DAY: 7


CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. We have two matters on our roll today, and I am informed that we will start with the application of Mr M.C. Ngema.

Before we start, I would just like to briefly introduce the panel. On my right is Mr Jonas Sibanyoni, a member of the Amnesty Committee and an Attorney from Pretoria. On my left if Mr Ilan Lax, also a member of the Amnesty Committee and an Attorney from Pietermaritzburg. I am Selwyn Miller, a Judge from the Transkei Division of the High Court.

I will ask the legal representatives please to place themselves on record.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Chairperson, my name is Lungelo Mbandazayo and I am representing the applicant in this matter, thank you.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, J.M. Mpshe for the TRC, particularly the Amnesty Committee. I will be representing victims in both incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mpshe, Mr Mbandazayo. The proceedings will be translated and if you wish to benefit from the translation, you must be in possession of one of these devices. They are available from the sound technician.

Mr Mbandazayo?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson, the applicant is Zulu speaking and may he be sworn in Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ngema, do you wish to take an oath or do you wish to make an affirmation to tell the truth?

MR NGEMA: Yes, I will take an oath.

MDUDUZI CYRIL NGEMA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, unfortunately in this application, I do not have an affidavit which will facilitate these proceedings, and I will lead the applicant from the cuff Mr Chairperson, on important aspects.

Mr Ngema, is it correct that you were a member of PAC and also a member of APLA?


MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you tell the Committee when did you join the PAC?

MR NGEMA: I joined in 1989.

MR MBANDAZAYO: When did you join APLA?

MR NGEMA: In 1992.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now, can you tell the Committee where were you trained as a member of APLA?

MR NGEMA: I was trained in Tanzania.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now, after you had been trained in Tanzania, I understand you came back, and what were you doing as a member of APLA inside the country?

MR NGEMA: What I did, I was an Organiser of the Pan Africanist, APLA in Umlazi. As well as active in the security and in the VIP protection.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now, Mr Ngema, having said that, let's come to the incident, the killing of Christopher Meheza. Am I correct to say that he was a member of PAC?

MR NGEMA: Yes. He was a member of PAC as well as APLA member.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now, can you tell the Committee why did you kill Mr Meheza?

MR NGEMA: The reason why Ndlandhla was killed, it was because he was colluding with the SAP, South African Police and Ndlandhla, we got a message that Ndlandhla should be killed because of this reason that he was colluding or collaborating with the enemy.

That happened as I was instructed, the instruction I had to kill Ndlandhla.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you tell the Committee who gave you the instructions to kill Ndlandhla?

MR NGEMA: The instruction of killing Ndlandhla, I got from Thompson, who gave me a call on the 31st of August 1992 telling me that we should meet some place, somewhere at the University, Durban Westville, that is where there was a meeting of PASO.

That is a student wing of PAC. There was that gathering, particular gathering at the University in this day, then we met there with Thompson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Ngema, Thompson, was that a code name or was that the person's real name or don't you know?

MR NGEMA: I wouldn't know as to whether it was his real name or a nickname or a code name for instance, but we used to refer to him as Thompson.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, just for the benefit of the Committee, I have investigated and I was given the name as Mandla Tshikilana, but I understand he is late, he died in 1996.


MR MBANDAZAYO: That is the name of Thompson, the real name, he was a member of the High Command of APLA.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Ngema, who else was present, was there any other present in your meeting with Mr Thompson?

MR NGEMA: The other one who was present there was Innocent Khumalo.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Tell the Committee what did Thompson tell you.

MR NGEMA: What Thompson said was an instruction had been given that Ndlandhla must be killed because of the evidence that surfaced that he was colluding with an enemy and he wanted myself and Innocent to mobilise that mission.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Did he tell you what kind of evidence he has, they had in order to come to this decision that he must be eliminated?

MR NGEMA: What he said, Thompson that is, he made an indication about the death of Themba Nxapayi, who was killed by the Police of South Africa in 1992.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the surname, Themba, I didn't catch the surname?

MR NGEMA: Nxapayi, Themba Nxapayi. The death of Themba Nxapayi led to the evidence he gave us that Ndlandhla sold Themba Nxapayi to the Police of South Africa, in other words he informed the Police about him.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, also Themba Nxapayi was a member of the High Command of APLA from (Indistinct) in Transkei.


MR MBANDAZAYO: Now, tell the Committee what role did you play then in the killing of Mr Meheza.

MR NGEMA: What I did was, we left and we went to Christopher Ndlandhla's place in Umlazi, it was myself and Innocent. Thompson himself was present.

We went to kwaMashu, we were headed for kwaMashu. On that particular day, I did not get inside, except Thompson and Innocent went inside and quickly returned and told me that he was not in the house.

The following day, when we went there for the second time, on a Sunday, Thompson said we should go back again and we agreed that we will go his place of work, that is where we will wait for him. Monday morning truly we went there, because he was working at Tisha Centre, that is where he was working, and we arrived in the morning before he arrived.

We waited for him there, until he arrived. Thompson told him that there is a person who wanted to see him. I have forgotten as to what name he mentioned, but we knew that he was fooling him about that. There was no person in other words there to see him, so that he could come along with us. That was just a trick.

Ndlandhla performed some delaying tactics to an extent that he even said and admitted that he had a meeting with the management of Juba Breweries. He informed us to that effect and he left, he went his way and we went our way. We parted.

In the afternoon, we went to his house then, and I got inside myself and Innocent as well. We found his brother inside and his wife. That is Ndlandhla's brother's wife and the wife was expectant.

Innocent knew the family quite well, the Meheza family. It was their first time to see me, but they knew Innocent very well, because it looks like Innocent once stayed with them.

After we said that we were looking for Ndlandhla, they told us that he just stepped out, he will be back and they started chatting generally with Christopher's brother, that is Ndlandhla's brother and Innocent.

As they were still conversing, Ndlandhla came in and then Innocent knew very well that these are Christians, in other words that family was a Christian family, they believed in praying and we prayed suddenly and Ndlandhla came in and he was wearing a white T-shirt and it was raining outside and he got inside the bedroom and put on a jacket.

He came and joined us for prayer, we knelt down. Ndlandhla was the last one who prayed. He prayed for a long time and immediately after that, we were telling them we were leaving and Ndlandhla accompanied us. We took him, we told him to get inside the car and we now argued as to where he shall sit.

He didn't want to sit right in the middle of us, he wanted to sit by the door, but we insisted that he should sit right in the middle, and we took a certain route, the N2. Just before we got, it was about 1.5 km before we reached the toll gate towards kwaZulu, on the N2, we parked there. We pulled off and we got into the sugar cane plantation. That is when Thompson asked him as to who was he working with.

He cried suddenly and said no, I am not working with anyone. There was some evidence that Thompson had ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you are mentioning Thompson. Was Thompson there or was it Innocent?

MR NGEMA: It was Innocent and Thompson was present as well. Yes, Innocent but Thompson was there as well.

Thompson asked him as to why he was saying he was not working with anyone and yet every Monday he meets certain people and call that group of people and there was some piece of evidence that I gathered that day, that there were pictures or photo's that were taken and Thompson was appearing on those photo's in the company of a certain Police, right next to the car of that Policeman. I think the place that they were using was Maharan Hotel and the City Hall.

Ndlandhla responded and agreed to what he was saying and then he confirmed yes, he started working with them since 1990. Thompson was concerned as to why he did not say that much, in other words he agreed to all that Thompson was saying to him, and accepted that, and we shot him subsequently, myself and Innocent.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you tell the Committee how many times did you shoot him?

MR NGEMA: I shot him five times myself, and Innocent shot him twice.

MR MBANDAZAYO: What did you do with his body then after that?

MR NGEMA: We just left it laying there on the ground.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Where did you go after the incident?

MR NGEMA: After that, we went back to the car and we drove back. That is when we parted with Thompson and Innocent.

They took their way, Thompson and Innocent that is. As to where they went or headed for, I don't know. I met Innocent after a long time, that is when he told me immediately after that, they proceeded to Transkei.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now, did you yourself have any knowledge that Ndlandhla was working with the Police?

MR NGEMA: Yes, I once had such rumours relating to that effect that Ndlandhla was colluding or working hand in hand as an informer with the Police. I once heard something to that effect.

I gathered that from I will say around the beginning of 1990. It was a common knowledge within the organisation that Ndlandhla was colluding with the Police, with the enemy. That is when I discovered and proved that to be true after I also got that from Thompson, especially after the instruction was given that Ndlandhla shall be eliminated.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Did you yourself at any stage, see him, at any stage see him with the Police, that is Ndlandhla?

MR NGEMA: Yes, there was an incident when I saw some photo's or pictures or a photo and that photo displayed Ndlandhla going away from work, going to a certain car, a powder blue car, and the car driver was white, was a white man.

After some time, in 1991, one PAC member, Innocent, was arrested or got arrested for AK47 magazine and he was arrested in Durban at the PAC offices. After his arrest, I frequented the prison to go visit and see him. I will always see this Police who was handling the case of Innocent and the very Police, I had seen at that picture or the photo were in Ndlandhla's possession. That is one other piece of evidence that made me believe that truly and indeed, Ndlandhla is working with the Police.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Ngema, let's come now to the second incident, that is the death of John Kanyile in October 1992, the taxi driver.

Can you tell the Committee what was your mission, how many of you were involved, who are those people you were involved with?

MR NGEMA: With regards to Kanyile's case, we had a mission to accomplish in one of the bars at Port Edward, that is where people will go and drink, the whites. It was a bar where they will usually go for their drinks.

The problem we had was transport. We did not have a car or vehicle to use to get there to accomplish, to further the mission.

Sebata was a Commander at that time. He came up with a plan that we should by all means necessary get a car. In other words, we will have to disguise, we agreed amongst ourselves that we will go to Durban and hire a taxi and pretend as people or as students of UNITRA, coming from UNITRA visiting here in Durban, visiting UDW, the University of Durban Westville.

Indeed we went to that taxi. Sebata was the one who was our spokesman, he spoke to the taxi driver and said to the taxi driver we are the students from Transkei, visiting the University of Durban Westville and now we will like to go back to UDW. How much will you charge us for that distance and the driver said I will charge you R40-00. Sebata took out some cash and we got inside the taxi.

The one was sitting in front, in front of the steering wheel was Sipho, to drive the vehicle. Right next to or behind the driver was myself, and right next to myself in the centre was Sebata.

The extreme left, on my extreme left was Kushukushu. We were four in number.

We got inside that taxi and the taxi left. We took of from Point in Durban, headed towards Westville until we got to a turn off of Westville, from the freeway. I think it was roughly about 350 to 500 metres, before we reached the security gate of Durban Westville, the University that is.

Sebata told me that I should be the one who will approach the driver. The reason was the driver was a Zulu speaking person and Sebata was not conversant in Zulu, he was a Xhosa.

Now, Sebata wanted me to convey the message to the driver as we were speaking in the same language. That was the reason and Sebata gave me a gun as he was telling me that message as well. So, he told me that I will scare the driver off by this gun. I approached the driver and said we are soldiers of APLA and we will like to get your vehicle to go and conduct our mission, we will bring your car back.

He resisted. The driver that is, and at that time, the car was no longer in order driving straight, it was going side by side. He could not control the car, and the gun had already been cocked and I was not aware of that fact. The gun was locked and I was not aware and it was just at that time when I touched the trigger and the driver got shot and I was right behind him.

I was scared, I had to try and control the vehicle before it could overturn. Fortunately I was able to get the car to a stop and we had to get off. The car was already damaged and we decided that we should take the very same car, discard of the body and drive the same car and we could not go any further because the car was already damaged, so it could not take the strain. We had to park and go on foot and locate the public telephones to call a friend to come and fetch us from where we were.

Indeed he came and we drove back to Transkei.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Just at that instance, the shooting of the driver, were you going to shoot the driver if he was not going to, if he refused to give you the car?

MR NGEMA: No. Our intention was to get the car so that we could go and do our mission, the organisation's mission. Please you should know one thing, that car was in full speed. There was no way I could kill the driver, taking into consideration the speed of the car, because also our lives, we would have been exposed to danger, and the vehicle as well would have been badly damaged, and the mission obviously wouldn't have been accomplished, or we would not even attempt to accomplish the mission.

So shooting the driver was not part of our plan, not at all. This is why I am saying that it was a mistake that I touched the trigger, not being aware. The reason why I took off the gun, was to scare him off, not intending the shoot.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now Mr Ngema, now that this thing happened and you killed the driver, what do you say to that? The family of the driver ...

MR NGEMA: It is hurting, it is painful. The death of a person is not an easy thing, especially killing a person whom we had no negative plans about. It is not easy to bear, it is painful. I am sympathising with his children and with his family as well.

The truth is that this was not intended, it was not our intention. All we wanted from him was the car, so that we could go and conduct the mission, but the fact that we ended killing him, was a serious mistake. It was not intentional.

To the family or to his family, I would like to convey this, I am very sorry. It was not because we wanted to kill him. We did not even know the poor person. It was the first time we had an encounter with him, or we saw him. All we wanted was his car.

I am sorry, I would like to apologise in a very, very special way to the members of his family.

MR MBANDAZAYO: That is all Mr Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mbandazayo. Mr Mpshe, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, it is only with regard to incident two, the last he has testified about.

Mr Ngema, was Dysia Muxaba and John Gumedi not present when this incident took place?

MR NGEMA: Dysia was phoned, in other words we phoned for him to come and fetch us because we were in trouble. As far as John Gumedi is concerned, I had already made mention of him, but he is Sipho. That is the one I mentioned, Sipho.

ADV MPSHE: You mentioned a person by the name of Kushukushu, is he also known as Stimela?

MR NGEMA: Yes, he is also known as Stimela.

ADV MPSHE: What are his full names?

MR NGEMA: With the names, I have some difficulty because at the time, we were using pseudonyms. Like myself, I was known commonly as so and so and so many other names, like for instance Leklapa. The first time I realised that his name is Leklapa Mpashlele, it was when he was arrested.

Before I used to know him as my overall, for his real name to come to the surface, it was only recent, in other words, all along as we were working with him, or relating to him, we were relating to him as my overall. This very guy as well, Kushukushu, I will not be in a position to say it was his real name or a pseudonym or a code name for instance.

ADV MPSHE: You have just in conclusion, showed some remorse about the killing of this innocent taxi driver and mentioned that it was really a mistake. He as not the target.

MR NGEMA: He was not the target, yes.

ADV MPSHE: I noted in the Court judgement on sentence, that the Judge had ordered that you pay a certain amount, I think R20 000 for a sentenced to be halved. Do you remember that?

MR NGEMA: Yes, that happened.

ADV MPSHE: That was not done? The payment that is?

MR NGEMA: I never paid that amount of money, but I took that and presented that to the organisation, because as an individual, there was no way I could have raised that much money and there was no way, I could pay that money myself as if it was my mission.

It was not my mission, I had no interest in that as a person or as an individual, but it was the organisation's mission. It was in the interest of the organisation, not in my interest as an individual.

ADV MPSHE: If you were remorseful, what was then the attitude of the organisation?

MR NGEMA: You mean which attitude, what attitude are you talking about?

ADV MPSHE: How did the organisation respond to this remorse and to the question of paying the R20 000, to show that you are indeed remorseful?

MR NGEMA: I am not in a position to state exactly as to the organisation itself. It knows better because we never went further, beyond that point and as far as that amount of money was concerned, that is up to the organisation, and it will be in a better position to explain this much better than me.

I am a convict now.

ADV MPSHE: With regard to incident one, what was Thompson's status, vis-a-vis a vis-a-vis your status in the organisation?

MR NGEMA: Thompson was my senior. I was his junior, subordinate. He was truly and indeed a senior and I was a junior to him.

ADV MPSHE: If given an instruction or an order by a person's senior, let's say Thompson for example, and you find that order or instruction not justifiable and you refuse to carry it out, would anything have happened to you?

MR NGEMA: An order is an order. You don't question an order. You take an order and process it.

You will ask questions after you have taken it into action. You cannot defy an order. As a senior you take instructions and process it and you will have to comply with the order, no questions about that.

ADV MPSHE: You testified that you saw Ndlandhla at one stage, I think you said on a photo he was moving to a blue car driven by a white person, am I correct?


ADV MPSHE: And then later when you went to court, after the arrest of Innocent, you saw, you identified the Investigating Officer as the one who was on the photo with Ndlandhla, is that correct?


ADV MPSHE: Good. Is there any other incident that you know of personally, that could convince you that Ndlandhla was an informer, other than the photo?

MR NGEMA: Another thing besides this photo story, I got to discover this later on the day when he was killed, that Ndlandhla indeed was colluding with an enemy.

It was on a Monday that day, I remember when we got to Ndlandhla's work place, there was a call that came and he answered the phone, Ndlandhla that is, and he said hello, and I suppose the person on that side responded and Ndlandhla said, is it you Piet? That time when he mentioned that name, I already had heard that Ndlandhla is working for this particular Police by the name of Piet.

Now that quickly registered in my mind, now I heard him say Piet, I am suppose to give you a feedback, but I will see you later when I come back from - meaning from the meeting that was scheduled with the management of Juba Breweries. In other words he was saying he would talk to Piet after that meeting, when he gets back to the office.

I was asking myself, wondering as to what feedback was he referring to or what feedback is he talking about here. You see, we know a few English terms and the names, English names, now when this Piet was mentioned, in my mind there was nothing else except that this is the Piet he is working with and yet the congress we had the previous day, Ndlandhla was there, he had attended, and the day when we were killing him, we asked him about the phone call and asked him who was this person you wanted to give a feedback, and he accepted and told us that it was Piet Nel, and this was the Police that had hired him.

Besides that incident, I will say you see an informer can be identified very easy and so simple. An informer is so curious, will always want to know every detail, even things that will not concern him at all. That is the characteristic of an informer.

But then again, when you listen to him quite closely, you will follow that the information that he so much wants to know and hear, it is not because he has any interest in what you have, but you can tell easily that he has other motives, or hidden agendas.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, that will be all.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mpshe. Mr Mbandazayo, do you have any re-examination?

MR MBANDAZAYO: None Mr Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibanyoni, do you have any questions to ask the applicant?

MR SIBANYONI: Yes thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Ngema, do you know or perhaps you don't know, whether it was PAC policy to kill its members who are informers?

MR NGEMA: According to me, I was active in the VIP protection and security, I learned that and it was explicitly conveyed to us that any informer shall be killed. AT the time, we had no any other ways or remedies around informers, except eliminating them, or maybe disciplinary actions or so. There were none, except they shall be killed, so that there is no link between the enemy and the organisation.

MR SIBANYONI: I see this incident happened in 1992, things were a little bit better by that time, organisations were unbanned, you could operate freely in the country.

Don't you think it was possible to deal with him, discipline him in another way, rather than killing him?

MR NGEMA: You say things were well in 1992, no, I think we differ. In 1992 South African Police killed Themba Nxapayi. I don't think that I agree with you when you say things were calm then or were straight and in order.

I don't think I agree with you. There still wasn't any stability at that time. Another thing I will say with regards to the armed struggle of PAC, it was still active and APLA was very active in action at that time.

I don't think the struggle had come to a stop. There were negotiations, I do agree with you there, but the armed struggle was still going on. It is not to say the situation had been quelled, no. We believed that the government of the day was not legitimate.

We were believing that we as PAC, are legitimate and an organisation that practice legitimacy. That is what I will say.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Sibanyoni. Mr Lax, do you have any questions to ask the applicant?

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Ngema, the second mission that you went on, if I understood your evidence correctly, you were going to a bar in Port Edward, that you said whites frequented.


MR LAX: What were you going to do there?

MR NGEMA: We were going to kill or we had planned to kill the whites that were drinking there, or that frequented that place.

MR LAX: Was that the sole purpose of your mission?


MR LAX: What else were you going to do there?

MR NGEMA: The reason why we would have wanted to kill those whites who were drinking there, was to try to bring some fear to the white community or civilians that they should not trust the government of the day and they shall be the ones who will be in the forefront, wanting the government to put or to get out, to step out of governing the country.

We wanted to have them see that there is no hope and this government is hopeless because such things are happening in their communities. They are being killed during their governing and there is nothing, in other words, it is just a hopeless government. That is the kind of impression we wanted to instil to the white community or civilians.

MR LAX: Yes, I understand that being the motive of the operation, but I want you to turn to page, do you have the documents in front of you, page 3? Page 3 forms part of your amnesty application, dated the 25th of April 1997. The date is on the previous page, the page after that.

In that in answer to question 9(a)(iv) where you give the nature and particulars of your actions for which you are applying for amnesty, the second operation is recorded as follows.

In the second murder, I was in fund-raising mission. This wasn't a fund-raising mission. Please explain this to us.

MR NGEMA: It stems from what I have already said that this incident happened because we had intended to conduct an operation somewhere else. As you can see from this handwriting, this is Chief Commander in APLA's handwriting, Mpashlele handwriting.

He is the one who wrote there, that fund-raising mission. He is the one therefore who was co-ordinating the operations of APLA. As to what we would use that car for after the mission, I have no knowledge, but he will know because he was the one, the Co-ordinator of the time.

But what I am telling you is that that car was supposed to have been used to mobilise this actions in Port Edward.

MR LAX: Your evidence previously was very clear, you are getting this car so that you can get transport to go to Port Edward.


MR LAX: When you filled out this form, did you just tell Mr Leklapa to put anything he liked in the form, or did you tell him what you were applying for?

MR NGEMA: This Leklapa knows very well that that was supposed to have happened, and ...

MR LAX: No, no, you are not answering my question, it is really quite simple, I know who Leklapa is, I know what his position in APLA was. But this is your form, not his form. This is your application for amnesty, not his application for amnesty.

He was helping you fill this form in, is that correct?

MR NGEMA: If there is a mistake in what Leklapa has written here, I still stand by what I am saying that I intended to do this and that.

If Leklapa has written fund-raising and other things, this is his business, but I stand and maintain strongly what I have said.

MR LAX: You don't know why it says the second murder was part of a fund-raising mission?

MR NGEMA: According to me, I bear no knowledge of that but as he was the person heading the organisation of APLA, he would know better, but what I know is what I have laid before you.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if I may just intervene on that before I forget and you can carry on asking questions.

Mr Ngema, how many application forms did you fill in?


CHAIRPERSON: Because if you turn to page 9, have you got the document, take a look at page 9. Do you see it, right on the top, if you turn back to page 8, the same question at 9(a)(iv), then on page 9 you are talking about the second incident, I killed the taxi driver who was driving the motor car that we wanted to use on our mission.

Whose writing is that, or is that just the translation from the Zulu?

MR NGEMA: This is my handwriting.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this form that you filled in, I don't seem to have a date on it, or do I? There is no date. Which form was filled in first and why was there a need for two application forms?

MR NGEMA: The first application I filled in late in 1995 and the second one, Leklapa came later and he is the one who filled the application form there form.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know why there was a need to do a second one seeing you had already done one in 1995?

MR NGEMA: After I have completed and filled the first one, I was sure, I wasn't sure whether it was already submitted or not, because subsequently I received no correspondence as to confirm that the application was received by the Officials.

Then that led me to tell Leklapa that I had already filled an application and I have heard nothing since to prove that they have already received my application.

Then Leklapa decided or suggested rather, that we should fill the second application seeing that I am receiving no correspondence with regard to the first application.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ngema.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson. You are adamant that this is not your mistake that there was a fund-raising mission, you weren't going on any fund-raising missions?

MR NGEMA: No, I am adamant.

MR LAX: Did you read this form before you signed it?

MR NGEMA: Do you mean the first amnesty application, which one are you referring to?

MR LAX: The second one.

MR NGEMA: Yes, I read it.

MR LAX: Why did you sign it if it says fund-raising mission when you didn't go on a fund-raising mission? Why didn't you correct it?

MR NGEMA: As I have already said, Leklapa was our leader. I had told myself that he knows better what was the intention of the vehicle after the mission had been accomplished, the bar mission that is, what the vehicle will be used for after that, he knows, that rested entirely in his hands.

MR LAX: That is not the issue. The issue is that the murder did not take place on another mission, did it?

MR NGEMA: Please repeat the last part of your comment.

MR LAX: The murder didn't take place on some other mission?

MR NGEMA: Yes. Please repeat again.

MR LAX: The murder didn't take place on some other mission that Leklapa may have intended? Isn't that correct?

MR NGEMA: Please repeat again, I seem to be lost.

MR LAX: I am not surprised, but anyway. The issue is really quite simple. You were telling us here about the incident and the mission you were on when the murder happened, isn't that so?


MR LAX: You were not on a fund-raising mission when the murder happened? You weren't telling us about some future mission that may have been taking place?

MR NGEMA: No. We were not on a fund-raising mission.

MR LAX: So, your answer then doesn't make sense. Whatever Leklapa may have had in his head, about what may have been intended with the vehicle, is irrelevant to what you would have written, or wanted written in this form? Do you see the point I am putting to you?

It is really very simple.

MR NGEMA: I do understand you. What I was saying really was that the only reason why we wanted the car, was to accomplish a mission. As to the fund-raising mission, I have no idea.

Although I must admit to the fact that I have made a big mistake by reading, rereading the application and not paying attention into this fund-raising. I think it is my mistake there.

MR LAX: Yes, thank you. Now, the last issue I wanted to deal with was this, you said you couldn't use that car, because it had been damaged, this taxi?


MR LAX: How was it damaged?

MR NGEMA: After I had shot Kanyile, as I was sitting behind him, the bullets penetrated right through the windscreen and shattered the windscreen of the car.

After we had taken him outside the car, or out of the car, we therefore drove in that car and it just cut off. We had to alight from the vehicle and take alternative means.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, it seems from the documents, just for your information Mr Ngema, from the documents here that that taxi had an anti-hijacking device which must have been activated by Mr Kanyile which causes it to cut off after a time, that is why it cut off.

I also noticed from the documents here that a post mortem examination was committed on Mr Meheza, the informer. It is apparent from that post mortem examination that his body was extensively burnt. Do you know how it came to be burnt?

MR NGEMA: When we were killing Ndlandhla, we were in the sugar cane plantation and it was raining. According to burning him, we never burnt him.

I think he was indeed burnt. I think it was about three months or two months, his body laying there before it was discovered. What I heard from the trial was that they had, they were burning the sugar cane plantation. When that happened, I think he was also effected since he was there, that is how he got burnt.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. The shooting of Mr Kanyile, was there only one shot?

MR NGEMA: I shot him once, but when I touched the trigger, I touched it once, but the gun discharged bullets twice.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it automatic?


CHAIRPERSON: And do you know on which part of the body the bullet struck the deceased?

MR NGEMA: The way I positioned the gun in my hand, I think it was on the head. He was hit on the head, or shot.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mbandazayo, do you have any questions arising out of questions that were put to the applicant by the panel?

MR MBANDAZAYO: None Mr Chairperson.



ADV MPSHE: None Mr Chairperson, thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ngema, that brings your testimony to an end, you may stand down.

MR NGEMA: Thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, are you in a position to address us?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, yes, I would appreciate it if we could address before lunch, rather than after lunch so that we can then perhaps commence the other matter immediately after lunch, because if we address after lunch, it will crowd out quite a bit of the afternoon.

We will now take a short adjournment just to enable the representatives to gather their thoughts prior to them addressing us. We will take a short adjournment, if you can just let us know when you are ready to start.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, sure Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until half past twelve.



CHAIRPERSON: We will commence to make submissions.

MR MBANDAZAYO IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairperson, I would repeat to quote the requirements of Section 20, suffice to say that my submission is that the applicant has met the requirements of Section 20(1) and (2), that at the time of the incident, he was acting on behalf of APLA, a publicly known political organisation and liberation movement, which was engaged in a political struggle against the State at the time.

Also that the applicant did not act for personal gain or out of malice, ill will or spite, directed against the deceased.

Mr Chairperson, I will start with the first incident. It is clear Mr Chairperson, that the applicant was a foot soldier, he was given an order by a member of the High Command of APLA, which was the decision maker within APLA, that they have evidence that Mr Meheza was acting as an informer, and that he was sabotaging the activities of the organisation and has to be eliminated.

Mr Chairperson, if I may refer the Committee to the Court judgement, if one follows the judgement of the Court, indirectly it was admitted by the State when it was argued that he must be punished severely because he killed an informer.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it was, it came out in the trial that the deceased was in fact an informer.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly not a recent fabrication or anything like that.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson. In that context Mr Chairperson, one would argue that would one say that he was still a member of the PAC? Was he a member of the PAC technically or was he working for the State.

CHAIRPERSON: On the books, but not in his heart?

MR MBANDAZAYO: In terms of the books, he was on both sides.

MR LAX: Does it even matter whether he was or wasn't?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, I don't think it matters, because definitely when they acted the way they acted, they believed and what they did was within the scope and what they believed was that they were protecting the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because I think the thing was, he was in fact a member of APLA and PAC and he was abusing that membership to pass information on.


CHAIRPERSON: Because otherwise he wouldn't have been a good informer if he didn't have excess to the people he was informing on?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I am indebted to the Committee Mr Chairperson. As such Mr Chairperson, I think it is my submission on the first instance that the applicant has made full disclosure, with regard to this death and also his participation on the incident, as to what actually happened with regard to Mr Meheza.

How they went on and how they looked for him, what happened and they eventually killed him. As such Mr Chairperson, it is my humble submission that the applicant should be granted amnesty with regard to the killing of Mr Meheza.

Coming to the second incident Mr Chairperson, Mr Chairperson, it is clear that the deceased was not the target. They wanted his transport, to go to their mission, that is at Port Edward.

CHAIRPERSON: Just one thing, just out of interest more than anything else, I don't know if you could answer it. I should perhaps have asked the applicant when he was giving evidence, but my impression was that they came from Transkei.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairperson, during the second incident ...

CHAIRPERSON: If that is so, and they wanted to get transport, why come all the way to Durban when you have big places like Margate and Port Shepstone in between, why come all the way to Durban to get transport when one could have got it a lot closer to the desired target?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, if I may though I am not testifying Mr Chairperson, I admit that it was not. When they came to Durban, they came in drips and drabs, so they have to meet here in Durban. They did not come as a, all of them as a group. They came by different transport and they have to meet somewhere.

CHAIRPERSON: They didn't come as a Unit just to get a car to go all the way back as a Unit?


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay, thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, it is clear the applicant has admitted that he made a mistake.

He did not look at the gun properly. They wanted to threaten the driver and he pulled the trigger in the process, because they wanted the car, and they shot him.

Mr Chairperson, it is clear to everybody, if Mr Chairperson, they can shoot a car, a moving car, definitely they will be in danger themselves and the possibility that the car can be damaged and also it will not use for the purpose they wanted it for, what will then be the purpose for them to shoot the driver?

It is clear Mr Chairperson, and I submit that this Committee should accept his version that indeed it was a mistake, because they wanted a car. It would not have served any purpose, because they would have also themselves been injured or killed in the process. The car could have capsized and all of them died and they would not use the car for the purpose they wanted it for.

Why would they just shoot the driver intentionally. Mr Chairperson, it is my submission that the Committee should accept that the applicant did not shoot the deceased deliberately, but it was a mistake. What they wanted was the car.

The car was to be used for a specific purpose and they wanted to use it in a mission in Port Edward, which of course was a political motive, they wanted to go and kill the people who were there, which already, they had already identified as the target.

As such the killing of this innocent person, the driver, was in the process, he was a victim in the circumstances, but he was not the main target. As such it is my submission that the applicant has made full disclosure with regard to his participation with regard to the killing of Mr Meheza, as to why Mr Meheza was killed.

That the purpose of killing him, though it was not intentionally, was to get a car to be used in a political mission. It is therefore my submission Mr Chairperson, that he has complied with all the requirements of the Act and also in this aspect, he should be granted amnesty.

Also Mr Chairperson, of course, as he was convicted I understand also of possession of arms and ammunition, which of course were the arms which were used in killing Mr - my learned colleague is saying that they were withdrawn, the possession of arms and ammunition.

Thank you Mr Chairperson, unless the Committee wants me to address it on any specific point.

CHAIRPERSON: I am just checking the application form Mr Mbandazayo, it seems that it is certainly the second one, is just restricted to the murders. It is just restricted, there is nothing about possession of ammunition or arms.

Thank you Mr Mbandazayo. Mr Mpshe?

ADV MPSHE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I will start with incident one, that is the killing of Ndlandhla Meheza.

Mr Chairman, I am ad idem in as far as the facts are concerned with my learned friend, but I have just one little legal problem in as far as interpretation of the Act is concerned. I think this will entangle the issue that my learned friend raised whether he was a member of PAC then or not. To me it is very important whether he was or not at that time.

Particularly if one has a recourse to Section 20(2), particularly paragraph (a) and paragraph (d) thereof. My problem with this incident in as far as the Act is concerned, is that if one reads paragraph (a) and (b) ...

CHAIRPERSON: It has to be directed against ...

ADV MPSHE: Another liberation movement or organisation, in opposition to the one to which the applicant belongs. The fact whether he was a PAC member or not, is very important because then it will determine whether he is covered by the provisions for the Act.

The evidence that we have by the applicant himself is that he was a member and ...

CHAIRPERSON: But on that one, and I am just thinking off the top of my head, look, I think it is quite clear that Mr Meheza was a member of the PAC and APLA and he was regarded by his colleagues as being a member, and it is also quite clear that despite the fact that he was a member, he was passing on information to the Police, who were the enemies of his own organisation.

Now, we know that those Sections, if you read them literally, they say that it is an incident or an act or an omission or offence committed by a member or a supporter against some other - the State or liberation movement or whatever, but surely the intention of the Act was to cover all conflicts, acts, offences, omissions arising out of the conflicts of the past, which have a political, which were committed or omitted, etc, with a political objective in mind? The overall intention?

MR LAX: Just to add to what the Chair is saying, could the applicant's actions not be covered by subparagraph (e), which is that dealing with supporters who act in support of their movement, within the context of the conflicts of the past?

ADV MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman, in fact I have my notes here, I was going to say, these subparagraphs excluding (e), (f) and (g) and I thought, I anticipated that my learned friend would pick one of them out, but my learned friend was so general, that he tempted me to say what I am saying.

But if that is raised by a member of the Committee, I cannot gainsay that.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but we take the point that you are raising, I think it is a point that should be specifically dealt with in our decision.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, then I will pass on that incident, otherwise I am ad idem with what is stated by my learned friend, except the legal part of it.

Mr Chairman, on incident number two, I am ad idem with my learned friend as far as the presence of the applicant is concerned. Mr Chairman, the evidence is clear that this man, the deceased, Kanyile was not the target.

But it should be made clear that the applicant and this is his evidence, did not shoot voluntarily or deliberately. He said it clearly, that he was not aware that the gun was cocked, it went off by mistake.

Let's have that scenario in mind, and get another scenario wherein the applicant says we ordered him to stop, he refused to stop and we shot him. Let's put in that deliberate part of it. Then, if the deliberate part of it is in and it is accepted, one can simply say and this would be correct, that they did what they did in the furtherance of their mission, it was part of their mission.

They had to get rid of whatever obstacle and then the political jacket would also be seem to be worn by the killing of Kanyile. But he doesn't say so, he says I was not even aware that it was cocked, it went off by mistake. Can we still say in scenario two, the furtherance of what they were going to do, is applicable? With respect, the answer would be in the negative.

MR LAX: I am not so sure that I agree with you. Perhaps you could address yourself to this issue. You say that the act of acquiring the transport was a part of the object of achieving their mission.

ADV MPSHE: That is correct.

MR LAX: Let me finish. It was part of the object of achieving their mission. What was the applicant busy doing when the gun went off by mistake? He was intending to threaten the deceased, that is his evidence? The offence for which he was convicted was one of murder.

On the facts before us, it would probably be more either murder or culpable homicide, it certainly would still be a delict.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if it was murder, I mean on those facts, let's just take the facts as given by the applicant, he's got this gun, it is handed to him, he says it is handed to him in the vehicle and with the instruction to threaten the driver. He takes the gun, it is an automatic, he knows guns, he is trained. He doesn't check it, he doesn't know whether it is loaded or not, but in the whole circumstances, it might be a reasonable conclusion to arrive at that he acted so grossly negligently or recklessly, that it could have been a form of dolus eventualis and even murder, as opposed to - it is a possibility.

So although he says he didn't have the direct intention to kill him, the fact that he was handling this highly dangerous weapon in a situation which was very dynamic, to say the least, because the driver got a fright, he said the car got out of control, yet still he is holding this gun to the man's head, it goes off. It might even be dolus eventualis as opposed to straight negligence, but in the applicant's own mind, it was a mistake, he didn't intend. He didn't have the direct intention to kill him. He might have had a legal intention to kill him.

But I take the point that you are raising Mr Mpshe.

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairperson, I don't know whether the Chair's last comment ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, I understand the point that you are raising. I understand what you are saying is if it was a mistake, something unintentional, then how can it be said that that was in furtherance of an intended aim, if it was a mistake and you didn't mean it to happen, how could it be part of the intended mission.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chair, that is exactly what I wanted to put, to carry forward.

To respond to the Committee member's question to me, whether it was a question or he wanted to know as to whether I agreed that the taking of the car was in furtherance of their mission. I do agree it was. That is precisely the reason why I don't even want to touch the robbery, because his evidence is very clear that they wanted transport.

I accede that, but my problem was based on this issue of recklessness and Mr Kanyile not having been even in their mind, that he might be killed, but to be threatened. Perhaps if we push it a little bit further on the threat, and we try to cover or attempt to cover threat as may possibly mean, murder, then I will still have a problem.

A threat remains a threat, it cannot be taken to the extent of saying a threat means killing, taking the life of a person. That is why I raised this issue, it impacts itself on the provisions of the Act, I think Section 23, on the question of proportionality.

Thank you Mr Chairman, if - I don't say the Committee is agreeing with me, but if I am good enough to persuade the Committee on this incident, then I don't think the applicant qualifies for amnesty. Thank you.

MR LAX: When you say you don't think he qualifies, do you mean on this incident?

ADV MPSHE: On this incident only. The first incident, I have no problem.

MR LAX: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, do you have any reply?

MR MBANDAZAYO IN FURTHER ARGUMENT: Yes Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, I would not go back to the first incident as my learned friend has conceded.

I was going to deal with (e), (f), (g), but the Honourable member of the Committee, Mr Lax, asked me does it matter whether he was a member. I was trying to stress that point, but as it has already been ironed out, I am coming to the point that is raised by my learned friend regarding that the applicant shot this person by mistake.

If it was deliberate, then we would say it was in furtherance. Mr Chairperson, the argument is that the reason why it was by mistake, the applicant has put before this Committee that if we shot him in a moving car, we would not have achieved our purpose, because we wanted the car. We would have been injured, also ourselves.

Hence the accidental shooting. What we wanted was the car. If we shot him, the car would have been damaged also. We would not use it for our specific purpose. Definitely the threatening and the accidental going off of the - was in furtherance of that objective, to be able to fulfil their mission, because if we shoot this person, we would not fulfil our mission, which eventually happened.

They did not fulfil their mission.

CHAIRPERSON: And I think on that one, you see one might say well, why then do the threatening at that stage, why not wait till the car comes to a standstill when you can just threaten the person and say okay, out, and he can walk away, but then it comes to mind, they were approaching a security gate, and they would have stopped in the presence of somebody who might be armed, and then once through the security gate, they would be in a highly populous, you know, on the University campus and it wouldn’t be a place to do it, so they had to do it before they got to the destination.

MR MBANDAZAYO: That is the position Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Mr Mbandazayo, can you just address us on this one aspect, which is that in the judgement on sentence, if you look at page 41, the learned Judge in that matter, appears to have found that your client did in fact shoot this person. It doesn't appear to have ever been raised in the trial, that it was a mistake.

If you look in the last paragraph, at about line 23, he says now on Count 1, the Prosecutor has argued that it is a feature of aggravation that the second accused shot the deceased when he refused to stop at the command to do so instead of merely just threatening or frightening him with his weapon.

So it is clear from that that the Court at least found in its own mind, that there was clear intention to shoot. I am just interested in if we'd addressed it. Perhaps you should have questioned your client on it, but it only struck me now as I was rereading it.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairperson, through you Mr Chairperson, unfortunately I didn't ask the client about that, because I saw it Mr Chairperson, and his explanation to me was that yes, indeed the Court found that way, because the way it happened was such that they did not believe that there was, he was threatened, because he would have stopped had he be threatened properly.

He told me that the circumstances were such that they were approaching the security gate, everything happened so fast. Even himself, when I was, even the way it went off, it was because at the time he put the gun at him, look, stop this car, initially he refused, because they said it must be him, because he is able to speak the language, the driver who was driving.

He pointed him with the gun, and at that time, it is when the car started to move this way, which I took it that also himself he was in a way shaking because he could see the danger, that this thing can happen, the car can get damaged and they can also be killed as a result, the car can capsize.

It was in that process that the gun went off.

MR LAX: In fairness to your client, he did say that they did initially order the guy to stop and then when he refused, the gun was produced. I do recall that as part of the evidence. Thank you Mr Mbandazayo.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you wanting to say something Mr Mpshe? I saw you getting somewhat excited when Mr Mbandazayo was talking?

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, thank you for the opportunity Mr Chairman, I was not going to say anything in as far as Mr Mbandazayo is concerned, but I feel tempted to do so on what was then by the Honourable Committee member, because what Mr Mbandazayo said, doesn't take the matter any inch of a distance, there is no reason for me to comment on what was said.

I wanted to comment on the respected member of the Committee's comments, as to the judgement.

Indeed this is what the Judge has found, but I wanted to, I don't know whether to call it a (indistinct), to be in the Committee's mind that the criteria and the manner of arriving at the judgement in the criminal court, is different from the forum here, this Court had all the ample time to listen and to cross-examine on all the nitty gritty's. Perhaps they may have arrived at this decision because they did not believe that a person could be hit accidentally in that fashion, having listened to the evidence.

But here we are confronted with the applicant's version himself, he says it was a mistake, and his application also says it was a mistake. He repeats this on both applications. He was not a target at all. I want to plead with the Committee to be confined to what we hear from him, and what is contained in the application form, because the criteria is different in both forums. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mpshe. We will reserve judgement in this matter and hopefully it will be handed down as soon as possible.

MR LAX: He is not quite finished.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, wait sorry, I always keep forgetting, we need the victims' Mr Mpshe, do you have ...

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the victims in this matter, in both incidents, could not be served, but to state with regard to incident number 1, the next of kin is the brother to Meheza, who stays at M1447, kwaMashu. They went there to go and serve on him, he has moved, the house was sold to one Zuma and it was sold through the bank, they cannot trace the brother to Ndlandhla Meheza.

With regard to incident number 2, the address given even in the papers, I have seen that, of the brother to Kanyile, was kwaMashu men's hostel. They went there, this person is no more at the kwaMashu men's hostel, so no service was done on either of them.

But the names can go on record Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think the names and then we can just indicate that their present whereabouts are unknown. Maybe the Reparations Committee can cause some form of public advertisement to try to get them to come.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. I will then give you the name of the next of kin of incident number 1. Sibusiso Blessing Meheza. He is the brother to Ndlandhla Meheza.

MR LAX: Is he the only brother? What about parents?

CHAIRPERSON: We heard about a pregnant wife?

ADV MPSHE: Yes, according to the IU report which I have, they only mentioned the brother, they didn't mention any other person, but that is a good point that we can take further and trace whoever we can and refer also to R&R.

MR LAX: Similarly with Kanyile, I would suggest that you speak to his employer, he probably have other records, his ex-employer.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you very much, I am indebted to that yes. In Kanyile, the person written then in addition to what I shall get, I think the employer would be a good source, according to the IU report, the name is Bongikwakhe Gabriel Kanyile.

Bongikwakhe Gabriel Kanyile, the relationship also is the brother. But attempts would be made as suggested, as correctly suggested. Mr Chairman, also may I conclude by stating that in both incidents, the implicated persons, are known, they were served via the PAC offices, and my learned friend can confirm that, but they chose not to do anything with it, but I have their names, and they were served.

Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mpshe. Mr Mchunu, I see you are here, are you here for Mr Ntuli's application?

MR MCHUNU: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you in a position to commence with it, not exactly right now, but I think we will take the lunch adjournment, are you ready to proceed?

MR MCHUNU: Yes, I am ready, we have agreed with my learned friend that we are going to start at two o'clock, immediately after lunch.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, maybe a bit earlier than that, can we start at say quarter to two?

MR MCHUNU: Quarter to two is fine Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Quarter to two. Thank you. Mr Ngema, that brings your hearing to an end. A decision will be made as soon as possible in the near future, and it will be handed down in writing, and you will be informed most likely through Mr Mbandazayo's office in the near future.

We are now taking the lunch adjournment and we will reconvene at quarter to two to commence with the application of Mr Ntuli. Thank you.



CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, I believe that we've got, you have told us that we've got difficulties in starting the Ntuli application as we expected to, after lunch because the victims of the, the family of the victims are not present at court.

I also believe Mr Mchunu, you have made arrangements for the matter to be able to be proceeded with as early as possible tomorrow morning?

MR MCHUNU: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we are indebted to you Mr Mchunu for making those arrangements and for assisting us in that regard. Unfortunately we will not be able to proceed with this, the families of victims do have a right in terms of the Act, to be here and this matter was originally set down for tomorrow, but was brought forward in the hope that we could deal with it earlier and we could have actually dealt with it earlier, but the bringing of it forward, didn't suit the victims' families, they can only be here tomorrow.

In the circumstances, this matter will have to be postponed until tomorrow, and I apologise for any inconvenience caused by the postponement. Mr Mpshe, we do have argument at half past eight in the Gwamanda matter, but that argument really shouldn't take too long.

One would hope that we would be able to start this matter at about nine o'clock, do you think?

ADV MPSHE: I am envisaging starting at nine o'clock with this matter, tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and then I think one of the difficulties as well, usual difficulties is when the applicant is in prison, that the applicant be here on time. Can you make special arrangements or some sort of arrangement that Mr Ntuli is here by half past eight as well as Mr Gwamanda?

ADV MPSHE: Actually Mr Chairman, myself and Mr Mchunu, we spoke to the Correctional Service personnel, they promised that at half past eight, he will he would be here. We have already arranged.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Once again, I apologise for the inconvenience caused by the postponement, but hopefully we will be able to get this matter under way by nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

Thank you very much. The matter is then postponed until 9 o'clock tomorrow, that is the 23rd of October 1998 at this venue, thank you.