

singing and going up and down the street, some of them had some T-shirts but I do

not recall of a piece of evidence which says precisely these six people were also

identified because at the time when they were going up and down the street they

themselves, the six, to also were having T-shirts. It isn't that - there is no such

evidence. Evidence that we have linking them with the T-shirts - what the evidence

which says they had T-shirts on was the evidence which said they had T-shirts on,

they discovered they had some T-shirts on while they were in the house, the T-

shirts were worn inside the shirts.

MR AMEEN: Alright thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm trying to say to you there is evidence that among the people

who were going up and down the street, there were people who had T-shirts on, but

the evidence did not go so far as to say precisely the six were also seen having T-

shirts while they were going up and down the street.

MR AMEEN: Okay. Now ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ... (inaudible). Yes Mr Ameen.

MR AMEEN: Thank you. Now going back to the point where these youths were

accosted. You testified that you were not present. The two survivors that are here

today who will give evidence later on will say that you were among the three

people who accosted them and took them to two cars parked two streets away. That

they were put into those cars under gunpoint and that they were taken to Jeff

Lingani's house or to a house which turned out to be Jeff Lingani's house. I'm just

putting that to you.

MR THANDAKUBONA: It is true that I was present at the time when they were

apprehended for the first time and taken into these two vehicles. We took them to

Jeff's house. I concur with that, we also had a gun.

MR AMEEN: And they were taken under gunpoint?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes they had already seen that we had a gun so they

would not try to flee.

MR AMEEN: Now, you testified that you took part in the assaults on these six

youths at Jeff Lingani's house and that you only used your palms, your fists and


your feet, that you did not use any of the weapons which were at the house in the

assault. I want to put it to you that the two survivors will say that you did assault

them but not in the way that you described, that you did use those weapons that

were there, the guns, the iron rod with which to assault them.

MR THANDAKUBONA: If you still remember very well I did indicate yesterday

that as far as I remember, I was in the kitchen and the someone that I really did

assault in the kitchen I went into another room, beat another one up and assaulted

another one in another room, but most of the time I was using my bear hands and

feet. I did not have a gun that day. It may have happened that I borrowed it from

someone and used it to assault them.

MR AMEEN: So you are prepared to concede that you did use those weapons, if

not all the time, at least some of the time.

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes I would agree with that.

MR AMEEN: There was also evidence yesterday, not by you but by one of the co-

applicants when it was put to him that a pliers was used on the private parts of

these youths. You recall that evidence?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes I do recall that evidence.

MR AMEEN: Can you tell this committee whether you were one of the people

who used the pliers on the private parts of these youths?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I did not use a pair of pliers but I know that one of us

did use a pliers.

MR AMEEN: Did you see the pliers being used?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes I did see him use it.

MR AMEEN: Can you describe to the court how it was done? Sorry, to the

committee.

MR THANDAKUBONA: He was actually doing something like if he was piercing

him with the pliers. The victim has his clothes on, he had his pair of trousers on at

the time.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry. Who did you see using the pliers?

MR THANDAKUBONA: It was comrade Motlana.

MR AMEEN: That is a reference to Mr Mphoreng?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes that's correct.


MR AMEEN: Right.

ADV SIGODI: Was he the only one who was using the pliers?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes that's the only person that I saw using the pliers at

the time. As I have indicated before I was not stuck to one room, I was moving

between the rooms assaulting people.

ADV SIGODI: How many pliers were there, was there only one pair of pliers?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I only saw one pliers.

MR AMEEN: I'm going to give you a description which my clients have given me

of how the pliers were used and that description will include that you were one of

the people that used the pliers. Now what they will say is that when they were

given the old clothes they were given, with the old clothes, flexible curtain wiring

with which to keep their trousers tied to their waists. Do you agree with that?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I have a problem with that because I did indicate

yesterday that I do not remember seeing a naked person in the house. What clothes

were taken off were only the shirts so we were able to see the T-shirts that they had

worn beneath.

MR AMEEN: They will also say that once their trousers fell to the ground, after

they were ordered to untie this wire, this curtain wire, they were restrained and

pliers were applied to their private parts and as they screamed one or other of you

would take over from the person applying the pressure and say: "This is not how it

should be done", or words to that effect and then that person would take over

applying pressure. Can you recall that?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I did not see that.

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman if I can just note for the record that according to my

clients they are not certain whether the third applicant was part of the group that

actually fired shots at the spot where the four were killed and on that basis I'm

going to stop my cross examination, I'm not going to put any further questions to

him. There would be no further point in that. If I can just continue on the aspect of

the motor cars that were involved in transporting them. You say that a Renault was

used to transport three of the youths to comrade Glen's house?


MR AMEEN: And you said that three of them were put into the boot of the

Renault?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes that's what I said.


MR AMEEN: Now, what kind of Renault was this, was it a four door car or was it

a five door hatchback?

MR THANDAKUBONA: It was a Renault 9 TSE, a sedan.

MR AMEEN: Alright. My clients will say that there was no Renault there, that

they were taken to comrade Glen's house in a Chev and in a Mazda 323?

MR THANDAKUBONA: They are making a mistake because at the time on

leaving the house to the boot, people were blindfolded and they could not therefore

testify here that the car was not a Renault. I was able to see because I was not

blindfolded. They did not see the Renault when we brought them in. We fetched

the Renault from town during which time they were in the house and they could

not have seen it when we arrived. They are making a mistake here.

MR AMEEN: And in what car were they taken from comrade Glen's house to the

scene of the killing?

MR THANDAKUBONA: The one car I know to have been used, if I still

remember very well was the very same Renault.

MR AMEEN: Okay.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Ameen can I just come in here? Why were the victims

blindfolded?

MR THANDAKUBONA: We did not want them to see where they were going.

ADV BOSMAN: But you had them in your power now Mr Thandakubona, you

had guns, they were badly injured, on the evidence that was given here and you

had them fully in your power. Could they have escaped?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I would say that under such circumstances this is what

usually happens. One can do anything to a person to humiliate him because he is

now subdued.

ADV BOSMAN: Am I understanding you correctly then that the blindfolding was

part of humiliating them and not so much as to prevent them from seeing where

you were going. Is that what you are saying?

MR THANDAKUBONA: No, both of these acts were actually such that they

should not see where we were going and the second question is such that such

things happen when people are under such circumstances.

ADV BOSMAN: My difficulty is Mr Thandakubona that my impression was that

some of your co-applicants indicated that not all of them were blindfolded and you


say they were all blindfolded and I don't understand the reason why because you

had them in your power. It was not necessary to blindfold them. If you could just

try and clarify?

MR THANDAKUBONA: In so far as the first question is concerned, as to the

argument that my co-applicants are saying they were not blindfolded, I did indicate

yesterday that when I arrived at the place the Chevrolet had already left with the

first group. I am talking here about the group that left during my presence. The

people who had remained behind were actually waiting for us to bring this other

car from town.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know the Renault was used to take them to the

scene where they were shot because you were not there, you had gone to Dlamini

to go and look for guns?

MR THANDAKUBONA: The Mazda was not there and the Chevrolet was not

used because it had a pressure plate problem and therefore it was not used to take

them to the spot and the only car that was available was the Renault.

CHAIRPERSON: So actually, because the Renault was the only car left there

which would have been mobile, for that reason you - it's your conclusion that they

must have used the Renault?

MR THANDAKUBONA: No that's what the comrades told me when I came back,

they indicated to me that the Renault was used to take them to the scene where

they were shot.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, thank you.

MR AMEEN: While you were at comrade Glen's house can you recall one of the

survivors sitting behind me, or escorting one of them to the toilet in comrade

Glen's house?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Which one are you referring to?

MR AMEEN: I'm referring to Mr Kgase.

MR THANDAKUBONA: I think I still remember him from when we were still

growing up, at the time I think we were still young. I saw him for the first time in

Jeff's bedroom, he was in the main bedroom at Jeff's house ... (intervention)

MR AMEEN: Can I interrupt you please? I'm asking you whether in comrade

Glen's house you escorted him to the toilet or not, yes or no?

MR THANDAKUBONA: No, I don't remember that.


MR AMEEN: Because that is what he will say, that you were the one who escorted

him to the toilet, that he was not blindfolded at comrade Glen's house and that the

two cars used to transport them to the scene of the killing were the Chev and the

Mazda.

MR THANDAKUBONA: I might be making some mistakes somewhere, this

happened a while ago, it's been long now since it happened. I can therefore

undoubtedly testify that it is otherwise, but as far as I remember Jeff and myself

had left to look for a gun in Dlamini and when we came back everything had been

done, that is how I remember it.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interrupt you? You said something in your evidence

something which, if I understood you correctly, you conveyed that you grew up

with Mr Kgase or known him while you were still young or something to that

effect. Did I misunderstand you?

MR THANDAKUBONA: No we did not grow up together, I was seeing him

actually for the first time that day. I was explaining that I remember him, I saw him

that day, I was seeing him for the first time in Jeff's bedroom, I was just explaining

how I met him for the first time now that I'm seeing him again today. We did not

grow up together.

CHAIRPERSON: I need to understand that what you're actually conveying was

that at that time the two of you were still young

and still growing up, not necessarily that you said that you grew up with him and I

think it didn't come quite clearly to me, but anyway I understand you now.

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman no further questions, that is it.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink.

MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman. The note I have on your evidence in chief

was that when you arrived at Glen's house, you became aware that these people

were to be killed. Do I make a correct note or not?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I said when I heard for the first time that these people

were going to be killed, I discovered this when I arrived at Jeff's place meeting him

at the door. When we went to Glen's place I had this knowledge already.

MR BRINK: Do you know who gave the order that these people should be killed?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Comrade Sam told me when I arrived at Jeff's place.


MR BRINK: But you didn't take part in the planning of these murders?

MR THANDAKUBONA: No I did not take part in the planning.

MR BRINK: And apart from the torture of these men you were merely a passive

participant, so to speak, in the further conduct of the operation?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I would not say I did not assault them as much because

they were really injured that day, we assaulted them badly, I too was present. In

some instances however I would not be there during the assault. This does not

mean that I would not do it if I were present.

MR BRINK: Now I understand you're being frank enough to say you took part in

the assaults, but you had absolutely nothing to do with the planning or the

execution of the murders?


MR BRINK: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Do you know how it came about that police arrested you, who

gave your name to the police?

MR THANDAKUBONA: It was Jeff, he brought police where I was sleeping.

ADV BOSMAN: Were you then accused of having taken part in the murder?

MR THANDAKUBONA: We were charged, all of us equally.

ADV BOSMAN: With murder?


ADV BOSMAN: Were you not surprised because you hadn't participated in the

murder?

MR THANDAKUBONA: When we made our statements I indicated to the police

but he indicated to me that I was telling a lie, I was going to testify in court and he

then wrote down what charges he wrote.

ADV BOSMAN: Do you know why Sam and Tamee's names were not mentioned

to the police? Let me just put it differently. Do you know whether to whom you

referred as comrade Sam and comrade Tamee, do you know whether their names

were mentioned to the police?


MR THANDAKUBONA: We refused to give their names to the police, it was not

easy to divulge such names to the police. These were prominent names in the

organisation.

ADV BOSMAN: But all the other members who were not leaders, their names

were mentioned. Is that right or can't you say?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Jeff was the first person to be arrested and then he gave

these names to the police and we too were arrested and that was the end of it, we

did not give the police any other name.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was, was there somebody in the name of Sam amongst

you, other than Sam Siema. Was there another Sam?


MR MALAN: Why was Sam and Tamee's name not given to the police but Glen's

name indeed was given? Sorry I understand you

as saying that Sam and Tamee's name weren't given to the police because it wasn't

easy to divulge the prominent members in the organisation. Is that what you said?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I am saying that we did not identify their hideout to the

police.

MR MALAN: But you did identify Glen's place to the police?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Glen's name came up because the survivors had already

indicated to the police that they were taken from Orlando West to Shawella where

they were finally shot. The police wanted to know the one house to which we went

to Shawella.

MR MALAN: But weren't they blindfolded according to your testimony?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I have indicated earlier on that the first car left with the

first group and I do not know whether the first group was blindfolded or not but

during my presence I still remember one person blindfolded from the house right

into the boot of the car.

MR MALAN: But you were very adamant that Mr Kgase was blindfolded there

that he couldn't have seen when he was taken to the house of Glen. Is that correct?

MR THANDAKUBONA: No not that he was blindfolded, I'm saying I did see

someone blindfolded, that is if you still remember very well. I said I saw him for

the first time in the bedroom during the day.


MR MALAN: Mr Ameen put it to you that he will give evidence that he was taken

from Glen's house to the scene of the execution in the Renault, not in the Renault

but in the Chev and the Mazda, they were taken in those two cars and you

responded that he could not have seen because he was blindfolded. Isn't that

correct?


MR MALAN: Then let me just taken two other matters. The issue of the use of the

Renault to take them to the scene where they were killed. Wasn't the Chev used to

take them from Jeff's house to Glen's house?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes the Chevrolet was used from Jeff's place to Glen's

place.

MR MALAN: And you gave evidence that it wasn't used from Glen's place to the

scene of the killing because it had a problem with the pressure plate. Is that

correct?

MR THANDAKUBONA: Yes I did say that, that they did not use the Chevrolet

from Glen's place to the scene of murder.

MR MALAN: And then just one other question. On the evidence it's seems as if

these youths were apprehended somewhere between two and three o'clock in the

afternoon and that they were being kept and assaulted and tortured to somewhere

between seven and eight, in evidence before us. That's on average about five hours,

could be less but on all evidence it seems not be less than about three to four hours.

All the time of which they were assaulted according to the evidence. Now why did

this continue for so long?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I don't know. I think because there is an exaggeration of

time here because I remember they arrived at Jeff's place at round about three in

the afternoon and they then left for Shawella, not around seven, it was dusking, it

was shortly after dusk. It was August at the time and the sun would set sooner than

in summer. Yes they were assaulted for a long time, that's correct, we wanted

information from them.

MR MALAN: And the information that you did get from them, when did you get it

from them, early in the assault, late in the assault, in the middle of the assault.

After you had the information did you keep on assaulting them?

MR THANDAKUBONA: If I still remember very well, before Kabelo and myself

went to fetch the car in town the interrogation had already been completed and that

was round about five in the afternoon. We had to rush to town because the closing

time at the place where we were supposed to pick up the car was half past five.


MR MALAN: So are you saying that at five o'clock there was no further assault,

since five o'clock till they were taken to comrade Glen's house?

MR THANDAKUBONA: When I left I think there was no assault going on but I

would not testify as to what happened during my absence.

MR MALAN: Can you just briefly summarise for us. What information did you

get form these youths and in what stage during the assault. What did you discover

first, how soon, what did you discover last and when did you get that information?

MR THANDAKUBONA: When we arrived and I saw this UDF T-shirt so that I

concluded that these are the people with whom we were at war and we then started

to find out as to seeing that they are UDF and SOSCO members, who are these

people giving them instructions to burn people's house, membership of AZAZIM

and killing leaders of AZAPO. This is what we were trying to find out from the,

who their leaders in their areas were. It took some time for them to finally give us

the names of some of the people.

MR MALAN: So you did not get any information from them that they indeed did

burn comrade Jeff's house, that they specifically were responsible for the burning?

MR THANDAKUBONA: I would not say that there's anyone who told me that,

but comrade Motlana indicated to me that the one person he was assaulting did

agree that he was the one involved in the burning of Jeff's house.

MR MALAN: When did he tell you that?

MR THANDAKUBONA: This is something that I had known since I have been

living together with him or since I have been interacting with him over the years.

MR MALAN: So this is way after the - you didn't find that out on that day already.

You didn't know of it on that day. You only learned that from what Motlana since

after the arrest. Is that what your answer comes to?

MR THANDAKUBONA: No I thought you wanted to know as to for how long I

have known this information. I knew this when I arrived at Orlando when we

arrived coming back from town.

MR MALAN: When you went to fetch the car?


MR MALAN: So did Motlana then tell you that one of the persons that he

assaulted agreed that he did burn comrade Jeff's house?





RE-EXAMINANATION BY MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Just

one last question Mr Thandakubona. Do you

have any message to the families, what is your attitude now looking at it, at the

whole incident, with hindsight, now with maturity after having grown, what would

you say?

MR THANDAKUBONA: The things that happened are so painful, maybe people

died innocently and this was all because there was this squabble, the conflict

between the different organisations and this would be enough for a person to be

killed. I know myself that we would be arrested for carrying out the horrendous

deeds. I would like to say that things happened in a very very bad way. We

believed that the political system was going to change. I acknowledge as well that

innocent blood was shed, I beg for apology.

MR TLOUBATLA: No further questions Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla do you have witnesses to call or is this your case.

MR TLOUBATLA: This is my case Mr Chairman but the only thing that I've been

requested by my clients is that should the committee wish to call AZAPO itself or

any officials, they will be available but otherwise we are closing our case.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja well if (indistinct) we should do that, of course it should be

understood that we do not run the case for the

applicants.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you that will be the case for the applicants, there is

nothing ... (inaudible - end of tape)

CHAIRPERSON: There is some confusion to an extent about the name Sam,

particularly as used in the indictment and at some point it could give the

impression that Mr Mphoreng is also known as Sam and for that reason we would

like to have Mr Mphoreng back into the witness box. Mr Mphoreng would you

please come back?


MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you also known as Sam?

MR MPHORENG: Sam is not my name.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, alright thank you. I don't know if anybody would like to

put questions, in fact I was asking this question within the context of the

indictment, in particular the summary of material facts or substantial facts because

there is a name which appears, Willie Edward Ndebele, Sam and then (Atasios

Mphoreng) and ordinarily one - if there's some confusion here because if one had

to apply the rules of grammar superficially one might think that Atasios Mphoreng

means Sam but if you apply the rules of grammar strictly, if that were to be the

case there would have been no comma after Sam so for that reason I thought that

this witness should come back and if there is anybody wanting to ask him

questions in that regard. Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: No thank you Mr Chairman.

MR TLOUBATLA: No questions Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR AMEEN: None from me either Mr Chairman.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ameen you will appreciate that this aspect is of some

importance, with regard to the proposition that you made. You made to the

applicants yesterday or day before, you suggested to them that they are only

incriminating or mentioning the name of Sam and Tamee because they are dead so

it would appear that in fact the name of Sam was mentioned, not for the first time

at this proceedings, but most probably as long ago as when, at the very least, the

indictment was put up.

MR AMEEN: My understanding is that the references to comrade Sam and

comrade Tamee were to those two people who are deceased by these applicants

and not to one of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, not one of them but I'm saying that you put it to the

applicants that - you suggested to the applicants - you remember, you opening

words: "If I may be sinister", "cynical" I'm sorry, your words were: "If I may be

cynical".

MR AMEEN: I remember.

CHAIRPERSON: You remember those words?


MR AMEEN: Yes I remember.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you went on to suggest that Sam and Tamee were not

involved, were not incriminated in some way but that they had just been put in now

because they are dead.

MR AMEEN: Right.

CHAIRPERSON: Or perhaps to be more precise with your suggestion, I had

understood that you were suggesting that they were just in general being

incriminated now that they are dead. I thought you went that far, but I'm told that

you're merely saying that - you were restricting your remarks to the giving of the

order.

MR AMEEN: To the giving of the order, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not want to go so far as to suggest that they are just

being incriminated generally because they are dead. It's not what you're saying?

MR AMEEN: If I can just summarise what my understanding is. As far as the two

survivors are concerned, comrade Sam and comrade Tamee - according to

evidence of Mr Hlasa he was accompanied by comrade Sam and comrade Tamee

and that is those three comrade Hlasa, Sam and Tamee, the late Sam, the late

Tamee killed three of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Two.

MR AMEEN: No killed three.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, yes as you see it, yes.

MR AMEEN: Can I just check this?

CHAIRPERSON: Well the number doesn't really matter, it doesn't matter, yes.

MR AMEEN: Alright. And my point was that they were now being incriminated

because they were dead and that this reference to Sam in these, in the summary of

facts is probably to one of the applicants here.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you must be wrong. Well that's precisely the point that the

witness was coming to testify. You remember I asked the previous witness -

amongst the all of them, the whole group that committed this crime whether

besides Sam Siema there was any other Sam. Mr Thandakubona said there wasn't

any other Sam and then for a moment we thought that, looking at the summary of

facts, Sam could possibly - one could possibly say Sam was Mr Mphoreng and

that's why he came in to say that Sam is not his name. So the only Sam being


incriminated here, because there is a Sam incriminated in the indictment, are you

aware of that? Paragraph 6, page 33 if your bundle is paginated. You see paragraph

6?

MR AMEEN: Yes, the 4th line of paragraph 6.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it says: "Pitso, Sam, Kabelo and Glen took this people and

then went to go and shoot them". On the evidence before us who is Sam?

MR AMEEN: On the evidence before us it is only comrade Sam Siema.

CHAIRPERSON: That's right.

So it would mean that - I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, we have made no

findings as yet, it will mean that we will have to treat with caution you argument or

you suggestion that Sam Siema is only being incriminated now.

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman would Mr Brink be able to help us in that respect

whether Sam was actually - who the reference is to Sam there in terms of ...

(intervention)

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman the papers I have are exactly the same but I noticed that

as well and I've overscored in yellow this question of Sam being possibly Atasios

Mphoreng, the second applicant in this matter but I can only going by the evidence

being led and it appears clearly the Sam who was involved in this matter was not

one of the applicants.

MR MALAN: May I just ask of Mr Ameen?

MR AMEEN: On page 1 of - on page 32, paragraph 1 there is a reference to Sam

in the 7th line, Sam, Atasios Mphoreng.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what I've been talking about. You remember when I

referred to rules of grammar a short while ago well I was referring precisely to this.

MR AMEEN: But using that Mr Chairman, with respect, then that reference to

Sam in here and in the summary of facts would be to Mr Mphoreng?

CHAIRPERSON: But that's the whole point, I called him in, that's why I brought

him in and he says it's not him. And another thing is if you say that - look at the

very sentence you're looking at, would you have put a comma there after Sam?

MR AMEEN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Ordinarily I mean.

MR AMEEN: Ordinarily no, I wouldn't have.


CHAIRPERSON: I'm just raising that because we are talking construction here,

constructing a sentence. I mean in terms of strict rules of grammar you wouldn't

say Sam, and then bracket because once you say that I could just as well ask you

why then why can't Atasios Mphoreng not be the next person, (indistinct) why

can't he be? Once you disregard that, the basic rule of grammar, the significance of

that comma, once you disregard that then I can just as well as you why don't you

disregard it at the end of the second bracket. I mean you can't pick and choose the

construction you want to have.

ADV BOSMAN: By the same argument of course one could ask the question, I'm

just sort of throwing this out, one could ask the question but then why, by the rules

of grammar, are there brackets around Atasios Mphoreng, so it does present some

difficulty but if one goes on reading then within the context it would appear as

though the brackets are the error.

MR MALAN: Chair if - I don't think this will take us much further but clearly in

the mind of whoever drafted these summary of facts, Sam and Mphoreng was the

same man, comma or no comma because Mphoreng's name does not appear

anywhere else in the summary of facts. But if I may ask Mr Ameen ...

(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No it does.

MR MALAN: Where does it appear again in that paragraph?

CHAIRPERSON: ... (inaudible)

MR MALAN: Yes that's right, he refers to but the reference to those people

involved are in the first paragraph at that stage and Mphoreng gave evidence that

he was involved, but all I'm arguing is we need to sort that out in our own good

time we won't take it further from the intention of the drafter here what really was

said there.

CHAIRPERSON: In case people did not appreciate why I called in this witness, I

called this witness to place the evidence on record that he is not Sam, and he has

said he is not Sam and we are not about to call him Sam when he says he is not

Sam so if - I'm going back again in case anybody missed the significance of that

please say so. If need be we should call back the witness.

MR AMEEN: I think let's call back the witness and ask him exactly what the

situation is.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because if you don't put questions to him and he comes in

the witness box and he says I am not Sam then we can't just say well you are Sam.

Well did you want to put questions to him in that regard?


MR AMEEN: In that regard ... (inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes please, unless you intend to call the Attorney General

who drafted this thing?

MR MALAN: Chairman may I just ask Mr Ameen when the statement was put to

the witness yesterday about the convenience of the death of Sam and Tamee, was it

put to them that the victims will give evidence that these two people weren't

involved at all at any stage, or was it put to them that they did not give orders at all.

Can you just clarify that to us?

MR AMEEN: The victims are not certain about the identities of Sam and Tamee

right, and the way I intended it was that these two were dead and that has been

confirmed to me by Mr Tloubatla, that comrade Sam and comrade Tamee are

deceased and what I was saying to the witness was that he was using them, because

they were deceased, to say that these two were the ones that had given us orders to

kill when there were other people, other leaders who could have given orders.

MR MALAN: They are not saying that these two people weren't involved at any

stage?

MR AMEEN: No they do say that they are involved, yes I am aware of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Then there's not problem I think, then there's no problem. Then

it is almost common cause that the Sam and Tamee were also involved in the

killing of the people. If it's not common cause, at least your clients don't dispute it.

MR AMEEN: To put it crudely or to put it commonly what I was saying to them

was that they were passing the buck onto people who had died.

CHAIRPERSON: But your point will stand whether or not this is Sam or not. In

that case your point will stand whether Sam Siema is the only Sam or not. So in

that case do you still want to put questions?

MR AMEEN: There's no reason for that no.


MR AMEEN: Simon Morris Mr Chairman.

MR SIMON MORRIS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR AMEEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Simon on the 1st of

August 1986 you were a scholar ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute. For the record, Mr Ameen for


the victim Mr Morris. Yes Mr Ameen.

MR AMEEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Morris on the 1st of August 1986 you

were a pupil at Madweleni (?) High School in Orlando West?

MR MORRIS: I was a pupil at Madweleni High School doing Standard 10 in 1986.

MR AMEEN: And on that particular day school was disrupted at round about nine

or ten in the morning?

MR MORRIS: Yes there were disruptions, particularly in our school because

soldiers came to assembly and then they dismissed us to go home.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry Mr Ameen. Mr Morris what language are you going to give

your evidence in?

MR MORRIS: I'll prefer English.

ADV SIGODI: English, okay.

MR AMEEN: The other five victims, the survivor, Mr Sekano and the four

deceased, were they attending the same school with you?

MR MORRIS: Yes correctly because Mr Sekano Kgase was doing Standard 6 at

that time and the other four ... (intervention)

MR AMEEN: Just confine yourself to ... (intervention)

MR MORRIS: Okay.

MR AMEEN: They were attending the same school with you?

MR MORRIS: Yes the same school.

MR AMEEN: And after school was disrupted, you met in the course of the day?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR AMEEN: The six of you?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR AMEEN: And from the, aside from your normal activities, you played football

until about two o' clock?


MR MORRIS: From the school we went home, to our respective homes, and then

we met again about eleven o'clock because Vuyani used to go to his home on

Fridays so he stayed with my neighbour which was Msilana Sishange.

MR AMEEN: Right. And you played - from then on you played football until

about two?

MR MORRIS: Not particularly football, we played tennis in the street.

MR AMEEN: Right. And then which part of Orlando was this in that you were

playing?

MR MORRIS: We were playing in our street just nearby our homes.

MR AMEEN: And after you finished playing, where did you go to?

MR MORRIS: As usual Vuyani used to go to his mother at Orlando East. He asked

us to accompany him to his home.

MR AMEEN: That is all six of you went to his, were going towards his home?

MR MORRIS: Ja.

MR AMEEN: Now at some point on the way to his home you were accosted. Can

you tell the committee who were you accosted by. Just who were you accosted by?

MR MORRIS: I think the first applicant and the second one because the first

applicant produced a firearm just at the passage, you mentioned the church, the

Presbyterian Church. They came out of the passage, it was about I think 60 metres

from Vuyani's home.

MR AMEEN: Mr Morris who accosted you.

MR MORRIS: Mr Hlasa, I don't know if it's Hlasa or (indistinct)

MR AMEEN: Was he accompanied by any other people?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR AMEEN: Who was he accompanied by?

MR MORRIS: The other two.

MR AMEEN: The other two?

MR MORRIS: Yes.


MR AMEEN: Right. How were you accosted?

MR MORRIS: Mr Hlasa came forward and asked for a cigarette and all of us did

not smoke, we said we didn't have a cigarette.

MR AMEEN: Right.

MR MORRIS: And then from there he produced a firearm and said we have burnt

a house in Orlando West. We said no and then from there the other two

accompanied him, they surrounded us.

MR AMEEN: And where did they take you to?

MR MORRIS: At gunpoint we were told to prove our innocence so we went with

them through the passage, through other two streets and then at the corner of the

second street that is where we met a group of other people.

MR AMEEN: And what happened at that point?

MR MORRIS: We were forced at gunpoint to enter the cars because we were

trying to - they said we must go to that house and prove our innocence.

MR AMEEN: What cars were these?

MR MORRIS: The Chevrolet 41 which was red in colour.

MR AMEEN: Right and the other?

MR MORRIS: And a Mazda 323 because if I remember correctly the number plate

of the Mazda was CKL2, I think 2 something but it was CKL.

MR AMEEN: Right. All six of you then were taken in these cars to a house?

MR MORRIS: Yes we were taken to a house in our street.

MR AMEEN: Right, and what happened at that house?

MR MORRIS: When we entered the house of the person who alleged that we burnt

a house, the cars went to the backyard. We were told at gunpoint to come out. We

came out of the cars. Mr Mphoreng was also taking out the gun again, we were

forced into the kitchen where we met - when we entered the kitchen we found

about nine to eleven men, seemingly they were painting.

MR AMEEN: And did this house bear any signs that it had been petrol bombed or

burnt?

MR MORRIS: There was no sign.


MR AMEEN: Right. What happened once you got into the kitchen?

MR MORRIS: When we entered the kitchen they said they were waiting for us.

MR AMEEN: Right, and then, what happened then?

MR MORRIS: The torturing started because the kitchen did not have any furniture.

There was a table there with about four to five guns with magazines, there were

also hunting knives, there was an axe, there was an aerial, a car aerial and then we

were told to strip down, we did that. We were given old clothes ... (intervention)

MR AMEEN: Can I just remind you, were there any iron rods on the table?

MR MORRIS: Yes, yes there were iron rods. Our money was taken, watches were

taken, the running shoes, because all of us had running shoes, were taken and if I

remember correctly the very same guy took my running shoes.

MR AMEEN: The very same guy, that is who?

MR MORRIS: This one.

MR AMEEN: Is that the first applicant, who are you pointing to?

MR MORRIS: I'm referring to the first applicant.

MR AMEEN: Mr Hlasa?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR AMEEN: Right.

MR MORRIS: And as I was wearing a tracksuit, because I was a player of Keiser

Chiefs, he even took the top of the tracksuit. We were given old trousers and we

were also given the curtain wires to fasten the trousers. Well the torturing then

continued from there.

MR AMEEN: How long did this continue in the kitchen?

MR MORRIS: In the kitchen I think it is more than one to two hours.

MR AMEEN: Do you want to give the committee more details of the torture?

MR MORRIS: Yes definitely. At one point we were told to stretch our arms, just

like Jesus Christ when he was on the cross, and then they will take a but of the gun

and then hit you on the ribs. At another point we were told to close our eyes and

then they will hit you on the face with the iron rods. At one stage we were told to

lie down and then they will stamp on top of your head.


MR AMEEN: With their feet?

MR MORRIS: Yes. At one point, I think I remember correctly, the other guy, I

don't know his name, he said he was practising his boxing skills on my body. I

think it was so terrible when one remembers. I'm surprised that they are saying

they can't remember the details.

MR AMEEN: Were you, did you scream?

MR MORRIS: Yes a lot.

MR AMEEN: The people who were with you who were being tortured with you,

were they screaming?

MR MORRIS: Yes all of us screamed.

MR AMEEN: You mentioned - no you didn't mention. Was there any music

playing in the house?

MR MORRIS: The music was playing so high, probably to make the neighbours

not to be aware of what was happening inside the house.

MR AMEEN: At what stage were you removed from the kitchen?

MR MORRIS: We were then divided into two groups.

MR AMEEN: Of how many?

MR MORRIS: Of three.

MR AMEEN: Who was in your group?

MR MORRIS: In the bedroom which was in it was myself, Sekano and Vuyani

Nkomo.

MR AMEEN: Sekano is the other survivor?

MR MORRIS: Yes. We then entered that bedroom, it was the front bedroom facing

the street. We were then tortured again because they told us we did not come up

with the right answers, which answers I don't know because even today I don't

know why we were tortured, why some of us died and why maybe today I'm here

because they don't give us the right answers.

MR AMEEN: What - they obviously wanted information from you. Can you

remember what information they wanted?

MR MORRIS: They said we burnt a house, the house, that particular house.


MR AMEEN: And you saw no signs of burning?

MR MORRIS: No. Even the burning we never knew about the burning of the

house. Even the activities that they claim we were SOSCO members, they must be

embarrassed to call us SOSCO members because we were never involved in

politics.

MR AMEEN: What other information did they want from you?

MR MORRIS: They said who were causing trouble in the location. We did not

know who were the people causing trouble.

MR AMEEN: Did you or any of the others who were abducted or kidnapped that

day, give them information about going around (indistinct) houses?

MR MORRIS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't understand the other sentence about SOSCO. Is you

evidence that you were not members of SOSCO at all or is your evidence that you

were members of SOSCO but SOSCO was not involved at all in politics?

MR MORRIS: We were never involved in politics.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you members of SOSCO?

MR MORRIS: No.


MR AMEEN: Continue about the torturing in the bedroom.

MR MORRIS: At some stage we were told to lie under the bed to sleep because

this was the last day for us, that's what they said. We got into the bed, I think it's a

small bed, we pretended to be sleeping.

MR AMEEN: That is under the bed?

MR MORRIS: Under the bed. Music was still going on, playing very high and

some of them were drinking at that stage because as they frequented in the

bedroom one will hear that they are drinking beer because there was also beer in

that bedroom. And at one stage I was called out because the other guy said:

"(indistinct), I then came out. I was told to lie on top of the bed, I did that. They

took a plastic, a black plastic and tied it around my head. I don't know what type of

material they used to beat my head but it was so painful that I even end up, I did

bite the plastic in order not to suffocate.

MR AMEEN: When you say material, it was an object?


MR MORRIS: Yes it was an object.

MR AMEEN: A hard object?

MR MORRIS: Yes. He then accused me again of playing for a team which he

doesn't like.

MR AMEEN: When you refer to he, who are you referring to?

MR MORRIS: I'm referring to this chap.

MR AMEEN: That is Mr Hlasa, the first applicant.

MR MORRIS: Ja. He asked me about the activities in Kaiser Chiefs. I then said

that I was a second division player. He then went on asking me why did I play for

this kind of a team because he hated the team, but at that stage I couldn't answer

because remember I was from the plastic, I just kept quiet. And then I was taken to

the kitchen where I met Mbulelo Mabena.

MR AMEEN: And who is Mbulelo Mabena?

MR MORRIS: Mbulelo Mabena is deceased now because he died on the very same

day.

MR AMEEN: He was one of the six of you?

MR MORRIS: Yes. We were instructed to draw up a list of our names and our

addresses because what they said to us they were going to negotiate with our

parents that we are released. They wanted money for us in order to get released.

We then wrote down the list because we though we were going to be released. We

wrote down the list then we gave them the list and then tortured again, went back

to the bedroom, got under the bed and slept again.

MR AMEEN: You were ordered to get under the bed or did you do that

voluntarily?

MR MORRIS: There was no option Mr Ameen because when we were abducted in

Orlando East, if we were really activists we could have ran away, or if you know

that you have done something wrong you always try to hide or run away. We did

not do that, does it come to your mind when somebody does wrong and then just

helplessly without fighting back, we did not fight back.

MR AMEEN: Mr Morris what happened after that.

MR MORRIS: After that I think it was getting dark, maybe between the hours of

seven or eight.


MR AMEEN: Can I interrupt you and just ask you ... (intervention)

MR MORRIS: There's something I forgot Mr Ameen, my apologies. There was

one incident which happened and I think the third applicant is part and parcel of

that. Where I was told to stand up before getting under the bed, that is when I was

from the kitchen. They said I must untie this wire, this curtain wire.

MR AMEEN: Around your waist.

MR MORRIS: Yes, I did that. Automatically the trouser would then go down

because the trouser did not even have a zip. They then went to the private parts

with a pliers, taking turns in - I don't know what I can call it, torture and they

seemed to enjoy it very much because the one would say no you did not do it well,

give it to me I will do it much better. The other one will then say this is not the way

to do it because there was one stage where the scrotal sac - I hope you understand

what I am saying because the two balls - the one person was trying to just to open

this pliers and then crush it.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry ... (inaudible) crushing the balls?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR AMEEN: Were they actually crushed or was he trying to do that?

MR MORRIS: Fortunately as the balls are moving voluntarily maybe he got the

part where the ball was not at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we understand, I didn't mean actually crush, I just meant

pressing.

MR AMEEN: Right, continue. When did this assault stop?

MR MORRIS: There was a time when I started crying very loudly and was told to

shut up because the other guy whom I did not know said if I keep on screaming he

will blow my brains out and I saw that this was a real gun, it was not a toy gun.

MR AMEEN: How old were you at that time?

MR MORRIS: I was nineteen years old.

MR AMEEN: When did this assault stop?

MR MORRIS: It stopped, I think it took about ten to twenty minutes.

MR AMEEN: That's with the plier?

MR MORRIS: Yes.


MR AMEEN: The whole assault from the time you were taken into the house, into

the kitchen, into the different bedrooms, when did that stop. The assault and the

interrogation?

MR MORRIS: Do you mean the duration of ... (intervention)

MR AMEEN: Yes the duration of the whole ...

MR MORRIS: When we accompanied Vuyani it was around past two to three.

Possibly when we entered the house it was maybe it was five past three or ten past

three and possibly when we entered or when we moved out of the house it was

about past seven, maybe quarter past or ten past or even half past seven.

MR AMEEN: But it was after dark?

MR MORRIS: Ja.

MR AMEEN: Now up to the point where you are now being taken away from this

house, is there any other material fact or factor that you want to bring to the

attention of the committee?

MR MORRIS: Can you ask that question again?

MR AMEEN: Up to the point where you are being taken away from the house, is

there any other material point that you want to bring to the attention of the

committee?

MR MORRIS: When we were taken out of the house we got instructions that when

we move out of the house we must face down, we must not look on the sides. We

went out and got into the boot of the car.

MR AMEEN: Now were any of you six blindfolded when you got out of the

house.

MR MORRIS: From my sake I don't remember.

MR AMEEN: Were you blindfolded?

MR MORRIS: No not.

MR AMEEN: Which car boot were you ordered to get into?

MR MORRIS: I believe maybe it was the Mazda.

MR AMEEN: And who was with you?

MR MORRIS: In my group?


MR AMEEN: In your group.

MR MORRIS: In my group it was myself, Sekano Kgase and Vuyani Nkomo.

MR AMEEN: And Vuyani's a deceased?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR AMEEN: Or one of the deceased?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

PANEL: ... (inaudible)

MR MORRIS: It was myself, Simon Morris, Edwin Vuyani Nkomo and Sekano

Kgase.

CHAIRPERSON: Earlier on you said that the third applicant started applying the

pliers on you. Who is the third applicant?

MR MORRIS: The third applicant I think is the middle one.

CHAIRPERSON: Just point him out.

MR MORRIS: The middle one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes indeed you have pointed out Mr Thandakubona.

MR AMEEN: Yes thank you Mr Chairman. All three of you were put into the

boot?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR AMEEN: And you were then taken to a house. The applicants have given

evidence that it was comrade Jeff's house. Did you know whose house it was and

where this house was?

MR MORRIS: We did not know who this house was and even the place at that

stage ... (intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Ameen you said comrade Jeff's house.

MR AMEEN: Sorry my apologies, comrade Glen's house. Thank you Madam

Chair.


MR MORRIS: Yes we were taken to a house. Personally I was taken from one car

when we entered the yard at the backyard, I was taken from one boot of the car to

another boot of the car.

MR AMEEN: How long were you at this house in the boot of the car at this house?

MR MORRIS: They took some time, about fifteen to twenty minutes.

MR AMEEN: Were you the only person in the boot?

MR MORRIS: I remember Vuyani was called to go into the house, inside and then

when I was in the second they put - because we came out of the boot of the first car

and then I don't know what happened to Sekano, but Vuyani was instructed to go

into the house and I was instructed to get into another boot of the car.

MR AMEEN: Right, so of the two cars, how many cars were there at that point?

MR MORRIS: Probably there were two cars.

MR AMEEN: Right. And you got into the boot of the second car, you were there

in the boot for some time?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR AMEEN: And then what happened? You were alone in the boot at that stage?

MR MORRIS: I was alone and the music was also playing very high at that stage

and Vuyani came back, he was bleeding. He could not talk, his was swelling, his

face was swelling.

MR AMEEN: And was he also put into the boot of the same car with you?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR AMEEN: Which car was it?

MR MORRIS: I don't know the model of the car because remember we were told

to get out of the car, not to face on the sides and get into another boot of a car.

MR AMEEN: You were then in the boot with Vuyani?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR AMEEN: For a while and then you were drive away from there?

MR MORRIS: Yes.


MR AMEEN: When were you removed from the boot or when did you get out of

the boot?

MR MORRIS: When we reached a, I think it looks like a open veld. We were told

to come out of the boot and again not to look on the sides.

MR AMEEN: Alright. Both of you were taken out of the boot?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR AMEEN: Was Vuyani able to get out himself or did you help him or how did

he get out?

MR MORRIS: He struggled because when he came out of the house, as I said his

was swelling, his face was swelling. I tried to ask him what were they saying to

you these people. He could not talk.

MR AMEEN: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until half past eleven.


COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

SIMON MORRIS: (s.u.o.)

EXAMINATION BY MR AMEEN: (cont)

Mr Morris at the break or just before the break we were at the point where you

were now being taken to the scene of the murders. Tell us which of the victims was

in you car with you and tell us how ... (inaudible - end of tape).

MR TLOUBATLA: ... (inaudible) not something serious, I was just concerned

whether the witness is still under oath.

CHAIRPERSON: You are still under oath isn't it Mr Morris, you understand that?

Thank you. Mr Ameen.

MR AMEEN: Right. We were at the point when you now reached the scene of the

murders, you had been taken out of the car. Can you continue from that point?

MR MORRIS: The car stopped at a certain point and when we got out I saw that it

was a veld. When the boot was opened we were told to come out but look down


but Vuyani was struggling because he seemed to have had injuries, maybe in the

back or maybe the hands because ... (intervention)

MR AMEEN: Which other victims was with you?

MR MORRIS: I was with Vuyani Nkomo inside the boot and I think Sekano was

just inside the car parked in the back seat. We got out, we were told to run towards

a wall.

MR AMEEN: There were three of you?

MR MORRIS: Yes. They said to us, do you see that wall? We looked up and we

saw a wall. They said I want to run from here and if you try to run away we will

shoot you. With barefoot because the veld I think it was not used for some time,

we ran towards the wall. As we reached the wall they picked up spots on the wall,

just like if Vuyani is going to be here, myself in the middle and Sekano on the right

hand side and we were told to lie down and face them.

MR AMEEN: You use the term lie down. What you actually mean to say is that

you were ordered to sit?

MR MORRIS: We were ordered to sit down?

MR AMEEN: In what position?

MR MORRIS: Is it possible to demonstrate to you? Can I take of my jacket

because it's going to disturb me, I know it's not correct.

They were asked to sit down with their backs to the wall with their faces down.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me we are beginning to have problems with the

sound system again, it seems as if only one mike at a time is able to operate from

the audience.

MR AMEEN: After the three of you were seated in the manner you've just

demonstrated, what happened then?

MR MORRIS: The three of us, there were also three men one on each and Hlasa,

Mphoreng were also there with the other person, I don't know the other person.

The first shot came out of the gun of I think Hlasa, he shot Sekano.

MR AMEEN: Continue.

MR MORRIS: They then went to the left hand side because I was in the middle

where they shot Edwin Vuyani Nkomo. They then came to me. At that point it was

a matter of life and death.


MR AMEEN: For you?

MR MORRIS: Yes, because I could hear the shots and also the scream. Hlasa them

came to me at point blank because they were shooting at point blank. He shot me

once in the leg, on the right knee just near the joint. I felt nothing because the

bullet went in through the left hand side of the knee went out through the right

hand side of the knee. I thought I was not shot because I could feel nothing.

Mphoreng then said ... (inaudible) - this dog is not dead. He tried to shoot but the

shots missed me, I don't know how, there were four shots because the gun was

pointing at me and I was not shot. I tried to move because they said: "Can you see

this person is moving, give me that gun", because the gun which was used I think it

jammed, it could not go on shooting so they changed the gun and also the

magazine, if it is the magazine because I don't know whether those are magazines

or not, I only saw it on TV. The other shot then went through my left hand - I don't

know if it is possible that I can show it to the committee? At that point I tried to

block the bullet with this hand and it went in here, it went out this side.

CHAIRPERSON: It went through your left wrist?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR AMEEN: Just above the left wrist.

CHAIRPERSON: Just above the wrist.

MR MORRIS: Yes and then it went out here. They seemed to be worried because I

was continuously moving because I felt my hand was so weak now. Unfortunately

when I tried to turn my head because I was facing this side, I tried to move to see if

they were still there. That was when I was shot on my right cheek. The bullet went

in here.

MR MALAN: That's your left cheek?

MR MORRIS: Yes, the left cheek. It went in and stayed just next to the ear here

because it stayed there I think for about seven days. At that point I could not see

anything because the face was swelling. Fortunately the left eye was still operating

because even if the face was swelling, I tried to fight this death. The only thing that

I saw was stars. It's terrible that I have to come to this commission and tell about

the truth when the victims or the people who committed this cannot say the truth.

MR AMEEN: Mr Morris the other three victims, do you know how they were

killed?

MR MORRIS: Is it in the other group?

MR AMEEN: In the other group.


MR MORRIS: No, I only saw their photographs when I was first, I think after the

incident by a Sergeant - I don't know whether it is Sergeant or Warrant Officer

Diedericks from Protea, where I had to go and write a statement. He showed me

the photographs of the other three and at that stage I think Oscar Mlangeni was still

alive because he was shot but he was not dead at that time, he died about twenty

eight days after the incident in a coma.

MR AMEEN: Right. Is there anything else you wish to add?

MR MORRIS: After being shot in the left cheek I was missed again by about seven

bullets because the other one said: "We must finish this dog, this dog is still

moving" and through God I think because if it was not for God I was not going to

be here. So I was missed by four bullets from there they congratulated themselves

that they have done a good job. They then went to the car.

MR AMEEN: Before they went to the car and after or around the time that they

congratulated themselves and before the shooting was over, at some point they

asked you to take a message to someone. Can you tell the commission about that

message.

MR MORRIS: The message was specifically to be conveyed by Sekano Kgase

because they said to Sekano Kgase he must convey the blessings and the greetings

to their leader Steve Biko.

MR AMEEN: After they left what did you do?

MR MORRIS: After they left I felt that I was still alive because even if I saw stars,

I could only see stars, because even today I only see stars in my face, I called up

Edwin Nkomo, he did not answer. I then called up Sekano Kgase, he answered. He

then said to me: "Let us try to run away". I then insisted to him let us check Edwin

Nkomo if he's still alive. That is when I felt that I was shot in the leg because I was

feeling the pain because of the cold and also the bleeding of the leg. I went to

Edwin Nkomo, he was dead because when I felt his pulse in the arm and also the

heartbeat it was not there. I felt, I touched the head, it was only blood that I felt and

he was dead.

MR AMEEN: What did the two of you do then?

MR MORRIS: I said to Sekano he must take my hand, my right hand because I

could not see and I was struggling with my right knee. We then moved from the

spot, from there I said to him: "Which place is this?", he said: "I don't know".

Fortunately we saw the house, the corner house. We went into the yard of that

house and as we entered the house or the yard there were some people maybe who

stayed in that house, outside they were just talking.

MR AMEEN: And did you get assistance at this house?


MR MORRIS: We tried to communicate to this people but they were speaking

Shangan, it was possibly it was Shawella, but fortunately we were able to convey

the message through Zulu - (inaudible). They then started asking questions, where

are you from because they were surprised this kids with old clothes, where do they

come from bleeding. We entered the kitchen of that house and if it was not the

mother of that house I could be dead by now because I was now feeling the pain of

the swelling wound in the head ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should direct your client Mr Ameen.

MR AMEEN: Thank you. Mr Morris the shooting is over, you've now come to this

house, from here you've managed to get assistance and you were taken to hospital.

MR MORRIS: Ja the mother of that house phoned our homes and also the hospital.

MR AMEEN: Right, you were then taken to hospital?

MR MORRIS: We were then taken to hospital but we also insisted that they must

also go and check the person Edwin who was in that veld.

MR AMEEN: That is the evidence Mr Chairman.



CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr

Kgase you say that you left school that day at approximately nine o'clock?

MR MORRIS: Firstly I'm not Mr Kgase, I'm Mr Morris.

MR TLOUBATLA: Sorry, I beg your pardon sir. Mr Morris what time did you

leave school that day?

MR MORRIS: The school was dismissed about nine o'clock.

MR TLOUBATLA: And then right until the time when you were apprehended by

these people, were you with this six friends of yours?

MR MORRIS: From the school we went to our respective homes, except Vuyani

Nkomo who went with Msilana Sishange and from there we then met again at

about eleven o'clock where we organised a tennis ball and started playing. Round

about two o'clock Vuyani asked us to accompany him to his home in Orlando East.

MR TLOUBATLA: You probably heard the evidence of the witnesses, I mean the

applicants, who say that there was a time when a group of about fifteen to twenty


people were running up and down Jeff Lingani's house or walking around there

chanting songs, intimidating songs, were you a part of that group?

MR MORRIS: No sir.

MR TLOUBATLA: At the time of this incident, when this incident happened, did

you know Jeff Lingani?

MR MORRIS: No.

MR TLOUBATLA: Where were you staying?

MR MORRIS: I was staying in Orlando West at (indistinct) Street.

MR TLOUBATLA: So you never saw these people who were singing up and down

this street where Jeff Lingani was staying?

MR MORRIS: No I have no idea about that.

MR TLOUBATLA: At school, at your school Madwaleni (?) were you also a

member of SOSCO?

MR MORRIS: No.

MR TLOUBATLA: Are you aware whether SOSCO was very active at the school?

MR MORRIS: I have no knowledge of that sir because we were school going kids,

I think I was also involved in tutoring classes in our school so I don't know about

the activities of SOSCO or any other group that was involved.

MR TLOUBATLA: You were in your Standard 10, is that not true?

MR MORRIS: Yes sir.

MR TLOUBATLA: Tell me were you aware of, generally in the community, this

massive conflict that was going on between the two political groupings AZAPO

and the UDF?

MR MORRIS: I was not aware because I think at 1986 my aim was just to finish

school and then go either to varsity or to a technikon.

MR TLOUBATLA: How old were you during 1986?

MR MORRIS: I was born in 1967 and I think it's about nineteen years old.


MR TLOUBATLA: Would you say that when you were interrogated, assaulted at

Jeff Lingani's house, the people who were assaulting you were they very older than

you or were they perhaps your age group?

MR MORRIS: They were older than us.

MR TLOUBATLA: I'm sure you heard the evidence of one of them, that is Mr

Mphoreng, he says at the time he was twenty years.

CHAIRPERSON: But twenty years and nineteen years are not the same sir. There's

a difference of one year there.

MR TLOUBATLA: But one would say it's the same age group, wouldn't you?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, probably of the same generation but not the same age. Now

the question is not the same age, the same age group?

MR MORRIS: Yes they might be the same group.

MR TLOUBATLA: Did you at that time know anything about the organisation

SOSCO?

MR MORRIS: I always read in the newspapers because as a Standard 10 pupil you

are asked to maybe summarise and article or maybe write out something

concerning the debates or that, but the activities of SOSCO or any other group I

don't have no knowledge of that.

MR TLOUBATLA: Did you know anything about AZAPO at that time?

MR MORRIS: I only knew that it was an organisation.

MR TLOUBATLA: I want to refer you to some article. This is an article dated the

24th of November 1986, it was in the Sowetan.

ADV BOSMAN: Is that already an exhibit Mr Tloubatla, not.

MR TLOUBATLA: No, not an exhibit Maam.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have copies for us Mr Tloubatla?

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Chairman unfortunately I only have this but I can make

them available later on.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla our rules of procedure dictate that anybody using

any document will, in advance, make enough copies and furnish all other interested

parties with a copy of that particular document and you've been springing on us

one document after the other since Monday and you didn't make copies of us and


you are going to be the only one who is reading that document and putting

questions to the witness. Whether you'll be reading that correctly or accidently

(indistinct) out of context, nobody knows. We are all at your mercy and I think this

is really undesirable.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Chairman, under the circumstances perhaps I will reserve

this to a later stage and when I have enough copies I'll ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well there may not be a later stage, I think just go on let's see

what happens. There's not going to be a later stage, we must finish this case today

if not before one o'clock.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you sir. I've got an article here it says, I'm just quoting

somewhere in the middle: "This latest wave of killings has horrified the

community. Earlier this year the community was similarly shocked when six

youths, members of the Soweto Student Congress were shot near Shawella after

they had been kidnapped. Four of them died".

CHAIRPERSON: Give us the details, the date?

MR TLOUBATLA: That is 24 November 1986.

MR MALAN: And which paper are you quoting?

MR TLOUBATLA: The Sowetan. Mr Morris I'm referring to the highlighted

portion of the newspaper, can you see that?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It will be Exhibit G. Do you have any explanation why anybody

would refer to your group as members of the Soweto Student Congress or

something like that?

MR MORRIS: I have no idea about that because what the journalists are writing,

they are writing about something which maybe they get it from somewhere

because I have no knowledge of one time when I met a journalist and talked to a

journalist. Whether he calls us SOSCO members or what, I don't know where he

gets it from.

MR TLOUBATLA: Did you, after this incident, did you subsequently perhaps

make any enquiries as to who Jeff Lingani is?

MR MORRIS: No sir because after the incident I think I suffered a loss, I could not

write the very same year. I went to school the following year, I failed because I

could not recover correctly so whoever this Jefferson was or what he did I did not

even care about that because I don't know why we were shot, why some of us died.


MR TLOUBATLA: I'm going to refer you to yet another press cutting, it is the

Star date is the 26th of October '86 ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Should this be returned first?

MR TLOUBATLA: Ja, I'm just - listen to me and I'm going to ask you a question

about this. It says: "On Monday night Mr Thabo Lingani ...", sorry. Just one

moment Mr Chair ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Haven't you got any spectacles Mr Tloubatla?

MR TLOUBATLA: I read better without my spectacles sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Then why do you put them on at all?

MR TLOUBATLA: I can see a hazy view of you when I don't have them but the

reading I ... (intervention)

MR MALAN: Perhaps a better view?

MR TLOUBATLA: Alright let me just, because the article is long I'm not going to

read all about it, I'm going to just give you the background to it. Basically Mr

Thabo Lingani - they're talking about Mr Thabo Lingani, Mr Thabo Lingani is the

father of Mr Jeff Lingani, they were staying in Moletsani in Soweto so he was

kidnapped and he was killed, that was subsequent to the incident in which you

were involved so it's basically about that, about Jeff Lingani's father, right.

CHAIRPERSON: If you can't read it, can't you ask your assistant to read it

otherwise bring it here, let's read it to the witness because you are trying to

summarise it and it may not be an accurate summary of what stands there.

MR TLOUBATLA: I can read perfectly sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then read it to the witness and didn't you mark the portion

which is supposed to be important to you or highlight it?

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you sir. "It all started eight weeks ago in Orlando West

in Soweto when six young school boys were abducted and driven during the night

to an open veld in Shawella Township where they were shot and then set alight.

Four of the youngsters died and Mr Lingani's other son, Jefferson, was

immediately linked to the abductions and shootings. Reprisal were swift, the

following night Jefferson's house and another next to it were fire bombed, causing

extensive damage. Later a bus was driven into the ruins to complete the effect.

Jefferson was arrested to answer a number of allegations including murder. He was

granted bail but has since disappeared and speculation is that he has left the

country. A warrant for his arrest is held. His house was near the homes of the


youngsters who had been abducted and shot. It is in this neighbourhood where a

well known former Soweto Student, Mr (indistinct) was also lived". In Mr

Lingani's killing, revenge was the most likely motive. His abductors were looking

for Jefferson and not finding him decided on a member of his family. "And over

the past months ..." that is a quotation, "... over the past months we received

telephone calls threatening us to expect anything". I'm referring to this article in

particular, as you can see immediately after this incident, there were very serious

reprisals, revenge killings. Mr Morris do you know who avenged the death of your

friends, you know your injuries and who are those people who went out to go and

kill Jeff Lingani to avenge what you went through?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Tloubatla now if I understand it correctly it was an inference

that the journalist drew there, I don't think it's fair to put it to the witness that it was

in fact a revenge killing unless I misunderstood the reading because I did not have

it before me.

MR TLOUBATLA: Well Madam Bosman it's true that some of them are

inferences, but we are basically working on inferences. I mean it is my basic

understanding that the witness will either deny any knowledge of that but some of

these things are basically based on rumours, on inferences and all that and it is my

understanding that the killing of Mr Lingani it was a direct sequel after the incident

in which they were involved.

ADV BOSMAN: I think it would be fair to put it to the witness that it was a direct

sequel and ask him whether it was a reprisal and whether he knows about it.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Maam, I'll do so. Right, in October, just about two

months thereafter, Mr Lingani's father was killed the way it is described in the

newspaper. It is obviously as inference that it was a reprisal killing, in fact even the

newspapers are putting it that way. Do you have any knowledge as to who could

possibly have avenged what you went through?

MR MORRIS: With respect sir I have no knowledge of what you are talking about

because if you mentioned the bus and the burning of the (indistinct), I was

discharged at Baragwanath on the ninth of August 1986 and from there, because of

I could not go on writing because at Baragwanath I was taken to St Johns where

my eyes were tested and the one doctor prescribed me that I should learn to read

braille because I was not going to cope up with the exams so the decision was then

to consult my father and mother. From there on ... (intervention)

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you I think that is sufficient but ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla can I have the date of that newspaper?

MR TLOUBATLA: He has got it with him. Thank you. Mr Morris it is my feeling

and I want to agree with the newspapers that you know these two incidents, that is


your incident where you were killed, I mean where your friends were killed and

you were so much tortured, they are so closely linked that it is my feeling that the

inference that I'm making that it was to avenge what you went through. Do you see

it the same way as myself?

MR MORRIS: With respect sir again I think when you say it is your feelings, you

have a right to say it is your feelings and even the journalists have a right to write

whatever they want to write about their own feelings but ... (intervention)

MR TLOUBATLA: No, I want your feelings, I know our feelings I can ...

(intervention)

MR MORRIS: Yes. I think it is the first time that I see that newspaper article.

MR TLOUBATLA: Yes but please understand me, do you agree with me, do you

agree with the newspaper that this was definitely to avenge what you went

through?

MR MORRIS: I have no knowledge of that sir.

MR MALAN: Could I ask you Mr Morris, did you have knowledge of the death of

Mr Lingani, of Jeff's father?

MR MORRIS: No sir.


MR TLOUBATLA: I'm going to take you further on this matter. The reason

basically why I'm putting this feeling of mine to you, it's simply to say that you are

not telling the commission the truth when you say you knew nothing about

SOSCO, you knew nothing about the rivalries between these two organisations

because there it is, somebody went out of his way to go and avenge what you went

through, that's why I am putting this through to you, that you personally are

definitely not telling the truth.

MR MORRIS: With respect sir, can you then put the questions to prove that I'm

not a SOSCO member or even my friends who died because they cannot answer

for themselves now. We are the only two that survived so we can relate what

happened. So if you are saying to me that I am not telling the truth, with respect I

must convey my apologies to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's handle this in a different way. On the face of it this article

is relevant and important and we are here to seek the truth and must get to it by all

means. The other people, the five do you know whether any one of them was a

member of SOSCO?


MR MORRIS: No, no sir.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know?

MR MORRIS: I know that they were not even a member of any single

organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: How can you know that?

MR MORRIS: We used to go to stadiums because we grew up from childhood. On

Fridays we used to play soccer at the grounds late in the afternoon and also

Mondays and on Saturdays we used to go to Wits Saturday School which was

conducted by - I don't know, Wits Saturday School and then as a soccer player,

either Saturday or Sunday I was required to do my duties at Keiser Chiefs and the

others would then follow me maybe to come and see where I'm playing.

CHAIRPERSON: The impression you give us is that you in particular was totally

uninterested in politics?

MR MORRIS: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: That may or may not be so, but isn't it so, don't we know that we

all know that since 1976 high school students have demonstrated clear interest in

political activism. Am I right in my statement?

MR MORRIS: You are right, but not all students are involved or are interested in

politics.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were in Standard 10?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And again, I preface my question to you by saying it may or

may not be so but we do know, don't we, that Matric students in many instances

were in fact in the forefront of student politics. Isn't that so?

MR MORRIS: They might be but not all of them.

CHAIRPERSON: And we do know, don't we, that particularly in Soweto there was

a lot of political activism amongst students. Isn't that so?

MR MORRIS: Yes that was so.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I want to know from you, was there political activism in

your school?

MR MORRIS: I have no knowledge of that sir.


CHAIRPERSON: How big is the school. Does is not comprise of hundreds of

students?

MR MORRIS: It comprises of hundreds of students but all the students are not

doing the same activity because as I said earlier on that I was involved as a tutor,

we did not have teachers so we used to help each other tutoring so whatever

happened outside, whatever happened in other classrooms, it was not our business

sir.

CHAIRPERSON: So is it your evidence that as far as you know, there has not be

political activism at your school?

MR MORRIS: No sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that your evidence?

MR MORRIS: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, then let us look at this ... (intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Just a matter on that aspect of political activism. Why were you

dismissed at nine o'clock that morning?

MR MORRIS: There were I think trucks or even delivery vehicles which were, I

can say they were looted by other schools in our vicinity so the police went from

one school to another school, they then came to us when we had assembly. We

were then instructed to go home on that Friday.

ADV SIGODI: So the students from your school were not involved in the looting

or ... (intervention)

MR MORRIS: No, we had assembly at that point and the soldiers just came in. At

the assembly they talked to our principle. We were then told by one teacher that

the school is dismissed because the soldiers were saying the gate must be closed

and teachers must go home so we went home.

CHAIRPERSON: During your days as a student at that school, was there ever a so-

called school boycott?

MR MORRIS: I have no knowledge of that.

CHAIRPERSON: If it had been there I would expect you to know.

MR MORRIS: If it had been there maybe it was going to be there, but I have no

knowledge of that sir.


CHAIRPERSON: Sometimes we have problems expressing ourselves, when you

say you have no knowledge of that, I'm not sure whether you are saying as far as

you're concerned it did not happen or whether you're saying it might have

happened, but I don't remember.

MR MORRIS: It did not happen.

ADV SIGODI: Just on the aspect of the boycott, you've just said that you were

tutoring?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Why were you tutoring?

MR MORRIS: I was tutoring maths at our school.

ADV SIGODI: Why?

MR MORRIS: We did not have a Standard 9 and Standard 10 teacher so the

material that we got from Wits Saturday School I used to bring it to our school and

maybe other classmates duplicate the material because we didn't have teachers for

two years, specifically maths and physics.

ADV SIGODI: Did you have teachers for other subjects?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now let me ask you questions about this article which Mr

Tloubatla showed to you. It implied that after what happened to you, there was

retribution. In other words it was a revenge carried out on Lingani or Lingani's

father.

MR MORRIS: Yes that is what the article is saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It said the following night Jefferson's house and another

next to it were fire bombed etc, etc and later a bus was driven into the ruins to

complete the fact. Now this was quite something, this was quite a huge destruction,

the house was petrol bombed and from there a bus driven over it to make sure that

it's flattened.

MR MORRIS: At that point I was still at Baragwanath ICU.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and in fact I don't think that any of the six of you could

have been responsible for that.

MR MORRIS: Yes sir.


CHAIRPERSON: But if you, know that we know that you the victims could not

have been involved at all, if you are not attached to some kind of organisation or if

you're not attached to some kind of a large organisation, who possibly could have

done this in revenge. That is the crux of the question?

MR MORRIS: Well I don't know who could have possibly done that because as

I've mentioned earlier that being not involved in politics, one cannot account

maybe for the newspaper article which was written or may the events which took

place after we were shot because we were even surprised, we were shot we were

asked questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I hear you, you say you don't know, but I'm just putting it

across to you that this is the context in which it has been put to you.

MR MORRIS: Yes that is the context.

MR MALAN: Chair may I just ask Mr Morris, why could it not have been one of

the UDF organisations that came with this reprisal ... (inaudible) being aligned to

AZAPO, having made an attack on youngsters. The question is put to you from the

article. Is it an unreasonable inference to see it as a revenge or retaliation?

MR MORRIS: That is what the article is saying it says a retaliation, from who I

don't have any knowledge of that sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you Mr Tloubatla.


CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just something. Did you - Mr Tloubatla asked you

whether you had knowledge of this huge conflict that prevailed between AZAPO

and UDF and you said you did not

have such knowledge?

MR MORRIS: Yes I did not have such a knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you really be serious about that when we see articles in the

newspapers that even church people were called in to mitigate, to try and resolve

that. Wasn't such a conflict really a matter of public knowledge to anybody, to

everybody in the area?

MR MORRIS: It can be a matter of public knowledge but to me personally I have

no idea of what was going on because even the article I asked from - I saw an

article at Mr Tloubatla's desk today, youth killed - do you remember Mr Tloubatla?

MR TLOUBATLA: Yes.


MR MORRIS: And then I just saw the headlines because at school now, I'm a

teacher now, I think looking at the headlines and also the summary you tend to ...

(inaudible).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Tloubatla?

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Chairman thank you. I am going back to this (indistinct) of

political activity, particularly amongst the six of you. You say you are certain that

all the six of you, none of them were involved in any political activity. Are you

saying that?

MR MORRIS: Yes I'm saying that.

MR TLOUBATLA: And you also admitted that you personally, you were not

involved in any political activity?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR TLOUBATLA: Can you preclude the possibility that one of your friends could

have been involved, could actually have been a member of some other

organisations?

MR MORRIS: No, no one in our group as growing up kids. The only thing that we

liked I think it was clothes and school, not politics.

MR TLOUBATLA: Are you saying that none of your friends were in any way

involved in any political activity?

MR MORRIS: That is what I'm saying, none of us were involved in politics.

MR TLOUBATLA: But did your friends or in allegiance to you says that whatever

they did they had to report to you such that you had to know, even if you were not

involved in politics.

MR MORRIS: There was no report of such happenings.

MR TLOUBATLA: Perhaps you don't understand my question. My question is,

did they owe you so much allegiance that despite the fact that they knew that you

were not involved in politics, they would even report to you if they were involved

in any political activity?

MR MORRIS: They were not involved in politics, they were not involved in

politics and because the other four ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just a minute. I think you may be advised to say not as far

as I know because you must remember in 1986 for example, some of these

organisations were banned and people who were members thereof did not disclose


that. The ANC was still banned, the PAC was still banned, they were operating

underground and you know there were many people who were members of such

organisations, confidentially or secretly or underground. I don't know whether you

really want to insist that, to put your head on the block and say they were never a

member of any organisation. Don't you think you should qualify your answer by

saying as far as I know.

MR MORRIS: If it goes to a point of putting my head on a block, I'll do that

because I'm saying they were not involved in politics, I cannot say as far as that

because I have no knowledge of that. That is an assumption which I will be

making, but I'm saying they were not involved in politics as I was also not

involved in politics.

CHAIRPERSON: Well there you are Mr Tloubatla he's putting it in the strongest

possible terms. He's prepared to put his head on the block for it.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Right, now let's move on to your

school. Was there any political activity at your school at the time?

MR MORRIS: No sir.

MR TLOUBATLA: I'm putting it to you that that school will be the most

extraordinary school in 1986 in Soweto not to have any form of political activity. I

am putting it to you. Do you have any response to what I'm saying?

MR MORRIS: Yes I do have a response. What I'm putting back to you sir, with

kind respect, is that there were no politics in our school.

CHAIRPERSON: Any student movement?

MR MORRIS: No sir.

MR TLOUBATLA: Do you know whether any of the students at Madweleni High

School were perhaps involved in political activity, even if it's outside the school?

MR MORRIS: No I have no knowledge of that sir.

MR TLOUBATLA: And you can't exclude the possibility that some of them were

involved in political activity?

MR MORRIS: I cannot account for what I don't know sir, just what I know.

MR TLOUBATLA: In as far as your knowledge goes, do you know of any

schools, except yours, any high school in Soweto at the time where there was

hardly any political activity?


MR MORRIS: I have no knowledge of that because our focus was just only going

through the high school and then going either to a university or technikon.

MR TLOUBATLA: Do you know whether generally, around that time, students

particularly your age were very active in politics?

MR MORRIS: Yes they might have been active in politics, but not us, specifically

not myself and other.

MR TLOUBATLA: I don't refer to you, not you not your group basically, I'm

saying generally, students in general in Soweto around that time who were very,

very active in politics?

MR MORRIS: That could have happened but not in our school.

MR MALAN: Mr Tloubatla do you have anything specific to put to the witness on

disruptions in his school at that time and if not, should we proceed with this kind of

questioning?

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman, no. I'm going to put it to you for the

last time Mr Morris you are not honest to this commission. You are not telling the

truth when you say particularly at your school that there were not politics at all,

that students were not involved in political activity. I put it to you that you are just

simply saying this to try and paint some image of a very innocent, disinterested

citizen or student who was abducted by some thugs. That's basically what you're

trying to give to this commission and you're not truthful to yourself and to us all?

MR MORRIS: Kindly, with respect sir, are you putting these words into my

mouth, are you saying I'm telling the truth - I'm telling lies in fact?

MR TLOUBATLA: I'm saying so, particularly with political activity at your

school.

MR MORRIS: Yes, I've said no. If you have any other questions that makes you to

doubt whether I'm saying the lies or maybe I'm saying not the truth, then why don't

you ask other questions because I'm saying to you I'm putting my head on the

block on this one because even at now I'm not involved in politics. Should I say

now because of the climate of the country I'm involved in politics?

MR TLOUBATLA: I'm talking about your school at the time, not you personally.

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR TLOUBATLA: Please refer to that.


CHAIRPERSON: Your answer is that when you say your school was not involved

in politics, you are not lying, you are telling the truth?

MR MORRIS: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: There's your answer.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now let's move on to the assaults on

you at the house of Jeff Lingani. You told us in detail how you were assaulted but

one specific assault that I want to refer to, you say you were hit with an iron bar.

Which part of the body were you hit with that iron bar and how severe was it?

MR MORRIS: When I was hit with the iron bar it was in the bedroom when I was

blindfolded with the plastic. I was then hit in the body with an iron bar. When I

came back from the kitchen again I was then tortured with a plier.

MR TLOUBATLA: So with the iron bar you were hit - which part of the body

were you hit?

MR MORRIS: The iron bar was applied randomly, so if it hits the body,

automatically the head will also be affected because they were just hitting like that,

if you are using maybe a stick.

MR TLOUBATLA: Sorry, with this iron bar you were hit all over the body. Is that

how I understand it?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR TLOUBATLA: Was it hard?

MR MORRIS: How can I say it is soft Mr Tloubatla?

MR TLOUBATLA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: In all fairness to yourself Mr Morris the - when you speak of the

iron bar is it the object which was used to hit you when you were blindfolded?

MR MORRIS: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: You actually didn't see but you conclude that it must be the iron

bar which you saw in the kitchen?

MR MORRIS: Yes, after being blindfolded I then bit the plastic, as I inhaled the

plastic went to the face ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And you were later able to see that it was an iron bar.


MR MORRIS: It was taken out because I was suffocating and I saw it was an iron

bar.

CHAIRPERSON: It was an iron bar.

MR TLOUBATLA: When I say hard I don't mean the iron bar, I mean was it

applied hard on your body. In other words - how do I put it to you?

MR MORRIS: Yes it was hard.

MR TLOUBATLA: Did you sustain any injuries as a result of that iron bar?

MR MORRIS: There'a a lot of injuries which I sustained because my legs cannot

function correctly presently, my left arm is also weak because when I tried to block

I sustained injuries. My cheekbones where I have the lower gums are not strong

enough.

MR TLOUBATLA: Right, why I'm specifically asking this particular question is

that it's an iron bar, you say it was applied hard on various parts of your body

including your head, but what surprised me is that you're not even sporting a scar

on you face to show that you received this hard iron bar on the face?

MR MORRIS: Yes I don't have a scar because we don't heal the same. Our

antibodies are not working to heal wounds the same way. You can be surprised

now that I was shot in the head but you cannot point where I was shot. So does it

surprise you?

MR TLOUBATLA: Yes I'm surprised. Alright. In any event we are not for one

moment saying that you were not assaulted but basically all what I want to - I'm

putting this to you that do not try and exaggerate. In other words you are

exaggerating some of the assaults.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman I'm not sure, with respect, this line of cross

examination is getting anywhere. It's common cause there were assaulted, it's

common cause there were very seriously assaults. Common cause that pliers were

used to the man's testicles now to say that he's exaggerating a seriousness of

assaults is really time consuming and not helping this committee with great

respect. He must stick to the point. Whether this man is lying about torture, he can't

be because it's common cause, whether he's lying about have survived a murder, he

can't be. Let's move on please.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman, I'm thankful to Mr Brink for the - at

least to bring me back to where we are. As I said that the applicants are not

suggesting that you were not assaulted, but let me move on to this other situation.

When you were apprehended by the applicants in Orlando East, did they mention

any specific reason why they are apprehending your group?


MR MORRIS: The reason that they apprehended us, they said we burned a house

in Orlando West.

MR TLOUBATLA: Alright. During the course of your interrogation, during the

course of your assault and humiliation were you ever asked about your political

activities?

MR MORRIS: They said to us we were causing trouble in the location. We said

what kind of a trouble is that. They then accused us of liking too much school.

MR TLOUBATLA: So what I want to - in fact my question is - let me be more

specific, did they ask you about the UDF, whether you are members of the UDF,

whether you are members of SOSCO, whether you are members of COSAS,

whether you are members of political organisations that were operating in Soweto

at the time?

MR MORRIS: We were told that we were members of the UDF, that is what we

were told, we were not asked.

MR TLOUBATLA: Okay, that's how you understood it, it doesn't matter. And now

the next question that I want to ask you. Did they ask you about whom you are

receiving your instructions, that is on a local level within the UDF or whatever

organisation they are accusing you of belonging to?

MR MORRIS: Sir I don't know what kind of and instruction are we talking about

because we said to them at Orlando East that we never burned the house, we even

said to them inside the house, in the kitchen that we never burned the house. We

even said to them in the bedroom that we have never burned the house, even in that

place where they mentioned Glen's house, (indistinct) we have never burned a

house.

MR TLOUBATLA: But from what transpired, my observation is that they didn't

believe you at all, nothing whatever you said they didn't believe you that is why

they proceeded with what they did. Am I correct?

MR MORRIS: They might have proceeded with the beating or the torturing maybe

because they enjoyed it. We were just helpless as we are helpless now.

CHAIRPERSON: Really the question is, he's saying to you that it seems that

despite what you said that you were not UDF, you did not burn the house, it would

seem that they did not believe you, that is why they eventually shot you.

MR MORRIS: They went on torturing because we said no, all of us we were taken

to two groups (indistinct).


CHAIRPERSON: But do you think they believe you when you told them look we

didn't burn this house, we are not UDF, do you think they believe you?

MR MORRIS: I don't know sir.

MR TLOUBATLA: You also mentioned that - you know you mentioned specific

people, particularly in the house that this one did this, this one did this. Right,

when you entered that place, how many people were there in that house?

MR MORRIS: As I've said earlier on that when we entered the house there were

about nine to eleven men inside.

MR TLOUBATLA: Quite a number of faces?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Morris don't you think it is possible to confuse faces in

that situation under that type of pressure?

MR MORRIS: You can confuse a face but you cannot confuse a person who has

shot you, you cannot you. And the person who is now torturing you personally,

you can not.

MR TLOUBATLA: Do you recall the face or the name of the person who

personally shot you?

MR MORRIS: I was shot by Hlasa.

MR TLOUBATLA: Right.

MR MORRIS: One shot which went through my knee, he fired to shoot but as I

said earlier on the bullets just went aside and Mphoreng also shot me because the

gun was not working very well, it jammed.

MR TLOUBATLA: Okay. In all you were fired, you mentioned about eight shots

that were fired at you.

MR MORRIS: I was hit by three, missed by seven.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Hlasa only fired at you once and shot you through the

knee, is that what you're saying?

CHAIRPERSON: He's not saying that.

MR TLOUBATLA: I'm sorry.


CHAIRPERSON: He's saying it was Mr Hlasa who shot him in the knee. He

wouldn't know whether among those other seven shots Mr Hlasa also shot, so don't

put as if he said Hlasa shot him only once and never again. He's not saying that.

MR TLOUBATLA: I misunderstood him Mr Chairman, I'm sorry. Right, except

Hlasa who shot at you, any other person that you recall who shot at you?

MR MORRIS: It was Hlasa, Mphoreng and the other person, I don't know who this

person was.

MR TLOUBATLA: This place where you were shot at ... (intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, just on that aspect. You say you don't know the other person

who shot you?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Is it because you cannot remember or is it because ... (intervention)

MR MORRIS: It's because he's not here.

ADV SIGODI: But if were to be shown to you, you'd be able to remember him?

MR MORRIS: I think I would.

ADV SIGODI: Because I think it's easier for you to remember Hlasa and

Mphoreng because they are here?

MR MORRIS: No.

ADV SIGODI: Why particularly the two of them?

MR MORRIS: Hlasa was the first one who apprehended us at Orlando East, who

used the firearm. The other two were following behind, the two applicants, the

other two applicants and when we entered the house of maybe the so-called

Jefferson Lingani, I don't know the person whether it' the right name, he was also

the one who was having a gun in his hand forcing us to enter the house so I cannot

forget that person.

ADV SIGODI: That is Hlasa the first applicant. No I'm just asking about the third

person whom you do not seem to be able to remember. Why is it that you cannot

remember him?

MR MORRIS: We were shot by three people and the other person stayed at the

car.

ADV SIGODI: What role did he play?


MR MORRIS: Who?

ADV SIGODI: The third person.

MR MORRIS: The third person. I have no knowledge of the role that he played.

ADV SIGODI: So is it easier to remember the roles that the two applicant's played

because they are here and then you cannot remember the role that the other person

played because he is not here?

MR MORRIS: No Maam you must remember that when I tried to turn, because I

was facing that way, the first bullet went into the right knee, the second one I tried

to block and then when I tried to move, to move my head because I was feeling

pain, I could not see that person.

ADV SIGODI: Ja but I mean he was also part of the group that was torturing you

throughout the day, wasn't he?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: And for people who had been torturing you maybe you could have

even picked up their names?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: And you don't forget such an incident, don't you? So what I want to

know is who is this third person, why is it not easy for you to remember the third

person if he also took part in torturing you?

MR MORRIS: I don't know his name, I just don't know his name because Hlasa

was the first one who shot the first shot ... (intervention)

ADV SIGODI: If Hlasa was not here, would you have been able to remember his

name?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Why particularly?

MR MORRIS: Because he was the one who came out of the passage and said:

(indistinct), give me a cigarette and we said we are not smoking.

ADV SIGODI: Okay.

MR MALAN: You're so sure that you would have remembered Mr Hlasa's name,

but in the beginning of your testimony you couldn't remember his name, you

referred to him as Hlese and it was asked?


MR MORRIS: Yes I said it was Hlasa or Hlese, that's what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: This names, the first applicant we know now is Joseph Hlasa

and the second applicant is Mphoreng. When did you know their names?

MR MORRIS: During the interrogation they would then call each other because

the other name which cropped up during the interrogation it was the one of Kabelo,

I don't know (indistinct) and also Pitso. Even the one of Joseph.

CHAIRPERSON: The one of the people that you can't remember, was it not Pitso,

was it not Kabelo, it wasn't one of those?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR TLOUBATLA: Mr Morris do you know who's Pitso?

MR MORRIS: Pitso I think is the second person.

MR TLOUBATLA: Who is that?

MR MORRIS: Who is it, no Pitso I think is Joseph, it's Hlasa, Joseph.

MR TLOUBATLA: Are you certain?

MR MORRIS: Yes, I'm certain.

MR TLOUBATLA: Right. You know basically you are correct by saying Pitso is

Mr Hlasa but I picked the fact that you're just simply guessing on names?

MR MORRIS: No sir.

MR TLOUBATLA: Now because you say, you mentioned that during the

interrogation or during the time when you were making statements the name of

Pitso, the name of Hlasa, the name of whoever came out as often as all that.

(indistinct) you were making a difference between Hlasa and Pitso. Do you

initially it was not the same person?

MR MORRIS: No.

MR TLOUBATLA: It triggered now that after I had asked you the question?

MR MORRIS: No, I don't confuse their names, no.

MR TLOUBATLA: Right, and I'll tell you that you didn't pick up the name of

Hlasa in, when they were taking there, definitely it's not possible because even in

their statement, if you could look at the statements, ... (intervention)


MR MORRIS: I don't have their statements.

MR TLOUBATLA: Ja, they refer to him as Pitso, that is among his friends he's

known as Pitso and even in the statement they mentioned the name Pitso, so you

couldn't have picked the name Hlasa from their conversation.

MR MORRIS: If my memory is serving me correctly, I think I could have picked

out the wrong name but my memory serves me well.

MR TLOUBATLA: You are just simply referring to him now simply because he's

here in front of you, that's basically what it is. I put it to you that in that situation

where there are so many people, you are under such tremendous torture, definitely

your memory, you vision, everything is impaired so terribly that you are bound to

confuse not only faces but names as well.

MR MORRIS: But there are things that you cannot forget. There are things that

you cannot forget.

MR TLOUBATLA: Just lastly, just to wind up the questioning. This place where

you were shot. How well lit was it?

MR MORRIS: It was dark.

MR TLOUBATLA: Very dark isn't it?

MR MORRIS: Yes.

MR TLOUBATLA: And you are able, in that darkness, to see that Pitso is firing a

shot at me, Mphoreng is also firing a shot at me and how do you do that? How do

you manage that?

MR MORRIS: Yes I said earlier on that I tried to move the face and even the first

shot I was looking at the person but I could not feel whether I was shot or not

because I was told to sleep after being shot, the first shot so when moving I tried to

move and then when I tried to block the bullet with my hand, that is when I can say

I see this person, I can identify this person.

MR TLOUBATLA: The point where they were standing and the point where you

were sitting, how far I mean what's the distance?

MR MORRIS: Is it possible to demonstrate it to you?

CHAIRPERSON: Listen, just a minute. Mr Tloubatla unless you tell us the

importance and the relevance of this question, I'm not going to allow that question

because your client's don't deny that they shot these people, except Mr


Thandakubona who says he wasn't there and as far as I can recall, this witness so

far hasn't said that Mr Thandakubona was there.


CHAIRPERSON: Does it matter whether the witness makes a mistake in saying

that Hlasa shot me, it was Hlasa who shot me in the leg and whereas in fact he was

shot by Mphoreng or some other person or by Sam or somebody. What difference

does it make, they were all on a common purpose, they acted on the base of

common purpose in killing these people, it doesn't matter who shot what.

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman, I don't think it's really material.

Alright, just one little detail then. At Shawella, at this house where you were taken

to, were all the victims taken out of the cars into the house or were just some of

you taken into the house?

MR MORRIS: When we reached that place I was taken from one boot to another

boot and I tried to move, while I moved from one boot to another boot Edwin

Nkomo was instructed to get into the house.

MR TLOUBATLA: So in other words all what you know is that Vuyani was

instructed to get into the house and you remained in the boot of the car?

MR MORRIS: I was first taken out, Vuyani second and then Sekano the third one.

MR TLOUBATLA: So you don't know of any other person who was taken into the

house, that is among the victims?

MR MORRIS: I was told to face down, not to look on the sides but I could hear

that he was instructed to get into the house.

MR TLOUBATLA: You don't follow what I'm saying. I say except Vuyani, you

don't know of any of the victims that went into the house?

MR MORRIS: Yes I cannot account for that sir.

MR TLOUBATLA: I have no further question sir.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bink?

MR BRINK: No thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: Just one little aspect. Were any of you wearing UDF T-shirts?

MR MORRIS: No, no Madam no.


ADV SIGODI: Thank you.

MR MALAN: May I just follow on that. Nobody had a UDF T-shirt on under their

clothes?

MR MORRIS: None.

MR MALAN: And nobody was given as old clothes a UDF T-shirt to put on?

MR MORRIS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, when this - we were told that you were interrogated

because they wanted to know whether you were members of UDF or whatever and

we were told you were assaulted in the process. You yourself have said to us that

you were assaulted an questioned whether you were UDF members. What I want

to know from you is, in the process of interrogation is there a time when anyone of

you admitted that they were UDF members or SOSCO?

MR MORRIS: No there was no time when one of us said he's a member of the

UDF, there's not time. The answer was always no, no, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Despite this severe assault, none of you under pain, even if it

were to be under pain, admitted that they were UDF?

MR MORRIS: No sir.

CHAIRPERSON: In the process of being assaulted, were they not trying to force

you to admit that you were UDF?

MR MORRIS: They were trying to do that but we said no.

CHAIRPERSON: You, despite the severe pains, despite the pliers for example on

private parts, it was never admitted by either you or anyone of you that you were

UDF members?

MR MORRIS: No sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, let me sum you up. Your evidence is not to us as follows:

This people wanted us to admit that we were UDF, we denied, they assaulted us

very badly with iron bars, pliers and all that and because of that we admitted that

we're UDF because we were under severe pain. That is not your evidence? You

evidence is that pain, notwithstanding, you never admitted that you're UDF

members?

MR MORRIS: Yes sir.


CHAIRPERSON: Well is it likely though, I mean you were so severely assaulted,

you were even screaming so that the neighbours could hear and they were forcing

you to be a UDF member. Isn't the likelihood that you would, all be it under pain,

you would admit that you're UDF members?

MR MORRIS: No, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway that's not your evidence you've said. Do you want to re-

examine Mr - Mr Tloubatla what's the problem?

MR TLOUBATLA: I wanted to follow up - perhaps I can - there is something I

wanted to follow up based on the questioning now.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you converse it yourself during the proceedings?

MR TLOUBATLA: Well it's simply because it is following up on the cross

examination of Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: This issue of assault was conversed tremendously by anyway

let's hear what you want to say.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TLOUBATLA:

Mr Morris despite the fact that you were separated, you were in different rooms,

are you saying that none of the other victims admitted that he was a member of

UDF?

MR MORRIS: No one admitted.

MR TLOUBATLA: How can you say that if you were not in the same room?

MR MORRIS: When they took turns the other people then said your friends are

saying you are UDF members, what do you say and then we would say no and then

the interrogation goes on again and again.

MR TLOUBATLA: (indistinct)

NO FURTHER QUESTION BY MR TLOUBATLA

MR MALAN: Mr Morris Mr Ameen in his cross examination of some of the

applicants put it to them that there was no evidence of the house having been

bombed when you get there. You confirmed this and you refer to the painting but

he also put it to the applicants that your version is that the house indeed was

bombed subsequent or at some later stage this house was bombed. Who told him

that, did you know that Jeff's house was bombed later?


MR MORRIS: That is what we heard when I was in hospital but I have no

knowledge of that.

MR MALAN: One of the Exhibits, I think Exhibit H, that Mr Tloubatla held out to

you, the Star of the 26th of October 1986, he read there and he talked about the

reprisals and that the house the following night was bombed. Is your recollection

that that refers to that following night, the bombing?

MR MORRIS: No I don't know sir.

MR MALAN: You don't know when?

MR MORRIS: Yes, it was when I was admitted at hospital, I think it was on Friday

(indistinct) Sekano, I then met my father and then on Saturday he came back with

my mother and also on Sunday even the whole week.

MR MALAN: This question of the bombing and which house it is, I just want to

ask you a question or two about that still. The house of Jeff, I remember correctly

evidence was given that that was an ordinary four roomed house?

MR MORRIS: Yes sir.

MR MALAN: It had only two bedrooms or would it have had a third bedroom?

MR MORRIS: I don't know because the houses in Orlando West are not the same.

We have three roomed house, we have five roomed houses.

MR MALAN: I think Mr Tloubatla if you can assist me in memory I think the

evidence was that it was a four roomed house?

MR TLOUBATLA: Yes with a - the toilet is inside the house if I'm ...

MR MALAN: My question really relates to the two bedrooms. You say that the

bedroom within which you were assaulted or tortured, there was no sign of a

burning or a bombing?

MR MORRIS: No sir, no.

MR MALAN: And you have no knowledge of the second bedroom of what that

looked like?

MR MORRIS: No.

MR MALAN: You were never into the second bedroom?

MR MORRIS: No.


MR MALAN: And in the kitchen there was no sign of a bombing?

MR MORRIS: No.

MR MALAN: You didn't see glass anywhere over the place?

MR MORRIS: No, no sir.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ameen?

MR AMEEN: No, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: It may be a convenient stage to adjourn and then maybe start at

quarter to two. Mr Ameen?

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman I've consulted with my client, the second victim will

not be testifying this afternoon. I do not think that his testimony, if he does testify,

will take the matter any further and that is it from our side.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then that would conclude these proceedings and do you

propose to submit a written argument?

MR AMEEN: Yes Mr Chairman, I discussed that with my colleague and I suggest

that we be allowed to do that within a period of whatever is a reasonable time.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla?

MR TLOUBATLA: Thank you Mr Chairman, I confirm everything that has been

said by my learned friend and in as far as the submissions are concerned, I'm also

confirming that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink do you prefer to make oral submissions because you

can do now if you want to quickly make oral submissions?

MR BRINK: No Mr Chairman I'm not prepared at this stage to make oral

submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR BRINK: In so far as the time is concerned, today is the 10th of June, possibly

if submissions could be lodged with the Amnesty Committee by not later than say

Friday the 10th of July, would that be enough time for you.

MR AMEEN: That suits me.


MR TLOUBATLA: That will be sufficient time.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla when do you think you can deliver you written

argument?

MR TLOUBATLA: Probably within 2 weeks or so, I will be able to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just give us the dates there because we (indistinct) a

date.

MR BRINK: 2 Weeks would be the 24th of June, but then allowing for postal

delays - they can fax them.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute. What date are we getting there Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: 2 Weeks from today will be the 24th of June, Wednesday the 24th.

CHAIRPERSON: And what's the next Monday?

MR BRINK: The next Monday is the 29th?

CHAIRPERSON: Of June?

MR BRINK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Tloubatla would you see to it that we receive your written

argument by the 29th?

MR TLOUBATLA: Ja, I think it is possible. (indistinct) that I can't produce, if I'm

sending it out on the 24th and whether it will be there by the 29th and in fact I don't

know how or where we're going to send it?

MR BRINK: If the written submissions could be sent, as I indicated to you earlier,

to the Executive Secretary, Amnesty Committee, 106 Adderly Street, Cape Town.

MR TLOUBATLA: That will be possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we note the 26th of June Mr Tloubatla and will you then,

before you ... (intervention)

MR BRINK: 29th.

CHAIRPERSON: 29th I'm sorry. Before you, or at least at the same time as you

will be sending them to us, will you please give a copy to Mr Ameen so that he can

have a week to finalise his own (indistinct) he may wish to say something about

your written argument? So Mr Ameen you (indistinct) the following week then?

That will be the first Monday of July.


MR BRINK: That will be the 6th of July.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink please do take the telephone numbers and particulars

of both Mr Ameen and Mr Tloubatla, very often we have difficulties later in

contacting the attorneys concerned.

MR BRINK: I've got that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we will reserve judgement then in this case until we

receive written argument. And before we formally adjourn we would like to thank

everybody who was involved in putting up these proceedings and perhaps also in

particular we appreciate the co-operation we received from the public. Cases of

this nature are very difficult, they bring back old memories and open wounds

which have temporarily healed and sometimes you understand why people from

the audience or the victims sometimes they behave in the way that they've been

doing but it needs to be mentioned that we appreciate their co-operation, they've

been very co-operative and we appreciate that. Thank you very much. We will now

adjourn and resume as soon as possible to start with the next matter.

MR BRINK: Yes, Mr Chairman I understand that counsel for some of the

applicants just wish to have a word with you in chambers before we proceed with

the next application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes alright.

WITNESS EXCUSED

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

Documents

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION AMNESTY … AMNESTY HEARING TRANSCRIPTS - Page 1 of 199 TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION AMNESTY HEARING TRANSCRIPTS