DAY: 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: We're now in session. Mr Mapoma, which matter are we starting off with?

MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairman, we're starting with the matter of Shakespeare Buthelezi, application number 1488/96.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. For the purposes of the record, today is Monday the 14th of September 1998. This is a sitting of the Amnesty Committee in the matter of the application of Shakespeare Buthelezi, case number 1488/96. The panel consist of myself, Denzil Potgieter. I'm assisted by Advocate Sigodi and Mr Lax. Mr Mapoma, would you place yourself on record, and then Mr Mbandazayo. Shall we start with you, Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, sir. My name is Zuko Mapoma. I'm the Evidence Leader for the Amnesty Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Lungelo Mbandazayo. I'm representing the applicant in this matter. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Mapoma, is there anything that perhaps I should - I should perhaps just explain the headsets for the purposes of the public. I've got a note that there are four channels in four languages. I assume that is correct.



CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, is there anything else that you need to put on record before we proceed to listen to the application?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, for the record, in relation to this application, the deceased's wife, Mrs Mashamahite has been notified of her right to attend the hearing. She is here in response to that notice and her view is that she wants to oppose the application on the ground that the act for which amnesty is sought here was not an act associated with political motivation as expressed in the Act in terms of which the Amnesty Committee functions. That is her view and to that extent, Chairperson, in my capacity as Leader of Evidence, I'll take care of her interest to the extent that she may have to be represented.

Another person who has been notified, Chairperson, is Mr Basie Hlali - Hladi I mean, who was a victim in the incident of attempted murder by the applicant. Unfortunately, Chairperson, we have not managed to get hold of Mr Hladi. Our attempts to investigate his whereabouts have drawn a complete blank, but we did notify him through the media of this hearing. He's not here unfortunately. That is the position, Chair. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, you say that he was notified through the media. Can you just give us some more detail about that.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, we asked our media liaison officer to arrange that it be announced in the radio and that has been done, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And are you satisfied that all the reasonable steps that could be taken to give the notification have been done.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, sir, that is my position.

CHAIRPERSON: And are you asking that we proceed on the basis that there was due notification and that there is no response?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And then just one other thing, Mr Mapoma, the wife of the deceased, how does she intend to deal with her opposition? Has she approached you to give assistance or on what basis would she be dealing with the intended opposition?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, sir, she has asked me to assist him in opposing the application and she has indicated that she at this moment does not intend to testify, but if the development of the hearing demands that she testify then she may want to testify.

CHAIRPERSON: You are ready and able to give that assistance? You have consulted with her?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, I've consulted with her. I'm ready to assist her.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I assume that is all that you want to put on record.

MR MAPOMA: That is all, sir, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mbandazayo, it's over to you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, at this stage I would like just for the record to tell the Committee that the affidavits which are before the Committee are not signed affidavits. I only have one original which is a signed affidavit and which will be handed over to the Committee when we have photostatting facilities unfortunately, because they were signed this morning, the original. Then it will be handed over then after the hearing to be part of the record, the signed one. Those before the Committee are not signed one. The signed one is here, the original which we are going to use to lead evidence, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And what we have are photocopies of the one that has been signed in the meantime.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, what you have is the photocopy of the unsigned affidavit, Mr Chairman. The signed one is the only one which is signed, is the original, Mr Chairman. They were submitted to the Committee before he signed them because he's here in Johannesburg. I'm in East London, so I couldn't - I obtained the affidavit, I couldn't come back for him to sign. He signed them this morning. So, we'll make copies, Mr Chairman, after this hearing and the original be handed over to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you correctly. What we have it's the very same thing but it's just not signed.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, it's the same affidavit but it's not signed, the one you have. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, no, I don't think there's any problem with that.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Then, Mr Chairman, I would like the applicant to be sworn in, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. Mr Lax, would you do that?

MR LAX: Mr Buthelezi, do you have any objection to taking an oath? What language will he be ... (intervention)


MR LAX: Zulu.

INTERPRETER: That's three.

MR LAX: Channel three. Can you hear me now?

MR BUTHELEZI: Oh yes, thanks.


MR LAX: Sworn in, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lax. Over to you.

EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Buthelezi, the affidavit which is in front of you is also before the Committee. Do you confirm that the affidavit which is before the Committee was made by you, and you also abide by it's contents?


MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, without wasting time of this Committee, I won't deal with the whole contents of the affidavit, but what I would like is to go paragraph 11 of the affidavit unless the Committee wants to raise anything before that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly. Please do proceed.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Buthelezi, paragraph 11 of the affidavit, where you indicate that Gift saw the informer at Twala Section and you went there and you gave him another gun, Tokaroff pistol and you used the 9mm which you took from the late Mashamahite ... (intervention)

MR MAPOMA: I'm sorry, Chairperson. Chairperson, I wish to make a request, sir, here that the affidavit, as it is, either be read into the record or at least he leads him into the contents as they are. I mean even those contents which are a background contents because for the benefit of the victims, the family, they don't have the affidavit before them and perhaps they would want to hear the background of the applicant and all that. I believe, sir, it may to a certain extent assist the victims family into understanding who the applicant is.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't want to prescribe to Mr Mbandazayo how he should be presenting the case, but you've heard Mr Mapoma's point. Of course Mr Mapoma himself can also come back to the affidavit. So, I don't want to prescribe to you how you want to deal with it, but there is that request. It's entirely up to you how you want to approach the matter. I'm leaving it to you really.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you. Mr Chairman, I don't have a problem with that. I wanted something just to curtail the proceeding not to prolong. But if my friend is of that view, he wants to cater, we don't have problem. I can lead him through the affidavit for the benefit of the members of the family definitely. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I'll then go through the affidavit, Mr Chairman:

"I, the undersigned, Shakespeare Thami Buthelezi, do hereby make an oath and say that I'm the applicant herein. The facts to which I depose are true and correct and within my personal knowledge unless the context states otherwise. I was born on the 18th December 1970 in Katlehong, Germiston, and unmarried and have one child who is staying with my family. I have three brothers and sisters, and my father died in 1977 and my mother became a breadwinner at home. I left school doing standard eight in 1987 because of financial problems. I joined the PAC through Azania in 1984 and my sole aim was to fight against the colonial education and settler regime. In July 1988 I left the country via Swaziland to Tanzania where I undergone military training for a year. In 1989 I went to Uganda to be trained in infantry and it took me a year. After my training in Uganda I went back to Bagamoiyo(?), Tanzania where I became a platoon commissar. In January 1993 I was given orders to infiltrate the country by the APLA commander, Sabelo Pama. As an APLA operative my general instruction from APLA high command was to proceed with the armed struggle with all means against the then racist minority regime, which was undemocratic and oppressive. The said armed struggle was in essence a guerilla warfare during which we as APLA cadres had to seek and attack the bastions and minions of the then aforesaid regime. The ultimate objective of PAC and APLA was not only to topple the then racist regime, but to eventually return the land to the African people. The bastions and minions of the then erstwhile regime was in terms of PAC and APLA perspective, the members of South African Defence Force, the members of SAP and reservist in general, the farmers, as they belonged to commander structures over and above the fact they occupied the farms which we had to drive them away from, so as to widen our territorial base which was aimed at eventually consolidated, liberated and repossessed land. The informers, the white homes which were garrison of apartheid. My general instruction was to seek, identify and attack the enemy, who was seen in the context of the above stated bastions and minions of the regime, and also to train the cadres and command them in whatever operation that is being embarked upon in consequence of and in pursuit of the above stated objectives. During or about the 21st January 1993 I commanded a unit of APLA cadres that attacked a policeman near Katlehong Police Station. I monitored the activities of the Katlehong Police Station and also the activities of the police around Katlehong area. On the 21st January 1993, myself, Eugene Madikane and Gift Mosiya, we were next to the Katlehong Police Station to monitor our target, who were the police working in the police station. We saw one policeman going to the direction of Monaheng Section. We followed him. I decided to rush and pass him so that I confront him directly and Eugene Madikane and Gift Mosiya were to come from behind. I drew my Tokaroff pistol and stopped him by pointing with the firearm, and he tried to drew his pistol and I shot him, and we took away his firearm, 9mm pistol. I subsequently learnt that the policeman died and it was Sergeant Mashamahite. After two weeks the police were looking for us. They went to all our places and they could not get us. And we were told by Vusi, an APLA cadre, that they are being accompanied by Basie Hladi whenever they are looking for us and he is staying in Twala Section. On the 15th of March 1993 Gift saw the informer at Twala Section and he called me and I gave him Tokaroff pistol. I took the 9mm pistol we repossessed from the policeman and went to his place. He was busy drinking when we arrived and he tried to run away. I drew my gun and when I was about to shoot him a person who knew us came and we abandoned the mission and we waited near his place and we saw him coming out of his home. I shot him, but I missed and he ran away. This informer came back accompanied by police and they approached us, but Gift managed to escape and I was left alone. I shot at the police and they shot back and struck me on my right leg, and I ran out of bullets and I was arrested. The charges against me were withdrawn twice because of lack of evidence. And on the 10th November 1994 I was finally re-arrested at Die Brug assembly point in Bloemfontein and at the time I was a member of the South African National Defence Force, having integrated on the 13th August 1994. I am presently serving 64 years having been found guilty on several charges, including murder, two counts of robbery, attempted murder and possession of arms and ammunition, for which I was sentenced at the High Court of South Africa, Witwatersrand Division under case number 103/95, on the 3rd November 1995. I respectfully submit that my application complies with the requirements of the Act, and that I have made full and proper disclosure of my involvement in the Katlehong operation. I therefore humbly request that my application for amnesty be granted."

Mr Chairman, as I indicated, I have read the affidavit for the benefit of them all. I will go to that paragraph which I wanted to start with.

Mr Buthelezi, as I indicated that paragraph 11, you told that you went to the house of the alleged informer and when you were about to shoot him somebody who knew you came and you abandoned the mission. Without reading the whole paragraph, Mr Buthelezi, in your trial it transpired that, and evidence came out and you were also convicted that you robbed this person of his money and you do not mention that in your affidavit. Can you explain that to the Committee?

MR BUTHELEZI: What I would like to explain about that robbery, this person was running away because he was an informer. I did not rob this person, but what I wanted to do was to kill him because he was an informer. It is difficult to explain because if you have not committed the act it would be difficult to say you did commit it. One other thing, I repeat that I did not rob this person. What I know about Mr Hladi is that he was an informer. Will you please repeat your question?

MR MBANDAZAYO: My question was that it came during the evidence in court that you robbed him. I think it was an amount of R100,00, if I'm not mistaken or a necklace or a watch worth R100,00, and necklace. Now my question was that - and you were convicted of that robbery in court. And now I was saying that you don't mention it in your affidavit that you robbed him. You mentioned that you attempted to murder him. It's there in your affidavit, but you don't mention the robbery part on Basie Hladi.

MR BUTHELEZI: I was sentenced for the robbery which is why I mention it in the application form.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Are you still insisting, even before this Committee, that you never robbed Basie Hladi?

MR BUTHELEZI: I did not rob him.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, at this stage I have no further question for the applicant.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Buthelezi, what sentence did you get for this robbery charge?

MR BUTHELEZI: I do not know.

MR LAX: 8 years.

ADV SIGODI: 8 years.

CHAIRPERSON: We've got the judgment of the court dealing with your sentence. It looks as if there were, in the trial, there were six charges against you and it appears as if charge number 5, count five 5 was for the robbery on Mr Basie Hladi of R100,00 in cash, 1 watch and a chain, and it appears as if the value of that is given as R380,00 in some of the other court documents and that you were sentenced on count 5 to imprisonment of 8 years. Does that more or less agree with your recollection?

MR BUTHELEZI: I was sentenced to a number of charges, so I do not remember specifically how many years I received for this.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mapoma, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Yes, sir, thank you. Mr Buthelezi, when you went to attack Mr Hladi, did you possess the information that he was an informer already at the time?


MR MAPOMA: Where did you get it from?

MR BUTHELEZI: When the police came looking for us and could not find us at our homes, luckily Gift was at his neighbour's house when this person came to point out Gift's home. So, Gift came to me and told me that when the police came looking for him at his home he saw this person amongst them.

As I was at home and the police came looking for me, I also saw it for myself and I saw that this person was an informer but I did not know where he stayed. But when I went to attack him I was sure that he was an informer because I saw him in the presence of the police.

MR MAPOMA: When you saw him in the presence of the police, it was after you've already shot at him, is that not so?

MR BUTHELEZI: No. Before I attacked him, that was at a different time. Let me just explain this. After about two weeks Basie Hladi was with the police and he went to point out Gift's house, Madlodlo and Madlodlo saw him.

ADV SIGODI: Just hang on. You say it was after two weeks. After two weeks of what? After two weeks of having done what?

MR BUTHELEZI: After that of that policeman in January. When the police came looking for me after two weeks, luckily they had gone to Gift's house and they had not found him there. Vusi, one of our members, also told us that this informer, Basie Hladi, had been in the presence of the police such that we eventually investigated his whereabouts, his home and as time went on Madlodlo actually saw him at Twala Section where he was drinking. That was about the 15th of March. On that day Gift saw him and he was drinking where he was. Therefore Gift came to me and reported, as I was the commander.

There were these two pistols, one Tokaroff and the 9mm pistol. So I gave Gift the Tokaroff and I carried the 9mm Baretta which I'd taken from the deceased. On arrival at Twala I saw this person and I produced my firearm, and as I about to shoot him, a person known to me appeared. Therefore I retreated because I would have had to shoot this other person because he might actually tell on me. So we hid ourselves until such time that he came out. So, when he came out of his home I shot him. Luckily I missed him and he ran away.

Myself and Gift went to a shopping centre and on arrival there about 60 policemen appeared. Gift was fortunate enough to escape and because I had this policy of fighting until the bitter end, so I shot at the police and they returned fire and I fired until I ran out of bullets and I was shot on my right leg, and eventually I was arrested and taken to the police station.

MR MAPOMA: No, what I want to get from you, you say you also saw him going with the police and you were convinced that he was an informer. Now, what I'm saying is that at the time you saw him with the police, it was at the time after he reported your attempt to shoot at him, is it not so?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, it is not so.

MR MAPOMA: When exactly did you see him in the company of the police?

MR BUTHELEZI: I saw him when the police came looking for me at my home.

MR MAPOMA: Now, let's go to the shooting of Mr Mashamahite. How many shots did you fire at him?


MR MAPOMA: And where were the others, your companions, at the time you shot at him?

MR BUTHELEZI: They were behind him. They were just walking behind him. I was facing him directly.

MR MAPOMA: So, are you saying you shot him from the front?


MR MAPOMA: The firearm you used?

MR BUTHELEZI: It was a Tokaroff pistol.

MR MAPOMA: The victim's family are saying that in court it was said that the deceased was shot from behind and at the time he was shot at the others were holding him. Can you comment on this?

MR BUTHELEZI: Please repeat your question.

MR MAPOMA: The view of the family is that at the time Mr Mashamahite was shot at, he was shot at from behind and at the time he was shot at your companions were holding him. I want your comment on this one.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is a mistake. It's a mistake that he was being held. Nobody was holding him. Can I just explain what happened from the very start until Mr Mashamahite was shot?

MR MAPOMA: Please do.

MR BUTHELEZI: Actually we were at the Katlehong Police Station. I had conducted reconnaissance from Monday to Thursday. What happened was that we had not targeted Mr Mashamahite specifically. We had targeted any policeman who would come out of the police station whether alone or in groups. Therefore on the 21st of January, the Thursday, we were standing nearby there and he came out at about four and he proceeded towards the direction of the swimming pool. We immediately followed him and there were three of us. And as he approached the swimming pool I decided to rush so that when he actually emerges out of that place I will be in front of him and Gift and the other person will be following him from behind.

I rushed and as he came I drew my gun and I pointed my firearm at him. And the only thing he attempted to do, he tried to grab me so I shot him and as he fell Eugene and Gift advanced. One of them removed his gun and at that time I was on the lookout for anybody who might approach. We removed that gun and retreated.

MR MAPOMA: Now, when you went to attack him, what was your intention? Did you intend to rob him of his firearm or to kill him?

MR BUTHELEZI: The intention of attacking him was to disarm him as well as to kill him.

MR MAPOMA: Why would you kill him?

MR BUTHELEZI: Because he was a member of the system.

MR MAPOMA: Was it your instructions to kill whatever member of system who comes your way?


MR MAPOMA: Apart from Mr Mashamahite are there other members of the system that you killed?

MR BUTHELEZI: I thought we were still speaking on Mr Mashamahite's issue. I don't understand why you're referring to other members of the system.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I appreciate that. We are dealing with his particular murder, but let me explain to you. The family are of the view that you shot the deceased as an individual and no other policemen. Why him only if your view was to kill whoever policemen was there? Would you explain this?

MR BUTHELEZI: I can explain. Firstly, I did not know Mr Mashamahite. I do not know his family, and my killing him or shooting him was not meant to hurt his family, but I shot him as a member of the police. If for instance, I was targeting Mr Mashamahite specifically I would have not have had to do that reconnaissance, I would have gone to his home directly. But because I did not target Mr Mashamahite specifically, I had targeted any member of the SAP. It was necessary to do that reconnaissance so that I could actually target a member of the system. Another thing is that, as I repeat, I did not target Mr Mashamahite specifically.

I had targeted policeman around the Katlehong area and Mr Mashamahite was unfortunate because when he came out of the police station he was indeed in uniform and that is how he came to be killed.

MR MAPOMA: Now, where was Gift and Eugene Madikane at the time you shot at Basie Hladi?

MR BUTHELEZI: On that day I was with Gift when I went to shoot Basie Hladi. Eugene was not around.

MR MAPOMA: Now, at the time you were arrested by these policemen ...[inaudible]

MR BUTHELEZI: On that day I was with Gift, but when the police approached he was lucky to escape. But because I could not escape I decided to fight and that is how I came to be arrested.

MR MAPOMA: Now, exactly the time you were arrested, where were you?

MR BUTHELEZI: ...[no English translation]


MR BUTHELEZI: ...[no English translation]


MR BUTHELEZI: I was at Tokoza. There is a shopping centre there.

MR MAPOMA: And what were you doing there?


MR MAPOMA: What were you doing there?

MR BUTHELEZI: We were just walking. We were actually going to visit other members.

MR MAPOMA: Do you confirm that at the trial there was evidence to the effect that you were caught while playing dices there?

MR BUTHELEZI: At the trial yes, that emerged, but as a soldier I would never divulge the truth to the enemy. That is why I said I had been playing dice at the trial.

MR MAPOMA: So, are you saying in actual fact you were not playing dice at the time you were caught by these policemen?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I was not playing dice. The police shot me while I was in somebody's yard.

MR MAPOMA: Now finally, what is your feeling about having killed Mr Mashamahite?

MR BUTHELEZI: With regards to killing Mashamahite. I would like firstly to explain to the family. I did not kill Mr Mashamahite just because I had targeted his family. It was not so. Mr Mashamahite died because he was a policeman.

What I would also like to explain is that we as PAC members were not born to kill. We are the peace loving people. In 1959 we are the people who had been treating peace, such that there was a march on the 21st of March 1960. As we were fighting the then regime in a peaceful manner.

The reactionary forces who were the police shot and killed unarmed Africans who did not have even an axe. Therefore we decided that we will no longer talk peace. This led to the PAC trying by any means to establish military wings because there was no other way. There was no way we could be talking about peace when reactionary forces were killing our members. Therefore my killing of Mashamahite was not meant at hurting his family. I killed him with the intent of killing a member of the system. It was my intention to kill him as a policeman. He was the right target. With regards to his death, it shows that I was actually fighting the Government of the day.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you. No further question, Chair.


ADV SIGODI: Mr Buthelezi, as a trained soldier, what is an informer? What is your understanding of an informer?

MR BUTHELEZI: As far as I know I can explain this word in various ways. An informer is someone who collaborated with the apartheid Government at the time. Such person would be against liberation forces. That person will support harsh the activities of those liberation forces and the informer will be a person prolonging the liberation of Azania.

ADV SIGODI: Did you know Basie Hladi before you saw him coming to your home with the police?


ADV SIGODI: What efforts did you take to find out that he was an informer?

MR BUTHELEZI: Firstly, Basie Hladi was spotted by Eugene coming to his home in the company of a policeman, but at the time he did not know his name. And then one of our members, Vusi, saw Basie Hladi and when the police came looking for me I hid at a neighbour's house and I saw Basie Hladi in the company of the police.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know why he was looking for you?

MR BUTHELEZI: They entered my home and they said that they were looking for me in connection with the death of the policeman.

ADV SIGODI: You see, I have a problem with your definition of an informer or the way you explained that you thought that Basie Hladi was an informer, because it is a given fact that then people who were seen to be informers were either people who going with the security police informing on the PAC. Did you have any information that he had informed on the PAC and was against the liberation force as such, or did you assume that he was an informer simply because he came with the police to look for you in connection with the murder of the policeman?

MR BUTHELEZI: I did not think that he was an informer just because he had come to my home with the police. Firstly, we saw him when he came looking for us in the company of the police, not that he was a policeman. He was not a policeman himself, but he was in the company of the police.

But if he had come to my house on his own, alone, I would have not labelled him an informer, but because he was in the company of the police and they were looking for me in connection with this murder, it implied or it showed me that he was an informer.

ADV SIGODI: All right. When you killed this Mr Mashamahite, what did you do to show that the killing of this policeman was a political act, or what did you do? Did the PAC take any responsibility for it to show that it was a political act, or did you just kill him and run away and leave it to the people to think that it could well have been an ordinary murder? What did you do to show that it was a political killing?

MR BUTHELEZI: After killing Mr Mashamahite, I reported the incident to my highest commanders. I told them that I had killed a policeman and the gun that we removed from him, we had just opened a unit in Katlehong, therefore we needed weapons and the way to obtain such weapons would be to kill and disarm policemen, and I would inform the chief director of national operations of how my unit was operating, and they will decide how they handle the matter.

ADV SIGODI: And to whom did you report this?

MR BUTHELEZI: Lihlapa was Lihle Mpampahlele.

ADV SIGODI: And did the PAC take any responsibility? Did they make it publicly known that the killing of Mr Mashamahite was a political act or did it not do that, as far as you can remember?

MR BUTHELEZI: I do not want to start speaking untruths. What I heard was something on Radio Metro on the following day, that there was a policeman who had been killed in Katlehong, a Mr Mashamahite. At that time policeman were being killed, therefore it was always publicised.

ADV SIGODI: So as far as you know, your organisation didn't take any public responsibility for the killing of Mr Mashamahite? Didn't make it known to the public that they were responsible.

MR BUTHELEZI: I do not remember.

ADV SIGODI: Now, coming back to Basie Hladi. Why would he be labelled an informer? If for instance, he had seen you killing the policeman and he had gone to identify you, what would be wrong with that? If somebody sees somebody killing someone, he doesn't know that the killing is a political act, why would you particularly as a unit commander decide that this person is an informer? Because at least I would have expected a trained soldier to have found out is he really informing on the PAC or is he with the police simply because he witnessed the murder and he's assisting the police in trying to solve the crime which could well be an ordinary crime.

What reason did you have to believe that he was an informer as an informer was understood in those days? I would understand if he was somebody who had been with the PAC and had informed on the PAC, but the fact that he went to the police just to assist them in solving the crime, why would it be reason enough to think that he's an informer?

MR BUTHELEZI: What prompted me to say that he was an informer was that in what we were doing, the people were aware that policemen were being killed. That we were pursuing the struggle of liberating the African's from their oppressors. To show that this person was indeed in collaboration with the reactionary forces, he would have not co-operated or he would have not fought against the people who were fighting for the liberation of those people. To show indeed that he was an informer he managed to inform the police of our activities as freedom fighters.

ADV SIGODI: But do you know that he knew that you were a freedom fighter? Did Basie Hladi know that you were a freedom fighter?

MR BUTHELEZI: I do not know whether he knew or if he didn't know.

ADV SIGODI: That is the crux of the question, because I would understand if you attempted to shoot him, if he knew that you knew that you were a freedom fighter or you had reason to believe that he knew about you as freedom fighters, but if he didn't know that you were freedom fighters, how could he simply be labelled to be an informer?

MR BUTHELEZI: If Basie Hladi knew whether I was an APLA member or not I do not have knowledge thereof.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Buthelezi, did you discuss the intention to eliminate Mr Hladi with your commanders?

MR BUTHELEZI: Will you please explain what you mean? What you mean by commanders because I was also a commander of my unit.

MR LAX: Yes, well, did you discuss it with anybody who was in authority over you in the organisation?

MR BUTHELEZI: No. I took the initiative as a cadre.

MR LAX: So, there was no specific order, instruction that was given to you to act against Mr Basie Hladi?

MR BUTHELEZI: With regards to that, I did not have an order to kill Basie Hladi from higher authorities, but as a unit commander I was also guided by the 15 points of attention. These 15 points of attention are such that whatever action I take should be in line with the protection of the masses, without necessarily getting a specific order, because sometimes orders may come at a later stage but as a guerilla on the ground I have to take the initiative as well.

CHAIRPERSON: So that was - what you're saying is that the action that was taken against Mr Hladi was in line with the policy of the organisation towards informers? It's within that context that you acted?

MR BUTHELEZI: I do not understand that question. Please repeat it.

MR LAX: You have indicated to us in your affidavit in paragraph 7 that, and I quote:

"The bastions and minions of the then erstwhile regime were in terms of the PAC and APLA perspective."

And in subparagraph (d) "Informers". So, what I'm asking you is, are you saying that the action was taken against Mr Hladi in terms of that general policy? There were no specific order given to you, but you used your initiative as a commander yourself to act against Mr Hladi because he was an informer?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What, is there a problem with the equipment?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, sometimes he does not hear properly so he's saying he does not hear properly sometimes.

CHAIRPERSON: (Inaudible). Okay, thank you.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Buthelezi, at the time of your trial, and your trial was in 1995, is that correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

MR LAX: There was no mention whatsoever of the political nature of these events. Can you explain to us why?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I can. The courts were presided over by apartheid Judges and the people who were serving the laws of the apartheid regime presided over that. That is why I did not mention any political motives, but I did mentioned that I was an APLA member. They knew about that.

MR LAX: You see, we were already under a new dispensation under the new Constitution, in spite of the fact that you're quite right, that Judge may or may not have been an apartheid Judge from the previous regime, but we were in the new dispensation and one would have expected in the light of the changes that were happening in the country at the time, and more particularly in the light of the positions of the different political parties of that time, particularly the PAC, that there would have been no reason to hide the political nature of this matter.

MR BUTHELEZI: I am a member of APLA and secondly, I still believe that the land has not been returned to its rightful owners, and I also believe that even if the law changes but if a person still has apartheid beliefs you cannot expect that person to change. Therefore at my trial that person was still conducting the trial in terms of the apartheid laws and not necessarily according to the new dispensation.

MR LAX: You said in your evidence-in-chief that you yourself saw Mr Hladi with police who came to look for you at your home when you were hiding at your neighbour's house. Did I hear you correctly?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, you did.

MR LAX: Nowhere in any of the statements that are before us in writing anywhere, either the statements attached to your application or the statements in this affidavit do you say that. In fact you give the exact opposite impression. Why is that?

MR BUTHELEZI: We are in isolation cells and sometimes you may even make mistakes when you consult with your lawyer. But what I'm saying today is what happened. Before I even saw Hladi I had heard from my colleagues about him, until such time that I actually saw him personally.

MR LAX: So, are you saying that you forgot to mention that in your statement.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, it may be that I forgot.

MR LAX: Now, you were initially confronted just before you were captured at the shopping centre in Katlehong, is that right?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

MR LAX: And you began retreating and you ended up in someone's yard, as you have told us?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

MR LAX: And in fact you were on the roof of a building at the time you were shot in that person's yard.

MR BUTHELEZI: I heard about that, but when I was shot I was on the ground.

MR LAX: You see, the evidence or the statements that are in this bundle indicate that you were hiding away or you were on a roof and that's when they noticed you and that's when they opened fire at you. Whether they hit you on the ground or hit you on the roof, well that's neither here nor there, but that is so, is it not so?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is not so because if they had shot at me whilst I was on a roof maybe I would not have only sustained injuries on my leg, I may have fallen and might have sustained other injuries, but to prove that I was shot on the ground, the only injury that I sustained was the one on my leg.

MR LAX: Now, according to these statements there were only two policemen that chased you and that is why you were charged with attempted murder of those two policemen in the trial. Is that not correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, it is not so. There were many policemen. They had surrounded the whole area. They were in two or three vans, not even small vans, the big ones.

MR LAX: But it is so that you were charged with the attempted murder of these two policemen because they were the ones that you actually shot at.

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

MR LAX: Now, I want to just turn to the shooting of Mr Mashamahite. Both the statements in this bundle say that you and your colleagues grabbed him before he was shot. Both witnesses in those statements say that. You've denied that.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I still deny it.

MR LAX: Now, those witnesses didn't know you. They didn't even know it was a political matter. Why should they lie about you grabbing a man at that point in time? It's not a material issue.

MR BUTHELEZI: I do not want to speak untruths. Whether they alleged that we grabbed him, that is not the truth. If we had grabbed him and there were witnesses, maybe we would have done this in a movie style and we were not there in such matters. We wanted to kill him quickly. That is why I just drew my gun and shot him. Those people might have been watching a movie seeing us grabbing somebody, disarming him. That is not so. It's not the truth.

MR LAX: So, are you saying there were no witnesses to your attack on Mr Mashamahite?

MR BUTHELEZI: There were people who did see. This happened on the streets. There are people moving around. Some people were coming from the movies so they saw what was happening.

MR LAX: So, these were two of the people who saw what was happening and that's what they say happened. It was getting dark. It was in the evening. How can you say that they just made it up? What motivation would they have had for making it up? That's what I'm trying to understand.

MR BUTHELEZI: I can state a number of reasons. Firstly, when you take a statement or if you want to write a statement, the police sometimes tell you when you make a mistake or they tip you on how to write the statement. There are a number of issues that came out in court. Some of the things that were mentioned were that we used his own gun to kill him. I would have not approached a trained and armed person if I was unarmed.

MR LAX: You still haven't given me any reason why they should fabricate information.

MR BUTHELEZI: I do not know.

MR LAX: Sorry?

MR BUTHELEZI: Can I explain?

MR LAX: Carry on.

MR BUTHELEZI: I would like the Committee to know something. The people who say they did witness this incident, if they know me correctly they failed to identify me in a parade. If they know me how could they fail to identify me at that parade? How can you actually trust that such a person is telling the truth?

MR LAX: Well, none of these witnesses say they know you. So I don't understand your point. Not one of these witnesses that we have before us in these statements say they know you. Both witnesses who will say they witnessed the killing of Mr Mashamahite don't say they know you. In fact went to great length to try and find out who you were afterwards but they couldn't see you. And the one person was very clear, he says he didn't see your faces at all. But be that as it may. You've given us your answer. That's fine. Just on the issue of Mr Hladi. Why do you think Mr Hladi went and said that you had robbed him if you hadn't?

MR BUTHELEZI: I would not be able to say exactly why, but what I would like to explain is that with regards to the investigation of Mr Mashamahite's death, the police were unsuccessful such that the charges against me were thrown out of court twice in August 1993 and in 1994. I do not remember the month exactly.

In withdrawing the case, the court mentioned that there was no evidence against me. For Basie Hladi to say that I had robbed him was a means of blackmail as well as trying to cover up that he was an informer. That is how I can put it.

MR LAX: You see, at the time you were tried for these charges, you were on very serious other charges. The robbery was a relatively minor charge compared to the rest. So they don't seem to add a great deal to the picture. Do you see the thrust of what I'm saying?

MR BUTHELEZI: The truth is that even in court the first charge against me was the murder of Mr Mashamahite as well as Mr Hladi's case, but in court we did not commence with Mr Mashamahite's matter but instead I started with the matter of Mr Hladi. To give evidence to the effect that the gun that had been used belonged to Mr Mashamahite. They made sure that we started with the matter, that is Mr Hladi's matter so that the gun will be construed as having belonged to Mr Mashamahite.

MR LAX: But it did in fact belong to him. That's not in dispute, is it?


MR LAX: You see, if you look at Mr Hladi's affidavit, and he's not here unfortunately to tell us his side of the story, that's why I'm just asking you these questions, but if you look at his affidavit, his conduct is consistent with somebody who was robbed who then goes looking for the police to say, "You've got to help he. These guys tried to rob me. They took my things. I want to get my things back". And he then goes looking for you because he wants his things back and he finds you. There's a consistent pattern of conduct there that makes it look like he didn't just make up the story. So that is why I'm asking you to comment on it.

MR BUTHELEZI: I also have evidence that he was lying because even in court he said that he was present when I was arrested and he was asked if he was present when I was arrested why didn't the police find anything that belonged to him, because if I had taken something from him and I was arrested about 10 minutes thereafter there should be evidence that I had in my possession something belonging to him, but the police did not find anything.

MR LAX: There are many possible answers to that. Your colleague could have taken those things from you and disappeared when he escaped. But we're not going to engage in speculation here. All I'm saying is his story seems to be consistent and that's why I'm asking you these questions. Thank you, Chairperson.


ADV SIGODI: Just to make a follow up on what my colleague has said. You perceived Basie Hladi as an enemy, didn't you?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, after he had come to my home with a policeman.

ADV SIGODI: Wasn't it APLA policy to take things from the enemy even to rob, I mean to rob shops which belonged to what was perceived to be the enemy? Wasn't it a policy, the general policy?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, it was.

ADV SIGODI: So couldn't it be possible that your other colleague could have taken this stuff from Basie Hladi?

MR BUTHELEZI: When we talk of removing things that belonged to an enemy, we are not referring to possessions like R2,00. You should actually repossess things that we can count as possessions, and such possessions should be surrendered to your commander because as an APLA member, whatever you do is not necessarily yours or your action personally, but we are guided by the 15 points of attention which explained to us that whatever you do you do for the masses. Whatever you remove from an enemy you should surrender to the commander.

Therefore I do not believe that Basie Hladi was robbed of anything because if that was the case I would have received them. Like in my unit there were six of us. There was a commander, a commissar, a logistics officer. Therefore a person couldn't just keep something to himself. So, Basie Hladi was not robbed of anything. He was just trying to blackmail me.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got ... (intervention)

MR LAX: Just one further question.


MR LAX: Just one comment, Mr Buthelezi. Hladi's possessions couldn't have been given to you because you were arrested and your comrade escaped. So, there wasn't time for that to happen, just to carry on with my colleague's question to you. So in the light of that, your explanation of why he might not have been robbed by your comrade doesn't bear water. Do you understand? You didn't have an opportunity for him to report back to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mbandazayo, re-examination?

MR BUTHELEZI: When this happened there was only two of us. If maybe my colleague removed something I would have seen it. That is why I am sure that he was not robbed.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Buthelezi, is it your evidence that when you met you went to kill Basie Hladi, you did not manage to kill him because somebody who knew you came in. Is that your evidence?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, that is my evidence.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And is it your evidence that you never came closer to him than that first incident when somebody you knew came in?

MR BUTHELEZI: I did not. Can you please repeat the question?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay. My question, let me rephrase it. At the time, your first incidence, when you went to kill him, you were close to him, to Basie Hladi, am I correct? When you arrived at his home where he was drinking.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I was close to him.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And before you can shoot him somebody came who knew you very well?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Is it your evidence, there's no other instance where you were very close to Basie Hladi other than that first incident, the first instance where somebody who knew you came in before you shot him?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, there is no other, as I was unsuccessful. I was never close to him after that.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay. Let me go to the - you told the Committee when you were asked by Mr Chairman about, if I'm correct, Mr Chairman, you said in court you were playing dice at the time when you were arrested. Did you tell the court that?


MR MBANDAZAYO: Am I correct to say your reason for saying that you were playing dice, you wanted to exonerate yourself from the shooting?

INTERPRETER: We seem to have a problem. One mike is not working.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the mike not working over there? All right, just hold on. Mr Mbandazayo, just a minute. Let's see if we can sort out that technical difficulty. They can just indicate if it's right.

MR LAX: Just speak in the booth. We could hear you. No, there's definitely a problem.

ADV SIGODI: That one is okay.

INTERPRETER: Can you hear me? Okay. I think we can proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, we seem to have solved the difficulty. So, please do proceed.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I was saying to you, you told the court that you were playing dice at the time when you were arrested.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, that is correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you tell the Committee, what was your reason to say that you were playing dice?

MR BUTHELEZI: I was trying to exonerate myself from the fact that I was shooting at the police or we were exchanging fire with the police.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Am I correct to say that you deny that you have had an exchange of gunfire with the police in court?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, I did deny that.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now, you were asked by the Chairman about your guiding principle regarding the eliminating of the informer Basie Hladi. You alleged that he was an informer. Were you as a trained cadre, as you put it in the Committee, were you always expected that whenever you act you must get instructions from your commanders? That is the members of the high command or your immediate superior or were you also expected to take initiative of your own?

MR BUTHELEZI: We received orders from the high command, but there was a time and you were told by the high command that there were instances where you'd be expected to take the initiative yourself.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And as a result of that initiative, that is the reason why you went to eliminate Basie Hladi.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, that was the reason why I went to kill Basie Hladi.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Buthelezi, was part of the reason why you acted against Mr Hladi to prevent the police from apprehending, from arresting you and your unit?

MR BUTHELEZI: Can you please repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: Was part of the reason why you decided to act against Mr Hladi to stop the police from arresting you and your unit members?

MR BUTHELEZI: What I was trying to run away from was even if I got arrested there would be nobody who will stand as a State witness.

CHAIRPERSON: And was the policy of the organisation that anybody who assisted the then regime in any way would be regarded as an enemy and would be a legitimate target for action?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you form the impression that Mr Hladi was going to assist the police to act against you and your members?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Lax?

MR LAX: Just one quick follow up. How would Hladi be able to be a State witness against you?

MR BUTHELEZI: I think that an eyewitness is required in court to come testify what he did indeed see.

MR LAX: Yes, but Hladi never saw you kill Mashamahite. He had nothing to do with your killing of Mashamahite and it was that that he would have been a State witness for and it was that that you wanted to kill him for, according to your evidence. How is that possible?

MR BUTHELEZI: The reason for killing Hladi was that he was in the company of the police and he would have been a State witness.

MR LAX: The question is, what would he have been a State witness to?

MR BUTHELEZI: He would have testified about the death of the policeman.

MR LAX: But he never saw it and it's clear that he didn't see it and he had nothing to do with it. So, maybe you killed the wrong man or you tried to kill the wrong man.

MR BUTHELEZI: What I'm trying to explain is that we would have not suffered casualties in my units. When he came with the police they stated it clearly that they were there in connection with the death of that policeman. He was with the police when they came in connection with that matter.

MR LAX: But you heard his evidence in court and you know very well that he didn't know anything about Mashamahite's death. He didn't witness it. He wasn't a State witness in relation to that incident at all. Correct?

MR BUTHELEZI: I did hear about it, but as far as I knew him, I wanted to kill him because he was a policeman. He was not the only one. There was another person whom unfortunately we had no idea about his whereabouts. Had we known where he stayed we would have hunted him down and killed him.

MR LAX: You see, is it not a possibility, and I'm asking you this so you can comment on it, that in fact what Hladi says is correct? That you robbed him. He followed up and that after the events you've now made up the story about him being an informer. Is that not a correct possibility?

MR BUTHELEZI: No. As I explained before, I would have not have done that to the member of the masses, an African. I do not want to have casualties. Everything that I did I first conducted a reconnaissance to confirm my facts. What I also want to explain is that we as APLA members have the greatest respect for the masses. Such that I wouldn't even insult one. Therefore I would have not made up such a story about a member of the masses.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Buthelezi, just further in regard to this issue of Mr Hladi. Prior to this incident where the policeman was shot, did you or any of the other two members of that unit know Mr Hladi at all?

MR BUTHELEZI: I would like to speak only on my behalf. I may not know whether the others knew him, but from what I heard they just knew that he was an informer. He had come to identify them. In actual fact it was only one person to whose home he had gone to, that is Gift. One other person who informed us that he was an informer was Vusi, who was not in my unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Vusi wasn't part of that incident with the policeman?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, there was just three of us. Myself, Eugene Madikane and Gift Mosiya. Just the three of us.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you gather that Vusi knew Mr Hladi or at least he had the information that Mr Hladi was an informer?

MR BUTHELEZI: From the information that Vusi gave us, he informed us that Basie Hladi and Vusi and others will be at a "stokvel" drinking and Hladi was unaware that Vusi was a member of APLA. He overheard him saying that if Shakes could be arrested he would get R50 000,00. That is how he told me. He would have received that amount if he had been able to give evidence that Shakes had indeed killed the policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, are you Shakes?

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes. Shakes is from Shakespeare.

CHAIRPERSON: So, from your perspective, was it this, the fact that first of all Mr Hladi was seen in the company of the police when they went to Gift's house and subsequently to your own house. Was that from your perspective? Was that the thing that focused attention on Mr Hladi?

MR BUTHELEZI: That is how I identified him that he was an informer because he hoped that if he is able to identify Shakes he would get this R50 000,00.

CHAIRPERSON: And was it as a result of that, the fact that he was now in the company of the police and so on, that you then started taking steps to find out more about him? Where does he live, what does he do and so on. His movement.



ADV SIGODI: And subsequent to this, have you seen Eugene Madikane after the trial?

MR BUTHELEZI: After I was sentenced I did not see Eugene.

ADV SIGODI: When last did you see him?

MR BUTHELEZI: I last saw him on the second because he was found innocent and he was released and I was found guilty and I was sentenced on the following day.

ADV SIGODI: So, he was also a co-accused in the trial.

MR BUTHELEZI: Yes, we were.

ADV SIGODI: And Gift Mosiya as well?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, Gift Mosiya was not.

ADV SIGODI: Was never fined?


ADV SIGODI: Do you know where he is today?

MR BUTHELEZI: From what I heard he died in 1996. After I was sentenced I think he was shot by the police.

ADV SIGODI: And lastly, just prior to this, did you have any other criminal convictions?

MR BUTHELEZI: ...[no English translation]


MR BUTHELEZI: ...[no English translation]

ADV SIGODI: No, before this. Did you have previous convictions before you were sentenced for the murder of Mr Mashamahite? Do you have a criminal record?


ADV SIGODI: Thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Just one point, Mr Chairman. Just as follow up to your questions. Did you at any stage, even when you are in prison had any contact. Do you know about this Basie Hladi? Did you contact him or did he ever contacted you? Have you had any communication with him?

MR BUTHELEZI: From the information that I had gathered, Basie Hladi was eager to come visit me in prison and he said he could come and he hasn't arrived since then. I'm still waiting for him to come see me.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you find out in what connection he wanted to come and speak to you?

MR BUTHELEZI: No, I would be speaking an untruth if I said I knew what he wanted to see me in connection with.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax? Mr Mbandazayo, does that conclude the testimony of Mr Buthelezi?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any other witnesses you want to call?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, at this stage I don't have any witness no, Mr Chairman. Maybe if the Committee work I can - since take into account it's almost lunch time. I can be able to consult and see whether it would be necessary to have another witness in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we can certainly do that. I just want to ascertain from Mr Mapoma what the position is with regard to the family. I'll come back to you. Mr Mapoma, do you have any instructions to present any evidence?

MR MAPOMA: Not at this stage, Chairperson, but I would think that Mrs Buthelezi, in her capacity as a victim, will have to testify. Even if not necessarily on merits but in her capacity as a victim she may want to testify. But I don't have full instructions on that.

CHAIRPERSON: So, it appears as if we on either positions, on either yours or Mr Mapoma's position, we're not going to be able to proceed much beyond this point.

What I also wanted to ascertain from you and perhaps indicate to you, if there are no further witnesses to be led, I would prefer that you present argument to us and that we conclude both the testimony and the argument in the course of the day. So bear that in mind. If there are no further witnesses perhaps think in terms of presenting argument.

If you have a difficulty, you need a bit of time to look into that let us know then we can always accoMmodate you. And I think, Mr Mapoma, the same goes for you, let's try and even if there is testimony, depends on how far it will take us, but let's try and be in a position to be able to argue once we've concluded the testimony. All right. Then I think at this stage we will take the luncheon adjournment and we will reconvene at 2 o'clock. So we'll adjourn for lunch.




CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, are you presenting any further testimony?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, there is no further testimony except that the applicants want to just to say something just before I close. If they can be given a chance, even 2 minutes just to say something. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to do that straight away?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you come again, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Would you like to do that now before you address us?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, he wants to do it before I address the Committee.



CHAIRPERSON: All right, Mr Buthelezi, you wanted to address us on something. Please go ahead.

MR BUTHELEZI: I wanted to say to the Mashamahite family, parents, relatives, I had not specifically targeted Mashamahite because I hated him per se. We never had any personal problems with him or his family, but what I want to point out is that Mr Mashamahite as he was working under the apartheid regime he became an inevitable target, not because of any personal reasons or because we wanted to fight the Mashamahite family. It is possible that Mr Mashamahite was the breadwinner. This is a very painful situation that I killed a breadwinner.

Same happens to me, if a person could kill a breadwinner in my house whether for political reasons or any other reasons or ulterior motive, a person is a creation of God and as a result I would like to say that I want to ask for forgiveness from you. It was not a personal thing or for personal gain. I feel very sorry for what I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Does that conclude what you wanted to present to us?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, that concludes the applicant's case, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Mapoma, what is the position with the family? Is there any material you want to place before us, any testimony?

MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairman, I'm not calling any witness from the victims family. They have indicated that they do not desire to testify.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR MAPOMA: Excuse me, Chairperson, there's only one issue perhaps I may raise for the record, Chairperson, that the wife of the deceased, I've got her names and particulars in the event that the Committee may want to need them at some point.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you have that?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes. Her names are Musibudi Constance. Musibudi. I hope my spelling will be correct, M-U-S-I-B-U-D-I Constance Mashamahite is the wife of the deceased policeman, Mr Alfred Mashamahite.

MR LAX: Do you have details of any other dependents?

MR MAPOMA: Unfortunately not, Chairperson, I just have her details as a victim, as the wife of the deceased.

MR LAX: Perhaps you could just canvass that later after the proceedings have closed.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, sir, I'll do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Well, I think it's over to you.

MR MBANDAZAYO ADDRESSES: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I will start by saying that Section 20(1) of the Act, that is the Amnesty Act, Mr Chairman, provides as follows:

"If the Committee, after considering an application for amnesty is satisfied that the application complies with the requirements of the Act, the act, omission or offence to which the application relates is an act associated with political objectives committed in the course of the conflicts of the past in accordance with provisions of Subsection 2 and 3 and the applicant has made full disclosure of all relevant facts, it shall grant amnesty in respect of that act, omission or offence."

Your Worship, further just before I argue, I want to quote Section 20(2) provides:

"In this Act, unless the contents indicates otherwise, acts associated with political objectives means any act or omission which constitutes an offence or delict which, according to the criteria in Subsection 3 is associated with political objective and which was advised, planned, directed, commanded, ordered, or committed within or outside the Republic during the period of 1st March 1960 to the cut-off date by any member or supporter of a publicly known organisation or liberation movement on behalf of or in support of such organisation in furtherance of political struggle waged by such organisation against the State. Any member of a publicly known political in the course and scope of his duties and within the scope of his express or implied authority. Any person referred in paragraph (d) who, on reasonable grounds believed that he was acting in the course and scope of his duties and within the scope of his express or implied authority."

Mr Chairman, I submit on behalf of the applicant, that he has complied with the requirements of Section 20(2). That he was quite acting clearly on behalf of APLA, a publicly known political organisation and liberation movement which was engaged in political struggle against the State at that time.

Mr Chairman, I also submit that the applicant did not act for personal gain or out of personal malice or ill-will or spite directed against the deceased and the victim. It is quite clear that he had no personal knowledge of these people and that he had merely acted on behalf of his organisation.

Mr Chairman, you have heard the testimony of the applicant. That APLA set, and PAC, certain parameters and he acted within those parameters. That the main targets and the targets were the South African Defence Force, SA Police, reservist in general, the farmers, the informers and the white homes, who were regarded as garrison of apartheid and, Mr Chairman, that is not in dispute that he was also there, he had instruction as a cadre, he has to seek, identify and attack the enemy within that context of those parameters which have been set.

Mr Chairman, I take you now back to the fateful incident on the unfortunate day of January 1993. On the 21st January 1993 when the applicant attacked the late Mashamahite. Mr Chairman, it's not in dispute that Mr Mashamahite was a policeman and it so happened that on the day in question he was coming from the police station and he was easily identified because he was wearing uniform. So there was not even a dispute about his identity that he was a policeman and the applicant acted according to the parameters of his organisation and he killed Mashamahite and repossessed his firearm.

Mr Chairman, I know that in court it transpired that from the eyewitness that they alleged that they first grabbed him and they held him before he was shot. Mr Chairman, I wouldn't like to argue that point. I was not there. The witness saw what they saw on the day in question, but the point is if the applicant is lying why would he admit that he killed Mashamahite? There's no doubt about that one. He made it clear that he killed Mashamahite. He does not say another person killed Mashamahite or his colleague pulled the trigger. He said, "I pulled the trigger". Even if, Mr Chairman, they started by holding him and they shot him thereafter, they would be acting within the scope because Mashamahite was regarded by APLA and PAC as working within the system and they were protecting the system as a policeman.

And as such, Mr Chairman, I wouldn't see any reason why the applicant would deny that he was shot in the circumstances described by the witnesses in court. And as such, Mr Chairman, I request this Committee to find that on that aspect the applicant has made full disclosure as to regard to the killing and the robbery of Mr Mashamahite. And that they acted within his course and scope of his being the member of APLA and furthering the aims of a publicly known political organisation.

Mr Chairman, I proceed to the attempted murder and robbery of Hladi. Mr Chairman, it's clear from what the applicant has told the Committee, that he perceived Hladi as an informer and that Hladi went around with the police trying to locate them after the killing of the policeman, and it was the reason that they decided to eliminate him because he was going to cause them to be arrested of that incident, and he believed that he would later give evidence in court and if he kills him there will be no evidence against him.

At that particular point in time though, Mr Chairman, it transpired that Hladi did not give evidence in court, but at the time he perceived and he believed that Hladi was the main person who made the police to know that they were the main people who killed Mashamahite and at that time he bona fide believed that he was an informer of the policeman and he has to be eliminated. And also, Mr Chairman, it transpired that one APLA cadre Vusi told him and that Hladi is an informer. It was during the drinks that he mentioned that though he did not know Vusi at that time, that he's a member of APLA, that he will pocket 50 grand if Shakes can be arrested.

I think that, Mr Chairman, if the Committee accepts that, that that indeed was said by Vusi to the applicant and was said by Hladi, it will fit like a glove to the evidence of the applicant that Hladi was moving around trying to assist the police in arresting them, that he was an informer. And as such, Mr Chairman, I want the Committee to believe and accept the version of the applicant, that by attempting to kill Hladi he acted bona fide and he believed him to be an informer, and he was acting within the course and scope of his organisation and trying to protect the members of his unit and himself being arrested so that they can be able to continue with the armed struggle.

Mr Chairman, I want the Committee also to take into account that at that time, though everybody knew that the negotiations were in place, that PAC and APLA have not yet suspended the armed struggle, and also in the community it was not yet over where most of the time, I want to concede, most of the time people were killed just because somebody said he's an informer, and most of those instances you'll find that if you can go deep, you'll find that some of them were innocent. But because of the political situation at the time everybody was sceptical even if he sees you talking to a policeman they wouldn't understand why you are talking to a policeman. And as such, Mr Chairman, those incidents happen because of that.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, Mr Mbandazayo. Can't you say that was the case in the 70s and in the 80s, and if we look at this instance, it was in 1993 and at that time there was already, I mean a spirit of negotiation. The perception of people speaking to the police then was somewhat different than it was in the 80s and in the 70s. Would you not agree with me?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Through you, Mr Chairman. I would agree with the member of the Committee not in whole. Though I agree that at that particular point in time the perception was changing, but there was still some people who was still sceptical even about the whole process, even about the process of negotiations. Some did believe that PAC did not suspend the armed struggle and they believed that the Nationalist Party Government cannot negotiate itself out of power and the President of PAC went on record as saying that the PAC will never abandon the bullet until the ballot is secured. And though, Mr Chairman, I wouldn't have the facilities, I thought that I'll photostat it, I thought that I'll have photostats of the quotation which is in the publication of APLA. And if you follow that, members of APLA/PAC acted accordingly because they believed the President has said until the ballot is secured, which an ordinary person believes that they will only suspend the armed struggle after they have voted and they are sure that they have managed to get the ballot.

ADV SIGODI: No, I understand that. Sorry.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, I'm coming to that part, but I agree with you that at the time, in a way the perception were changing about the policemen, but not everybody was sure and were confident about the action of the police even at that particular point in time. And taking into account the circumstances of the applicant at the point in time, his own organisation was still involved with the armed struggle and the policemen were still targets and the informers.

CHAIRPERSON: What was - the details doesn't readily come to mind at this stage, but first of all, there were interruptions in the negotiations process, where the African National Congress actually withdrew themselves from that process and were quite sceptical about the prospects of that process delivering a lasting peace and a democracy in the country. And then at one stage when the negotiations were in progress and the Pan Africanist Congress was participating, there was a whole series of raids and arrests of PAC and APLA officials during that process. I'm not sure whether you would have the details around the timing of those incidents when all of that was taking place. I seem to recall that the ANC withdrawal of course happened before '93, before this incident in January. I'm not sure about those raids when those happened.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I was going to come to that but I was trying - this incident happened before the raid but I was going to tie up with the raid. The raid happened in May 1993 in the PAC. If I'm not mistaken, around the 16th of May in that year.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, don't let me interrupt that line. You deal with it when you feel comfortable to deal with it.


MR LAX: Mr Chairperson, if I could just help out. The armed struggle, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr Mbandazayo, terminated on the 16th of December 1993 on behalf of APLA and it did take some time before that message filtered to all the units on the ground. There was a congress at UNITRA at that time when the armed struggle was finally terminated.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, that's a correction, it was in January where the armed struggle was officially suspended. The congress in UNITRA took a decision that the leadership should suspend the armed struggle when it is appropriate. The authority lies with the congress and the congress shifted it to the leadership when its appropriate time suspend the armed struggle. That decision was taken at UNITRA and the armed struggle was suspended in January officially, 1994, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, if I may continue on this aspect. And now, Mr Chairman, as I indicated that not everybody was comfortable with the situation of the negotiation and people were sceptical about the negotiation and in particular the organisation to which the applicant belongs was still engaged in the armed struggle and at that particular point in time when he committed this offence. And to make it, Mr Chairman, to the sceptics in order to - the sceptics were vindicated when the PAC officers and the APLA cadres over the country were arrested during the negotiations. And that PAC said, "We said that we need to go to neutral venue, the regime cannot be referee and the chairman, because they still have the arms and it is said that we must suspend the armed struggle". And the police unfortunately were the people who had to do that job on behalf of the politicians and they were always on the first line, firing line.

Now, Mr Chairman, I don't want to lose track, I want to tie it with the question of robbery, this instance because it is alleged that he was robbed R100,00. The applicant has vehemently denied, I know that in terms of the Act, if you have to come and tell the Committee what you have done, but when it comes to him he still stand by his position that when it comes to this aspect in the whole incident of Hladi, there was no robbery. I must confess, Mr Chairman, I have talked to my client, I've tried and he told me that, "If I tell the Committee other story just because I want to be granted amnesty I will not be honest to the Committee". We would have done every means to make it sound political, even there, the robbery of Hladi but he did not want to budge because he said, "Look, it means I'm not honest. I'm doing it for the sake that I want amnesty".

And, Mr Chairman, I think that the Committee can take that in his favour because he had no way of misleading the Committee and say, "No, I did that. I committed it. We wanted this because we were going to sell it and raise funds for the party. We didn't have funds". But he decided to be honest and open to the Committee and say, "This one, I want to stand my ground even if the Committee decides whatever it decides". Even if it means that he's not granted amnesty. And I told him the implication and he said, "Look, if that it means that then let it be instead of saying go and mislead them and say I've done something which I have not done". He said, "I have the opportunity now to say I've done it. I can defend and say in court it was because I wanted to get away with the offence". But he said, "Look, I'm still maintaining my ground. If the Committee does not want to give me amnesty, he can refuse amnesty but I cannot say I've done something which I have not done". And that, Mr Chairman, in itself, I think if the Committee can take the whole incident in totality, I think that it can count in his favour.

Mr Chairman, having made those submissions, I don't want to bore you, maybe you still have questions. I want to say that in conclusion, that the applicant has established that he belongs to a political organisation, a known one, publicly known one and he acted within the scope and course of that organisation and that what he did was not for personal gain but everything he did was in furtherance of the aims and objective of the organisation in which he was and as such, Mr Chairman, I humbly request and submit to this Committee that the applicant has made full and proper disclosure to this Committee regarding his role in the incident of the late Mashamahite and Hladi murder. And I request that the Committee grant him amnesty accordingly. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Unless the Committee wants to ask question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, thank you very much. It really just leaves the question of the robbery count that the applicant was convicted on and was given a fairly heavy sentence of eight (8) years for a robbery of what is given as R380,00 on the papers before us, and the applicant has indicated to us that he had a clean record. I haven't looked at the judgment on sentence in any great detail, but I approach the matter on that basis. I think you have already made the submission quite correctly that of course if there is not a confirmation that was in fact part of the incident in question, then technically speaking it leaves that particular count out of the issues that we would be able to have a look at. Is that how you submit the matter stands at this stage in view of the situation that has developed around this robbery count?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, when you were talking I was just thinking about a case, a similar case which I handled, which was similar to this one in 1995 in East London, where the Committee comprised of Judge Small and Judge Wilson and Miss Khampepe.

I happened to face a similar situation where an applicant was convicted of kidnapping and it was a chairman of AZAPO, Eastern Cape. It can be easily got in the Amnesty Committee, and I think it was the feeling of the Committee that it was too much, taking into account the whole circumstances and the circumstances under which the incident happened that they ended up granting even amnesty on that aspect. That's why I was saying look, I was trying to prove the bona fides that the Committee maybe it can use its discretion if he has on this matter, but I had a similar case where he was convicted of kidnapping and to be honest Judge Wilson was not pleased inasmuch as the evidence was there before the court that they took away these people, but he felt that it was too severe. And this guy was sentenced in fact to twenty (20) years' imprisonment. He was sentenced to twenty (20) years' imprisonment and they granted him. I just forgotten the name, Mr Chairman, of the applicant, but it can be easily be got in the Amnesty Committee. That's why I'm saying, Mr Chairman, I've done everything for the applicant, but he wanted to be open and honest with the Committee. That the Committee may use its discretion when it comes to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'll certainly ask that we get that judgment. Of course I'm just raising this with you, a sort of possibility. We haven't of course decided which way the matter must go. But assuming your submission is accepted, that your client has qualified and has satisfied Sections 21 and 22 and that takes care of the other counts leaving this particular one with a very insignificant amount in issue. Unfortunately Mr Hladi isn't here. We have taken steps to raise him. Applicant has indicated to us that Mr Hladi wanted to speak to him so it doesn't appear as if there is any particular bad blood between them at this stage. Speaking for myself, it does leave one with a feeling of unease, if you have to approach the matter on the basis that that particular count doesn't form part of the material before us now at this stage and that must be taken as a given, that your client is facing that count and that sentence and so on. But thank you, we will look at that particular matter. Whatever assistance, other assistance you have, please let us know.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Just to conclude, Mr Chairman, just on that point. Mr Chairman, I don't want to speculate and do whatever, what will have been the reason of Hladi coming up with this. I don't want to say he was lying. We would have the benefit if he was here to ask him certain things. Maybe we would have got a clear picture, but what I want to say, Mr Chairman, if there was an allegation that he is an informer, definitely at that stage nobody would feel comfortable with that. One would easily - everybody denied even though some were informers, though I don't have evidence, will deny that he's an informer, would come up with anything.

I'm not trying to cast any aspersion on him because he's not here but I'm just trying to widen - that's why I didn't want to go to that length. But there may be other reason why he came up with that, because he was said informer, he wanted to tell these guys that, "Look, there's nothing like that. These guys only wanted to rob me and they robbed me of this".

And one wonders sometimes whether in those circumstances where you go and rob when you don't know how much are you going to get and go to somebody in his house who's drinking, that in any event, if somebody can just go there drinking just to go and rob your R100,00 and just for that specific people. That's why, Mr Chairman, there are many questions on this aspect, but as I indicated that I want the Committee to take the whole incident in totality when they come to the stage of deciding this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: No, thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And we'll accept the decision of the Committee and abide by it. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: No, thank you very much. It's quite useful.


CHAIRPERSON: Before we go to Mr Mapoma. My attention is just drawn to the fact that there are a count of, in fact there are two counts in the indictment. If you have the indictment, on page 48 of the record. There are two counts, six and seven on the indictment which appears to be attempted murder charges in respect of the two policemen at the time when Mr Buthelezi was apprehended.

Now, it also appears from page 43 of the record, that's the concluding part of the sentence, the very last one, in respect of count six, attempted murder, eight (8) years' imprisonment. Have you got that? The very last, under the heading "gevangenisstraf" on page 43. They seem to be dealing with count six there, and it appears as if your client was sentenced to eight (8) years' imprisonment in respect of that. I'm not quite sure what happened to count seven, whether that has fallen away.

MR LAX: Taken as one.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, they were taken as one. Okay. So, it appears that he was convicted, but for purpose of sentence. Those were taken as one and he was given eight (8) years' imprisonment. Now, does the application also entail those two counts?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Yes, Mr Chairman, it did entail those two counts, especially if you look, Mr Chairman, in the main application where the applicant in the main form, where he applied for amnesty for the incident in which he was convicted. And, Mr Chairman, it's just a slip on my part on this not to address the Committee on that aspect, that of the two policemen, attempted murder on the two policemen.


MR MBANDAZAYO: That the incident regarding the two policemen, Mr Chairman, it's clear that at the time when he shot at the policemen he wanted to get away, didn't want to be arrested by the policemen, because he knew and at that time he believed that he was wanted for the murder of the other policemen, Mashamahite. And taking into account that the reason for him shooting at the policemen was he wanted to get away from them, he did not want to be arrested.

Mr Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that that act was associated with political objective in the sense that he did not want to be arrested for an offence which he committed of killing a policeman. And also that, Mr Chairman, taking into account that the policy of APLA at that time, even though in this instance for shooting at them was to avoid arrest, was to attack the policemen because they were regarded as the part of the system. But at this particular incident he did shoot at them because he wanted to avoid arrest. And I submit, Mr Chairman, that if the Committee accepts that he was member of APLA and at the time he committed the initial offence of Mashamahite and the attempted murder of Hladi, he was acting within the course and scope of his employment. Then it follows that his action to avoid being arrested by the police were also indeed associated with political objective.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether any of these two policemen was injured?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, if I can just ask the applicant. Thank you, Mr Chairman. None, Mr Chairman, was injured.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say that the application as drafted is wide enough to include those two counts? In fact the application relates to the charges in respect of which he was convicted, except that he is saying in his papers that he never robbed Mr Hladi?

MR MBANDAZAYO: That's the only incident where, Mr Chairman, he's disassociating himself because he also in his evidence-in-chief indicated that there was an exchange of gunfire with the police and he ended up being shot, because he ran out of bullets. So definitely, Mr Chairman, that it covers the whole incident, Mr Chairman, with the exception of the one, he's denying that he never robbed Mr Hladi.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And also just indicate to us whether these two persons in respect of count six and seven of the indictment, whether they have been notified about the hearing when you address us.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Mr Chairman, I'm not in a position to confirm whether they've been notified or not at this stage, sir, unless I can have some other time to peruse my documents and verify that.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think it's fine. I think present the argument to us. If anything turns on that issue of notification, we've taken note of the fact that it doesn't seem as if they have suffered any personal injury in that sort of situation. Of course one doesn't know how people view these things, but in that sort of case one assumes that there is less inclination to participate in proceedings like this and it might very well be able subsequent to the hearing to notify them and hear if they want to add anything. So, don't interrupt your argument at this stage about that. Address us and then we can look at that issue once you're done. So, please proceed.

MR MAPOMA ADDRESSES: Yes, Mr Chairman, I don't have much of the issues to raise at this point particularly, sir, regarding the attack by APLA cadres on the police during those years. The only issue, sir, I wanted to raise, it looks like has also been dealt with by the applicant's legal representative himself, that one of robbery. And, sir, that being the case I really don't have any other issues to take up.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume you don't have any further responses?

MR MBANDAZAYO: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Well, that concludes the application at this stage. We will need a bit of time to consider the matter and we will also consider the question of an approach to the two persons in respect of the attempted murder counts to hear whether they wish to add any material to what has already been placed before the Committee. So, at this stage we will adjourn and we will consider the matter. Mr Mapoma, is there any other case that we can proceed with at this stage or are you not in a position to present anything further today?

MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairman, no, not today. The next matter will be that of Phila Dolo. But, sir, I propose that we begin tomorrow with that one, but not today, sir. At this point I don't have another matter to go on.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it in order for us to commence at 9 o'clock tomorrow?

MR MAPOMA: From me that is in order, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you also appear for Mr Dolo?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, I appear for Mr Dolo.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any problem if we commence at 9 o'clock with the proceedings?

MR MBANDAZAYO: None, Mr Chairman. In fact in terms of the arrangement I thought it was going to be the first case today. So I'm ready with it at 9 o'clock, Mr Chairman. I'm here. By 9 o'clock we'll be ready, Mr Chairman. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we do want to start at 9 o'clock. As it's common public knowledge, we are under some pressure to conclude the work that we have to do as a Committee, and I would like the Correctional Services people to take note of that and to please ensure that Mr Dolo is in fact available for us to continue at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. Than you. In that case it will conclude our hearing for today. We will adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock when we will hear the matter of Phila Martin Dolo. We're adjourned.