ON RESUMPTION: 20 AUGUST 1998 - DAY 4

MR STEENKAMP: Maybe just before we start. In front of you you'll see copies of three different documents. I would like to ask permission to hand them in. The one being a confession of George Mazete, the other being a copy of the confession of Paulos Mohape Mghlole and a further statement of John Avaleno De Castro.

CHAIRPERSON: Rather describe them as statements than confessions, they indicate they did certain things at certain times. So the first one is, which one are you handing in first?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman the first one I'm handing in, with your permission, is George Mazete's statement. We ask that mark as an exhibit.

CHAIRPERSON: It must be Exhibit F.

MR STEENKAMP: Exhibit F Mr Chairman. The statement of Paulos Mohape Mghlole.

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit G.

MR STEENKAMP: And a further statement Mr Chairman of John Avaleno De Castro. As you please Mr Chairman Exhibit H.

CHAIRPERSON: Right continue. You were about to - you had completed the evidence of Mr Pedro De Castro in chief and now cross examination can commence.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr De Castro let me start by saying, accept my condolences and the misery which you went through during the incident and the condolences regarding the loss of your wife on the day in question and I also feel that I am expressing the view of the applicants.

MR P DE CASTRO: Thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: You told this Committee that you are opposing this amnesty on the basis that it was not politically motivated. Now I would like to know from you what type of places would you describe as political motivated?

MR P DE CASTRO: If it was to be political, there was many other places which there would be much more white people at a time where they could have caused much more havoc within the white communities or to show the government that they are unhappy and they want to kill the whites now.

I mean like I said yesterday, at Wesselsbron Supermarket 99.9% at that time of the evening, on a Saturday evening especially, there would only be myself and my brother at that time there. There would be no ...(indistinct), there would be no white customers at that time there and there was a greater, there would be a greater chance at that time, there would actually be more black customers than white customers in the supermarket, so why they chose a supermarket because it's one of the biggest business in the district, it was a very busy place and they knew that financially it would be a lot of money there involved, that's why they chose Wesselsbron Supermarket. Why didn't they choose a hotel, a nightclub or a bar, because it was a Saturday evening, the people would be enjoying themselves there and they could have caused much more havoc and killed much more whites that at a supermarket.

MR MBANDAZAYO: With due respect Mr De Castro, where there no whites on the day in question at the supermarket?

MR P DE CASTRO: Unfortunately there was, we were almost family that was in the supermarket at that time.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And would you agree - and you also confirm that mostly the people who were injured and were attacked on that evening were whites, were white?

MR P DE CASTRO: Unfortunately yes.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now if I follow your argument that they should have chosen another place where more white would be so don't you feel that on the day in question, because there were more whites on that, so on that score, it was a legitimate target, also the supermarket.

MR P DE CASTRO: It was a target because they wanted money and they knew financially they would find some money in that place and that is what, exactly what they say when they came running into the supermarket, they want money and if they were there to shoot people they should have, when they came in they shouldn't have asked for money or, they should have started shooting straight away. Only after a while they started shooting people when the realised that things had gone wrong for them.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr De Castro was it not your evidence that when they entered the supermarket you were not there, you were at the back?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right ja.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So you don't know what actually happened when they arrived at the supermarket?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well everybody told me.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr De Castro you don't know yourself, I'm not asking what you were told. You don't know what actually took place?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well I was looking at them from the back of the shop.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr De Castro you don't know what actually took place when they arrived at the supermarket?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well as I indicated yesterday that one of the applicants was holding a briefcase. Why did they come with a briefcase?

CHAIRPERSON: When you came into the supermarket from the bakery, you told us that's where you came in from, did you see anyone who appeared to have been shot at that stage?

MR P DE CASTRO: Not yet.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr De Castro there's still my question that when you came from the bakery from behind, you said that the bakery's at the back?

MR P DE CASTRO: The bakery is linked with the supermarket.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, okay whatever, but when they entered the supermarket you were not there. When you came, when you heard what - if my notes are correct, is that you heard that there was some noises, there was something going on?

MR P DE CASTRO: I was in the supermarket at the time. The bakery is linked to the supermarket and there's an opening from the bakery to the supermarket and there's just an oven on the way separating the supermarket and the bakery, therefore I followed - until I ran out of the supermarket, I followed the whole of the proceedings, I followed it.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr De Castro I'm still going to press you with this point. When they entered the supermarket you did not see them?

CHAIRPERSON: You gave evidence that you heard screaming and done gunshot went off?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right, that's when I was alerted that there was something happening there.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you ran to the baker door and saw some men, one carrying a briefcase, Bhani.

MR P DE CASTRO: Ja but at that time I must have been about two or three metres from the door, not more than that.

CHAIRPERSON: But it was one shot you had heard then?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I'm indebted to the Chairman. I was - you sum it up Mr Chairman. Now you agree that the only thing that alerted you was the shot and the screaming?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So you agree with me that when they entered the supermarket that you did not see them?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well it must have been seconds between, a second or two you know, between them entering the shop and myself being alerted you know.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes and you agree with me that you did not hear what they were said when they arrived at the supermarket?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well I didn't hear them when they came in, but when they were there I actually heard money, money, while I was standing at the back at the door of the bakery.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now can you - let me follow it up with this question of Bhani, you always mention Bhani. How was he carrying his gun and this briefcase you are talking about?

MR P DE CASTRO: He had his firearm like that on his right arm and with the other finger he was holding the briefcase.

MR MBANDAZAYO: The same hand he was holding the firearm he was holding the briefcase?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Hm. How big was this briefcase?

MR P DE CASTRO: It's a normal briefcase, the flatter ones.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now can you tell me, I'm a little bit taken aback, how is that possible somebody holding - I take it it was a bit R4 or R5 or AK?

MR P DE CASTRO: No.

MR MBANDAZAYO: That the same arm is holding the firearm is holding a briefcase?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's possible yes and that's what he was doing that evening.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Hm, okay. Now you were asked yesterday to identify one of the persons and you said look one person you identified was Bhani and you mentioned by name, you didn't even look at the person you said it's Bhani?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Did you know him before?

MR P DE CASTRO: No not at all.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So you only knew him here or where?

MR P DE CASTRO: I will never forget his face in my life.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Hm, quite. Is it also true that Bhani was taken to your supermarket to make a pointing out after his arrest?

MR P DE CASTRO: I heard so but before they came to make a pointing out we were all taken to the local police station and we were kept there until the investigating officers was finished with them.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Is it also correct that during the trial the Judge made a remark that because of the lack of time after the incident and that you didn't have sufficient time to identify Bhani, he can't attach more weight to your pointing of Bhani?

MR P DE CASTRO: Excuse me, can you repeat that Sir?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Am I correct to say to you that the Judge made a remark in his judgment in the case - let me put it this way Sir, where you present all the time in the trial?

MR P DE CASTRO: No, not at all.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay, so you were not present when the judgment was given in the case?

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes I was present on the day of the judgment and I was present on the day that I gave evidence to the Supreme Court.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay. I'm saying that in his judgment the Judge who presided in the case, Judge Cilliers, said that because the identification of Bhani by yourself and your brother took some place 16 months after the incident and that you did not even have more than two minutes to see him on that particular day, so he can't attach more weight to that and he did not assert it?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well that's his problem because I, the face of Bhani I will never forget in my life. I mean that night I stood for a few seconds, even minutes, looking at him. He wasn't looking at me but I was looking at him.

MR MBANDAZAYO: In any event I was just parting, it's not in dispute that he was there, definitely it's his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is this in the judgment?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I'll go to - if you turn to paragraph that paragraph, page 16 of the Judgment.

CHAIRPERSON: Page?

MR MBANDAZAYO: 16, 45 of the bundle, the second line. If you start reading from the second line Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Mr Mbandazayo can you explain to us why you're proceeding on these lines and if it's not at issue, why the cross examination on this point. If you could just lead us or get to the point?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes. Definitely Mr Chairman it's not only the only aspect that is taking into account, even the credibility whether the witness is the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: But we know, he says he saw him on the day in question. He saw him again at an identification parade. The Judge had doubts because the identification parade was that much later. He saw him again at the trial. He says that's the man I recognised and you say that man was there. At the trial, you may recollect that at the trial your client did not give evidence and did not admit being present.

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Mbandazayo if I could also point out the Judgment in Afrikaans here, but what the Judge was saying is it would be risky to, on his evidence alone, find beyond reasonable doubt that indeed it was Bhani but he continues to, in his finding to accept that it was Bhani, also on other information. He's simply saying on that evidence alone, one could not do such a finding.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible).

MR MBANDAZAYO: That's correct Mr Chairman, that's what actually was said.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no credibility finding made.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Exactly Mr Chairman, there was no credibility finding made ...(indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: So what's the relevance now?

MR MBANDAZAYO: The point was that, Mr Chairman, I'm trying to get at is that at that particular point in time even though now he knows that is Bhani.

CHAIRPERSON: At that point in time he was satisfied it was Bhani, today he is satisfied it was Bhani, there has been no change whatsoever in the circumstances, has there? He did not tell the Judge he had any hesitation, he said that is the man, as I read the evidence.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what he's saying today so what can you make out of it? I'd like you to explain.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairman I agree it just the point, but what I'm saying is that at the time of the incident, at the time of the incident at the supermarket, that's what I'm getting at that under the circumstances under which he was and he also gave evidence that he was shocked and he had, there was not sufficient time he had to look at him, it's not possible it's just because after that he had a sight of it, that's what I was driving at, At that particular point in time.

CHAIRPERSON: He said that he did, he still says he did. We are not going to make a finding about identification here so I cannot understand, I agree with my colleague here, what the point of this is. There's no suggestion that the witness has changed his evidence in the slightest. Is there? That is not your submission. ...(indistinct).

MR MBANDAZAYO: Definitely Mr Chairman, definitely, that's not my point Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman if the Chair pleases that it's not, I'll pass that point and come to another one. Mr De Castro do you know a person, a policeman by the name of Sgt Landman?

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes I do know him.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you tell me under what circumstances do you know him?

MR P DE CASTRO: I just saw him one time in my life.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, what was that time?

MR P DE CASTRO: No he just came to get some witness in another case.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And the witness was working at your supermarket?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Is it also correct that you had a bribe with him?

MR P DE CASTRO: No that's not true.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Is that witness still in your supermarket?

MR P DE CASTRO: No he's long time left.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Did you also give statement to Landman?

MR P DE CASTRO: Not at all.

MR MBANDAZAYO: But you confirm that you are the person who brought him to the witness?

MR P DE CASTRO: No not at all.

MR MBANDAZAYO: You did not point him the witness to you?

MR P DE CASTRO: As I told you just now I met Charlie Landman on one occasion and that's when he was looking for witness in a certain case which I've got nothing to do with that case whatsoever.

MR MBANDAZAYO: The reason why I'm asking is that the said witness, my information is that the said witness made a statement that you introduced him to Charlie Landman and you had a bribe where evidence was cooked that certain people would be convicted?

MR P DE CASTRO: No that's not true.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So that witness is lying?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well he must be lying, definitely. I've never had - I've got no time to have bribes with people of the law, I'm a business man I've got nothing to do with politics or the police work, whatever.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Well I'll leave it there that point but it will come in one of the amnesty applications, your name will come up in one of the amnesty applications regarding that incident.

MR P DE CASTRO: You're welcome.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now let me follow this point was that you are not a, you are a business man and you are not, have nothing to do with politics. Are you not a supporter of any political organisation?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well when there's time to vote then you must vote for someone so I only like involve myself just before a voting or a election and I must make a decision to vote for somebody, that's in the only occasion that I ever get involved or, I mean that's my right to vote like any other citizen of South Africa.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I know, I know that but I'm asking that are you not a supporter of any political organisation?

MR P DE CASTRO: Not at all.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And you have never been any supporter of any political organisation?

MR P DE CASTRO: Never in my life.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And you just decide when it's about time for you to vote, which party to vote for?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right I make a decision what is best for the country, whose party has got the credentials to be voted for.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Do you know Inspector Mkhize?

MR P DE CASTRO: Mkhize?

MR MBANDAZAYO: A policeman, 319 Smith Street Durban.

MR P DE CASTRO: What is the full name of that police?

MR MBANDAZAYO: It's just initial. Okay let me put it this way. Did you make any statement on the 14th of May 1998 at Welkom?

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes I did.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And in that statement, in paragraph 2 of your statement, that:

"I was not a member of any political organisation and I had nothing to do with politics until now. I only support the National Party. Among my family no one was a member of any political party because we're business people"?

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes I did say that. I say that I voted for the National Party, but that's only to show that I've got nothing to do with AWB whatsoever.

MR MBANDAZAYO: No I'm not talking about the AWB, I was talking I asked you many times whether you supported any political organisation, you said no not in your life.

MR P DE CASTRO: No well I wasn't a supporter of the National Party, I never gave them any funds, I just vote for them.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I didn't ask you about funds or what ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He did tell us consistently that he voted for political parties, didn't he?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) what party and if you're going to argue that that indicate's being a supporter, you can do so.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I asked him whether he did support any political party.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and whether he was supporter and as I understood his evidence, he indicated that he was a voter, when voting time to come he made up his mind which party to vote for, but that he had no other interest in politics, which is what he's saying now isn't it?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible).

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman in his statement he's saying he only supports the National Party.

CHAIRPERSON: After he has just said I was - read the whole statement again please. From the beginning of the paragraph?

MR MBANDAZAYO:

"At the time of the robbery I was not a member of any political organisation and I had nothing to do with politics until now. I only support the National Party".

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible), doesn't that indicate this. Carry on if you want to, but again I fail to see the point.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman it's clear, "... until now I had nothing to do with politics until now. I only support National Party". What does that Mr Chairman mean?

CHAIRPERSON: I vote for them.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Because I support them.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I vote for them I can be taken to support them.

MR MBANDAZAYO: But it's there Mr Chairman that you support them, that's the reason he's voting for them.

CHAIRPERSON: He supports them, that doesn't mean he is a supporter. Doesn't a supporter to you mean more than someone who just votes?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Definitely Mr Chairman, that's what I'm getting at because in fact I only support National Party.

MR MALAN: I think this is really an issue for argument, what is the level of support. I think he's made it clear that he voted for the National Party, he says if that is support then that's support, but he said he's never given them any funds, he's never been a member. Do you want to take it further than that, do you want to put that in dispute. If so then I think you should continue.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, but Mr Chairman it's clear in the statement in as much as he's saying that he was only voting, he votes when it come to vote he say he vote for any party during time of election, but in his statement it is clear Mr Chairman that he supports National Party.

MR MALAN: Let's accept it and leave it at that for argument. I think that's something really for argument and I'm happy to take it that way if you want to proceed and think you can take it further then continue with the cross examination. If that's the only point you need to make, it is before us.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Every time you made that statement, were you aware of this hearing?

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes I was aware.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And you made that statement in anticipation of the hearing?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well the lady came to me and she say that she's from the Truth Commission and that she needs to take a statement from me for this amnesty hearing and I obliged to do that.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And you were told that the people who attacked your supermarket are applying for amnesty?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well she explained that to me but not in a straightforward - she say well there's a possible application you know.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now he told you that there's a possibility or a possible application of amnesty?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So he never told you that they applied for amnesty?

MR P DE CASTRO: No she say well that they are applying and there is a possibility of a hearing.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So you were aware that they applied for amnesty?

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So it was explained to you. It's not a question that it was never explained to you?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well I wasn't a 100% ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What is the point of this when the statement says that he objects to the applicants being granted amnesty. It is abundantly clear he knew they were applying, isn’t it from the very statement?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairman but I want it to come from him, but he's not saying it. He's saying that it was never explained to him so he's running away from what is in his statement.

MR MALAN: Mr Mbandazayo ... (intervention)

MR MBANDAZAYO: That's the impression I have.

MR MALAN: With all due respect, your first question was: "Were you aware of this hearing when you made that statement"?, and his answer was: "Yes". I mean he gave it straight to you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: After that what did I say Mr Chairman?

MR MALAN: No indeed you continued then to lead him and ask him about how the statement came to him and he talked about the lady coming to him and then you asked further questions, but his first upfront statement was when I made the statement I was aware of a hearing and then he went on to say the possibility of a hearing and so on.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes I asked him was it explained to him that the people who attacked his supermarket applied for amnesty, that's where he started not answering.

MR MALAN: I seriously don't want to get into a debate with you. I think we should leave you and continue and then see where it leads to and if needs be we can intervene again. Will you please continue.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now if you were aware that there's this hearing coming so you had ample time to give him your reasons for objecting to them being granted amnesty?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well I gave my statement, you've got my statement in front of you. What does the statement say?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes it says that you object to them being granted amnesty, but subsequent to that in this hearing you made another statement.

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right I did.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now how many people were injured in the supermarket?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well there was three heavily injured and there was one slightly injured.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Did that come up at the trial?

MR P DE CASTRO: No well at the trial here, the evidence that was given here it seems to me that most of your applicants they didn't even know how many people was injured.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I'm not talking about the applicants, the applicants never gave evidence. I'm talking of the people who gave evidence in the trial.

MR P DE CASTRO: Well to my knowledge there was three that was taken to hospital and there was another one there which was slightly injured, but there was no need to go to hospital or anything.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So that is why you are saying that there were only four people who were injured?

CHAIRPERSON: He did not say, he said three injured and one very slightly, he's drawn a distinction.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman maybe myself I did not make myself clear, I'm saying that that is why in his second statement he said that there were only four people who were injured, it's because the one was slightly injured.

CHAIRPERSON: You're now talking about his second statement?

MR MBANDAZAYO: His second statement.

CHAIRPERSON: You realise you're now being asked about your second statement, not the evidence you gave here or anything, where you did say that four people were wounded.

MR P DE CASTRO: I'm aware of that.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And you did not say that the one was slightly injured?

MR P DE CASTRO: No I didn't put it into detail on the statement, but I'm giving you the details now.

MR MBANDAZAYO: You also mentioned in your evidence in chief that these people were not wearing any uniform?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Were you expecting them to wear a uniform?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well they say they're soldiers. I means soldiers must wear a uniform to identify themselves.

MR MBANDAZAYO: According to yourself if a person is not wearing a uniform he's not a soldier?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well to my knowledge yes. When you go to do battle or when you go to fight your enemies, you must have a uniform on.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now coming back to your question of saying that the only thing, they only went there to rob. You indicated that you had a large amount of money in your supermarket. Don't you think that if it was only that specific purpose they would have searched and looked for that money knowing, as you indicated that they went there knowing that it's only a month end and it's a busy day?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well to my knowledge I think that things didn't work out the way that what they planned.

ADV SOGODI: Sorry Mr Mbandazayo, let's just get from Mr De Castro, how much money was lost?

MR P DE CASTRO: It was + R8 700,00.

ADV SOGODI: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Was part of that money comprising of cheques?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MALAN: Do you know more or less what the division was, cheques/cash?

MR P DE CASTRO: It was about 50/50, 50 cash and 50% cheques.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now am I correct to say that the reason you are saying that it was not political motivated is because they also took money?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well as I said previously, when they came into the shop they screamed they want money. Only when they realised that there was so much people in the supermarket at the time and then they started shooting, but it took them a while to shoot, to start shooting at people.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Would I be correct if I'm saying what you are saying is just you are speculating?

MR P DE CASTRO: No it's not speculation, all the victims over there will support me on that.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr De Castro is it not also true that during the trial it transpired that you were not sure what actually was said, people who were in the shop were not sure what actually what was uttered by the people who entered the supermarket?

MR P DE CASTRO: No I wouldn't know.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Exact word which were said.

MR P DE CASTRO: Well I wasn't at the trial, as I pointed out I was when I gave evidence and the day of the Sentences.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now it's because in the Judgment it says that people were not sure of the exact word which were uttered.

MR P DE CASTRO: I'm not aware about that.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And now it seems as if you are clear that everybody who was there will support what you are saying.

MR P DE CASTRO: Well I don't know what you're trying to point with that or, I wouldn't know.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now if somebody goes to a place, a soldier as I, as you have already indicated that soldiers are supposed to wear a uniform and now what they did was to rob, they killed people and robbed so that's the reason you are saying that it was not politically motivated. Now if a South African Defence Force goes to Angola and attacked the enemies and thereafter they take ivory and come back with the ivory, would you regard that as a robbery?

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes I would, because he's doing it for - unless he was doing it with instructions or he was in a war, but in a war it doesn't say you must steal.

MR MBANDAZAYO: No. You qualified that unless he's doing it with instructions that he must do that, then you won't qualify that as a robbery if he does that with instructions?

MR P DE CASTRO: No didn't put it that way, what I'm saying is when you're fighting war what are you actually fighting, you're fighting another group or a government or whatever so you're not there to steal, you're there to fight a war, not to go and steal.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr De Castro I was just following your answer that I asked you if South African Defence Force goes there, they did war with Angola and they come back with ivory would you regard that as a robbery?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well I, that to me - if you steal that's a criminal act, to steal is a criminal act.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Let me leave that one, let me leave it at that point. Would you - you know what's happening in the country, the farmers are being attacked daily and they are saying that that is political, there's political motive behind it. Do you agree with that statement. They are attacked and their properties are robbed, after that taken away. Would you agree with their statement that's it political motivated?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's exactly what I wanted to tell you just now, which I forgot but I will tell you now, that previously or while the other government was in power everything that was done was political, whether it was robbery, whether it was politically motivated it was all attached to political parties or to organisations. Now that another government has taken over the country those things don't get attached to organisations anymore, so where's it going to stop and now you're telling me that this was political, where people went to rob money, that doesn't make sense to me.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr De Castro I don't know whether I'm getting your correctly, my question was that do you agree with the statement - I'll follow up your answer - do you agree with the statement by the farmers that that is political motivated that they are attacked?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well they've had something like that in the newspaper but I also listen to the news every evening and it was yesterday or the day before disclosed, on the news, that it's not political, it's criminals that's doing it.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I agree with you fully, that's what comes from the government's side, but I was asking you about the farmers, the farmers are saying it's politically motivated. Do you agree with that?

MR P DE CASTRO: If I agree with it? No I don't agree with them whatsoever.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay thanks. Now coming to your answer, you said that during the previous government everything that was done by political organisations was political, robbery and everything?

MR P DE CASTRO: No no I said by individuals. Everything was then taken as a political deed, but now after there's no more excuses to ...(indistinct) to political organisations now it's a crime on it's own.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay I do get your point. Now as a follow up to that, were you in agreement with those statements during the time the previous government that what was done by individuals at the time, as you put it, it was political?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well it depends on the manner of the crime. I mean I'm not a detective, I'm not in the police force to be able to separate whichever is crime and whichever is not crime.

MR MALAN: Mr Mbandazayo may I just ask you. Is it not common cause that the evidence of your clients is that it was political, based on instructions that this witness is not challenging that, he's simply giving his impression of the robbery itself, that it was not political and we're arguing now sort of political disposition. Is it really relevant whatever he would say here could it detract from your client's case or are you saying because his impression was they asked for money and therefore it was criminal, that that should be seriously taken into account by the Amnesty Committee in deciding the evidence of your clients. It feels as if, for me I'm saying to you ... (inaudible)

What I'm really saying, just for the record, if we should decide for instance that we find it to have been a robbery with no political motive, can we at all be influenced by opinions of this witness or any other witness for that matter, shouldn't we deduct our opinions from the facts before us?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I'm not trying to say that the Committee will be influenced but you came up, fortunately I was trying to wrap my cross ... (intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry.

MR MBANDAZAYO: ...(inaudible) examination coming to the point, my final point on this aspect regarding where I was getting at. Mr De Castro are you a Christian?

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes I am.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And is it true that in church you are told that you must forgive those who ...(indistinct)?

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes we do. We do read about that every day. I read it every day on my Bible. When I go to church I hear that all the time, but in certain occasions or it's sometimes hard to forgive you know.

MR MBANDAZAYO: No I do understand that and that you have strong feeling about this incident because you lost your wife and also that you were forced to separate with you children to stay with their in-laws.

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And that it makes you bitter.

MR P DE CASTRO: It would have made anybody bitter.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And you are bitter.

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And that's the reason why you have such strong words regarding this incident?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's true.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now finally, now that you heard the applicants here saying the reason why they attack your supermarket, you may not agree with them, I'm not saying you agree I know your point. Now you have your feelings and you know and you are saying you have put your position. Now that you have heard them, not necessary that you agree with them, you have heard them that we did this because of we were instructed and we were acting on the orders of our political organisation or APLA to raise funds and also was whites were our target because they were our oppressors. Now what's your feeling after you have heard that?

MR P DE CASTRO: My feeling is that I'm not clear that these guys are sorry about what they did. They've shown no remorse during their evidence here or for what they did. They are still laughing, they think they're heros for what they did you know, and to my knowledge you know, to take another human being's life into your hands, that's not a joke, that's an ultimatum in life we've all, whether you're black, white, pink, red, have got a reason and they've got a right to live.

If you're wrong in life there must be justice that will take you out of the communities, out of the societies and put you away because you don't deserve to be there. And it's clear to me that these guys they didn't even know, some of them say that it was for politics, some of them say that it was money that they wanted.

On their statements some of them says that they went there because the owner of the supermarket was the Chairperson of the AWB. When they came here then they denied it they say no we didn't say that man is a Chairperson of the AWB, we went there because we want to kill whites, but that shop indeed, it's frequented, by even more than 90% of the customers of that supermarket is black.

Even when I got back yesterday and the day before a lot of the black people of the community came to me says Peter, oppose their applications, these guys were not acting politically, they wanted to rob your place man. Now what do we assume from all these things?

MR MBANDAZAYO: I have heard what you are saying. In essence what you are saying is that they are not showing any remorse so that's the reason you are saying that you are opposing the amnesty?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well I'm opposing the amnesty for (1) that I want justice to be done at the end of the day.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Do you know Mr Van der Ross?

MR P DE CASTRO: Van der Ross, not at all.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay maybe I'm putting wrong. Do you know the Town Clerk of or the Mayor of ...(indistinct) at the time?

MR P DE CASTRO: Mr Ross?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes.

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes I know him very well.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Do you know that he made a statement after the incident? There was in the newspaper regarding that incident?

MR P DE CASTRO: I'm not aware of that statement.

MR MBANDAZAYO: That that was a terrorist attack?

MR P DE CASTRO: I wouldn't know.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Do you also know that after that incident APLA claimed responsibility of that attack in your supermarket?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well to my knowledge they never did, APLA never accepted responsibility for that incident at Wesselsbron Supermarket. I've waited and waited and the police waited to hear who was responsible for it and nobody every came out and said we're responsible for that, no one did that.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And also is it ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you accepting this was an official acceptance of responsibility which is not being continued before this hearing. Nobody has appeared before us on behalf of APLA to accept responsibility have they, (inaudible)?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I'm not saying somebody came here, I'm was saying tat in the newspaper.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it an official statement made by APLA, I am asking you?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, that's what I'm saying Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you seen the report?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman not now, I don't have the clippings now Mr Chairman, but Mr Chairman I don't have problem that that can be done.

MR MALAN: The difficulty is Mr Mbandazayo, that wasn't put by any of the applicants. It wasn't part of the evidence and you're cross examining on something which we don't have before us, which wasn't put before us and I really don't think that's ... (intervention)

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I'm not saying to the it was put before, I was just asking for the opinion whether he did come across that and he said no Mr Chairman. I don't think this is an issue Mr Chairman, I was just asking him whether he'd come across that.

MR MALAN: You're not ...(indistinct) that they in indeed did accept responsibility, or are you?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman according to my information I have, that is why I'm saying that ... (intervention)

MR MALAN: But why didn't you lead that evidence Mr Mbandazayo?

CHAIRPERSON: If you have such information why hasn't it been put before us?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, Mr Chairman it's not easy Mr Chairman because I'm getting information in drips and drabs. I've said Mr Chairman many a times that this things comes to me in dribs and drabs and I'm trying to conduct, I'm doing the case, they come in dribs and drabs Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: You have our sympathy. Our problem is just we're also getting it in dribs and drabs now.

MR MBANDAZAYO: That's ...(indistinct) Mr Chairman, it's not necessary that Mr Chairman I'm saying I would have done that had I been in a position, put in that position before, I would have done that.

Finally Mr De Castro is it true that there was a march after that incident?

MR P DE CASTRO: I wouldn't know. I wouldn’t know because after the shooting I was away for almost two weeks, out of town and the business was closed as well.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR STEENKAMP: No re-examination thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP

MR MALAN: Mr De Castro there is just on aspect that I would

like to follow up with you (transcribers translation), Mr Steenkamp in his cross questioning of the applicants informed us that there'd be evidence that the people who were shot, that's the victims, first they had to lie down, he did not follow this up with you, but you said that when you got back after you left, you found the people who were dead and injured lying in the places they were. Do you have any indication that they were lying down when they were shot at, or where would Mr Steenkamp have got this statement from?

MR P DE CASTRO: When I fled the supermarket the people were still standing up with their arms in the air against boxes of tomatoes and apples, so I wouldn't be in a position to testify whether they were shot lying down or standing up.

MR MALAN: So you've got no information that first they were made to lie down, nobody told you anything like that?

MR P DE CASTRO: When I returned to the shop the people were all lying down, but I mean I don't have any information about that.

MR MALAN: No but Mr De Castro the people were dead and heavily injured, they couldn't take care of themselves, it's assumed that they would be lying down?

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes they were lying down ja.

MR MALAN: Ja, but you have no information that they were made to lie down before they were shot?

MR P DE CASTRO: No I've never asked anybody about that.

MR MALAN: Okay. Mr Steenkamp if you've got evidence concerning this you must say this to us. Then we must assume that it is not true.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible).

MR MALAN: But you said that no one told you that they were made to lie down before they were shot?

MR P DE CASTRO: You see I wasn't present when the people were actually shot.

MR MALAN: No that's not my question Mr De Castro. My question is whether anyone informed you as to whether they were made to lie down or not?

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes some of them was standing up and some of them was lying down on the floor. Some of them was shot while they were lying down on the floor of the shop.

MR MALAN: My question is whether they were made to lie down. Did you get any such information from any of the victims?

MR P DE CASTRO: Uh okay, yes some of them were made to lie down.

MR MALAN: You have such information?

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes I do.

MR MALAN: Who did you get that from?

MR P DE CASTRO: From Susan and Henk Viljoen.

MR MALAN: But not all of them were made to lie down?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well I ... (intervention)

MR MALAN: From your information and we know this is hearsay?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well some of them was standing up and some of them was lying down, that's my information from the people that was there.

MR MALAN: Thank you Mr De Castro.

CHAIRPERSON: One point and I don't think it's, it may be of no relevance. Somewhere I have read that in addition to this being a Saturday, it was also pension day and there would have accordingly been a lot more customers that day. Is that the position or can't you say?

MR P DE CASTRO: No that wasn't a pension day, it was end of the month because what happens in a country town, a country-side town is most of the people work at the farms and if the last day of the month ends up in the middle of the week then the people will actually get paid on a Friday and Saturday end of the month and they all come to town and that was the day that everybody came to town to do shopping.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman the last witness I'm calling is Joao Avaleno De Castro. He’s present and I can call him.

CHAIRPERSON: Can he come up on - led again by what I've read, is he fit to come up to give evidence. Has he recovered sufficiently?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman I see it's eleven o'clock, I don't know if we can take maybe five minutes I just want to see. He is present I spoke to him this morning, ...(indistinct) to be here but I'm sure he's ready.

CHAIRPERSON: Physically, wasn't the information that he had been ... (intervention)

MR STEENKAMP: He was shot Mr Chairman, he ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible).

MR STEENKAMP: That's correct Mr Chairman but he is able to walk.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible).

MR STEENKAMP: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Castro do you have any problems in standing? Do you mind taking the oath.

JOAO AVALENO DE CASTRO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. What are your full names please?

MR J DE CASTRO: Joao Avaleno De Castro.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman there is a statement of Mr De Castro in front of you.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible).

EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman, Honourable members. Mr De Castro you are the brother of the previous witness, Mr Pedro De Castro, am I right?

MR J DE CASTRO: Right.

MR STEENKAMP: At the time of the incident you were also the co-owner with your brother of the Wesselsbron Supermarket, am I right?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Just before we start can you just indicate to the Committee how were your family affected by this incident. We know you were injured, anybody else?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well you know it affected my life totally. I'm at this stage, you can say I'm, I can't do what I could do before this incident. You know I've only got the full operation of one of my legs, my one foot is totally unfunctional, you know so it's totally changed my whole life and same with my in-laws as well you know, it's affected them terribly. You know they lost their loved ones you know. I mean that's the worst that can happen to a person in life if you've got to lose a loved one you know. You know it's changed our whole, you know family's now sort of you know, we are not together anymore like we used to be you know, and everything has changed you know.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr De Castro at the day of the incident, at the night of the incident am I right in saying you were present in the shop?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes I was.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman maybe I'm leading the witness too much, but just to save time. Am I right in saying you were located in front of the shop?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Am I also right in saying you were present when the attackers entered the shop, am I right?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes I was.

MR STEENKAMP: Can you just briefly tell the Committee what did you see happening inside the shop?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well it was on a Saturday, 3 July 1993 approximately between quarter to nine and nine o'clock and ... (intervention)

MR STEENKAMP: Mr De Castro sorry, can you just maybe speak a bit slower for the translator. Thank you.

MR J DE CASTRO: Sure. Well I had some of my family members over at my house. I had moved from the one house to another house the previous day and the whole family was there by me to help me to move and that's actually the reason why you know, they were at the shop at that present time. So actually in the afternoon I went home and we were watching the rugby on TV and then I came back to the shop and I told them: "Listen I'm closing round about half past eight, nine o'clock, you guys must make a plan and then we'll all walk out together". So that's what we did they, my in-laws, the victims ... (intervention)

MR STEENKAMP: Can you just tell the Committee who were your in-laws?

MR J DE CASTRO: Andries Parker, late Andries Parker, late Chris George Kleynhans and it was Giovani Kleynhans was also there, there was another guy by the name of Frikkie. It was only those four that came and visit me, they were actually waiting till we locked up the shop and we would go home together.

While I was at the store we were working, I actually, just before the incident happened I helped Susan and Henk Viljoen, I was helping them on a take-aways where I made chips and viennas for them and I personally, I was having a russian to eat as well at that stage. After I finished helping them I came out of take-aways and I went and I stood there by the tills where the tills were, where my in-laws were as well.

I was standing there, my wife was also with us because she was one of the cashiers and Peter's wife was also there and then Susan and Henk were going to pay on the checkpoint where my wife was and there was another two chaps as well that had just come in and then I just heard my sister-in-law, Fatima De Castro, I just heard her screaming "Oh my God, oh my God" and ...(intervention)

MR STEENKAMP: Sorry this is now your brother's ...(intervention)

MR J DE CASTRO: Wife.

MR STEENKAMP: Late wife?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right and at the same time I saw the guys walking into the store, but they came in very quickly. There were four armed men, black men and two looked at me and two to the other side but they were standing about 2 ˝ metres away from me and as they entered they demanded: "Money, lie down". Those were their exact words and I then, we had four tills, I then opened up two tills. On my right-hand side I opened up the one till, on my left-hand side the other till and I tried to open up the other one as well but the key wasn't in it .... (intervention)

MR STEENKAMP: Sorry to interrupt you, after they gave this instruction, can you remember what the people in the shop did?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well people started screaming, people started - they were looking for place to, you know sort of kneel down, and as the people went to lie down the other guys were taking the money out of the till. I saw the one shooting the one till which I couldn't open up, he was you know, he shot two or three times on that till, he wanted to get money out. The same time the other guys were just shooting all over you know. I lay on the floor, I was, I had my hands over my head and you know I prayed. I said to myself you know, it can happen any time you know, and ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Castro are you fit to continue with (inaudible)?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes I am Your Honour. Well the one with the briefcase, I saw him helping himself to the money.

MR STEENKAMP: Can you identify that person today, is he present here?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes he's present, I've identified him as well.

MR STEENKAMP: Can you point him out to the Chairperson?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes I can point him out.

MR STEENKAMP: Then do so.

MR J DE CASTRO: The chap, first one on lefthand side.

MR STEENKAMP: ...(indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: ... (Inaudible) pointing out of Mr Bhani, the same person who was pointed out by the previous witness.

APPLICANT BHANI POINTED OUT BY MR J DE CASTRO

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman. You can continue Sir.

MR J DE CASTRO: Then they grab all the money, the cheques that were inside the one till and in the other tills they were looking for money. They couldn't - there was no money whatsoever in the other two tills which were lying open and the one till that was closed they tried to open it up but they couldn't, it was closed and then as we were lying on the floor they just, you know they just went mad, it was shooting all over. I was lying down on the ground, flat on the ground I was shot in my foot.

MR STEENKAMP: Do I understand you correctly, you were injured and shot while you were lying on the floor?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR STEENKAMP: And do I understand you correctly that you're saying that the attackers shot at random at the people lying on the floor?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR STEENKAMP: You can continue.

MR J DE CASTRO: And then there was shooting, they were shooting people on the ground you know and once they shot me in my foot I started screaming and you know I was still looking around to see if there's any of the attackers inside and then they were gone, they left. You know it's ... (intervention)

MR STEENKAMP: Mr De Castro do you have any idea why your shop was attacked?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well I'll say because we were one of the strongest businesses like, in the Free State, and you know we always used to carry a lot of money and that day especially. It was the end of the month and everybody knows as well when Wesselsbron, end of the month in Wesselsbron is very busy and that store gets very very busy the whole day and I think we were a target because we had money with us.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, sorry Mr Chairman.

Mr De Castro you read the evidence of at least two of the applicants, at least in was contained in the applications that the owner of the shop was the Chairperson of the AWB?

MR J DE CASTRO: No it was not so.

MR STEENKAMP: Can you comment on that please?

MR J DE CASTRO: No it is not so. At no stage myself or even my in-laws, because we're very close I would have know, nobody was any member of AWB, no one.

MR STEENKAMP: Do you belong to any political party or were you a supporter of any political party?

MR J DE CASTRO: Not at all, not at all.

MR STEENKAMP: Can you if, maybe tell the Committee, the majority of your shoppers who were they. Who were frequenting your shop mostly?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well we had about 90% black trade and the other 10% white trade.

MR STEENKAMP: So if I just understand you correctly you were saying your business was basically depending on black trade?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR STEENKAMP: Can you, if possible, describe to the Committee what were you relationships with the local community there?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well it's a small town and everybody knows everybody. We used to greet people, you know white people, black people, we used to greet everybody with the hand. I had nothing against nobody, I used to greet black people at that time with my hand. I had no, I couldn't care what people would say to me, say why you greeting a black man, I mean to me black and white we are you know we are all people and you know that is why I say we, you know we had a good relationship with the customers of Wesselsbron, white and black, we had no problems whatsoever.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr De Castro you heard the evidence of the applicants, they were saying that this was a politically motivated incident. Do you have any comment on this?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well if it's political why, why would they come in - they were looking for money, their first words that they walked in they said money, did they say politic, did they say listen I belong to APLA I'm coming here to kill you guys, did they say that, they didn't. They said "money, lie down, open up the tills". We laid down, what happened to us we were shot, we were shot, we were shot like you know like we were minced up, really.

MR STEENKAMP: Was anybody armed in your shop. Was anybody carrying a weapon to your knowledge?

MR J DE CASTRO: No.

MR STEENKAMP: Were you normally carrying a weapon in your shop?

MR J DE CASTRO: No at that stage I had a weapon, I never ever carried my weapon with me, my weapon used to be at home. To be honest with you I've never ever shot with my weapon, I don't know how to shoot. Why would they say I'm a AWB. I'm a business man, I've got no interest in politics whatsoever, I'm a business person. How would my customers feel if I had to be a leader of AWB or a leader of ANC, both ways I mean you know I'm a business man I'm a neutral person. I know - when it's time to vote yes, I have to go, I have to make a decision. I'm not going to tell you what my decision was but that's how I feel but I don't belong to any political group whatsoever.

MR STEENKAMP: Only my last question to you. I understand that you were a very good rugby player in the Wesselsbron rugby team. Is that correct?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes I used to play rugby, I played rugby, I used to play soccer, I used to play golf and at this stage I can't do any. You know this shooting incident changed my whole life, everything. I'm not the same person that I used to be before the shooting incident, you know I was active. I was you know I'm a totally different person today because of this shooting incident, but still even the way I am I still thank God for being alive and I thank God for putting his hands above me and say listen you've got another chance in life.

MR STEENKAMP: Can I maybe just ask you, can you give an estimate what the damage was in your shop. How much did it cost you to repair your shop?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well we must have had about R100 000,00 of damages inside that store, including the money and the cheques which was stolen. Well at that time I was laying in hospital but I was aware of everything that was happening, I mean the store was closed for approximately two weeks. Just in those two weeks I can, you know I haven't made up a sum of how much business we lost in those two weeks.

MR STEENKAMP: Is there anything else you would like to add Mr De Castro?

MR J DE CASTRO: No not at this stage. I would just like to say that you know you have to be - for you to express your feelings you've got to get through a thing. I've been through it and I don't think everybody can feel that way I feel, it's difficult to express yourself to, you know to the people and some people think well why's this guy complaining, I mean I know what I'm talking about you know and I've been through different stages you know.

Some people think for themselves this guy was shot, did they know what thing it is to be shot, do they know what is the feeling to have a bullet in your body. You know it's - let me tell you something, the guys that assaulted us, the guys that came to rob us, the guys that shot us, if all of them had to be shot he would feel that way I feel.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr De Castro. Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr De Castro I'll start by saying I'm sorry to hear what you went through on the day of the incident and your family.

Now you told the Committee how these people entered the shop and you went to open the tills and they told you to lie down ...(indistinct). Did they instructed you to go and open the tills or you did that on your own?

MR J DE CASTRO: As they came in they told me "money", where do you get money, out of my pocket? You get money out of the till, I had to open up the tills in the first place.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And at that time you went to open the tills, were you concentrating on what other people were doing at that particular point in time or were you concentrating on opening the tills?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well you see I was so used to the tills, I know exactly which button, I can be looking at you and I will open up the till for you without a problem. I can do that, yes.

MR MBANDAZAYO: How would you describe the situation, were they looking for a place to hide or were they obeying the orders that they must lie down, or the way that you were saying, that people were screaming and running around?

MR J DE CASTRO: They who?

MR MBANDAZAYO: That's the other people who were in the shop?

MR J DE CASTRO: You talking about the victims or you taking about the robbers?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes the victims. You said that you were instructed to lie down?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right yes.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes. What I'm saying is that, would you describe that situation as if the people were wanting a place to lie down or they were running away just for cover to save their skins?

MR J DE CASTRO: No, the people where they were standing they went and they lie down were they were standing and they were shot where they were lying down.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now they were shot, so definitely it's your evidence that definitely if they were lying down they were shot at their backs?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So do you know what was the - after the post mortem that was the evidence, that they were shot at their backs?

MR J DE CASTRO: After the what?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Post mortem.

MR J DE CASTRO: Post mortem?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Hm.

MR J DE CASTRO: If, do I know?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know that the bodies were examined by a doctor afterwards and he prepared a report known as a post mortem report which would show that they had been shot in their backs. Do you know about that, do you know anything about the post mortem report?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes. Well I won't argue the fact of that but not everybody was laying down on their stomachs, doesn't mean lie down you're lying down with your body to, with your stomach to the floor you can be lying down, you can be kneeling down. My brother in-law, Andries Parker, he was on his knees, he was shot that way. They shot to the floor and it ricochetted on him. The guys were shooting down.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So what you are saying is that it does not necessary mean when you say that they ordered you to lie down they literally lay down, that is the victims?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well they said "money and lie down", and we were trying to lie down.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now the evidence of the applicant is that the people who opened them, the tills for them was a woman?

MR J DE CASTRO: No I did.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And that they shot him, he was the last one to be shot?

MR J DE CASTRO: No it is not so, it is not so.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Where exactly in your foot were you shot?

MR J DE CASTRO: My left foot.

MR MBANDAZAYO: What I'm saying is that inside your left foot or outside?

MR J DE CASTRO: It was on the junction of my foot, on the ankle.

MR MBANDAZAYO: On you ankle?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right. I had to be operated on ...(indistinct) for them to build up my foot again.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Would you agree with me that because of the colour of your skin, you were privileged in South Africa then?

MR J DE CASTRO: No, I won't agree with you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay.

MR J DE CASTRO: You want me to say because I'm a white person I'm better than you? No it is not so, we are all people.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I'm not saying that you are better than me. It may be true that you are better than me, but not necessarily in that sense, I was saying that you were privileged, you had right which other people didn't have?

MR J DE CASTRO: If I was privileged I didn't make use of it in first place.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay. Would you agree with me that even if you were privileged, as you put it, you didn't use that privilege but you had a choice to use it or not to use it?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well as I said if I was privileged I didn't use it, I mean why. You know I live my life like a person, I work for what I've got. I don't steal, I don't go shooting people to earn money. I get up in the morning, I go to work even though I am half crippled, I wake up every morning and I go to work in order to maintain my wife, my children for our needs. That is my life, I don't go around to any organisations, be part of the organisations and do stupid things like they did.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Castro, what I think counsel is suggesting to you is in that the era prior to 1994 white persons were privileged in that they had the vote, they had a say in the running of the country, they could start businesses in white commercial areas and other matters of that nature.

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes we were, I must say the whites were privileged.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Would you agree with me if I say that because of that situation that you were in that position, though you work yourself up that you were in that position, you had business because you worked hard, but to the people, that is the black people, would it not have they regarded that your status in the community having business and all those things is because you happen to belong in a certain class of people, community, that is white community it's because of that?

MR MALAN: Mr Mbandazayo you can take that as common cause as far as the Committee is concerned and accepting the perspective of your clients and the policy of APLA, PAC. Really, as far as the Committee is concerned you don't have to pursue that.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

You said to the Committee that when these people entered they never said that they were APLA and they came to kill you. Would you have expected that if people, maybe they were political motivated to do that, would say those words that we're APLA and we've come to kill you?

MR J DE CASTRO: What ... (intervention)

MR MBANDAZAYO: Or by anything of that sort, not necessarily to say those words?

MR J DE CASTRO: Why did they mention money and lie down? I think if you got to go and steal something from someone you got to him and you grab him and you say listen I want your money.

CHAIRPERSON: We have been told, and I think again this is common cause, that they did go there to take your money, they wanted your money but they wanted it not for their own private use but because their party had sent them to get money.

MR J DE CASTRO: I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt you for a moment? As I understand your evidence, and please you can perhaps clarify a little of what your brother told me, you have told us that you were one of the most prosperous businesses in Wesselsbron?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well yes in the Free State.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) and that means you made a lot of money everyday?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And people, anybody keeping reasonable watch would realise that this was a very profitable business. They would see the customers going in and out all the time?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And your brother has told us that there was about R200 000,00 in the shop at that time?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: But he also told us and I think you agree with this in what you've said, that you're usually closed, by nine o'clock you're usually closed, the only two people there would be you and him?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: And would it be your assumption to clear out the tills, to take the money to put it into the safe and things of that nature?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's what people could be expecting at about nine o'clock, to find two of you there looking after the money?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: You've told us that there was only money, as I understand, you told us that there was only money in one of the tills, the other two were empty?

MR J DE CASTRO: Two were already empty yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Had they already been cleared out?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And had that money been put in a safe place?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: So the closing process had already started?

MR J DE CASTRO: There was another till which my wife was working on that till, it was still full of money but unfortunately I couldn't get it open at that stage so I saw the robbers shooting at the till trying ... (inaudible - end of tape 1).

CHAIRPERSON: ... (Inaudible) and that the robbers could only get at one till?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: And they didn't realise, or it seems they didn't realise that there was lots of money in the safe and your brother said underneath the tills ... (intervention)?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... there's money kept there?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: And none of that was stolen?

MR J DE CASTRO: You see it was hidden away, you couldn't see that money, it was placed in a place where only myself or my brother knew where it is.

CHAIRPERSON: And they made a complete mess of the operation?

MR J DE CASTRO: Exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: Instead of quietly holding you up and saying now get the money out?

MR J DE CASTRO: Exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: But we've been told, and I think you have also confirmed this on your evidence, that they would not have expected to find any people there at that time except the two of you?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes they did their homework, yes and ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And it was purely bad luck that the family people and friends were there?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: They shouldn't have been there?

MR J DE CASTRO: They shouldn't have been there and they were there and the plan went ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Completely wrong.

MR J DE CASTRO: ... totally wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Just while we're at this point Chair please. How many people were in the shop?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well there's five that's been killed with the three that were taken to hospital, my wife, nine, Giovani, ten and then Peter and Facility, I think we were twelve people that night at the store.

MR MALAN: Where was your wife and Giovani at that stage?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well my wife was at the till, she was getting ready to hit the till when Susan and Henk were coming to pay their goods and when they entered my wife she was standing there by the till actually and when they said "lie down", she went and she lie down in front of the till at the bottom.

MR MALAN: And Giovani?

MR J DE CASTRO: She actually hid away.

MR MALAN: And Giovani?

MR J DE CASTRO: And Giovani was on the other side by the fruit and veg side. He went and he, he went and lie down in between the vegetable boxes.

MR MALAN: Was he the only one what you call on the other side?

MR J DE CASTRO: There was another guy there as well, his name was Frikkie.

MR MALAN: Was Frikkie one of the injured?

MR J DE CASTRO: No not at all.

MR MALAN: So who was Frikkie?

MR J DE CASTRO: He was behind the other box.

MR MALAN: No who was he, he wasn't injured or killed?

MR J DE CASTRO: No. Frikkie he would be starting to work with my brother in-law, ...(indistinct), at the panel beater shop.

MR MALAN: I sorry I asked you who all were in the shop at that time and you said the five killed, the three heavily injured plus your wife, Giovani and ...(indistinct).

MR J DE CASTRO: And Frikkie ... (intervention)

MR MALAN: Okay so who's Frikkie?

MR J DE CASTRO: Frikkie was working for my brother in-law.

MR MALAN: So he was also in the shop?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes, he was also visiting at my brother in-law.

MR MALAN: So we're talking about twelve people. Were there other people?

MR J DE CASTRO: No.

MR MALAN: No other black people?

MR J DE CASTRO: No, see it was already after closing time so.

MR MALAN: So Frikkie wasn't wounded either?

MR J DE CASTRO: I beg your pardon?

MR MALAN: Frikkie wasn't wounded either?

MR J DE CASTRO: No.

MR MALAN: Okay thank you.

ADV SOGODI: Sorry. You've just mentioned that you had the busiest business in the Free State?

MR J DE CASTRO: One of the busiest business.

ADV SOGODI: One of the busiest. Well I don't know how big Wesselsbron is or, but were you one supermarket which, I mean were there other supermarkets which would close more or less the same time as you or were you the supermarket which closed the latest?

MR J DE CASTRO: We were the one which closed the latest yes.

ADV SOGODI: And there has been evidence that your supermarket wasn't very far from the police station?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well it was the furthest out of all them away from the police station, yes.

ADV SOGODI: The furthest or the nearest?

MR J DE CASTRO: The furthest.

ADV SOGODI: How far, I mean how far was the police station from you?

MR J DE CASTRO: I'll say about 5 blocks away.

ADV SOGODI: And was your supermarket patronised by the policemen?

MR J DE CASTRO: Petrolised?

ADV SOGODI: Yes patronised.

CHAIRPERSON: Patronised, were policemen among your customers?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes.

ADV SOGODI: Would they come to your supermarket dressed in their uniform?

MR J DE CASTRO: Sometimes yes.

ADV SOGODI: Would they come in groups maybe or would it just be just an individual who would be coming maybe as friends and then be seen to be a group?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well look they used to come and buy, sometimes they were alone, sometimes they had relatives with them. That wasn't my worry, my worry was to do business.

ADV SOGODI: Ja I know, I'm just trying to get the picture from you. And do you know if the Free State was, in the Free State that there was a strong presence of the AWB or do you have knowledge of that?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well as I mentioned earlier, I didn't belong to any political group but I was aware of political organisations, yes.

ADV SOGODI: Were you aware of a strong presence of the AWB in the Free State?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well I heard it direct from the newspaper, I read about it, AWB but I had nothing to do with them I didn't even consider that as any ... (intervention)

ADV SOGODI: No we understand that you had nothing to do but I mean I'm just talking about your perception of what you say happening in the Free State. Do you know what uniform the AWB people wore?

MR J DE CASTRO: Not at all.

ADV SOGODI: So if AWB people came to your shop maybe as a group, you wouldn’t be able to identify them as AWB people?

MR J DE CASTRO: I wouldn't be able to identify them, no.

ADV SOGODI: Thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman, some of the points I wanted to raise have been already raised by the Committee, but I'll just ...(indistinct) by Dr Malan, to follow up on the number of people. You may comment if you have any knowledge, just put it to you. When the applicants were telling their story here it was put to them that they should have killed many people there because there were many people in that shop. Would you regard that as many people, the twelve, the family members, many people or when it was put, the way it was put was such that there were many people in the shop and if they wanted to kill they should have killed many people, that is how it was put to them.

MR MALAN: I think that's again a mistake, it was put that there was better times to kill many people if they wanted to kill many people.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman if that's the case I withdraw the question, maybe I took it from but I thought that. Okay, you talked about the Bhani was having a briefcase on the day in question. Now according to the evidence in Court about the person who was in the garage who saw the attackers leaving the van and entering the supermarket, he did not see any person carrying anything when they entered the shop but he saw them when they were coming out of the shop carrying money bags. ...(inaudible) your comment to that?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's news to me.

MR MALAN: Sir I didn't get your question. Could you just repeat that for my sake?

MR MBANDAZAYO: I'll repeat it Mr Chairman. I'm saying that according to the evidence made in Court, there was a person, a witness, who was in the garage who saw the attackers entering the shop and he did not see them carrying anything, even guns but he heard shots when they were inside but he saw them when they came out of the shop carrying money bags.

MR J DE CASTRO: That is news to me, I really don't I don't agree with you, I don't agree with you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: No further questions Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR STEENKAMP: No re-examination thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP

MR MALAN: I just want to get a clearer picture in my mind as to the lapse of time. If I heard you correctly you saw them entering?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes.

MR MALAN: They were about 2 ˝ metres from you when they said "money and lie down"?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MALAN: What was the position of the till, or your position relating to the till at that time?

MR J DE CASTRO: My position - the supermarket, as you walk into the door there's three checkpoints there, the tills facing the inside of the supermarket. The cashiers would be with their backs to the door. At that time I was standing in between the tills, the cashiers, I was standing like this when I saw them coming in.

MR MALAN: Were you standing ... (intervention)

MR J DE CASTRO: So I was face to face as they came in, with them.

MR MALAN: So you were not standing behind a till?

MR J DE CASTRO: No not at all.

MR MALAN: Did you have to move to get behind the till in order to open it?

MR J DE CASTRO: No, the checkpoints were very nearby to one another so I got hold of the one on my right-hand side, I opened it up with my right hand and the one on my left-hand side I opened it up with my left hand.

MR MALAN: And you did that immediately?

MR J DE CASTRO: I did it immediately as soon as they said "money and lie down", I opened up the tills.

MR MALAN: You opened up the tills and if I heard your evidence correctly, then you went to lie down?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MALAN: How long did that take you?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well it was I'll say maybe a minute or so, maybe seconds, you can't judge.

MR MALAN: Alright and then you also talked about opening the third till which was, the key was not there?

MR J DE CASTRO: My wife tried to open up the third till.

MR MALAN: Were you already lying down when that happened?

MR J DE CASTRO: No I was still standing up. I went and lied down as soon as they opened, they opened fire on the one till then I went and I lied down and that's when everybody started shooting.

MR MALAN: And did you wife also lie down then?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes.

MR MALAN: And then they, did they first shoot at the till before the other shots went off?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes.

MR MALAN: That's when you went to lie down?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MALAN: You weren't lying down when they shot at the till or were you already, can you recall that?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well it was in the process. As soon as they opened fire on the one till then all the other guys opened fire on everybody and I was still busy getting under the one till.

MR MALAN: Right if one now talks about a number of applicants, but the picture that we have is that they had instructions to enter and immediately shoot indiscriminately and that they indeed did?

MR J DE CASTRO: No they didn't.

MR MALAN: Do you have a comment on that?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well as soon as they came in it was very clearly, they said "money, lie down", that is what they said.

MR MALAN: Did you get the impression or what was your impression, why were they shooting?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well I would say they were instructed to come and shoot, if they were instructed to come and shoot white people like they mentioned it then they would come in straightaway and start shooting on the people straight away. Why did they first shot the till, why did they first take the money out of the one till before they started shooting us? It's clearly that this was no political organisation, this was a crime and I believe and I feel strongly that if you do crime you must pay for it.

MR MALAN: When your wife went to lie down was she close to you?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well she was close to my sister-in-law, the deceased sister-in-law, Fatima De Castro.

MR MALAN: And Giovani where was he?

MR J DE CASTRO: Giovani went to the other side where the fruit and veg table was.

MR MALAN: So was Frikkie was also there?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Were they in full view of everybody or would they have been hidden from the view of the attackers?

MR J DE CASTRO: No they were hidden.

MR MALAN: They were hidden, so that explains why they weren't shot?

MR J DE CASTRO: I would say everything happened so quickly you know and ... (intervention)

MR MALAN: But your wife was not out of sight of the applicants at the time or those in the shop?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well she was right next door, they probably thought she was dead.

CHAIRPERSON: You told us she was, as I understood earlier, she was right up against the bottom of the till?

MR J DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I was going to ask if the Committee can allow me, there's a point I wanted to raise with Mr De Castro?

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr De Castro who else do you recognise on the day with the exception of Bhani?

MR J DE CASTRO: I recognise another one that we also went to a, like they call it in Afrikaans "uitken parade", it's a - I recognise another guy, I pointed them out to the police, he's also one of your applicants.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Do you still remember him if you see him now?

MR J DE CASTRO: If I see him I will yes. This guy standing here with the brown. I recognise him very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the person who's just stood up?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And his name?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Silimela Ngesi Mr Chairman.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Do you know what role did he play?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well he was shooting. He said "money, money", he wanted money and then when they shot the one till then everybody started firing.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So is there any other thing which you still remember he did or you have forgotten some of it?

MR J DE CASTRO: Well there were four people that was standing there in front of the door and all four of them used their weapons. It's difficult for me to say if that guy shot a tin of coffee or that guy shot a person, it's difficult to say.

MR MBANDAZAYO: No I agree with you Mr De Castro, it's a long time that's why I'm saying do you still remember, maybe you have forgotten what he said?

MR J DE CASTRO: No I won't forget.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Won't forget?

MR J DE CASTRO: No.

MR MBANDAZAYO: There's no other thing except to say "money" and then they shot, they started shooting?

MR J DE CASTRO: Yes.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Nothing else?

MR J DE CASTRO: They said "money, lie down".

MR MBANDAZAYO: Hm.

MR J DE CASTRO: And I remember Ngesi saying, he was right in front of me that's why I remember him, I can recall his words.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Hm.

MR J DE CASTRO: He shot at me as well, he thought I was dead.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I was asking you just because I was just reading the record that it seems as if he's the, according to the record, he's the one person you were able to identify and that you, if I may use that word, you was a very nasty one, that's why I'm asking what else did he do?

MR J DE CASTRO: Nasty word, which nasty word?

MR MBANDAZAYO: That ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That he was the one I think counsel said, not nasty word he said, apparently he's saying you said he was the nasty one.

MR J DE CASTRO: Well he said "money, money".

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman there's no more.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible).

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman that will be the case for the victims.

WITNESS EXCUSED

 

 

RECALL OF MR GEORGE THABANG MAZETE

CHAIRPERSON: We now have the position that we have, after the applicants gave evidence, being supplied with further statements made by two of them and I think everybody has been supplied with those statements. When I say everybody, all interested parties, that's Exhibits F and G. They were mentioned yesterday and another statement, Exhibit E was also made available then. Do you wish to recall your clients and lead them in respect of these statements?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman I would like to recall George Thabang Mazete.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you been given a copy of Exhibit E?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes I think I have a copy of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mazete you're reminded that you are still under your former oath.

GEORGE THABANG MAZETE: (s.u.o.)

EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Mazete you told the Committee yesterday that you made a statement in front of the Magistrate. If I'm correct you said ...(indistinct) Magistrate ...(indistinct). Do you recall that?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now in your statement before the Magistrate you mentioned certain people. If I may read Mr Chairman just the first? "On 11/6/93 the person who first arrived was Thabo. He arrived there at the corrugated iron shack and the Monday morning he left. On the 25/6 Sipho (?) arrived at Thipe's house, thereafter he went to Andrew's place". Now just before I carry on, can you for the benefit of the Committee tell the Committee what was Thebo?

MR MAZETE: That is Oupa Khotle.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he one of the ...(indistinct)?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Correct Mr Chairman, he was number three.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he the applicant before us today, the third applicant? Will you answer the question?

MR MAZETE: That's is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you tell the Committee who was Andrew?

MR MAZETE: That is the Chairperson of the PAC in ...(indistinct) Township.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And who was Sipho?

MR MAZETE: That is Mangalisekile Bhani.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he the first applicant?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I'll read Mr Chairman.

"He had a firearm when he got there. We took the gun and put it under the mattress in my shack. Both of us slept together in this shack but he washed himself at Andrew's shack".

You have heard what I've read to you. Can you elaborate more what was actually taking place when this thing did happen, what you are saying in this statement?

MR MAZETE: In 1993 ...(indistinct) and as he was a person who was giving us the training in the task force group. At times he would go with me to sleep with me in my shack. As I was a student at that time where I was sleeping we did not have toiletry, he would go to the Andrew's shack house to go and wash.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay. I'll proceed Mr Chairman.

"The Tuesday of the following week he sent me to go and draw up a plan of the supermarket that they attacked. On 3/7/93 approximately nine o'clock I met Sipho and Roger. They asked me to get a spade or to go and look for a spade. That was when we had to bury the firearms at my shack. When I went home I saw a white Datsun bakkie, it stood in the street where I lived.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Mazete can you explain to the Committee what happened, how, why did they wanted a spade to bury the, to hide the weapons, what was actually happening at the time you met them?

MR MAZETE: I saw the van next to where I was staying, they were two and the other people I did not know. They requested me to bring a spade because inside the shack house if you want to do something on the floor, you must use a spade. That is why I went in the house and brought the spade.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Did they tell you the reason why they wanted to hide that weapons and dig them in a hole?

MR MAZETE: No they did not tell me.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you tell the Committee who dug the hole and buried the weapons?

MR MAZETE: That is Silimela Ngesi.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Were you present when that was done?

MR MAZETE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he known by any other name?

MR MAZETE: I did not know him at that time but he was one of those who was present at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: One of the two people you did not know?

MR MAZETE: Yes Sir.

MR MBANDAZAYO: May I proceed Mr Chairman?

MR MALAN: Sorry may I just ask, who was Roger?

MR MAZETE: That is Silimela Ngesi.

CHAIRPERSON: You see in your statement you said, and I'm reading from the lines after your counsel has read to you:

"I then took a spade and I buried the weapons. It was myself, Sipho, Roger and two others who I did not know".

From that it would seem that you knew Roger at the time?

MR MAZETE: I know him because he was called Roger at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MBANDAZAYO:

"We wrapped the weapons in a shawl. There were four weapons, one hand grenade and eight magazines. We buried this inside the shack. Afterwards Sipho gave me R10,00 and I went to a public house. I do not know where they went, but the next day, the Sunday the 4th, Sipho arrived. He took the hand grenade and left R9 000,00 with me and told me to keep it for him".

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you explain to the Committee that part, what was actually taking place. Give the Committee some ...(intervention)

MR MAZETE: Yes he gave me R10,00 and then the took another direction, I went to my place and then the following day he came, that one coming to the R9 000,00 that is not so.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now can you tell the Committee how did you come that you mentioned that you were left with R9 000,00?

MR MAZETE: That is the evidence I give to the police so that they would release me.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I do understand that but why would you say he left R9 000,00, why wouldn't say they left R4 000,00 or R5 000,00 or why specifically or R2 000,00 or R1 000,00, specifically R9 000,00?

MR MAZETE: It was just an amount which came to my head knowing that the, how big is that business. I thought it would be possible for them to get that kind of an amount in that supermarket.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can I proceed Mr Chairman, no questions? "That evening we split up and then the Monday he came to me and we counted the money and it was only then that I saw that it was R9 000,00".

Can you explain that to the Committee?

MR MAZETE: Yes the following day, on Monday, he came but there was no such amount of money.

MR MBANDAZAYO:

"He then left R150,00 and told me that R50,00 is mine and that I must give R50,00 to Pauna (?) and that I must also give R50,00 to Vinger".

Just before that can you explain to the Committee, who is Pauna and Vinger?

MR MAZETE: Pauna and Vinger were those people whom we had trained within the task force with. Thus to say Bhani gave me that kind of money, about R100,00 to give it to them, that I should give each R50,00, it was because they were helping me to take those arms. I was just adding to the statement so that the police would understand the logic that those people were helping me so that they would be able to understand clearly and how they helped me.

MR MBANDAZAYO:

"That's the last time I saw him. Two weeks after the attack on the supermarket other women had to go to my shack where we buried the weapons. We were supposed to remove the weapons, that's myself, Thonsa(?) and Vinger. That was on a Friday. We took it to Thonsa's shack. Last week on Saturday, the last week in Saturday Theboga arrived but this was before this one. That was when he determined that the weapons were no longer at my place. I do not know what happened on the Thursday and I was arrested on the Friday".

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you explain to the Committee that last portion which has just been interpreted to you?

MR MAZETE: After that Theboga came to find out as whether those arms were still safe or not. He knew that day that those arms were no more there, they were at Thonsa's house.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now do you confirm that this is what you told the Magistrate?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Who - you have already told the Committee about Thonsa, or is this the same person with Thona or is just ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thona Mr Chairman. Thank you Mr Chairman. And here you are talking about Thonsa, who is Thonsa? You told us about Pauna that they assisted you with Vinger, now you talk about Thonsa, who is that one?

MR MAZETE: Thonsa is Thonda but it is wrongly spelt here.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thonda?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)?

MR MBANDAZAYO: It's Thonda.

CHAIRPERSON: Thonda?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Sorry is Pauna also Thonda, is that also wrongly spelt?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So it was only Vinger and Thonda?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I'd like the direction because there are two statements, whether it will be necessary first that I lead him through all the statements so that we can be able to post question in conjunction together and point out the differences we see, definite there which I think the other one is different from this?

CHAIRPERSON: Well it's your client who's going to have to - his credibility may well be an issue, it's for you to decide whether you feel it necessary to lead him through it and let him explain.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Which is the other statement?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Exhibit E Mr Chairman. Just - this one, this statement I've just read to you was done before the Magistrate. Now I would like you, there's another statement you made before I think Capt Hugo then, Maj Hugo, there's another statement you made before him. So I would like to take you through that statement and like you, as I'm taking you through the statement I'll ask you to explain and I will refer you to the previous statement to explain the differences which are there in this statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you do so can I ask and I think Mr Steenkamp, whether there's a copy of this statement available?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman it was handed to yourself I think yesterday, but I'm sure we can just make another copy available.

CHAIRPERSON: I have the original, I don't want to make notes on it. Neither of the two Committee members have copies they tell me.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman it was definitely handed out yesterday but I will make copies available again.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a two minute adjournment and do that now. You may be getting some information. Is there a copy ...(indistinct)? ... (Inaudible) be recorded that although I have been in possession of the original, it has now been handed to Mr Steenkamp and he is now responsible for it.

MR STEENKAMP: I confirm that Mr Chairman.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can I proceed Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible).

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Mazete there is a statement you made before Capt Hugo there. I think it was, the date is on the 24th of October 1993. Do you still remember making a statement before Capt Hugo?

MR MAZETE: Yes that is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Before you made the statement do you still remember what did he tell you, before you made the statement to him?

MR MAZETE: (Inaudible - beginning of side B of tape 2).

MR MBANDAZAYO: That you have a right not to make a statement, you can make your statement in Court, all that procedure. You have a right to an attorney before you make that statement. Did he explain those things before you, did he follow that procedure?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And that you opted not to obtain any legal services of an attorney?

MR MAZETE: That is not so.

MR MBANDAZAYO: What did you tell him?

MR MAZETE: I did not say anything to him. I told him about the attorney.

MR MBANDAZAYO: You told him about the attorney. Did you tell him that you want an attorney before you make a statement, let me put it that way?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: What did he say to you?

MR MAZETE: He said to me I have the right to have an attorney.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Then what did you do after that?

MR MAZETE: I did not do anything.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Did he not ask you who was your attorney or do you have an attorney or you want to be appointed one, or do you want somebody to be appointed to assist you? What did he say to you?

MR MAZETE: He did not say anything about that, the attorney.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay. Let's proceed and go to the statement. As I'm reading the statement then I'll always point to the other statement which you made before the Magistrate. Mr Chairman you will bear with me, it's difficult to - I'll make mistake as I'm reading the handwriting, don't get it. "I would like to make the following statement: Two weeks before the end of June in 1993 myself, Thebo, Sipho and Roger met at Swartman Shimee's house in Monyakeng in Wesselsbron. Thebo asked me ...",. Okay, let me before we proceed, for the benefit of the Committee, is it Thebo, who is this Thebo?

MR MAZETE: That is Oupa Khotle.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And Sipho?

MR MAZETE: That is Mr Bhani.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And Roger?

MR MAZETE: Silimela Ngesi.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay. "Thebo asked me if I own a shack. I told him that I do have one. On the 18th of June 1993 Thebo asked me to go and hide weapons in my shack and I agreed". Can you tell the Committee about this weapons which Thebo asked you to take to your shack?

MR MAZETE: That is not correct here. I fabricated this evidence so that they would understand me.

MR MBANDAZAYO: "The same day, that night myself and Sipho buried four weapons with magazines in my shack on Monyakeng in Wesselsbron.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now you talked about the other weapons and the same day now since, correct me if I'm wrong, that there's another set of weapons which came with Sipho. Can you explain that?

MR MAZETE: No that is not correct even here. I said so because I wanted that the police should understand what I wanted to tell me so that they would release me.

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Mbandazayo why do you say a second set. Isn't he referring to the same weapons? He asked him on the 18th whether he had a shack, whether he would hide the weapons and that he consented to doing so. He said in that evening Sipho and himself took the four guns, magazines ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's a different one to this one.

MR MALAN: Oh you're referring to the first statement?

MR MBANDAZAYO: That's right.

MR MALAN: Apology then.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I'm the person who did not come clearly that, I'm sorry Mr Chairman I'm the one who did not come up clearly about this.

MR MALAN: No the Chair did hear so, the mistake is mine.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. "Now on Saturday 3rd of June or July, it's the 3rd of June at approximately between seven and eight o'clock that night Thebo and Sipho and myself again buried or dug out the weapons and took it to Shimee's house. At Shimee's house it was myself, Thebo, Roger, Sipho, Rider and two unknown black men. Thebo gave me R10,00 to go and buy cigarettes. When I came back I found only Thona and Vinger at the house.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Mazete you are saying in this statement that Thebo, Sipho came and you dug up the same weapons and you took them to Shimee's house. Let me before, for the benefit maybe the Committee will want to know who is Shimee. Is there any person by the name Shimee?

MR MAZETE: Yes.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, who was he?

MR MAZETE: As I've explained later that Shimee was the Chairperson of the PAC branch in Monyakeng Township.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So Shimee's the same as Andrew you referred to in one of your statements, that is the Chairman?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now can you tell the Committee about this 3rd July incident where you went to dug up the weapons and took them to the Chairman's house?

MR MAZETE: That is not correct even there. I just added on the statement so that my evidence before the police would be understandable and so that they will be able to release me. That is the ploy I did at that time.

MR MALAN: Can you please explain to me if you elaborate on your evidence for them to release you, why would they release you if you tell them all this?

MR MAZETE: I thought that would be the statement which will be satisfactory to them.

MR MALAN: Yes but it's satisfactory to get a conviction, not to release you, from their perspective?

MR MAZETE: That is where I do not know because that would be their position, not mine.

MR MALAN: Are you saying, just for me to be clear in my mind, that you thought if you told them that you participated in some way in a robbery and a killing and dealing with arms that were illegally held, that they would say fine thank you for your statement goodbye, go your good way and may you be well. Is that what you thought?

MR MAZETE: No.

MR MALAN: Then why would they release you?

MR MAZETE: Not that much for them to release me but to let me not continue with their torture.

MR MALAN: Before you continue tell me who's Rider?

MR MAZETE: I do not know a Rider.

MR MALAN: Thank you Mr Mbandazayo.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thanks Mr Chairman.

ADV SOGODI: Sorry just on that point, what do you mean you do not know him. You mentioned him in your statement?

MR MAZETE: I'm surprised where that name came from in my statement.

ADV SOGODI: You mean there was no person called Rider that was present or you just mentioned a name which you don't know?

MR MAZETE: He, I did not mention that name when I made that Statement before the police.

ADV SOGODI: I don't understand how it came to be here in your statement?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman be of assistance. The Committee what it wants is that - let me put it like that - is there any person you know by the name Rider?

MR MAZETE: No.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now how did it come that - that's what they want - that there is a name Rider in your statement, yet you don't know any person by that name. In fact Mr Chairman if I may add is that this, it seems as if it's one name, because there's no comma.

CHAIRPERSON: Sipho Rider?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Sipho Rider this - can you be able to explain that to the Committee?

MR MAZETE: I don't know how it came about that that name should be in my statement, but what I remember whilst I was still in their offices, they showed me some photos. There was that name on one photo. When I wrote the statement I didn't mention Rider.

ADV SOGODI: Sorry. I just wish to draw it to attention. If you look on the following page, the second paragraph where it starts:

"At Shimee's house we found there were weapons. It was myself, Thebo, Sipho, Roger, Rider and the two unknown men".

So to me it looks like, ja it looks to me like that it wasn't one name like Sipho Rider on the other side.

MR MAZETE: No, you're right.

CHAIRPERSON: So that seems to be the true position, it's not one name, it's just they've omitted the comma.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman I also see it now. Let me ask you this way, you just told the Committee that you, there was a photo with the name Rider, maybe you'll help us. Did you recognise that photo, whose photo was it which had the name Rider. Does it associate with any person you know?

MR MAZETE: Yes that is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Who was that person?

MR MAZETE: That is Bhani.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So what you are saying to the Committee is that you didn't know the name Rider?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: ...(indistinct), let me repeat. You have already told the Committee about the name but I want to know which name did you know him about?

MR MAZETE: Sipho.

MR MBANDAZAYO: I don't know whether the Committee - is there any question ...(indistinct)?

CHAIRPERSON: This may be a convenient stage, there's just one point I would like to clarify, I think I may have missed something. We were told about Thonda, were we given another name for him? Do you know Thonda by another name?

MR MAZETE: Yes that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What is his other name?

MR MAZETE: That is Paulos ...(indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Quarter to ... (intervention)

MR MALAN: May I just ask, and Vinger - if we could just finish this, do you know Vinger by another name?

MR MAZETE: Vinger is the same name, the full name is David Vinger.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will now adjourn till quarter to two.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Mazete I'll proceed and read part of your statement to Capt Hugo.

"While we were on our way to go and fetch the weapons at my house Thebo told me that they are going to attack the supermarket".

Can you comment on that part of your statement?

MR MAZETE: No that is not correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Did you tell Capt Hugo about that?

MR MAZETE: Yes.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now:

"After I bought the cigarettes and I did not find them at the house I assumed they had gone to the supermarket. Afterwards I went to a shebeen and after nine o'clock I went home. On the way to my house I met Sipho and Thebo. Sipho asked me to walk with them to Shimee's house in order to go and fetch the weapons so that we can once again bury them in my house".

Now if you heard what you have said here it's different to what you told the Magistrate as to the sequence of events as to what actually happened that you met Sipho and Roger and that they asked you to come with a spade and that you wanted to bury the weapons and there was nothing said that you went to fetch the weapons to another place and you took them to your house to be buried. Can you comment on that?

MR MAZETE: Yes before this Committee, but I was not there at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't quite understand that answer. Could you repeat it? You were asked to explain the difference between what you told the Magistrate and what you've said in this statement.

MR MAZETE: They would not be the same. The statement I did before the police it is clear that that is not what I knew. It was a fabricated evidence that I gave to the police to satisfy them.

CHAIRPERSON: You keep saying this but why should fabricated evidence satisfy the police?

MR MAZETE: May you please repeat the question Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: You keep telling us that this is fabricated evidence that you told to satisfy the police, but why should they be satisfied with fabricated evidence?

MR MAZETE: That is the way I was trying to make myself free from them.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew that other of your colleagues had already been arrested, didn't you?

MR MAZETE: Yes I knew.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can I proceed Mr Chairman?

MR MALAN: May I just ask two things. Your first answer when you were asked to explain this, did you say that you were not there. Was that the first explanation, did I hear you correctly?

MR MAZETE: Yes that is correct.

MR MALAN: So where were you at the time?

MR MAZETE: I was at Titello's(?) house.

MR MALAN: But in your statement to the Magistrate you say that at approximately nine o'clock you met Sipho and Roger and they asked you for a spade?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Where was this?

MR MAZETE: Can you repeat, I don't understand the speaker please?

MR MALAN: You say that at approximately nine o'clock on the night of the robbery you met with Sipho and Roger, that's Bhani and Ngesi, if I understand it correctly. Where did you meet with them?

MR MAZETE: In the street before, next to my sister's house in the township.

MR MALAN: Right and they asked you to get a spade you said to the Magistrate?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Where did you find that spade?

MR MAZETE: I knocked them they opened then I took the spade, then I left because at the time they were asleep.

MR MALAN: Who did you knock at?

MR MAZETE: To my sister's room.

MR MALAN: Was that in your shack, was she your sister living in your shack by that time?

MR MAZETE: No.

MR MALAN: Where was she living?

MR MAZETE: In the township.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

"At Shimee's house we found the weapons. It was me, Thebo, Sipho, Roger, Rider and the two unknown black men".

CHAIRPERSON: May you repeat that again please, Sipho, Roger...?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Sorry Mr Chairman did you get the first name, Thebo, it's Thebo Mr Chairman the first one and Sipho, Roger, Rider and the unknown black men.

"We all went to my shack where we buried the weapons".

Can you tell the Committee what this names Thebo, Sipho, Roger, Rider and the two unknown black men. There's this name Rider, there's an addition of Rider now as it was raised earlier on by a member of the Committee?

MR MAZETE: That is Bhani.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Is Rider Bhani?

MR MAZETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Then who is Thebo?

MR MAZETE: Oupa Khotle.

MR MALAN: And Sipho, that's also Bhani?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Why did you mention his name twice by different names?

MR MAZETE: This name was first upon me by the police after they showed me his photo, which was written Rider. When I wrote that statement they disputed that Sipho is the same person so they wanted me to include Rider again on the statement.

MR MALAN: Did you tell them that Rider was also Bhani?

MR MAZETE: No ,they did not ask me as to whether who is Sipho and who is Bhani.

MR MALAN: Why did you not tell them?

MR MAZETE: I didn't know his full names at that time.

MR MALAN: Whose full name?

MR MAZETE: Rider.

MR MALAN: Did you know Sipho's full name?

MR MAZETE: No.

MR MALAN: But you knew that his name was Bhani?

MR MAZETE: No I did not know.

MR MALAN: Did you tell them that Sipho and Rider was the same person?

MR MAZETE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYO:

"Afterwards Sipho gave me R10,00 and I went to a shebeen. Later that evening I met Sipho, Roger and Papie(?) at a nightclub".

Can you tell the Committee who's Papie now?

MR MAZETE: He's a member of the PAC within the Monyakeng branch.

MR MALAN: Sorry what is his full name, Papie?

MR MAZETE: I don't know his first name, I only know his surname.

MR MALAN: What is his surname?

MR MAZETE: Thipe.

MR MBANDAZAYO:

"A week after the above mentioned people left, I sold or my sister told me that two women was going to come and stay in my shack. I will go and live with my sister while the two other women would go and live in my shack. On the 14th of July 1993 the two black women moved into my shack and on the 16th of July me, Vinger, Thonda moved the weapons to Thonda's shack on Monyakeng, Wesselsbron. On Friday the 22nd of October" ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Have you given us Thonda's other name, Thonda, it's Paulos Mohape?

MR MBANDAZAYO:

"On Friday the 22nd of October 1993 I was questioned by the police with regards to the weapons. I said that I do not know where the weapons are but later on I took the police to Thonda's shack where I dug out the weapons. I saw the weapons and I assumed there's got to be four of them. I was then arrested".

Now Mr Mazete can you explain the omission of the question of the money which you mentioned before the Magistrate in your statement. In this statement you told the Committee that Bhani came on Sunday and also on Monday, given R150,00 after you have counted money but in your statement to Capt Hugo there's nothing of that sort. Can you explain that to the Committee?

MR MAZETE: It would be possible that in those two statement as they were I did not mention all this facts. There'd be other issues which I would not include in other statements like this one.

MR MBANDAZAYO: That's all Mr Chairman at this stage.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO

MR MALAN: Are you saying that your explanation is that you didn't include all the facts in all the statement, that's why there's no reference to the R9 000,00 in the statement to the police?

MR MAZETE: That is correct. It would be possible that I put it in. I'm surprised that I did not say about it in this ... (intervention)

MR MALAN: Why are you surprised?

MR MAZETE: Because I did not mention it.

MR MALAN: So should you have mentioned it?

MR MAZETE: Because it was not my intention to mention it in the first place.

MR MALAN: Are you saying that it did indeed happen?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So did you count the money?

MR MAZETE: No.

MR MALAN: So what did happen?

MR MAZETE: Nothing happened.

MR MALAN: Can you please try and lead me through this again. You said you see that in your statement to the police you did not mention the R9 000,00, but you did in your statement to the Magistrate. Is that correct?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: You also said you were surprised, you are surprised to see that you did not mention in your statement the R9 000,00 to the police, in your statement to the police. ?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Now what is the story behind the R9 000,00, tell us about the R9 000,00?

MR MAZETE: There's nothing about the R9 000,00.

MR MALAN: Why did you tell the Magistrate about the

R9 000,00?

MR MAZETE: To act the evidence I gave before the Magistrate.

CHAIRPERSON: To do what?

MR MAZETE: To act on my evidence which I gave before the Magistrate.

MR MALAN: Did you hear - what's his name, Mr Joao De Castro, did you hear him when he gave evidence here earlier this morning?

MR MAZETE: Yes.

MR MALAN: Did you hear him say that according to their calculations approximately R8 700,00 was stolen?

MR MAZETE: It might be so, even if I don't remember.

MR MALAN: No but did you hear him say that?

MR MAZETE: Yes.

MR MALAN: Can you explain why the amount that you mentioned, the R9 000,00 and his assessment of about

R8 700,00 is so close to each other?

MR MAZETE: I just picked the R9 000,00 so I don't know anything about the R8 700,00.

MR MALAN: When you were asked, when you were taken through the statement about the R9 000,00 by your counsel you explained it, you said the R9 000,00 that you mentioned in your statement to the Magistrate is not true and you were then asked to explain why that was mentioned. At that stage your answer, which I wrote down, is that you told it to the police so that they would release you. Is that correct?

MR MAZETE: That's correct.

MR MALAN: But Mr Mazete that statement was not to the police, that statement was to the Magistrate, isn't that correct?

MR MAZETE: You're correct.

MR MALAN: And to the police you didn't mention it at all. Isn't that also correct?

MR MAZETE: You are not correct.

MR MALAN: Let me put it differently, in your statement to the police it is not mentioned at all. Isn't that correct?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Now you also said that when you gave your evidence to the Magistrate, when you made the statement to the Magistrate, that was a free statement, in fact if I remember correctly, that was about the only statement or part of the statement that you denied, the rest you confirmed. Isn't that also so? Well it's not really necessary for you to reply to that. Let me just ask you this again. Could you give your explanation to us as to why the R9 000,00 was mentioned in the statement to the Magistrate but not in your statement to the police?

MR MAZETE: I have already told the police about the R9 000,00 maybe those people who were writing omitted it.

MR MALAN: But isn't that a very crucial part of their case? Why would they have omitted such a crucial part of their case?

MR MAZETE: I don't have a reason, I don't have any idea why did they leave it out.

CHAIRPERSON: Well why did you tell it to the Magistrate?

MR MAZETE: As I've already explained that I told him just that because I was making a confession statement. Why he wrote it I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: But you told him this, you made it up?

MR MAZETE: I did not tell him that I made it up.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you invented this R9 000,00 you've told us. Is that correct?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you told the Magistrate about the R9 000,00 you'd been given to look after?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Why? Why did you tell it to the Magistrate?

MR MAZETE: But this is how I made my confession statement and because I've already mentioned it to the police.

CHAIRPERSON: But why tell it to the Magistrate, if police hadn't written it down?

MR MAZETE: I did not know, I mentioned this before the Magistrate as I did before the police.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you chose to mention it. Is that what you're saying?

MR MAZETE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You thought it would help you?

MR MAZETE: That is correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember you gave evidence yesterday?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember saying: "I made a statement to the Magistrate and said I'd been given

R9 000,00 and R50,00 after the money had been counted"?

MR MAZETE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: "I was forced to do so. Even before I made the statement, I was threatened by the police that I should tell the Magistrate"?

MR MAZETE: I did not tell him.

CHAIRPERSON: You've just told us you told the Magistrate and you chose to mention it because you thought it would help you?

MR MAZETE: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MAZETE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: "I was forced to do so. Even before I made this statement I was threatened by the police that I should tell the Magistrate".

MR MAZETE: I did not tell him.

CHAIRPERSON: You've just told us you told the Magistrate, and you chose to mention it because you thought it would help you.

MR MAZETE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Mr Mazete, in an amnesty application you have to satisfy the Committee of two things, the one is that you had a political motive, the other is that you're telling the truth, making a full disclosure. If you don't satisfy the Committee on both, we cannot, even if we'd want to, give you amnesty. So in the interest of a full disclosure, because this is now confusing and we will have to study the evidence and the transcription, let me ask you a straightforward question. Did you ever see any of the money taken at the supermarket, any of the money?

MR MAZETE: No.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. I think the last aspect I would like to canvass before he steps down would be the one of the signature with him. I would like the Committee to go back, to re-visit the signature aspect.

Mr Mazete, do you still have the bundle that you were given yesterday, the copy of your application form where you have that signature.

MR MAZETE: Yes, I do have it.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now do you have the application in front of you? Can you look at the place where you signed where it said: "Deponent".

MR MAZETE: Yes, I do have.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now I want to ask - I asked you yesterday, and even the Committee has requested you to make a specimen of your signature. I want to ask you again, is that your signature?

MR MAZETE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you be able to make that signature again, for the benefit of the Committee?

MR MAZETE: Yes, I will do.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't want him sitting and copying the signature now, that will have no value.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I'm not saying he must copy, I want him to make a signature.

Now I'll give you a paper.

PAPER HANDED TO APPLICANT FOR 2ND SPECIMEN SIGNATURE

CHAIRPERSON: I propose changing the original signature to being D1 and to marking this D2.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

SPECIMEN SIGNATURE HANDED IN AS EXHIBIT D2

CHAIRPERSON: You might like to compare it with the

signature he did yesterday, D1.

While you're on the question of signatures, will you look at page 2 of your application, have you got it there? Somebody has made a mark on paragraph 9.4 where it's been scratched out. My recollection is that you said that was not yours, is that correct? I think you said yesterday that was not yours.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember that?

MR MAZETE: Yes, that is what I said yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: You're quite sure that is not yours, that you did not make that?

MR MAZETE: Yes, it is my signed.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you say now it is yours?

MR MAZETE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well why did you say yesterday it wasn't?

MR MAZETE: There were many things that did not satisfy me in this form yesterday, that is why I said all the things that are written on this paragraph were not written by me and that is not my sign.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry I don't understand. You were either telling the truth when you looked at it and said it was not your sign, or you were not telling the truth. You now say it is your sign, is that the truth or isn't it?

MR MAZETE: Yes, I'm telling you the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Well why couldn't you recognise your own sign yesterday?

MR MAZETE: I realised that it was my sign but I did not agree with the things that were written in that paragraph, that is why I ended up saying that it is not my signature.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were lying to us. You say you recognised it as your signature but you lied to us when you said it was not yours, is that what you are now saying?

MR MAZETE: No, I was not lying.

CHAIRPERSON: Well how can it not be a lie? You tell us you recognise it as your signature, that you recognised it yesterday as your signature but when you gave evidence you said it was not. Your counsel has confirmed it, my note confirms it.

MR MAZETE: I don't understand your question, can you please repeat?

CHAIRPERSON: I have repeated it several times. Yesterday you were given this document to look at and you said that that mark was not yours, do you remember?

MR MAZETE: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You have just told us that it was your mark and that you recognised it as your mark yesterday.

MR MAZETE: Yes, I realised that it is similar to my signature although I did not agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say it is similar to your signature, are you changing your evidence yet again?

MR MAZETE: No, I'm not changing my evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not intend to take the matter further, we will come to the necessary conclusions on the evidence he has given.

MR MALAN: Chair, may I just ask this question then, just in the interest of the applicant?

If you recognised it yesterday as simply similar, what in the meantime made it sure that it is mark? Why can it not still be a similar mark made by someone else?

MR MAZETE: I don't think so.

MR MALAN: Are you sure that it's your mark?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And yesterday you were not sure?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And you say yesterday you were not sure?

MR MAZETE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: And you said so because you didn't agree with the contents of the application?

MR MAZETE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Do you today agree with the contents of the application?

MR MAZETE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: So what did you not agree with yesterday?

MR MAZETE: Not necessarily that paragraph but in other paragraphs in that statement, for example 10(a).

MR MALAN: I still don't understand why you are today convinced and yesterday not but let's leave it there.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude your questioning?

MR MBANDAZAYO: That's correct Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP

MR MALAN: I just want to ask you one thing. The two men that you refer to in both statements that were not known to you when you met up with Bhani and the others, have you since established who they were?

MR MAZETE: No, even today I don't know them.

MR MALAN: Have you never discussed that occasion with any of your colleagues?

MR MAZETE: We did discuss with them about them.

MR MALAN: Did they know the two men?

MR MAZETE: They also know where these two people are.

MR MALAN: No, that's not my question. Do they know what the names of those two people are, not where they are, what their names are?

MR MAZETE: They know them.

MR MALAN: Now did they tell you?

MR MAZETE: Yes, they did.

MR MALAN: Now what are their names?

MR MAZETE: Because I don't them so I don't remember their names because we don't discuss these names on a daily basis.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You may go.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, he is the only person I wanted to call, ...[indistinct] two statements. I'll not be calling Mohape.

CHAIRPERSON: You are aware that the statements conflict almost entirely with his evidence, his prior statement?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I agree with you fully but I'm of the view that when Mr Malan yesterday, most of the parts he canvassed when he was looking at the Judgment, most of the parts of the statement which are covered in the Judgment, he canvassed most of the parts of the statement which don't agree with his evidence ...[indistinct]

CHAIRPERSON: I'm thinking for example, the fact that he had the weapons for some considerable time. I'm sorry, as you can see I've got my papers in a bit of a mess. No, sorry, he conflicts with Mazete in that he talks of Mazete having come to him to move the weapons, which Mazete denied flatly. And you are not calling him to dispute it?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Does that conclude all the evidence in connection with this application?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, as far as the applicants are concerned that's the evidence so far, but Mr Chairman, it is my view and I request the Committee to grant me to get somebody from PAC and APLA to give evidence on the operation itself.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if they can come by tomorrow, certainly. They've had ample notice of this hearing.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I'm trying to do my best.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not blaming you, I know the problems you've had before, it's merely that we have had, at other hearings, the same problem that APLA and the PAC are not particularly forthcoming when it comes to the question of giving evidence at their members' applications, are they? You've had problems before, I seem to remember you have phoned, you have left messages and you have had no reply.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman, that's the case Mr Chairman. You know very well how I struggle but Mr Chairman I've tried to, because I was trying to get Mpathlele but it seems as if he has given now a mandate to his deputy and other members who were in the decision-making, that somebody can come and give evidence.

Now the problem I'm having at the present moment Mr Chairman, is to get hold, whether I can get, because they were not aware of that. That's the problem I have at the present moment. He has delegated them to, that they can come and give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: At moment, I'm speaking for myself, I don't feel inclined to adjourn this matter beyond tomorrow and you must make every endeavour to get somebody here by then.

MR MALAN: May I not ask if Mr Mpathlele himself could give that evidence. Why did he not come? He was fully informed about this application.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Through you Mr Chairman. I wouldn't like to go through - Mr Chairman, knows it very well, the difficulties ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: He was an applicant. He had full knowledge of this application. He has appeared on a number of occasions, very few I would agree.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, I would agree with you. He appeared just to come and sit and not to participate even though he is an applicant in most of these cases, so that's the problem I'm having Mr Chairman.

If he comes here he does not come here just to, he just comes and tells me he has just come to give the moral support to the applicants, not for himself to participate.

CHAIRPERSON: Hardly the attitude one would have expected of a senior party official. Certainly if the applicants were acting on behalf of his party he would have a moral obligation to render them assistance, but we will adjourn until tomorrow and see what happens.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I would indicate that we had hoped in all these three applications, that we would be able to conclude them with oral argument, but in the light of the changes that have taken place in the present application and the various documents that have been handed in, I think it would be unfair to expect counsel at the present time, to be able to deal fully with possible conflicts that exist. So it seems we will have to agree that the record of the proceedings be obtained and thereafter written argument be submitted, but we can decide the dates on that tomorrow.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Chair, if you will allow me, I think counsel may well be able to do that but the Committee will be unable to follow him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

AMNESTY HEARING

DATE: 20TH AUGUST 1998

NAME: LERATO ABEL KHOTLE

APPLICATION NO: AM 5619/97

MATTER:WESSELSBRON/THABA'NCHUPOLICE ATTACK

DAY : 4

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

CHAIRPERSON: Right shall we proceed with the next matter?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Which one is that?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, it's the Wesselsbron/Thaba'Nchu Police Attack.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman, if I may address the Committee.

Mr Chairman, there are only two applicants in the matter and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Who are they?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Lerato Abel Khotle and Moalusi Morrison. I must also thank my learned friend for bringing this case because I feel that it's a sequel to the one we have just heard.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it the reason there are only two applicants is that Mazete did not make application in respect of this incident in his application and Mr Mpashlele Raymond Nklapa has elected not to appear, is that correct, because there were originally four applicants?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, my impression, I don't know about Mazete, my impression is that it's Mohape who is supposed to have been an applicant in this matter. It is supposed to be Mohape.

CHAIRPERSON: Now Mazete is the person whose papers have been included and they have no reference to this at all.

MR MBANDAZAYO: That is why I'm saying Mr Chairman, because the weapons were finally at Mr Mohape where they were to be removed from, that's the point I'm trying to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But this is not the weapons, this is the attack on the police.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Well Mr Chairman, let me not give something in but my understanding is that I understand a certain attack on the police but it's a result of the weapons which were taken from one of the applicants in the previous case, which were kept by him. The evidence will indicate that they went, the reason they attacked the police were coming from removing the weapons.

MR MALAN: Are you saying that he should be added to this incident on the basis of him having had knowledge of the attack on the police or simply in terms of the possession of the arms?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I'm saying that although Mr Mohape is the only one who should have been an applicant if he knew what actually happened with the police, because at the time they attacked the police were from him to remove the firearms but definitely he has no knowledge of what happened after they left with the firearms from his place.

CHAIRPERSON: He's already applied for amnesty for possession of the firearms, that is the application you handed in.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, I'm saying that he applied for possession of arms because they did not take all the firearms when they went to remove them from him. So, on the way they met the police, that is where this all happened.

MR MALAN: So you're not suggesting that he be heard again on this matter.

MR MBANDAZAYO: No, Mr Chairman, I'm not. Definitely Mr Chairman he has no knowledge of that. I was just explaining to the Committee that that is a sequel from that one, though the others didn't know about the whole thing. I was doing that for the benefit of the Committee. Mr Chairman, with the permission of the Committee I will call Lerato Khotle to take the witness stand.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, if I may, I've managed to establish that this applicant actually pleaded guilty in the Regional Court. I've managed to get a copy of his pleas of guilty in the Regional Court, and with your permission I beg leave to hand it in as Exhibit A.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you seen it?

MR STEENKAMP: I only managed to get hold of this document this morning Mr Chairman. ...[indistinct] never asked for the Regional Court. I can just put it on record, maybe I must put it on record. I saw in the application there was a Regional Court Case Number and I asked the Regional Court and the investigating officer to go and have a look in the Regional Court and see if we can trace this plea of guilty, which we did.

CHAIRPERSON: Why wasn't it given if you got it this morning to Mr Mbandazayo before lunch. They could have looked at it over the adjournment.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, there was difficulty logistically to make a copy of the police documents.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I don't think it would be fair for him to call his client when there is a document that he has not had an opportunity of consulting his client on and I think he must be given an opportunity for himself to read it and thereafter consult his client. What we have been given in a statement made by the applicant which seems to be a number of pages.

Now let's start again. The document I have been given goes to page 4, paragraph 7, 8, the next page, paragraphs 9, 10, 11, the next page, 12 and 13, the next page, 16, 17 and 18. What has happened to paragraphs 14 and 15?

Have you got them?

ADV SIGODI: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got them?

MR MALAN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: None of us have got those paragraphs.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I will endeavour to get copies of those documents, original as well, and make a proper copy. I didn't have the opportunity to have a look the document myself but I know there is a copy missing.

CHAIRPERSON: A page missing.

MR STEENKAMP: I mean a page missing.

CHAIRPERSON: That should be attended and we will take a short adjournment until you've had an opportunity. Let us know as soon as you are ready.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: The application at present before us is an application by Mr Lerato Abel Khotle and Mr Moalusi Morrison in respect of an incident which has been referred to as the Wesselsbron/Thaba'Nchu Police Attack. There are only two applicants remaining in that the third applicant who appears in the bundle has not in fact applied for amnesty in respect of these incidents and the fourth applicant has elected not to continue with his application and is not present.

Before hearing the application, I would like to make certain remarks, and those are that the Committee hearing the application is the same Committee as heard the previous application. Although that was a separate application, the two applicants in the present application were involved in that application, and it would appear from the papers, the same political parties are involved. In these circumstances, in the light of the fact that we heard considerable evidence as to the aims of the political party, particularly the aims at that particular time and the aims of the persons who were members of the party, it will not be necessary for the applicants in the present application to lead similar evidence. We will have regard to the evidence that has already been put before us. A further reason for arriving at this decision is that the present incident is directly connected with the application that we have just concluded. Will that meet the - have either the applicant or the Evidence Leader anything to say in that regard?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I have nothing to say except we accept it on the part of the applicants, the decision of the Committee, and we abide by it, thank you.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I don't have any comment. We are actually grateful that this matter can actually be dealt with as it is dealt with now.

CHAIRPERSON: As I've already indicated, the panel remains the same. Will you gentlemen put yourself on record for the sake of the transcribers?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. My name is Lungelo Mbandazayo and I'm appearing on behalf of the applicants in this matter, thank you.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, my name is Andrè Steenkamp, I'm the Evidence Leader and I'm also representing the victims in this matter.

MR MBANDAZAYO: May I proceed Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: You may.

MR MBANDAZAYO: May the applicant be sworn in?

LERATO ABEL KHOTLE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Will you once again give us your full names please?

MR KHOTLE: Lerato Abel Khotle.

EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Khotle, you have an affidavit in front of you which is also before the Committee. Do you confirm that this affidavit was made by yourself and you abide by its contents?

MR KHOTLE: That is correct Sir.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, that is the evidence of the applicant.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Sir, my instructions are that both the victims in this matter are opposing your application on the grounds that there was no political motive for this incident. Their argument is as follows: The reason why you started shooting at the police was because you were afraid that you were being arrested after they followed you in your vehicle, in their vehicle I mean. Do you have any comment on this?

MR KHOTLE: It is their right to be against my application, there is nothing I can on that. That is what I expected, thank you.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: ...[indistinct]

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Sir.

MR MALAN: Mr Khotle, can you just inform us why did you intend to remove the weapons?

MR KHOTLE: After the Wesselsbron Supermarket Incident I went to Umtata where I gave a report, after some time. I don't remember how long. Whilst I was in Umtata I learnt that one of my comrades, that is Ngesi, was arrested and he had the knowledge of the whereabouts of the arms.

I met with the Director of Operations, we discussed about this issue. After that we agreed that I am obliged to go back and remove those arms. I could have taken other arms to Botshabelo and others to Welkom.

MR MALAN: In your statement, I think it was in your statement to court, in your confession, in your plea, you said that you originally intended to take all the weapons but then removed only one, is that correct?

MR KHOTLE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Why did you remove only one then?

MR KHOTLE: On our way to Wesselsbron, together with comrade Moalusi Morrison, he made me aware, he was afraid that we might be tracked down, maybe the security officers knew about this car and they were following this car. After I received that information I decided that it would be important that we should not remove all these arms at the same time but I should take one and then I will see later how I would remove the other arms and take them to Welkom and others to Botshabelo.

CHAIRPERSON: But if you were caught in possession of one illegal weapon you were in just the same danger as if you were in possession of four, weren't you?

MR KHOTLE: That would be true, but the reason is that if it happened we would be able to secure other arms that they should not be confiscated from us.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean it was not your risk that you were considering but the risk of losing your arms? The risk of losing your weapons, not your arms.

MR KHOTLE: I understand the way you put it, but I understood that because we were two and the other one is a driver. From Wesselsbron to Welkom, that's where Mr Moalusi would leave me, then the bulk would be safe and then I would be able to remove them later. Then I said, in case there was a pursuit from Wesselsbron to Welkom I would be able to use that rifle which was with me. In my understanding to take on arm it would serve that purpose.

If it happens that from Welkom to Botshabelo he is pursued by the police, if it was possible for him to use that firearm he would be able to use that because it was one.

MR MALAN: Why did you not remove the other weapons?

MR KHOTLE: The reason I've already given is that I decided to leave them behind after he made me aware ...[intervention]

MR MALAN: Sorry to interrupt you. I'm asking you why did you not later remove the other weapons?

MR KHOTLE: After that what happened is that the following day which was on Friday the other one was arrested, that is Mazete. He was arrested and as a result of that those firearms were confiscated and that is why it wasn't possible for me to go back because they were not there anymore.

MR MALAN: Then the last question, what did you pay Mr Moalusi Morrison for the use of his kombi?

MR KHOTLE: In that statement which I gave in court which is before this Committee, that is the reason which I would contest because I understood that we should not all of us go prison. If I didn't say it that way it was clear that Morrison could have been arrested, so I was prepared to go alone to prison.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I'm a little confused. I'm looking at your application and you say that this took place on the 20th of July 1993.

MR KHOTLE: I'm not able to verify but I remember writing that on my application. I'm not able to verify clearly. It might have happened after that date.

CHAIRPERSON: Because as I understand you said it was shortly after the incident, you went to Umtata, you were told Ngesi had been arrested and therefore you had to remove the arms.

MR KHOTLE: If I remember well, if you may look at the court record, this may have happened in October, on the 20th or on the 21st.

CHAIRPERSON: That makes things much more realistic because the weapons were found on the 22nd of October. You say this might have been some months after the supermarket robbery. Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

AMNESTY HEARING

DATE: 20TH AUGUST 1998

NAME: MOALUSI MORRISON

APPLICATION NO: AM 5953/97

MATTER:WESSELSBRON/THABU'NCHU POLICE ATTACK

DAY : 4

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

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I ...[indistinct] this applicant. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I'll call Moalusi Morrison. As I indicated I still have the same predicament. It's the only application form I had regarding this incident for him. I will call him just to confirm the affidavit of Abel Khotle.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Morrison.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you hear Mr Morrison?

MOALUSI MORRISON: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Your full names please?

MR MORRISON: Moalusi Morrison.

EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Morrison, do you confirm that you have read the affidavit of Abel Lerato Khotle, the first applicant in this matter?

MR MORRISON: Yes, I had.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And you also want it to be taken as part of your evidence that you are going to give here in this matter?

MR MORRISON: Yes, that is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Morrison, just one aspect before I leave it to the Committee to ask you questions. Mr Khotle in his affidavit indicates that he jumped from the kombi somewhere near Thaba'Nchu and you drove away. Can you tell the Committee what happened after you drove away, when you were alone now?

MR MORRISON: When we arrived at Thaba'Nchu after comrade Lerato had alighted from the vehicle I approached a cul-de-sac. I drove for about 15 metres away and I couldn't move on. I jumped off and I left the car. I couldn't go on beyond the cul-de-sac.

MR MBANDAZAYO: What eventually happened to you?

MR MORRISON: I took cover because the police surrounded the area and I couldn't escape. The police from Bophuthatswana, South African Police surrounded the area. I stayed there where I took cover until past eight and past nine and the owner of the yard went to report to the police and he told the police that I was in his place.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And you were arrested?

MR MORRISON: Yes.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And is it also true that you were charged with Abel Khotle in this matter?

MR MORRISON: When?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Let me put it this way. Eventually after the case was withdrawn against you, after you have been charged, you were re-arrested and charged again for this matter and you stood trial together with Abel Khotle?

MR MORRISON: Yes, that's correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And that you were acquitted?

MR MORRISON: Yes, that is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is all.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MBANDAZAYO

CHAIRPERSON: I think there are one or two things which ought to be put on record, which has not gone on yet because he hasn't put up and affidavit.

Mr Morrison, were you a member of the PAC and of APLA?

MR MORRISON: That is so, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And were you in the logistics department and primarily responsible for transport?

MR MORRISON: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And in this context were you involved in the attack on the Wesselsbron Supermarket and on the King William's Town Golf Club Attack?

MR MORRISON: Please repeat that.

CHAIRPERSON: In the logistics department, were you connected with and implicated in the Wesselsbron Supermarket and the attack on the King William's Town Golf Club, that you transported the weapons that were used in those two attacks, is that correct?

MR MORRISON: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: So you were an ...[inaudible] in your logistic department?

MR MORRISON: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Morrison, the victims in this matter are opposing your application and their contention is you started to shoot at the police after realising you were followed by the police and you tried to get away. You were scared to be arrested and prosecuted for this case? What is your comment on this?

MR MORRISON: It's not that I was running away from being arrested but what was important was I had information.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Did you wish to continue the struggle?

MR MORRISON: I had no chance to go on. Those who were left behind were to go on.

CHAIRPERSON: But on this occasion you were not prepared to meekly give up, you wanted to continue the struggle that APLA was conducting against the government?

MR MORRISON: I was arrested. When I was arrested, the people who were behind would continue the struggle.

CHAIRPERSON: But you didn't want to be arrested, that's why you drove your vehicle as you did?

MR MORRISON: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the case of the applicants Mr Chairman.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, if there is no inconvenience I would suggest if possible we could start with the other matter as well.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] have argument on both matters tomorrow then.

MR STEENKAMP: As you please Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I certainly don't think that this is a matter that warrants an adjournment for written argument or for obtaining the copy of the record.

Very well, are we in a position to continue? Are you in a position to start the next matter?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, I'm in a position to start Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the matter of the application by Lerato Abel Khotle and Mosiuwa Isaia Khotle. It has been named: The Killing Of Botshabelo Police. Is that the application which is now to be heard?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And all the parties remain the same?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, at this stage I will call Abel Khotle.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, may I be so rude as to interrupt for a moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I would suggest that if possible, the victims are not here, they will be here early tomorrow morning, but in the meantime this applicant or maybe both the applicants can finish their testimonies, that I can maybe just for a moment speak to the victims if possible. They can both testify, if it's possible.

CHAIRPERSON: So the victims have not been notified the matter may be heard today? They've been given notice for tomorrow have they?

MR STEENKAMP: That's correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: In the light of that, I don't think it would be proper for us to start hearing evidence today which the victims may well consider of some importance to them. Although they are not going to cross-examine themselves it may well be that they would like to hear what happened, what caused the suffering and the damage that they incurred. I think rather let us commence when they are here tomorrow morning.

MR STEENKAMP: As you wish Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It's been suggested to me that you might like to argue the present application. Have you any argument? I take it you are going to say that this was part of the struggle?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Definitely, Mr Chairman.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, the only view of the victims is that there was no political motive and it was a ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] to escape, is that not a political motive, if you're engaged in a struggle against the government of the time?

MR STEENKAMP: That may very well be so Mr Chairman, but that is not the view of the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but you have nothing further you wish to say?

MR STEENKAMP: Nothing further, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, one more question. Somebody gave us an extract to read ...[inaudible]

MR MBANDAZAYO: ...[inaudible] Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] 09H30 tomorrow morning?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, it will ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] to give you an opportunity to see the victims when they arrive tomorrow and talk to them.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS