DAY : 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to continue? Now this is the application of Joseph Ngema. Would the legal representatives please put themselves on record.

MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I confirm my appearance on behalf of the applicant, Joseph Ngema. The name is Mr S Panday.

MS REDDY: Mr Chairperson, I am Ms Judy Reddy and I appear on behalf of the victims in this matter.

MR MAPOMA: Zuko Mapoma, Chairperson, Evidence Leader. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, what's the position?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Are you calling your client?

MR PANDAY: Yes, Mr Chairman, that's correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well do so.

MR PANDAY: Thank you. Mr Chairman, in support of the application of Joseph Ngema we call the applicant, Joseph Ngema.


MR SIBANYONI: You may be seated, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we could clarify one thing before we continue, in the light of the problems we had yesterday or the day before. We have before us a bundle of documents which include the English translation of the amnesty application of Joseph Ngema, and the English translation of a letter by Joseph Ngema. They are at pages 1 and 8 respectively. The Zulu application is at page 12 and the Zulu letter is at page 22. Are these translations accepted as being accurate?

MR PANDAY: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Fine. Carry on.

EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Ngema, is it correct that you are currently a sentenced prisoner?

MR NGEMA: That is correct.

MR PANDAY: And where are you currently serving your sentence?

MR NGEMA: At Westville Prison.

MR PANDAY: And what term of sentence are you serving?

MR NGEMA: 13 years.

MR PANDAY: And do you know what - the 13 years that you are serving sentence, for what crimes are you serving the sentence for?

MR NGEMA: Yes, I do.

MR PANDAY: Could you please specify the respective crimes.

MR NGEMA: It's for murder and attempted murder as well as assault.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Murdering who, only one person or more than one, what's the position?

MR NGEMA: It's three counts of murder.

MR PANDAY: Three counts of murder.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were you found guilty of three counts of murder?

MR NGEMA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Where were you found guilty? Were they all at one trial?

MR NGEMA: It was at two Courts. The first I was sentenced on the 29th of July at the Supreme Court and the second case I was sentenced for at a Regional Court and the first one I received five years imprisonment and for the second count I received eight years imprisonment.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, when was the second judgment?

MR NGEMA: I was sentenced on the 2nd of May 1996.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was that for the second one or the first one?

MR NGEMA: The second count.

CHAIRPERSON: And the first one was in 1995, in October was it?

MR NGEMA: Yes, I was sentenced in October 1995 and I received a five years term of imprisonment at the Supreme Court.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it correct that the bundle we have been given does not contain any reference to this second trial?

MS REDDY: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, the bundle of documents does not contain the sentence regarding the Regional Court conviction and trial, but the application as it is, it's vague to a certain extent in the sense that it refers to murder of three persons whereas in fact these three persons who were killed or who died, died not on one incident, there's one incident on the 29th where two persons died, then the other incident ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was on the next day.

MR MAPOMA: ... was the next day, yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And one died.

MR MAPOMA: Yes. So in a way the application as it is seems to be covering the second incident as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well he clearly says three persons.


CHAIRPERSON: But surely the office should have enquired when they got the documents, to clarify this position.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, what happened from these documents in fact is that when the applicant was interviewed by our investigator and a statement taken from him only on the 28th of January 2000, it is only then that he explained in precise terms about these two incidents. It is for that reason that Patricia Wittle, our Evidence Analyst, wrote a letter to the Committee recommending that these incidents be dealt with by this Committee, both of them in the circumstances because there are incidents which occurred in the same context so to speak and in any event the application as it is seems to be covering the second incident as well.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I've raised this, but it seems as though your explanation satisfies me. I don't know how the other members are feeling, that perhaps we should ...(indistinct) all three.

MR MAPOMA: As the Chairperson pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we should hear it because I think our Investigators should have found out what the second incident involved. They could have got a copy of the indictment or the charge sheet, information of that nature.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, I appreciate that.

CHAIRPERSON: Now there is no information as I understand it, to verify anything that the applicant is going to say in this regard.

MS PANDAY: That's correct, Mr Chairperson, and there are families of the victims that are present here today, but ... no material evidence as such to corroborate anything they would have to say.

MR MAPOMA: But I think from the Court that particular explanation would be needed only from the judgment and I propose, Chairperson, that we hear the applicant.


MR MAPOMA: And it is out of that that there can perhaps be explanations ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: But I just as a matter of comment, indicate that where it, as in a case like this, there is some uncertainty because anyone reading the application would have seen that he is talking about three people who died, they have got a copy of the judgment and the charge which relates only to two people. So there's obviously something that has not been clarified and we should, to assist the applicants and the public and the Committee, find out now what is this other one. I mean he said there were two trials. They should then have immediately taken steps to ascertain what the second trial was about.

MR MAPOMA: I appreciate that, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I take it then he's applying for amnesty for all the crimes set out on page 26.

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, having taken instructions from my client, he's applying for amnesty in respect of all the crimes set out in 26, inclusive of the third ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, and then another murder.

MR PANDAY: Yes, that is correct. I can see Mr Chairman's concern.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the assault?

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, if you're referring to the assault in respect of the second ...


MR PANDAY: That's included as well, Mr Chairman. If Mr Chairman could look ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well he didn't include it.

MR PANDAY: Oh sorry, if Mr Chairman looks at page 2 of the bundle of documents, the applicant indicates that there were three deaths, five injuries and also two persons had run away. Now I believe that the two persons he refers to that had run away, is from the second incident.


MR PANDAY: What had taken place on that incident and whatever partook in that incident he's applying for amnesty as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that's not what you said, you said that there were the incidents set out at page ...(intervention)

MR PANDAY: It's on page 26.

CHAIRPERSON: ... 26 and one other murder.

MR PANDAY: My apologies, Mr Chairman, it's an omission on my part, but if Mr Chairman is in possession of the bundle of the second document or the memo that was faxed to our offices, it's the second incident that he details as well that took place. He informs that he's applying for amnesty for that as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he says - this is where problems arise, he had no part whatsoever, he played no part whatsoever in the second killing.

MR PANDAY: Insofar as, Mr Chairman, the instructions are that he was not - he did not physically see the killing, the person that ran into the bush.


MR PANDAY: But when they had gone out to approach these people and either discipline them as to what was taking place, that's so far as his link ...(indistinct). Now that's the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, Mr Panday, have you read your affidavit?

MR PANDAY: Yes, I've read it.

CHAIRPERSON: It was the Nkomo boy they went to fetch -"Mape followed to escort his friend."

That is not being taken there, he came along to help his friend and then somebody in the crowd accused him of stealing a motor car, the crowd turned on him and chased him into the trees and apparently he was killed. And your client says -

"I had nothing to do with that, I heard later that he was killed."

He does not say he agreed with the crowd that he should be, he did not say he anticipated the likelihood of his being killed.

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, after having consulted with my client on that issue, he advised me that after going to seek these persons he accepted the risk and possibilities of anything happening to these persons.

CHAIRPERSON: But he didn't go and seek them, he said -or was he going to contradict his affidavit?

MR PANDAY: Well Mr Chairman, I questioned him on that point, where he advised me that they went and collected the one person, that that is correct, thereafter the actual killing of Mape, he did not witness that.


MR PANDAY: Because Mape had run into the bushes right.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And he didn't order that and he didn't associate himself with that.

MR PANDAY: Well Mr Chairman, that I'll lead him in his evidence-in-chief to explain the situation as to how Mape ended up dying.

CHAIRPERSON: So he wants amnesty for that and he wants amnesty in respect of the assault on Nkomo.

MR PANDAY: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Has Nkomo been notified that he's a victim?

MS REDDY: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, carry on.

MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Ngema, you explained that you are currently serving a sentence in respect of two matters. Now do you recall the persons that you serving a sentence for having committed crimes against them?

MR NGEMA: Yes, I do.

MR PANDAY: Please give us the names of the persons.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes okay, but I think you could shorten the proceedings by referring to the indictment if he's acknowledging that those were the persons in respect of which he's been ...

MR PANDAY: As it pleases, Mr Chairman.

Mr Ngema, I'm going to refer you to the following names and please confirm if you are seeking amnesty for having committed crimes against these persons - the murder of S'khumbuzo Miya. Is it correct that you're seeking amnesty for him?

MR NGEMA: That's correct.

MR PANDAY: The murder of Francis Bheki Latswayo.

MR NGEMA: That's correct.

MR PANDAY: The attempted of the following people:

Sibusiso Luthuli.


MR PANDAY: Sikumbuso Luthuli.


MR PANDAY: Mzo Bunambe.


MR PANDAY: And Chunki Bisia(?)

MR NGEMA: That's correct.

MR PANDAY: Right. Now this particular incident that you refer amnesty for, is this the first incident that took place?

MR NGEMA: That's correct.

MR PANDAY: Now is it also further correct that you seek amnesty for a second incident that took place on the 30th of June 1993?

MR NGEMA: That is correct.

MR PANDAY: And that amnesty is in respect of the murder of Mape Hlongwa.

MR NGEMA: That's correct.

MR PANDAY: And the assault of - Mr Chairman, just bear with me.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Panday, on page 28 there is another name, is he not also seeking amnesty?

MR PANDAY: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I apologise for that.

Sorry, Mr Ngema, do you also seek amnesty in respect of the first incident, for the attempted murder of Sizwe Bunambe?

MR NGEMA: That's correct.

MR PANDAY: Now the second incident that I referred to you, on the 30th of June 1993, was the murder of Mape Hlongwa, is that correct? Do you seek amnesty?

MR NGEMA: That's correct.

MR PANDAY: And the assault of ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sandile Nkomo.

MR PANDAY: ... Sandile Nkomo.

MR NGEMA: That's correct.

MR PANDAY: And the Ethos Nkomo?

MR NGEMA: That's correct.

MR PANDAY: Right, thank you. Mr Ngema, do you recall your application that you made to the TRC for amnesty?

MR NGEMA: Yes, I do.

MR PANDAY: I'm going to show you pages 12, 13, 14 to page 21, can you confirm that that is the application that you made? Do you confirm that being your application?

MR NGEMA: Yes, it is.

MR PANDAY: And that pages 1 to 7 are a translation of that application. Would you like to see pages 1 to 7?


MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Ngema. Do you confirm that being a translation of your affidavit - your application?

MR NGEMA: ...(no English interpretation)

MR PANDAY: Do you confirm the pages that I showed to you, being pages 1 to 7, are a translation of the application?

MR NGEMA: Yes, that is so.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Ngema, in your application you advised that you are a member of the ANC, is that correct?

MR NGEMA: That is correct.

MR PANDAY: And how long have you been a member of the ANC?

MR NGEMA: I first joined it when it was still the UDF, up until the ANC was unbanned.

MR PANDAY: Now as a member of the ANC, in which area were you residing?

MR NGEMA: I resided at Umkababa in area 7.

MR PANDAY: And did you hold a particular position in that area?

MR NGEMA: Yes, I did.

MR PANDAY: What was that position?

MR NGEMA: I was known as the Chief Marshall.

MR PANDAY: Was were you duties as the Chief Marshall?

MR NGEMA: The Chief Marshall was responsible for the protection of the community, as well as the facilities that were used by the community and when there were marches and protest actions, the Marshall would be responsible for controlling that march.

MR PANDAY: Now when you refer to the protection of the people, what sort of protection do you refer to?

MR NGEMA: I'm referring to instances such as attacks that were suffered by the community. I was responsible for such things.

MR PANDAY: So effectively you protected your community from such attacks.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Would that be political attacks by for instance, the IFP or another political party or the army, that kind of attack? Or what kind of attack?

MR NGEMA: I'm referring to political attacks because Umkababa was dominated by the ANC, so that on various occasions the IFP and the police would attack the area.

MR PANDAY: Were there any other sort of attacks in this area?

MR NGEMA: Yes, sometimes the community would be attacked by criminals and that was part of my duties to protect them against such elements.

MR PANDAY: Right, now you apply for amnesty for the killings and assaults of certain persons, now you refer in your translated version to that you killed and had beaten people and you refer to 10 people that were involved in this killing and beating. You mention that three people died, now did these three people die in the same incident?

MR NGEMA: It was on different occasions.

MR PANDAY: And when were these occasions?

MR NGEMA: The first took place on the 29th and the second took place on the 30th.

MR PANDAY: And on the first occasion, how many people were killed?

MR NGEMA: Two persons.

MR PANDAY: I take it from that that the last one was killed on the 30th?

MR NGEMA: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And how many people were injured on the first occasion?

MR NGEMA: If I'm not mistaken there were five.

MR PANDAY: And on the second occasion?

MR NGEMA: One person was injured.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Ngema, when you drafted this application why did you not refer to the specific incidents in your application?

MR NGEMA: I think I mentioned both incidents, but I did not specify that they were different. I thought that was the best way of doing it.

CHAIRPERSON: Because what you've said in your application was -

"The reason why these three died, it's because they were shooting at us including myself, so I used my knopkierie for protection."

MR NGEMA: Sir, I think I did not put that very clearly, I meant to refer to the two persons who shot at us. That person refers to the second incident.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Ngema, ...(intervention)

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I'm sorry to interrupt at this stage, I must apologise for this inconvenience. I have just noticed that in the bundle of documents that we have, we do not have the statement that I was talking about, the statement that was taken by the Investigator on the 28th of January this year, that is 2000. I have made copies - I've cause copies to be made of that statement and would request an indulgence to hand in the copies of the statement which was taken by the Investigator from the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the statement that was taken by Sidula Sheila Mkhize?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, that's it.

CHAIRPERSON: Which was handed in to all of us some time ago as part of a separate bundle. A memorandum, a heading, a proactive investigation report and the statement of the applicant and the statement of Sipho Thebold Hlongwa, the father of the deceased, Mape. And the statement of Fikile Felia Latswayo, the eldest sister of Bheki Francis Latswayo.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, those are the documents, Chairperson. What confused me unfortunately, is that my learned friend for the victims does not have that bundle of documents, but I've already made a copy and I've given a copy of this statement to her and we can proceed in the circumstances. I will make the other documents available to her in due course. Thank you. I think that that being the case we can proceed, Chairperson.


MR MAPOMA: Thanks.

MR PANDAY: Thank you, Mr Chairman, may I proceed?

Now Mr Ngema, you've referred to these people and the different incidents and dates when they were either attacked or killed. Now could you explain to the Committee as to why these people were attacked and killed in the area.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well let's start with the first group, the group of the 29th.


Mr Ngema, the people that were attacked and killed on the 29th of June, can you explain to the Committee under what circumstances and why they were being sought.

MR NGEMA: Thank you. On the morning of the 29th somebody knocked on the door at my home, three girls walked in and they related an incident that had happened to them, that some people had raped them the previous night. I was shocked to hear that. I enquired from them if they knew the perpetrators and they answered yes, and I asked who those persons were and they mentioned the names of those perpetrators.

I then prepared to contact some people so that we could go and investigate this incident. These girls were from the Pungula family. I then contacted boys in the area, those were comrades. I requested them to accompany me to investigate this incident that had happened between area 7 and area 24. Indeed the comrades came with me and we went looking for these perpetrators. We left the three girls at Msonga, which was a sports ground.

We then proceeded to go and look for ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Could you slow down a little bit, they are interpreting from what you say into English and we're trying to make a note of it, so if you could go slower.

MR NGEMA: From the sports ground we proceeded to search for them. We found the first Mzo Bunambe. Because we had found him he then directed us to the others. On his instruction we managed to find Sipho Luthuli and Shangi Msiya.

I remember that we came across Sipho Luthuli and Shangi Msiya together and on finding them we would ask them about the incident and they admitted that they had done it. On admitting this they showed arrogance, they did not show any remorse for what they had done. We continued with our search and we came across Sibusiso Luthuli. And we went past Mzo's home and we found his younger brother Sizwe, but we did not manage to get Wanda, who was supposed to be at Sizwe's home. We also could not get hold of Moses Luthuli. We then took the ones that we did get hold to the Msonga sports ground.

On our arrival at the sports ground we found the community gathered there already ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, who did you find there already? On your arrival at the sports ground you found who?

MR NGEMA: We found the residents there, they were already with the girls that we had left there.

On our arrival at the sports ground I then explained to the rest of the community about the incident and as to what was going to happen.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Ngema, you said you explained to the community about the incident and what was going to happen, now what did you decide to do at that point?

MR NGEMA: At that time it was decided that these persons should be punished because what they had done was deplorable and I also told the community as to the attitude of the police.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Ngema, you say you told the community about the attitude of the police, what was the attitude of the police regarding this incident?

MR NGEMA: The police were supposedly the protectors of the community, but at that time we did not regard them as such because they were our enemies. That is they were enemies of the ANC.

MR PANDAY: Now do you have any idea why the police would not assist in this situation?

MR NGEMA: Yes, I do.

MR PANDAY: What was that?

MR NGEMA: The police were perpetrators of violence against the ANC. For instance, people were killed because of police action because they were against the progress that was made by the ANC. That is why I say they were our enemies, we could not cooperate with them.

MR PANDAY: Now when you say the - firstly, the police, did you go and report this matter to the police?

JUDGE DE JAGER: He said they were considered as their enemies and they didn't cooperate with them, so ...

Did you report it to the police or not?

MR NGEMA: We did not report it.

MR PANDAY: And when you mentioned the police perpetrated violence in the area, what would have been the effect of this violence in the area continuing?

MR NGEMA: If I can speak briefly about the violence that took place, there were people who died as a result of the harassment that we suffered as the ANC in the Umkababa area.

MR PANDAY: Now you mentioned that people died as a result of the harassment suffered. Now you mentioned that the police perpetrated violence, I understand that part, now if the police perpetrated the violence and allowed the violence to continue, what would have been the result in the area with the ANC people?

MR NGEMA: The results of that violence would have been that ANC members would have been forced to flee the area and that would have been the end of the ANC in that area.

MR PANDAY: Now you continue as from when you came to the playground with accused, what did you decide to do with them there?

MR NGEMA: After the incident had been explained to the community I suggested that the perpetrators of crime should be punished and it was decided that they should be assaulted, given lashes.

MR PANDAY: And who was to carry out this assaulting?

MR NGEMA: The community assaulted them with sticks and sjamboks. I was one of those persons myself. I then stopped the assaults on the perpetrators and gave these three victims sjamboks so that may also gain some satisfaction after they had suffered this crime. So I asked them to hit these boys. Also for the reason that there were women present in the crowd, I wanted them to see for themselves what steps we take if they suffer such crimes against them knowing that the police were out of reach. That is why I found it important that the victims of this crime should also play a role in assaulting the perpetrators.

MR PANDAY: Now the perpetrators that you had there, were all of the perpetrators present?

MR NGEMA: There were some who were not present.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You couldn't find Wanda and Moses Luthuli, persons with the names of Wanda and Moses Luthuli.

MR NGEMA: No, we couldn't find them, they ran away.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So you've already told us.

MR PANDAY: Sorry, I didn't hear that, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: He's already given that evidence, he's

already told us that they couldn't find two people.

MR PANDAY: Thank you.

Now ...(intervention)

MR NGEMA: Can I proceed?

MR PANDAY: Yes, you may.

MR NGEMA: Whilst we were busy assaulting them - as I've already mentioned that the three victims who were raped were given a chance to give lashes to the perpetrators. And Vusi Miya came, he had a gun in his hand and he was shouting that we were assaulting his brothers. At that moment the community started running away because they were scared because he had a firearm in his hand. I ran and I hid myself behind a big tree. He came. As he was passing next to that tree which I was hiding - I had a knopkierie with me, and I assaulted him with it. In fact the reason I brought it, it was because I was suspecting that we may have to encounter such things.

MR PANDAY: Proceed, Mr Ngema.

MR NGEMA: Thank you. I assaulted him, he fell down and then the community came back. They started assaulting him and I told the community not to continue. As I was busy trying to stop the community from assaulting him - because I didn't want the community to kill him as such, but then at that moment Duks came and he was running. He said we were not going to finish them, they are in numbers. He also had a gun in his hand.

At that moment the community started running away again. I did the same because he didn't see me at that moment. He came and he was after the rest. I did the same again. I hit him with that knopkierie, he fell down again. The community came again, exactly as it happened with the first one. They started assaulting him. Again I stopped the community from continuing to assault him.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Ngema, did you accept from your actions that these two people may die?

MR NGEMA: During that moment one couldn't see that they can die, but then I was scared when I received the news later that when they arrived in hospital they died. Can I proceed?

After I received the news that when they arrived in the hospital they died, I was very sad because even though we were in conflict I didn't want them dead. This bothered me a lot. I tried to gather other comrades who were close to me, comrades like Baba, Mcwala, Lebomo and others. We sat down, we talked about this incident and we explained that even though our aim was not to kill them, but they had already died. This was the news we received.

I asked them to accompany me to go to their families, even though it was hard, but I wanted to apologise to the families and I wanted to explain to the families that this was not my aim or our aim. We did that. We went to Duks' family first. It was hard because after such an incident it is difficult for a perpetrator to go and face the family, but I did that. I was brave to do that, even though it was too hard.

I went to his family, I knocked, they let me in. The family was together. The Zulus will understand what I'm talking about, they know that if one had passed away they light candles. I greeted them and then I started explaining to them why I was there. I told them I was there because I was sad because of what we had done and what happened to them. And I explained to them that it wasn't my aim.

I told them that it was not my aim to do what happened, I only wanted to discipline them, not to kill them. It was too hard in that family because I was the one, I personally took part in the whole incident. I tried by all means to apologise to them. It was difficult. They said any word and every word to me because I was the perpetrator but it was not my aim and I still feel a lot for them.

Eventually they started asking questions. They asked me if I did take part in this and I told them the truth. I said: "Yes, I did." It was too difficult and at that time the late's brother was there, his name was King Hlatswayo. Even in court he was there. He also testified in court. He was a witness that I did come to his family and I did say I was the one who did what happened and then I proceeded to the second deceased, Sibusiso's family. I did the same. I knocked, they let us in. It was also difficult there to meet eye to eye with the family of Miya. I did the same there. I explained. I told them about what happened and I also explained to them that it was not my aim to kill them. I explained to the family members. They started asking me questions and then they wanted to know from me that I was there because I was laughing at them or I was there because I was sympathising with them. Even there I explained to them that I don't think there was a human being in the world who can rejoice over somebody's death and even if that person rejoices over somebody's death, I don't think he or she will be brave to come in front of the family members and do that, but the mere reason I was there, it was because I was sympathising with them. I was welcomed in both families, except for Sibusiso's mother. She wanted to know from me if I was going to take care of the family because Sibusiso was going to take care of the family and then I told her that I was going to try my means, my ultimate means to help if there was a need for me to do so. This is how I answered her. This is how I would like this Committee to know what I did after this happened and if I may continue there, we decided to hold a meeting with the comrades. At that moment we decided to call all the victims, even the ones who didn't lose their lives. We wanted them to come to the meeting because they are part of the community and we wanted to share ideas and to look for a way forward because we were not basically enemies. We decided on a certain date. We met at Mkotui High School. I don't remember what day and month, but we met all of us, the victims and the comrades.

They came, we started the meeting. We addressed them. We told them why they were called. I would like to go back a little bit, because I've left something. I was arrested for this crime together with Sandile Balisa. He was turned into a State Witness even though he was one of the people who were administering the punishment and also he even used a dangerous weapon. He had a knife and I didn't want him to use that knife. I grabbed that knife from him because I didn't want him to use it, but later he was turned into a State Witness.

There was a wallet which fell from Mzo's pocket. I took that wallet and I opened it. There was something about plus minus R300. I showed that wallet to the comrades, Mzo, Nkobo. Those were the prominent comrades and they were working in the community. They were members of the Committee and Boyboy as well. When we called them in that meeting at Mkotui School, I showed the wallet to Mzo and the others, the other victims. I said to Mzo: "There was your wallet" and I wanted him to open the wallet and see if everything he left inside was still there and I told him to count his money and then he said that he was not satisfied if the money was enough, but then he wasn't sure how much he left in his wallet. I explained to him I didn't touch anything in that wallet and I gave it back to him and I was trying to show him that the reason we punished them was not because we hated them, but it was because we were trying to straighten things out. They are still part of the community and we apologised to them as ANC comrades. We wanted to reconcile with them. Some of them took a stand and those who took a stand, they agreed that what we were saying was basically correct, even though it was said that we had assaulted them, but then they understood. They agreed with us, all of us and the community of Umkababa. I apologised to them before I was sent to prison. Today I am apologising to them again. In fact, today I'm doing this in front of the whole nation. The community of Umkababa knows me, even the families of the deceased, they know me and they know that I've apologised, but I'm doing this for the second time to the whole nation. Thank you.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Ngema, with this incident taking place in the area, the raping and the stealing and the robbing, what would have happened in the area if you did not attempt to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going on to something new now?

MR PANDAY: This is just surmising and ...(indistinct) Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think we take the short adjournment as usual.

MR PANDAY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We mustn't forget the people who've been sitting waiting to work all morning.

MR PANDAY: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the short adjournment now. I regret it for those who have just arrived. We start again in 15 minutes.



JOSEPH M NGEMA: (s.u.o.)


May I proceed Mr Chairman? Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Ngema, we stopped at where you explained to us why - that you had disciplined these people. My question to you is, had you not disciplined these people, what would have been the result in this area?

MR NGEMA: ANC community members were not going to be motivated, they were not going to have trust in their organisation itself.

MR PANDAY: And if they were not motivated and had no trust in their organisation, what would have been the final result?

MR NGEMA: Would you please repeat that question?

MR PANDAY: If these people were not going to be motivated by the ANC and did not have trust in the ANC, what would have been the result in this area with the people?

MR NGEMA: It will mean that we as ANC members or people who were interested in ANC, we were not going to prosper, because we wouldn't even have a word.

MR PANDAY: So is it correct to assume that your actions were to protect the growth of that ANC?


CHAIRPERSON: By then, we're now talking about middle of 1993 aren't we?


CHAIRPERSON: It was obvious there were likely to be political changes in the country and the interested political parties were trying to establish themselves as a party that the public and potential voters could rely on to look after their interests in the future, weren't they?

MR NGEMA: It is so.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Right. You've told us about the first incident. Could you perhaps tell us about the second incident?

MR NGEMA: I'll be pleased. The second incident occurred on the 30th. I was at home. I heard a knock.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Just before you proceed, could you kindly tell me, when did these people die and when did you go to visit the families? Was that before the second incident or after the second incident?

MR NGEMA: If I'm not mistaken, I think I went to see the families after the second incident, because the second incident occurred a day after the first one.

CHAIRPERSON: The first incident, did the people go to hospital or did they die on their way to hospital? Were they dead when they arrived at hospital? What report did you receive?

MR NGEMA: What I heard is that they died in hospital, but I'm not sure whether they died on their way or whilst they were in hospital waiting or after they've been admitted, I'm no sure.

CHAIRPERSON: It was not the same night that you went to see the families?

MR NGEMA: No because I heard afterwards that they passed away. This I heard the following day.

MR SIBANYONI: Did you hear the following day, after the second incident, that they had passed away, or before the second incident?

MR NGEMA: My apology there. The first incident occurred on the 29th and then the following day on the 30th, the second incident occurred and I heard that the two passed away. After the second incident had happened.

MR SIBANYONI: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We didn't hear the translation.

MR NGEMA: It was after both incidents. Can I proceed?

MR PANDAY: Yes, you can proceed with the second incident now.

CHAIRPERSON: You've told us that there was this knock on the door at your home and then what happened?

MR NGEMA: I heard the knock on the door and I sent for the door to be opened and I was told that there were people who wanted to see me. I woke up. I went to see the people who were looking for me. I was told that at 6 and 7 section, something had happened. A certain girl had been raped. Her name was Thokozani. I don't remember her surname. I realised that things were getting bad and I realised that the community was not protected and also I realised that we were supposed to work harder. I left home together with the people who came to report this to me. We went to see other comrades. We explained to other comrades about what happened. We told them that there had been someone who had been raped again and I told them that Thokozani had been raped and I instructed other comrades to accompany us to go to Thokozani's family. We arrived there and we found Thokozani present at home. I asked her as to what happened. She explained to me that she was from the station and she met Etosh. Etosh started chatting to her and she said she refused what Etosh wanted from her and Etosh wanted to sleep with her, but then she refused and then Etosh forced her and I asked her where did this happen, if he had taken her somewhere and then she said he took her to a certain house in 6 section, a house owned by a certain lady who's married and her name is Mthozi and I requested the comrades to accompany us to the place where he raped her. We went there. She told us - or she pointed the place to us. We left there looking for Etosh. We crossed the freeway, the M2 to South Coast. We crossed that freeway. That was the area where he was usually seen and most of the houses there belonged to the people who had flee the place because of the violence in Umkababa. Those houses were being owned by these elements and they used to call those houses "engoje" meaning that it doesn't belong to anyone. Those are the houses which are owned by these certain elements. We didn't find him in one of those houses, but we found other ladies there. We requested from these ladies as to where he was. They said they didn't know but he was present, he was around. We sat, as comrades we decided ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ultimately you found him? In the end you found him?

MR NGEMA: Yes, we did.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Okay. Could you tell us what happened then, after you found him?

MR NGEMA: Thank you. When we found him Mape was now with us. We took him towards Mape's family or house. Just before we arrived at Mape's house, Mape asked Etosh as to if he can accompany him and Etosh said: "Yes, you can accompany me." They used to call each other cousins. I don't know whether they are blood cousins or it was just a name they were using to call each other. We proceeded. As we were approaching Mape's house, Mape got inside the house. I don't know whether he was going to change his pants, or he was going to look for something. We remained outside. Mape's father came. He asked what happened. I explained to Mape's father what Etosh had done and he said we must go away and we must punish him lightly. We took him to a certain place where we can discipline him.

When we arrived at Maquonquo, we were joined by the community. We became a huge number, compared to the number which came with Etosh. Again I did the same, like I did on the first incident. Because the community didn't know, I explained to them and another reason that alerted the community, it was because in those days, if you were going in groups, the community got scared because they thought they were going to be attacked and so I explained to the community that it wasn't violence as such but Etosh had just raped a girl and I explained to them that procedurally we are supposed to report this to the police, but then police are not doing anything, so we were going to discipline them, or him, on our own and Etosh was there for us to punish him for what he had just done, because we want to teach even the children not to do the same.

As I was explaining to the community about what Etosh did, someone said: "Why are you referring to Etosh alone? Mape as well is the head of these criminals and he must tell you what he did with Themba's car and also he must tell us what happened to Mr Zulu because he was well-known in the community and he was working in a BEC Committee." I got scared there. In fact I was surprised and then I questioned Mape. I said to Mape: "Listen to the community and these allegations they are placing before you" and Mape disputed what they said about Mr Zulu but then also I doubted if that allegation alone was true and then I questioned him about Themba's car and he said yes, he knows about Themba's car and then I said to him this was his chance to explain about Themba's car. He said he had stolen Themba's car and drove it to Empangeni and then I understood what he said, but then I needed to fin Themba in order for Themba to know and to be present if he were to be punished and I requested others to go fetch Themba. Themba came and I said - I started asking Themba what happened to his car and Themba said that he lost his car, it was stolen but then he tried to trace and he heard that his car was taken by Mape and it was at Empangeni and he said it was recovered in Empangeni but when it was recovered it had no engine already and there and then I told Mape that: "Even you, Mape, you're supposed to be punished because if you are harassing the community and if you're doing these things to the community, you're supposed to be punished, because Themba's car was helping the community" and I told him that he was supposed to be punished and all the comrades agreed that they were supposed to be punished, that's how Mape joined in this punishment.

When Etosh was being assaulted, he was given lashes with a shambok and the people who were supposed to administer those lashes were ten. I was one of the ten and also the girl who had been raped was one of the ten. She also administered the lashes. She did so, in fact she did it before me. There were also females there who were present who wanted them to see as females they cannot protect themselves. If anyone had to do anything to them, the community was there for them, was there to protect. When I took the shambok, as I was trying to administer lashes to Etosh, that's when I heard the community saying: "Jo" because Jo is my nick-name, people know me as Jo Ngema and I was told that Mape was running away. Then and there the community was trying to chase him. At that moment I got scared because I could tell that the community was angry and now if they were running after him, anything can happen to him, if they were to catch up with him. We started talking together with other comrades who didn't run after Mape. We realised that he had got away. We decided to go back and then the following day I heard that Mape had died. I was surprised. This is how the second incident occurred. Thank you.

MR PANDAY: Mr Ngema, in the second incident as well, what was your concern, had you not disciplined these two people?

MR NGEMA: As I've already mentioned, that the Umkababa community is made up of ANC members. We as ANC members, we realised that if we were not taking any actions against these people. People were going to lose their trust in us and we were not going to have members joining our organisation. It was in 1993, it was at the time when every organisation needed to be strong.

MR PANDAY: To the people that were raped in this matter, in this incident, were you related to them in any way?

JUDGE DE JAGER: He said he was, so I don't think you need to cover the whole - every exclusion of if nobody raises it.

MR PANDAY: Thank you.

MR NGEMA: We were not blood relatives, we were relatives because we belonged in one organisation, so we were related.

MR PANDAY: Mr Ngema, in the first incident, the first seven victims, did they also belong to the ANC?

MR NGEMA: No, they were not members of ANC.

MR PANDAY: Do you know which party they belonged to?


MR PANDAY: And that is?


MR PANDAY: Did you in any way think that because they were PAC, they affected the community?

MR NGEMA: I was basically confused because I didn't expect what happened to be done by PAC members to ANC members.

MR PANDAY: And their actions by raping and attacking the people, was it as a result of them being PAC, or was it purely criminal?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Clearly, that was never the policy of the PAC to go around and rape women. You've got criminals in every community, even in the ANC, the NP, wherever you go along, so I don't think it's related to the party's policy as such. I'm not even sure, to be honest, whether they were members of the PAC and whether he's sure that they were members of the PAC.

MR PANDAY: As Mr Chairman pleases. I'll withdraw the question.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Are you sure they were members of the PAC, or were they only a bunch of criminals?

MR NGEMA: I am sure they were PAC members.

MR PANDAY: Mr Ngema, by the actions that you've committed or the crimes that you've committed, did you benefit in any way? Financially, thank you Mr Chairman and did you see your actions purely as the protection of the ANC organisation?

MR NGEMA: That is correct.

MR PANDAY: Thank you Mr Chairman, nothing further.


MS REDDY: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Before I actually commence my cross-examination, I just wish to tell the Commission or the Committee that one or two questions are going to be repeated, but in order to ascertain credibility, I seek your permission to repeat certain questions.

JUDGE DE JAGER: On what grounds are you opposing?

MS REDDY: Certain allegations that the applicant made, didn't actually reconcile with what the witnesses in this matter actually instructed me.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS REDDY: Which political organisation did you belong to in 1993?

JUDGE DE JAGER: He surely testified that. Should he repeat it again? If you're contesting anything, put the things that you really put in dispute but let's not go on and on repeating the same questions.

MS REDDY: Thank you. Who actually gave you instructions or authority to kill or assault?

MR NGEMA: No one issued out an order. As I mentioned before, I was the chief martial, therefore I was responsible for everything. I did not take orders nor get authority from somebody else, but I was the person responsible for giving direction.

MS REDDY: Why did you actually say that the police harassed you and they wanted firearms from the ANC? Could you just fill me in on that please?

MR NGEMA: The police were aware that a person of my stature in the community would have weapons from the ANC and they indeed asked me about them.

MS REDDY: So it was only you that the police actually harassed?

MR NGEMA: Are you referring to one incident or to all the incidents?

MS REDDY: Well, I need a response in total, whether the police harassed all the ANC members or just targeted a few.

MR NGEMA: As I explained before, with regards to the first incident, I was arrested with Sandile Balisa, who later turned to a State Witness. On the second incident, I was arrested with Sam Nyama.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I don't think the word was arrested, it was harassed.

MS REDDY: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I think there's confusion, the interpreter might have understood you wrongly. Could you repeat the question?

MS REDDY: Yes, Mr Chairperson. Why did you say the police harassed you or the people that belonged to the ANC political organisation?

MR NGEMA: The reason why I state this is because as active members of the ANC who recruited for the elections in 1994, they opposed us, they did not want us to carry out this recruitment twice.

MS REDDY: What form of harassment was actually sought out on the ANC members by the police?

MR NGEMA: I thank you for that question. As I explained before, there were different areas at Umkababa. There was a map of Umkababa at the police station which depicted all different areas. People knew very well where ANC members resided and they would go there directly and shoot people. That is the action that prompted us to believe that they were against us because many people died in this fashion.

MS REDDY: You said in your evidence-in-chief that the police wanted the firearms of the ANC, now can you actually tell me whether these firearms that the ANC members owned or had in their possession, were they licensed?

JUDGE DE JAGER: That won't really assist us in coming to a conclusion whether this person is entitled or not entitled to amnesty because he's murdered the victims in this case. He didn't murder police in this case. It's a matter of whether he should qualify for amnesty for the death of the deceased in this case.

MS REDDY: Yes, I understand that but what I'm actually trying to bring out here, I want to actually ...(indistinct) what was the actual attitude of the police because the applicant could very well be confused that if these firearms that the ANC members had in their position and it was not licensed and if the police were actually retaliating or responding to complaints that the ANC members had firearms in their possession and it was unlicensed and they were using it illegally, so if the police responded to that complaint, the applicant could have been mistaken and thought that the police were actually harassing them on that basis. There could have been a mistaken belief and that is where the attitude of the police actually comes into this.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, but even if it was a mistaken belief, but it was a bona fide mistaken belief, would that help us any further?

MS REDDY: Well, in my opinion, the whole attitude of the police, like the applicant said, actually caused the two murders on the 29th of June and the one on the first of July, so I think that the whole case twists around the attitude of the police. Could I have a response to that question, if you know whether the firearms were licensed?

MR NGEMA: The police had never seen me having a gun in my possession but they were enquiring because they were aware that we could protect ourselves, so they wanted to get to these weapons that we used to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: At that time was it known that the ANC, the IFP and other political parties, has arms caches?

MR NGEMA: Yes, that is indeed so. Everyone knows that a political organisation is strengthened by them having access to weapons.

CHAIRPERSON: And none of them had licenses for these weapons.

MR NGEMA: That is so.

MS REDDY: If the community was not getting any assistance from that particular police department, why didn't you all seek assistance from another station, or take your discrepancies or complaints to a higher authority?

MR NGEMA: I appreciate your question. Prior to the police not having access to Umkababa, we as the community of Umkababa, organised a march and we proceeded to the police station to lay our complaints and to order them to stop coming to Umkababa because of the attitudes and behaviour. Moreover there was just one police station, the Umkomaas Police Station which was responsible for a very large area. Those were the only people that we could deal with and we encountered problems with the very same people and we were therefore unable to continue co-operating with them.

CHAIRPERSON: You were trying to prevent them coming to Umkababa, this march.

MR NGEMA: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you had no faith in them and you had now decided that you wanted to take over the running of the district.

MR NGEMA: That is so.

MS REDDY: Were you legally represented at your trial?

MR NGEMA: Yes, but it was an attorney appointed by the organisation.

MS REDDY: Why didn't you inform your attorney in reference to the reasons of the killing and the assault?

MR NGEMA: I did not inform my attorney about the people who died. To explain briefly about what happened in court, I pleaded not guilty in court for one reason, I did not believe that the court would look at my case favourably. When I pleaded not guilty, it was based on the belief that I would maybe obtain a lesser sentence.

JUDGE DE JAGER: If we look at page 33, the Judge found,

"At the outset of this Judgment, I may say that we

accept, as indeed Ms Chapman for the State appeared

to do, that the reason for the community's decision to

adopt this course of action was primarily a gang rape

which had been perpetrated on three young girls."

So this was canvassed and it was accepted by the Judge and by everybody present at the trial.

MS REDDY: What I was actually trying to decipher is that if he was legally represented at the trial, and he told his attorney the reasons why and then his attorney could have advised him that you could use this in your defence, plead guilty and use that in your defence, instead of him saying that he was not present on the scene and going further to make a mockery of the justice system and bringing in an alibi to corroborate what he said at the trial.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, why did you lie at the trial by saying you were not there and you were not present at all? What was the reason for that attitude?

MR REDDY: I was trying to protect myself because for the reason that I had taken the law in my hands, I was going to be sentenced, but had I pleaded guilty, I believe that the sentence would be harsher, that is why I pleaded not guilt and denied having been present.

MS REDDY: I draw your attention to page two and three of the bundle, where you state, and I quote:

"The reason why the three died, it's because they were shooting at us, including myself."

I find it very improbable that the deceased had guns and they were shooting at the gang but none of the members of the gang actually was injured and further, comparing the danger of a gun used and a knobkierrie, one would say that the gun is more of a dangerous nature. Could I just have a response to that?

MR NGEMA: I thank you Ma'am. As I mentioned, they had firearms and he had this gun in his hand and I used my knobkierrie to hit him and the gun fell to the ground. The same happened to the second deceased and after they had fallen to the ground, I confiscated the firearms.

MS REDDY: When did you come to hear that Miya and Hlatshwayo died? When exactly?

MR NGEMA: I heard on the following day.

MS REDDY: Was it before the ...(intervention)

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, sorry, I think that question was asked by the Committee as to when the applicant had established the death and I think the answer was quite ascertained that it was after the second incident. As to the relevance of that question, I can't.

CHAIRPERSON: She may not accept the correctness of what he said. She's entitled to challenge it. When did you hear on the following day, was it after the second attack?

MR NGEMA: Before the second incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Before the second incident, did you hear that the people who had been assaulted the day before, had died?

MR NGEMA: That's correct.

MS REDDY: Are you actually telling to this Committee that before the second incident, you heard that two people died and yet you, together with the gang, were reckless enough to go and form another gang, go and fetch Sandile, Etosh and Mape, go to the soccer field again and discipline these people, knowing full well that your first actions led to two deaths?

MR NGEMA: I thank you for your question. Yes, we proceeded with that because we were doing this on behalf of the community so that they would be assured that they are safe from such incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if the other people in the hearing are having trouble hearing, mine is coming through very jerkily. Are yours working alright? Well then could I get another? Carry on.

MR NGEMA: I was saying yes, we proceeded to collect those people despite having heard about the deaths of the other two because we were on a recruitment drive to secure membership for the ANC. We were therefore under pressure to continue with the second incident.

MS REDDY: So even though people were dying, just to make the ANC a stronghold, it didn't concern you and the gang?

MR NGEMA: That is not so. Our intention was not to cause the loss of life, but to discipline them should they commit deviant behaviour and it was not only directed at just strengthening the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: But you now knew that the day before you had been unable to control the people, that they had assaulted the suspects and that two of them had died. You knew all that .

MR NGEMA: Sir, let me explain. On the previous day when we left the deceased, they did not look to be in a situation where they were likely to die. There was nothing that indicated that they were going to die and I did not believe that the assaults that had been inflicted on them, would cause their deaths. I was shocked to hear about it thereafter and we were compelled to continue with the action that we intended to take, because ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: That might have been so, but you've been proved wrongly now, because you've received a message that they indeed died and the question is, notwithstanding that, you recklessly proceeded to follow the same procedure and you should have foreseen that somebody could die as a result of your second operation.

MR NGEMA: Sir, I was certain, or I believed that what had happened the previous day would not repeat itself and that belief was justified because the assault that happened on them, did not result in their deaths. Etosh is today alive. I managed to control the people and stop them from assaulting him further.

MR SIBANYONI: So when did you hear that the two people have died? Was it before or after the incident of the second day? Your answer was: "It was before the incident of the second day", but on cross-examination by Ms Reddy, you are saying it was after, no, no, vice versa, the other way round. When I asked you the question, when did you hear that the victims of the first victims have died, in replying to my question you said you heard after the incident of the second day, but to Ms Reddy you are saying you heard before the incident of the second day. Why this contradiction?

MR NGEMA: You will have to forgive me if I made a mistake there.

MR SIBANYONI: I asked you a question, when did you hear that the victims of the first incident have died? Your answer was you heard after the incident of the second day, in other words, you heard after you had punished the people on the 30th, but now for the past three or four minutes, you are saying you heard before the incident of the second day and you are giving reasons why, despite the fact that those have passed away, you proceeded to punish the people on the second day. Can you explain that?

MR NGEMA: I thank you. It must have been a mistake and I do beg your pardon. I heard about it on the following day before the second incident, but I may have confused my going to the families with hearing about the news itself.

MR SIBANYONI: You may proceed Ms Reddy.

MS REDDY: Thank you. I'm going to take you back to the 29th of June 1993. You actually said in your evidence-in-chief that it was decided by the community that the perpetrators should be given lashes with shamboks. Why did you actually allow your people to use sticks to assault the perpetrators?

MR NGEMA: Ma'am, I came with the suggestion that they should be given lashes. It was a mistake that should not have happened, that some people used sticks and I learned from it because when Etosh was assaulted, they only used a shambok on his behind.

MS REDDY: Would you agree if I said that you and the community taking the law into their own hands and holding kangaroo courts, led to more corruption or I can rephrase that and say anarchy?

MR NGEMA: Yes, our action as the community was taking the law into our hands and I know that is an offence because even when I was convicted, I knew that I had committed an offence, therefore I do agree that we did indeed take the law into our own hands.

MS REDDY: After the community had heard about the murder of the three people, what was their attitude to the ANC?

MR NGEMA: I would respond on their behalf in this fashion. As members of the ANC, we were responsible for informing the community that it is not ANC policy to kill people when they are being punished and it was not our intention to kill them but just to discipline them.

MS REDDY: Thank you Committee. Thank you Applicant. No further questions.


MR NGEMA: I thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

MR MAPOMA: Just one point, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr Ngema, I suppose you know the father of the late Hlongwa?

MR NGEMA: Yes, I do know him.

MR MAPOMA: He has given a statement to this Commission, to the Investigator, where he says that the community won't accept you because you like killing. What is your comment to that?

MR NGEMA: Sir, it shocks me to hear that. If we were to look at the list of visitors that I receive in prison, it would clearly indicate to you that I am still accepted and respected in the community, therefore I dispute that.

MR MAPOMA: He goes on to say that whilst you were a commander of the ANC, I mean the SDU's and ANC member, official, you did that in abuse of power, the acts which resulted in the death of the deceased persons. It was out of your abuse of power. What is your comment to that?

MR NGEMA: Sir, with regards to the people who died, it was indeed a bit excessive, that is why I appear here today before this Committee.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Mr Ngema. Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Tell us, were there other occasions when you led the community to punish people where nobody died?

MR NGEMA: I think we are now speaking generally. Yes, there were incidents where people were punished and they did not die. I thank you, Sir.

MR SIBANYONI: Hlongwa also says his son, Mape, was an active member of the ANC, he remembers that he participated actively. He was also there during the march to the police station. What do you say about that?

MR NGEMA: I thank you Sir. Mape was not an ANC activist. If I were to go back, when we were still in the UDF, they were our comrades but they later left the organisation because of the difficulties that we faced, therefore he was no longer an ANC member. With regards to the march, I cannot dispute whether he was there or not because that march was not selective, it involved members of the community at large, but I do dispute that he was a member of the ANC because at meetings and other ANC gatherings, he was not there, the only person that I regarded as an ANC member at that time, was Mr Hlongwa himself, that is Mr Hlongwa senior. He would even attend mass meetings if we held them.

MR SIBANYONI: Fidelia Felecia Hlatswayo, the eldest sister to Stooks Hlatswayo says her brother was both ANC and SDU member, what do you say about that?

MR NGEMA: I am the Commander of the SDU, there I know everyone who was a member and he was not one.

MR SIBANYONI: Who established the SDUs in your area?

MR NGEMA: I did.

MR SIBANYONI: To whom were you accounting?

MR NGEMA: I was the Commander of the SDUs. I was responsible for everything. I realised a need for the SDU to be established to protect the community.

MR SIBANYONI: Was there any ANC branch in your area?

MR NGEMA: Yes, there is, the Umkababa branch.

MR SIBANYONI: Did your Self Defence Unit have any relationship with the ANC branch?

MR NGEMA: I thank you for that question. Yes, there was because even the branch relied on the SDU because they formed the backbone of the branch.

MR SIBANYONI: These problems you were experiencing in the area, was it ever reported to the ANC branch?

MR NGEMA: Sir, the committee members know about these problems very well because I used to report everything and they would also come to me and we would discuss problems. We used to discuss problems and suggestions together, therefore our relationship was very close.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR PANDAY: Just one question Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Mr Ngema, Snr Mr Sipo Theobald Hlongwa, he mentions that you abused your power, is he correct in saying that?

MR NGEMA: No, I did not abuse my position. What I can point out as being excessive was the death of those people but generally our work was also appreciated because a lot of people joined the ANC because of our efforts.

MR PANDAY: Thank you. Thank you Mr Chairman, that's the applicant's case.



MS REDDY: Mr Chairperson, there are 8 victims, witnesses that need to be called.


MS REDDY: Eight.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's get through them as quickly as possible.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Are they really opposing the application because Felicia says for instance in paragraph 5, the family is not against amnesty to the applicant because we do not hold any grudge against him.

MS REDDY: Member of the Committee, some of the witnesses have actually related to me that what Joe Ngema has actually said is not correct with their version and being the situation that he didn't bring any witnesses to corroborate his evidence, I think the witnesses should actually be heard.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, we're not against hearing them, if they're opposing it, we'll hear them, or if he's been telling lies, they're entitled to tell us he's lying on this and this aspect, but let's stick to the relevant aspects.

MS REDDY: Mr Hlongwa has actually stated to me that he's opposing the amnesty application.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well then let him come and give evidence in that. Call him.

MR PANDAY: Mr Chairman, if I may just point out before we go any further, my Learned Friend indicates that she intends to call approximately 8 witnesses, it must be borne in mind, in the bundle of documents, except for the two affidavits handed in, that being of Mr Hlongwa and the sister, Hlatswayo, that is the only evidence we have.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, they need not give you statements.

MR PANDAY: Ja, I accept. If in the event the witness who is giving evidence, time may be sought to take instructions, on the evidence they may give.

CHAIRPERSON: It happens in any trial, people call witnesses. They don't and as my colleague has said, they are not obliged to give a transcript of their witness's evidence to the other party.

MR PANDAY: I accept that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So let's get on with it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Would you call the witness please to take a seat over there.

MS REDDY: Thank you. I call Sipo Hlongwa, the father of Mape Regley Hlongwa, to take the stand.

MR HLONGWA: I can't hear properly.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you hear me when I'm talking now or is there something wrong?

MR HLONGWA: Yes, I can.

CHAIRPERSON: If my colleague was to turn his machine on, he would perhaps hear.

MR SIBANYONI: Oh, I'm sorry Chairperson.


EXAMINATION BY MS REDDY: Thank you. On what date was your son killed?

MR HLONGWA: On Thursday, on the 1st of July 1993.

MS REDDY: Did your son belong to any political organisation?

MR HLONGWA: He was a member of ANC like the rest of my family, including myself.

MS REDDY: What position did he fill there?

MR HLONGWA: He didn't have a position in the organisation.

MS REDDY: What kind of relationship did your son share with the community?

MR HLONGWA: A good relationship with the community because he was one of the comrades who usually toyi-toyied and he would attend ANC meetings.

MS REDDY: Did you and your son share the same house?

MR HLONGWA: Yes but later when he became a mechanic, I gave him a yard or a sight behind the house for him to stay there.

MS REDDY: Are you aware if your son was involved in any criminal activities?

MR HLONGWA: He never got involved in any criminal activities.

MS REDDY: Did you witness anything on the 1st of July 1993?

MR HLONGWA: In the morning of the 1st of July, I saw a group of males walking in a hill. As they were walking there, they were going towards the West and they came. This time they were not walking in that hill, they were now walking among the houses. They went passed. I was outside in the yard and then that's when I enquired from them as to what happened. Sandile Balisa was the one who answered me. He said: "Daddy we are going to Tin House." At Tin House, that's where my son was working and sometimes he will even sleep there if he worked until very late. I didn't see where they disappeared but among the group there was Joe Ngema and also Sandile. After they'd disappeared now, I saw them coming from the West going towards East and then they turned to North. I didn't see how they got to the North and as they were coming from the North now, they were together with my son. It was a small group. I didn't panic. On that day it was a stay away, no one went to work and I didn't panic probably because I thought they were going to just meet or they were going to play soccer, but among the people, Mr Ngema was the oldest and looking at the group, I would say he was different from the group of men, he was wearing a t-shirt written Fidel Castro, Head of Cuba and he had a spear in his hand.

Sandile Balisa had a stick. I will measure it as 2 by 3. Later during the day someone came, his name was Paul Timi. He came to tell me that Mape had died. I left, I took my car, I took my cousin Jeffrey Gumede. We went together with Paul so that he could show us where the body was. When we arrived in that body, I looked at my son's body. I realised that in his left-hand side above the ear there was a hole, even though it wasn't an open hole and part of his ear got cut and blood was coming through his noses.

His shoes were no longer on his body, even though his clothes were still in his body. I went to the Umkomaas police, I reported the matter, they took his body to the Government Mortuary in Scottburgh. It is custom that after one has passed away, relatives will go to the mortuary to look at the body, to identify. I went there as well.

The post mortem was conducted. They gave us the post mortem report and this was produced in court when Joe's case was being heard.

I made the preparations for the funeral with the Dove Parlour.

MS REDDY: Thank you Mr Hlongwa, I think that is sufficient. What kind of relationship did Joseph Ngema share with the community?

MR HLONGWA: There can be people saying that they like Jo Ngema a lot and also there can be those who can say they don't want him at all, like myself for instance. If I'm looking at him, I'm looking at a monster, a murderer. One will actually think that he is drinking human blood. I am saying this because he didn't rest after he killed two people on the 29th. On the 1st he continued to kill my son.

MS REDDY: What was the attitude of the police, if any member of the community reported any criminal activity to them?

MR HLONGWA: Police from Umkomaas are a small number. It is because of that that one can view them as people who are not working, but it is not so. It is because they cannot meet our demands or our problems because of the number of them. It's a small police station and we are a big community.

MS REDDY: In your opinion, what was the motive of the killing of your son?

MR HLONGWA: There is hatred in this, because the person who was sitting here where I'm sitting, he didn't go to report this matter to the police, he took it to himself that he was going to kill him. He was never accused of anything except that he was killed.

MS REDDY: How would you feel if the applicant is granted amnesty here today?

MR HLONGWA: I will rather die. He killed my son.

MS REDDY: Do you wish to state anything further to the Committee?

MR HLONGWA: Yes, there is something that I would like to say. It is because of what Joe had said. He said Mape ran away and a group of people chased him and they killed him. The very same Joe, he is saying after he killed the two people on the 29th, he went to their families to speak to the relatives. He didn't come to the Hlongwa family because his wish had occurred. He didn't come to the Hlongwas because he wanted Mape dead. It is hatred.

MS REDDY: Thank you Mr Hlongwa. I actually sympathise with you. Committee, no further questions for the witness.


CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the adjournments now till 2 o'clock.



CHAIRPERSON: You'd concluded your evidence-in-chief, hadn't you?

MS REDDY: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Cross-examination?

MR PANDAY: Just briefly, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Mr Hlongwa, is it correct that you'll be very unhappy if this many has to get amnesty today?

MR HLONGWA: That is correct.

MR PANDAY: And your aim is to ensure that he does not get amnesty?

MR HLONGWA: Yes, because he is not telling the truth.

MR PANDAY: Now, Mr Hlongwa, when your son was in the company of these people when he came to your house, was Nkomo with them, Etosh Nkomo?

MR HLONGWA: When I noticed them for the first time, he was not with them, but I saw him later in their company.

JUDGE DE JAGER: That was after they returned?

MR HLONGWA: When they passed my home for the last time.

MR PANDAY: And was it at that time as well that Mape was with them.

MR HLONGWA: Eventually they took Mape with them.

MR PANDAY: Now at that time did they tell you that Mape had done anything?

MR HLONGWA: They did not tell me anything.

MR PANDAY: Now you mentioned that there was hatred between Ngema and your son. What was this hatred caused about, or what caused this hatred?

MR HLONGWA: I said his actions implied that he hated him.

MR PANDAY: What did he do?

MR HLONGWA: As I have mentioned before, he went to other families where the victims were deceased, but he did not come to my home to inform me, he wanted the body of my son to rot out there in the bush, that is what I mean.

MR PANDAY: If he had come to your home and informed you or apologised about your son's death, would there have still be hatred?

MR HLONGWA: Had he come to my home, I would say yes, he must have made a mistake when he metered out the punishment. In fact he should have informed me to go pick up my son's body.

MR PANDAY: So is that the only reason you say there was hatred in the killing of your son?

MR HLONGWA: That is not the only reason, I can state many others.

MR PANDAY: Now, Mr Hlongwa...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: No but, then please state the other reasons so that we can know.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Then please state the other reasons so that we could know.

MR HLONGWA: The most important reason is that no one can assault the other with a knobkierrie on the head, with the intention of disciplining them. His intention was to kill him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But was your son assaulted with a knobkierrie on his head?

MR HLONGWA: My son was assaulted with a knobkierrie on the head. Even that evidence was rendered in court.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I'm thankful for you for telling us because I thought you testified about a small wound resembling almost a gun wound at the ear. That wound, would you say that it was caused by this knobkierrie and it was a bigger wound than a gun shot wound?

MS HLONGWA: It was not a gunshot wound, it was caused by a knopkierie. As I mentioned before, it was a depression that indicated that it must have been something like a knopkierie. That was even confirmed by the post mortem report.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did he have any other wounds, or could you remember the post mortem report mentioning other wounds too?

MR HLONGWA: Yes, there were other wounds, He had many lashes all over his body, even on the face. The number of lashes indicated that there was hatred involved.

MR PANDAY: Now, Mr Hlongwa, do you know of any reason why Joe Ngema would want to kill your son?

MR HLONGWA: As I have mentioned, there was hatred in this area and this I picked up from Joe's actions. Even for the reason that he did not state true facts when he appeared before this Committee.

MR PANDAY: Mr Ngema, do you recall making an affidavit?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry before you go on to that, can I just clear something. I'm not sure I heard it clearly. Did you say a few minutes ago: "My son was hit on the head with a knopkierie. This was testified to in court"?

MR HLONGWA: Yes. Joe is convicted for that crime and that was mentioned in court.

CHAIRPERSON: But can you tell us who testified or who said in court that you son was hit on the head with a knopkierie?

MR HLONGWA: There was a witness, Mseleko, and Paul Timi who testified because they witnessed the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: You said your son was hit by a knopkierie, did you hear this?

MR HLONGWA: It was mentioned in court and it was testified to by witnesses who were present when Ngema hit him with a knopkierie. Yes, they said it was Joe Ngema.

CHAIRPERSON: They said - so this should appear in the record and in the Judgment?


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Carry on.

MR PANDAY: Now, Mr Hlongwa, were you present at the hearing, at the court case?

MR HLONGWA: Yes and I was also a witness.

MR PANDAY: Now do you recall making an affidavit and giving that to the TRC?

MR HLONGWA: Yes, there is a statement that I gave to the TRC.

MR PANDAY: Now I have a copy of that statement and in paragraph 4 of the statement you say the following:

"I am well aware that Joe Ngema suspected him to be an informer or spy for other organisations. This is a reason why I think his killing was politically motivated."

Now, is this not a contradiction from you saying there was hatred first with your son and Joe?

MR HLONGWA: If the Committee accepts that people are killed for political reasons, then Ngema did kill my son.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt you again? I regret that I should have announced when we came in at 2 o'clock that we are going to be proceeding with this matter and we think that it will take the rest of the afternoon. We accordingly are adjourning the Mafu matter till 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and if arrangements want to be made, I don't know, for him to be taken from here, that can be done, but we would like him here at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. Carry on.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Hlongwa, you haven't answered my question. The problem I have is that you first say the killing was due to hatred and now you say in your affidavit that the killing may be politically motivated, now which is the one that you're going to stand by?

MR HLONGWA: I have associated his death with politics because Joe is a member of the ANC. He was a Commander and a Chief Marshal. Yes politics was associated with his death because the person responsible for his death was an official in that organisation.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could I just have clarity on this? Your son, why should he be killed if he's a member of the ANC, why should the ANC kill its own members?

MR HLONGWA: Thank you for that. It further shows that the killing was associated with hatred because it was ANC killing one of their own.

MR SIBANYONI: The applicant says your client was no longer a member of the ANC because he didn't attend any meeting or activity of the ANC, even if he had attended a march to the police station. What is your comment about that?

MR HLONGWA: I would like to know from that person who says that if he checked the membership cards of those people he was going to kill, if they were ANC members or if they were not. Did he request their cards before he killed them?

MR SIBANYONI: But in the case of your son, do you insist that your son was a member of the ANC?

MR HLONGWA: Yes. We are all members of the ANC. Mape was a member and he would be involved in toyi-toyi together with Mr Ngema because of his membership in the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you got to ANC meetings?

MR HLONGWA: Usually yes I would, but if meetings were held on Sunday mornings, I would not go because I'm a minister in the Church.

CHAIRPERSON: But otherwise you would go if they were held at other times.

MR HLONGWA: Yes, I did attend meetings.

CHAIRPERSON: Did your son attend meetings with you?

MR HLONGWA: Usually he did not attend meetings for various reasons.

MR PANDAY: You say usually your son did not attend meetings for various reasons. What are the reasons that would make him not attend the meeting?

MR HLONGWA: Firstly, he was a pupil, he would go to Nongoma to attend some courses, therefore he was not around. Even when he was around, he would be involved in fixing cars because he was a mechanic and he would do this, it will keep him busy so that he would be in a position to go to Nongoma to attend his courses, that is why he could not attend all meetings.

MR PANDAY: Mr Hlongwa is it correct to assume then that although your son may have been a supporter of the ANC, he may not have necessarily been an active member in the ANC?

MR HLONGWA: That is correct. I'm also not an active person in the ANC, but I am a supporter.

MR PANDAY: And that if you're a supporter, you need not attend all the meetings, but support the views of the ANC?

MR HLONGWA: Yes, to support an organisation means that you agree or you follow the policies of the organisation but it doesn't mean that you have to go toyi-toying.

MR PANDAY: So if I had to put it to you, my instructions are that your son was not seen at the meetings as Joe Ngema would maintain, would he be correct in that?

MR HLONGWA: I would agree with him that he was not there all the time, but he would attend some.

MR PANDAY: Finally Mr Hlongwa, the day your son was taken by Ngema and the comrades, did you go to this place where they were taking your son to?

MR HLONGWA: I did not go with them. I remained at home. I just saw them taking him away. I only saw him when I had to go pick up the body.

MR PANDAY: Is it correct to assume that you did not know what had transpired at that meeting?

MR HLONGWA: If evidence is presented in court and that evidence eventually convicts someone, that is enough to convince me, even Mr Ngema himself admits that he did hit him with a knopkierie although he denies that it was on the head.

MR PANDAY: And Mr Hlongwa, is it correct to also assume that at the meeting, if the community implicated your son in certain criminal activities, you would not be able to dispute that?

MR HLONGWA: Mr Ngema said that something transpired at the meeting about a vehicle. With regards to that I am certain and I have evidence to the effect that he was not involved in that offence.

MR PANDAY: Thank you Mr Chairman.


JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know Mr Themba?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know Mr Themba?

MR HLONGWA: I do know Themba Nkobo and he was a very close neighbour.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you hear that he lost his vehicle?

MR HLONGWA: The vehicle was not lost, but my son removed it from him because he had not paid him for fixing it. He removed it and kept it at home.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did your son take this vehicle to Empangeni?

MR HLONGWA: He did not go to Empangeni by to Mandeni. I was informed by Themba about this. He came to my home.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was Themba cross because your son took the vehicle?

MR HLONGWA: As a neighbour, he had come to me to request my intervention so that they could discuss this matter. My son had taken the car under the pretext that he was going to keep it at home, but he had not mentioned that he was going to take it away to Mandeni and he did not like that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And did your son take out the engine of the car?

MR HLONGWA: He did not take out the engine, he just took the vehicle and he was later arrested at Gingindlovu because Themba had reported the matter

JUDGE DE JAGER: And was that court case still pending against your son when he died?

MR HLONGWA: Themba had already withdrawn the case. He later came to me and said he had made a mistake to report the vehicle stolen, but what had annoyed him was the fact that my son had taken the vehicle away.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did they settle this dispute about the vehicle before the killing?

MR HLONGWA: Yes, it had long been resolved and there was no bad feeling between them. Even at that Kangaroo court, Themba did testify that their case was resolved and I was informed by a person who was at that kangaroo court that Joe had said that they are not there to try a case but to issue decisions.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Right. Did Mr Themba himself speak to you about this meeting and what happened there?

MR HLONGWA: He did not return to me thereafter. What I know is that he did mention something at the meeting, but he never reported it back to me.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Just another aspect. You agreed that your son didn't attend all the meetings of the ANC. Do you know whether he attended any meetings of the PAC?

MR HLONGWA: The PAC did not exist at Umkababa up until 1994.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And the applicant said that he didn't suspect your son to be a member of the PAC, he knew that he was a member of the PAC, what would you say about that?

MR HLONGWA: If Mr Ngema knew about that, I did not, but if he knew about that fact and he states that he hated the PAC, therefore it means he killed my son out of hatred.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR SIBANYONI: Did the engine of the car at one stage get lost?

MR HLONGWA: I do not know anything about that car. The last I heard was that my son had taken the vehicle to Mandeni and later that Themba had withdrawn the case. What he did with it thereafter or in the process, I do not know.

CHAIRPERSON: Surely you asked you son? You have told us that Themba was a very close neighbour and here your son was supposed to have brought the car home and he suddenly takes it to Mandeni. Surely you asked him what was happening?

MR HLONGWA: That is true. After my neighbour had come to me to request my intervention, I asked him about it and he informed me that Themba had an outstanding debt and he decided to keep the car but what caused the conflict was that he took the car away, but they later resolved the matter with Themba.


MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr Hlongwa, I understand you did make a statement to the Human Rights Violations Committee of the TRC about the death of your son, is that correct?

MR HLONGWA: Yes. I did make a statement although I cannot bind myself to it because it was not signed.

MR MAPOMA: No, no, I'm referring to a statement to the Human Rights Violations Committee not the Amnesty Committee. A statement which was made to the statement takers during 1996.

MR HLONGWA: Yes, I do know about the Committee. I did go to their offices and make a statement there and it was taken by Kismos Dlamini.


MR HLONGWA: That is a statement which I say I do not bind myself to, if it does not contain my signature.

MR MAPOMA: Now was your son at the time, during his lifetime, did he have a child at all?

MR HLONGWA: Yes, a son, Thabiswa.

MR MAPOMA: How old is Thabiswa?

MR HLONGWA: I think he must be 19 this year.

MR MAPOMA: Was the deceased married?

MR HLONGWA: No. He was begotten outside marriage.

MR MAPOMA: Now is Thabiswa with his mother?

MR HLONGWA: No, he does not - what happened was when the girl got pregnant, they were still very young therefore as parents we agreed that the child should be kept with us. His mother then continued with her education and later got married, so they do not stay together.

MR MAPOMA: So does he stay under you? Is he under your guardianship, Thabiswa?

MR HLONGWA: Yes, he stays with us as he grandparents.

MR MAPOMA: So I suppose that his full names are Thabiswa Hlongwa, is that correct?

MR HLONGWA: Yes, he is Thabiswa, who is the junior Hlongwa.

MR MAPOMA: Yes. In your evidence you have testified that the police station of Umkomaas was so small that it could not serve the entire community of Umkababa very well. Do you recall that?

MR HLONGWA: Yes, that is true. I maintain that.

MR MAPOMA: And are you aware that there were complaints from the community of Umkababa about the inefficiency of the police in that area?

MR HLONGWA: I would not say it was only Umkababa, because that police station services Hlongwa and Dododo and it was a small police station.

MR MAPOMA: So the community which you have just mentioned now, are you aware of the complaints that they were having about the inefficiency of that police station for their needs?

MR HLONGWA: People always complain about police inefficiency, but you should always look on both sides of any story and I believe that the criticism was unfair.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, but as a matter of fact, was there such a criticism?

MR HLONGWA: The complaint was that they took too long to arrive if an offence had been committed, that is what was the greatest complaint.

MR MAPOMA: Now in your area, which political organisation was predominant there?

MR HLONGWA: It was the ANC.

MR MAPOMA: So in a way the ANC, do you confirm that it was the organisation which was taking care of the community interests in that area?

MR HLONGWA: I would not say that they took care of the needs of the community because they did not have any resources, they were not in a position of power so that they could take care of the community.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions. Thank you Mr Hlongwa.


CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MS REDDY: No, no Mr Chairperson.


MR SIBANYONI: Mr Hlongwa when the applicant Ngema passed your house for the last time, you said he was having in his possession some weapons and assegai, did that not raise any suspicion to you?

MR HLONGWA: I would like to correct that mistake. I said that he was the only person who carried a knopkierie.

MR SIBANYONI: A knopkierie. Did that not raise any suspicion to you that something was wrong?

MR HLONGWA: No, it did not occur to me because at that time, it was just a group of young boys and it was the only person who carried the knopkierie was Joe and it is customary for us Zulu to carry such.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: In connection with that, did they hold, or did they have - what was the other one's name under arrest - Etosh, or did they sort of keep Etosh under their arrest or did they hold him, or did he accompany him out of his own free will?

MR HLONGWA: No one was held, they were just walking.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you gain the impression that your son is also out of his own free will walking with them?

MR HLONGWA: Yes, that is what I thought.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you, you may return to your seat.


MS REDDY: Mr Chairperson, we call Sibusiso Luthuli to the witness stand.

SIBUSISO LUTHULI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MS REDDY: What is your association with an incident that occurred on the 29th of July 1993? Oh sorry, it's June, 29th of June 1993.

MR LUTHULI: They found me at Mate's home. I was also with my brother Simpiwhe, but he's known as Popo. They said they wanted him and ...(indistinct) and it shocked me that they wanted my brother. I then asked them what they wanted from him, so they told me to go with them so that I could see for myself what would happen.

On arrival at the spot, there were two persons lying on the ground and they were severely beaten. I was told to sit and I enquired why. At the time I was afraid and I suspected that I may also be assaulted because they carried an assortment of firearms. It was knopkieries, sticks and assegais. and there were a lot of people present, including young people.

As I was still enquiring what was happening, Joseph Ngema started assaulted me. He hit me on the head and I was also hit on my mouth and some of my teeth came loose. Thereafter I do not know what happened, I lost consciousness. I was taken to hospital. I did not find out what my brother had done and I did not know what I had also done. After being hospitalised, I was taken to the Umkomaas police station. The police enquired as to why I was assaulted and I responded that I did not know. They wanted to know if I was a criminal or not and at that time I had not committed any crime. The only person who was wanted because of the crimes he had committed was Sipo. We were then released. Up to this day I do not know why I was assaulted.

MS REDDY: Just to confirm, did the applicant carry a firearm?

MR LUTHULI: No, I did not see a firearm, he had a knopkierie.

MS REDDY: Did other members of that gang have firearms with them?

MR LUTHULI: No, I did not see any firearms, they carried sticks and knopkieries.

MS REDDY: Was Joe acting in concert or was he acting on his own accord?

MR LUTHULI: There were many of them, although I cannot remember all but I can mention a few names. There was Lepomo. There were many of them, some whose names I cannot remember but I can recognise them. He also knows who was with him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were they more than 20, more than 100, or what would you say, round about?

MR LUTHULI: There were more than 100.

MS REDDY: The person who assaulted you, is it just the applicant?

MR LUTHULI: The first person to assault me was Joe Ngema. After that I did not see who did assault me because they just attacked me. What hurts me is that I do not know why I was being assaulted.

MS REDDY: Did you witness anybody else being assaulted?

MR LUTHULI: On my arrival Sibusiso Miya and Stooks Hlatswayo had already been assaulted.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were they assaulted because they raped women?

MR LUTHULI: I do not have knowledge as to why they were assaulted. It was not explained to me why they were assaulted.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were you involved in any assaults on women?


JUDGE DE JAGER: Why are you in jail at present?

MR LUTHULI: For culpable homicide.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was that a - did this killing have any - did it relate to politics or not, the one for which you've been convicted?

MR LUTHULI: No, it was not politically related.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were you at any stage a member of the PAC?

MR LUTHULI: No, I am a member of the ANC.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was there a branch of the PAC in your area?

MR LUTHULI: At that time the PAC had not been launched at Umkababa, it was just the ANC.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you know Mape?


JUDGE DE JAGER: Was he a friend of yours?

MR LUTHULI: Yes, he was one of my friends.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was he a member of the PAC?

MR LUTHULI: I do not know that. I knew that he was a member of the ANC.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Can you remember when he was killed?

MR LUTHULI: No, I do not because what happened to him only occurred after my incident.

JUDGE DE JAGER: After you've been arrested or after you've been attacked?

MR LUTHULI: After I'd been attacked. After spending time at the police station, I went to Lamontville.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Why was he killed? How do you think? What is your opinion? What was the reason for him being killed?

MR LUTHULI: I do not bear that knowledge because I did not know him to be involved in anything.

MS REDDY: Did you see the deceased Miya or Hlatswayo having a gun in their possession on the said date in question?

MR LUTHULI: No, because when I arrived they'd already been assaulted.

MS REDDY: So you didn't actually hear any gunshots also?

MR LUTHULI: No on my arrival they were just lying on the ground because they'd already been beaten.

MS REDDY: Okay. What was the attitude of the police to the community and to being - to ask the question in more detail, if any of the residents of the Umkababa area reported a criminal activity to the police, would they positively respond thereto?

MR LUTHULI: Yes, they would although they took their time in arriving, but they did take steps.

MS REDDY: If the applicant is actually granted amnesty here today, what would be your view on that?

MR LUTHULI: As far as I'm concerned, I suffered because of the assaults that were handed down to me and nobody explained to me what I was being assaulted for. Even if I had committed a crime, they should have taken me to the police instead of taking the law into their hands. I now bear scars that will never be removed.

MS REDDY: So actually what you're telling us is that the applicant abuses power as a martial of the SDU and unjustifiably reprimanded you or disciplined you all without cause.

MR LUTHULI: That is correct.

MS REDDY: Thank you Mr Luthuli. Committee, no further questions.


JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Luthuli, just one thing. According to the evidence now, you and the applicant belonged to the same party, the same political party.

MR LUTHULI: That is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now why would two people belonging to the same party have difficulties and why would you be assaulted by him as leader of that party, he being the leader of that party in that area, why would he assault you?

MR LUTHULI: I also have the same difficulty because if I had committed an offence, it should have been explained to me and the police should have been called in. I, in fact he wanted to kill me. He was hitting me on my head and against that he wanted to kill me.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well he told us that you were involved with those people who raped the three women and that was the reason why you were assaulted. What do you say on that?

MR LUTHULI: That is not correct. I do not force a woman - I've never forcefully done something to a woman.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you completed evidence-in-chief?

MS REDDY: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Cross-examination?

MR PANDAY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Mr Luthuli do you know the following people? Sibusiso Miya?

MR LUTHULI: Yes, I do.

MR PANDAY: Bheki Hlatswayo?


MR PANDAY: S'khumbuzo Luthuli?

MR LUTHULI: Yes, I do.

MR PANDAY: Gugulethu Innocent Msia?

MR LUTHULI: Yes, I do.

MR PANDAY: Caesar Bunambi?


MR PANDAY: Moses Luthuli.

MR LUTHULI: I also know him.

MR PANDAY: How are all these people known to you?

MR LUTHULI: I grew up with them.

MR PANDAY: Did you also grow up with the applicant?

MR LUTHULI: I would not say that I grew up with him, because he is older than me.

MR PANDAY: Did you grow up in front of him?

MR LUTHULI: No, I'll say I only got to know him when I was older. As far as I can tell, he was not originally from Umkababa.

MR PANDAY: Now, do you know he was the Chief Marshal in the area?

MR LUTHULI: Yes, I know that he was active in the ANC. He may have been a Chief Marshal, therefore he played a prominent role in the ANC.

MR PANDAY: And is it also correct that he had to protect the people in the area?

MR LUTHULI: I do not know about that.

MR PANDAY: Now Mr Luthuli, do you know for any reason why he as a Chief Marshal, will just discipline you people?

MR LUTHULI: I do not know of any reason. I still wanted to know the reasons when they came to collect my brother. I wanted to know what they would do to him, instead I am the one who was assaulted. I do not know what I had done.

MR PANDAY: The place you were assaulted, how far is that from your home?

MR LUTHULI: It's a bit far, but you can walk there.

MR PANDAY: All the time when they were taking you to this place to be assaulted, did they not explain to you why they were going to discipline you?

MR LUTHULI: On the way you could tell that they were very angry and aggressive. I just thought that I would see whatever happens at our destination and on our arrival there, I'm the person who was assaulted.

MR PANDAY: Now don't you think if they had no reason to discipline you, they would have disciplined you at your house?

MR LUTHULI: Please repeat that question.

MR PANDAY: If these people were to have assaulted you for no reason, do you not think that they would have done this at your house?

CHAIRPERSON: If they had no reason to assault him, why should they assault him?

MR LUTHULI: I do not know why I was assaulted, I would still like to know, even now.

MR PANDAY: Well as the Chief Marshal, Mr Ngema received information that there were three rapes in the area and you, together with the other people I mentioned, were linked to this.

MR LUTHULI: Well that is a serious mistake.

MR PANDAY: Do you think Mr Ngema would have assaulted you for no reason?

MR LUTHULI: I do not know why he assaulted me. He's the one who bears knowledge as to why he assaulted me.

MR PANDAY: Thank you Mr Chairman.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr Luthuli, where is your brother now, Sipo?

MR LUTHULI: I cannot say because I just hear rumours from people who visit me, who inform me that he is deceased. He is not exactly my blood brother, we share the same surname.

MR MAPOMA: He is one of the victims who were assaulted there, is that correct?

MR LUTHULI: Yes, he is one of the people who were assaulted.

MR MAPOMA: What reason was it that was put forward for him to be assaulted at that meeting, at the gathering?

MR LUTHULI: I do not know why he was assaulted. It was not explained to me why the others had been assaulted. It was not even explained to me why I was being assaulted.

MR MAPOMA: Are you saying people were just assaulted, not even confronted with anything, they were just assaulted? Is that your evidence?

MR LUTHULI: I cannot say because when I arrived they had already been assaulted. What I can say is that it was not explained to me why I was being assaulted, I was just assaulted.

MR MAPOMA: Now, Sipo, did Sipo not arrive together with you there?

MR LUTHULI: I referred to my younger brother, Simpiwhe Luthuli and he was known as Popo. That is my blood brother.

MR MAPOMA: So Popo, did you arrive with him there?

MR LUTHULI: Yes, we did and I wanted to see what they were going to do to him.

MR MAPOMA: Yes and you saw what they did to him.

MR LUTHULI: What I saw was that they just slapped him on the face and then they started assaulted me and it was not explained to me why I was being assaulted. I did not even hear what they said to him, I just saw him being slapped and immediately thereafter I was assaulted.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, Popo, is his name Moses?


JUDGE DE JAGER: Who is Moses Luthuli?

MR LUTHULI: He is one other person, we are just related by having the same surname.

MR MAPOMA: Now when you were in prison, who is this Luthuli that you say the police were looking for? Is it Sipo or Sibusiso?

MR LUTHULI: At Scottburgh Hospital it was myself, Mzo and Dlamini, we were then taken to the police station and Sipo Luthuli is the person who remained at the police station because he was wanted by the police.

MR MAPOMA: So the police got him through those who assaulted him before? Is that what happened?

MR LUTHULI: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MS REDDY: No re-examination.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. No sorry, can you come back for one minute?

This place that you were taken to, where there were two people lying on the ground when you arrived, was this a sports ground?

MR LUTHULI: It was an open field, like a sports ground and the children used to play soccer there.



MS REDDY: I now call S'khumbuzo Miya to take the witness stand.

S'KHUMBUZO DIXON MIYA: (sworn states)

MS REDDY: May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: What are his full names again?

INTERPRETER: S'khumbuzo Dixon Miya.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Are you related to the deceased?


JUDGE DE JAGER: Is he your brother, or what was the relationship?

MR MIYA: He was my younger brother.


EXAMINATION BY MS REDDY: Did your brother belong to any political organisation in 1993?


MS REDDY: Which group was it?

MR MIYA: He was in the ANC and he was also in the SDU.

MS REDDY: Does your brother possess a firearm?

MR MIYA: I don't remember him having any.

MS REDDY: Do you know if your brother was involved in any criminal activities?

MR MIYA: No, I do not know of any.

MS REDDY: Did you all share the same house?


MS REDDY: What relationship did the police have with the community in 1993?

MR MIYA: What I remember is that during the early 90's the relationship was not good because of the conflict that existed then. The police were alleged to be biased towards one group.

MS REDDY: Which group was that?

MR MIYA: They were alleged to be biased towards the IFP.

MS REDDY: But they had a good relationship with the ANC members?

MR MIYA: It was not very good, but by 1993 the community would report offences to the police, it is just that they took long in responding to the calls that were made to them.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I couldn't hear. Were they biased in favour of the IFP or were they biased against the IFP?

MR MIYA: They were in favour of the IFP.

MS REDDY: But if any of the members of the community experienced problems and they took the complaint to the police, would they positively respond even though there was a space in between complaint and response?

MR MIYA: Yes, I do not know of any case that was reported and the police did not respond.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry. Could I just try and clear something up? Wasn't the police at that stage considered to be the enemy of the ANC and weren't many policemen killed because of that?

MR MIYA: When there was still war, that happened but by 1993 there was no longer conflict between the ANC and IFP at Umkababa, so that situation existed prior to 1993. At that time, that perception was not so rife.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you, that clears up ...

MS REDDY: In your opinion, what was the motive of the killing of your brother?

MR MIYA: When I came here I had hoped that I would get that reason, but what puzzles me is that I have not received a reason because when the people who allegedly raped those three girls were mentioned, his name was not and the people who were killed during that incident, were not those same persons who were mentioned as having taken part in the rape. I do not know that, I supposed they were just friends, but I had not as yet received a reason as to why he was killed.

MS REDDY: Do you know whether the people in your area feared the applicant?

MR MIYA: Do you mean now?

MS REDDY: No, I'm actually talking about 1993.

MR MIYA: What do you mean? What are you referring to?

MS REDDY: Did the people in your area in 1993 fear the applicant?

MR MIYA: There were those who feared him.

MS REDDY: If the applicant is actually granted amnesty today, what would be your feelings thereto?

MR MIYA: The difficulty that I face, even when he arrived at my home to apologise, he did not state the reasons. Moreover he is not being truthful and that is my greatest difficulty. I do not think he has explained the whole truth because I would like to know why he killed him. I would forgive him if he speaks the truth. Perhaps if they had had a conflict within the SDU, maybe if he were to apologise and admit that there was that conflict between the two of them, I would not have a problem with that, but the problem that I face is that he does not state clearly why he was killed.

MS REDDY: Thank you Mr Miya. No further questions.

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...that you brother turned up while they were disciplining the person alleged or the people alleged to have been the rapists and that he turned up with a gun and chased away the people and charged past him and then he knocked him down with a knopkierie.

MR MIYA: I heard about a gunshot or about a firearm when I came here today. This incident happened close to my home. I was not present but my family was around, but there was no gunshot that was heard.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did anybody after the meeting, your friends, did they tell you: "Listen, this is what happened. We were at the meeting. This was the reason" or didn't anybody tell you afterwards what really happened at that meeting?

MR MIYA: The information I received was after everything had happened. That was when people came to report that my brother was injured and he was lying on that spot and I was told that they arrived when the people who were alleged to have raped the girls, were being assaulted and on their arrival they were also assaulted.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were those people who raped the girls or allegedly raped the girls, were they friends of your brother and of yourself?

MR MIYA: I would normally see them together because they were from one area.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, I'd like to carry on with this a little. You say this took place, where your brother was assaulted, was close to your home?


CHAIRPERSON: And you also, I think you've made it quite clear, you know or you knew Bheki Francis also known as Ducks Hlatshwayo?


CHAIRPERSON: Did he live near you?

MR MIYA: Yes, he was my neighbour.

CHAIRPERSON: So it would have been very easy for these two young men to have heard a noise and gone running along to see what was happening?


CHAIRPERSON: Whatever, if things happened where you found your brother's body, it was within earshot of your homes, of both the homes? Did you know - you say that. It was within hearing, easy hearing of your home where this took place?

MR MIYA: Yes, one could hear the noise and you could even seen them.

CHAIRPERSON: You could even?

MR MIYA: See them



CHAIRPERSON: Oh, you could see from your home and we have a statement been put before us from Felicia Hlatswayo, the brother of Ducks. You know that?


CHAIRPERSON: Now she, in that statement says that Ducks and Sibusiso, that's your brother, were very powerful and well-trained in using their firearms. Is that correct?

MR MIYA: I think so because they were members of SDU. It was their duty to protect the community.

CHAIRPERSON: And they were well-trained in using their firearms. Did they have firearms to protect the community?

MR MIYA: I wouldn't be certain about firearms, but what I know is that if there was a problem in the community, they were the people who were called to come and help and violence, people were using firearms, but I don't know whether they were well-trained or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Carry on.

MS REDDY: No further questions.


JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, were they still active in the SDU at the time of their deaths?

MR MIYA: At the time of their death there was no much violence in the area, but they were still members of SDU because if there was a problem, they were being called to come and help.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Who would call them to come and help?

MR MIYA: One of those people is Joe, the one who made an application.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did they have any problems with Joe or the ANC? Did they resign the SDU or the ANC at any stage?

MR MIYA: None that I remember whatsoever. I don't remember any problems with the ANC and they never told me anything except that sometimes they will tell me if there were conflicts among the members of the community but I've never even imagined that those problems will lead to one being killed.

JUDGE DE JAGER: At that time, what was your feeling about the PAC, your own personal feelings?

MR MIYA: Because of the kind of job that I'm doing, I don't involve myself with politics at all.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Your brother, how would he feel about the PAC?

MR MIYA: He was a staunch member of ANC. He never mentioned anything about PAC.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR SIBANYONI: When the applicant came to your home to apologise, were you present?

MR MIYA: No, I wasn't present, my mother was.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

MR PANDAY: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Mr Miya, is it correct to assume that because of your job, you did not communicate much with your brother about his political affiliation?

MR MIYA: We were communicating a lot, in fact we were the only sons at home, therefore he wouldn't chat with anyone else but myself.

MR PANDAY: And if your brother was thinking of changing his political affiliation, would he have told you that?

MR MIYA: I am certain of that, he was going to tell me.

MR PANDAY: Do you know that Joe Ngema was the Chief Marshal in the area?


MR PANDAY: And do you think he would have, as Chief Marshal, killed your brother unnecessarily?

MR MIYA: Up until today, I don't know the reason. He never even told me the reason why he killed my brother. He never even told me that it was a mistake to kill my brother. He never apologised to me, even though I heard now that he wanted to see me.

MR PANDAY: My question to you is, I understand what you're trying to say, but as the Chief Marshal in the area, do you think his actions when it lead to the killing of your brother, would have been something that would have been done recklessly on his part?

MR MIYA: Yes, I think it was.

MR PANDAY: Now you heard the evidence. Would you be in a position to dispute that your brother, Sibusiso Miya, had a gun in his hand on the day in question?

MR MIYA: I heard that evidence.

MR PANDAY: But can you dispute that evidence?

MR MIYA: What puzzled me there is that I heard that two people were armed with firearms, but they were disarmed by one person who had just a knopkierie. It's amazing, it's unbelievable to me that.

MR PANDAY: Thank you. Nothing further.


MS REDDY: No re-examination.


JUDGE DE JAGER: Was your brother a popular man in the community?

MR MIYA: Yes, he was.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I see your sister is saying that he was a powerful man in the community.

MR MIYA: Yes, he was well-known.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Weren't he and the applicant competing for the leadership of the ANC in that community?

MR MIYA: I wouldn't be certain there because I was not involved in the SDUs.

CHAIRPERSON: How old was he at the time?

MR MIYA: 21.

MS REDDY: Mr Chairperson, if I may just interrupt. You referred to a sister. Who's sister are you referring to?

You referred to a sister. The witness is Miya.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, no I'm actually referring to Felicia ...(indistinct). She's not your sister, hey?

MR MIYA: No, no.

MS REDDY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MR MIYA: Yes, she's not my sister.

MR MAPOMA: No question Chairperson thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MS REDDY: No re-examination.



MS REDDY: Mr Chairperson, I just need to call Martin Ngema and I've just got three questions for him. It's going to be a very short leading of evidence. Just three questions for Martin Ngema. He was the eye witness to the whole incident and I just have two questions. It's going to be quite short. I call Martin Ngema to the witness stand.

Okay, in the event, to save time, we can call Sandile Nkomo to take the witness stand.


JUDGE DE JAGER: Before you start, would you just tell us how does he fit into the picture?

MS REDDY: He actually witnessed the whole incident that happened on the 29th of June 1993. May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Sandile Balisa?

MS REDDY: Sandile Nkomo. It's Sandile Etosh Nkomo.

EXAMINATION BY MS REDDY: Just to confirm, on which date were you assaulted?

MR NKOMO: On the 1st of July.

MR SIBANYONI: Can you come a little bit closer to the mike?


MR SIBANYONI: Not too close.


MS REDDY: Were you a member of any political organisation in 1993?

MR NKOMO: ANC member.

MS REDDY: What I need to know is, 1st of July 1993, did the applicant assault you on his own accord? Did he assault you because he was asked by the public?

MR NKOMO: Would you please repeat your question?

MS REDDY: On the 1st of July 1993, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn't we get him first to say whether he was assaulted by the applicant? Were you assaulted by the applicant on that day?

MR NKOMO: Yes, he was trying to kill me.


MR NKOMO: They said I raped Thokozani. They came home and they took me at about 7 o'clock. They took me to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Seven in the morning?

MR NKOMO: Yes, half-past seven in the morning. They took me to Thokozani's home. I didn't see Thokozani but her mother came Jo asked the mother if I was Etosh and the mother said yes I am and then they said to me I must give them the gun which I had the previous day. I told them I didn't have the gun. They started hitting me. I told them that we should go back home so that I give them the gun. They took me back to my home. When we arrived there I couldn't find the gun and then they kept on assaulting me. Later a certain car came from Mamati and they took me. I told them that we can go to another place where we can find the gun because I knew that that person had a gun. We went there and when we arrived there, the person didn't have the gun. They took me to a certain area where people usually go to fetch water. We stayed there. Jo and his group will go ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Before you continue, please. They started off asking you for the gun you had the previous day. Is that correct?

MR NKOMO: Yes, that's correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you have a gun the previous day?

MR NKOMO: Yes, I did have a gun.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Where did you leave that gun?

MR NKOMO: I left it under a pillow at home.

JUDGE DE JAGER: When you later returned to give the gun to them, it wasn't under the pillow anymore?

MR NKOMO: No, it wasn't.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Then did you suspect that the gun would have been taken by somebody else?

MR NKOMO: Yes, I suspected that somebody had taken the gun.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, who was that person?

MR NKOMO: But later the gun came from Jo. Jo brought the gun. He said to me there was the gun, they've found it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but you again took them to another person to find the gun. Who was that person? What was his name?

MR NKOMO: Mandla.

JUDGE DE JAGER: When you arrived at Mandla's place, you couldn't find the gun.

MR NKOMO: No, we didn't.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Okay. Did they ultimately find the gun?

MR NKOMO: No it wasn't the same one that I had the previous day. It was just another gun because I did not take that, they were just looking for any other gun, but my gun came from Jo. I don't know how he got hold of it.

CHAIRPERSON: You said they found- there was another gun that was not the gun you'd had the previous day. Did they find that other gun of Mandla's?

MR NKOMO: No, they didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did this other gun come from?

MR NKOMO: The gun that I had the previous day had cellotape. That's the gun which Jo produced after they had assaulted me.

CHAIRPERSON: Well had they produced any other gun before they assaulted you?

MR NKOMO: No, they didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: But I thought you said a moment ago they produced a gun, but you said that was not your gun, your gun was the one Jo produced. Didn't you say that?

MR NKOMO: No, I didn't say that.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Chairperson. I understood him to say he just took them to Mandla so that he can get any gun to satisfy them, but he couldn't get it, he couldn't find it. Then at that stage they started assaulting him and Jo produced this gun.


MS REDDY: Why did you actually keep a firearm in your possession?

MR NKOMO: It was because Jo and his group named us as rivals. We were the comrades who were actively involved in politics. We were active since the time of the UDF and then later when they received ammunition and other weapons, we were named as a gang and we heard that those ammunition came from the ANC, it was given to Jo and his group by the ANC.

MS REDDY: Did you witness Joseph Ngema actually assaulting Mape Hlongwa?

INTERPRETER: Would you please repeat that name of the person.

MS REDDY: Mape Hlongwa. Did you witness Joseph Ngema assaulting him?

MR NKOMO: Yes, I did.

MS REDDY: Do you know why they were assaulting him?

MR NKOMO: He was being assaulted because of a car. Mape was repairing that car. He was a mechanic. Mape took that car to Empangeni and when we were in Gingindlovu, they took that car from Mape and a charge had been laid but then later it was withdrawn.

MS REDDY: Can we just go back to the question where we were interrupted. During the time when you and Hlongwa were actually being assaulted, was the applicant acting on his own accord or whether the members of the community were actually approving of this act or requiring him to assault them?

MR NKOMO: He was acting on his own accord.

MS REDDY: Why do you come to this conclusion?

MR NKOMO: It is because when we arrived at a certain place called Pelendaba, Jo stood up and said h wasn't there to talk about problems but he was there to give sentences and even the owner of the car tried to explain that he had already solved the problem about the car with Mape's parents and Jo said he wasn't there for all those stories but he was there to sentence us and if Jo is requesting amnesty, he's supposed to tell the truth, because even the girl he claims that I raped, didn't say so that day.

MR SIBANYONI: What are you saying about the shambok?

MR NKOMO: Jo stood up. He had a shambok. He was wearing a Fidel Castro t-shirt. He stood up. He came straight to me and he said that was all and we were not there to talk about this crime, but we were there to be punished and ...(indistinct) came and told him not to use a knopkierie and he will assault me and go and assault Mape and do that up and down, going to Mape and back to me. He will assault us with his knopkierie and also with a shambok.

MR SIBANYONI: Did he give a shambok to Themba to assault the other person?

MR NKOMO: No, after Themba said he didn't want to involve himself about this because he had already resolved this with the parents, he didn't stay there. He went and got inside the car and left.

MS REDDY: Did you actually see when Hlongwa ran whilst being assaulted?

MR NKOMO: No, I didn't see him. I only saw him running away and I also saw Jo running after him and later I saw them coming as a group because I was left there behind with another group but I could tell in their eyes, that they had already killed him.

MS REDDY: If the applicant is actually granted amnesty today, what would be your views on that?

MR NKOMO: After Jo was arrested, nothing happened in Umkababa, there was no violence, but I'm scared that if he can be released, things will go back to that situation, the way it was when he was still around, therefore I wouldn't be happy at all.

MS REDDY: Thank you Mr Nkomo. No further questions, Committee.


CHAIRPERSON: Cross-examination?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: Mr Nkomo, you said Jo first came with a group of people and asked you about the rape of Thokozani, is that correct?

MR NKOMO: Yes, that's correct.

MR PANDAY: Then he took you to the house of Thokozani?

MR NKOMO: Yes, that's correct.

MR PANDAY: Now at the house, he eventually started assaulting you and asking you about the gun. Why did he ask you about the gun?

MR NKOMO: I heard that this was the report they got, that the previous day I had a gun and I actually scared the lady with that gun.

MR PANDAY: Now after taking you to the house, you mentioned they then took you to another place to look for the gun. Is that correct?


MR PANDAY: And you said that Jo together with his comrades were looking for weapons.


MR PANDAY: And you were actually the SDUs in the area until Jo was able to get firearms.

MR NKOMO: No, I wasn't. He came with the gun. I don't know where he got the gun.

MR PANDAY: No that's not what I'm asking you. You said in your evidence-in-chief that in the area you were actually the active SDUs. Is that correct?

MR NKOMO: No you didn't hear me correctly. We were not SDUs. I was a member of UDF. We were actively involved in UDF, not SDUs, before SDUs.

MR PANDAY: And then you said when Jo got ammunition and guns, they labelled your group as a gang, is that correct?


MR PANDAY: Now when did they label your group as a gang? In what year?

MR NKOMO: Early 1993.

MR PANDAY: Now do you know Jo was the Chief Marshal in that area?

MR NKOMO: I only discovered that later.

MR PANDAY: Do you know Mape's father?


MR PANDAY: Do you know Mape's father admits that Jo was the Commander of the SDUs and the ANC in the area?

MR NKOMO: Would you please repeat your question? You're saying he accepts that...?

MR PANDAY: Mape's father has said in an affidavit to the TRC that Jo was a Commander of the SDU and the ANC in the area of Umkababa.

MR NKOMO: At the time, I didn't know about the SDUs but I knew about the Marshals.

MR PANDAY: Tell me, is Jo younger than you or older than you?

MR NKOMO: Much older than me.

MR PANDAY: And at the time, how old were you when this killing of Mape took place, and the assaulting of you?

MR NKOMO: 22 years old.

MR PANDAY: Now at that time were you in the ANC?

MR NKOMO: Yes, I was.

MR PANDAY: And isn't it correct that Jo was the Chief Marshal in your area?

MR NKOMO: Most of the things would happen and the community at large wouldn't know who is in what position.

MR PANDAY: We've heard Mape's father. He's an old man, do you agree?

JUDGE DE JAGER: He didn't know that he was a Chief Marshal, whether the old man knew, that's another thing.

MR PANDAY: As Mr Chairman pleases. Now when you were questioned about Thokozani's rape, did you respond to that?

MR NKOMO: I don't quite understand you. Are you referring to today, or do you mean on that day?

MR PANDAY: On the day when they came to assault you, when they questioned you on Thokozani's rape, what did you say to them?

MR NKOMO: When they arrived as I've already testified, I was not questioned because Jo had already said they were not there to talk about these crimes, but they were there to give sentence and discipline, so I was not questioned about Thokozani at large.

MR PANDAY: Now did Mape accompany you?

JUDGE DE JAGER: There was evidence given that you admitted that you raped her.

MR NKOMO: There is no such evidence.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, it was given here that you admitted that you raped her and that's why they punished you.

MR NKOMO: That is not true.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thokozani herself, did she also shambok you?

MR NKOMO: No she was not present where I was punished.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you know of people being punished a day or two before?

INTERPRETER: Would you please repeat that question?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you know of other people being punished for rape a day before or two days before you were punished?

MR NKOMO: Yes, I heard.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were you present when they were punished?

MR NKOMO: No, I wasn't.

MR PANDAY: Mr Nkomo, are you a prisoner at all?


MR PANDAY: What are you in prison for? What crime did you commit?

MR NKOMO: Housebreaking with intention to rob and robbery.

MR PANDAY: The day you were being assaulted, can you recall if anyone else assaulted you?

MR NKOMO: Yes, I do.

MR PANDAY: Who were the other people?

MR NKOMO: Pat Msome, Dickson, Boy-boy and some of them I cannot remember because it was quite a number of them.

MR PANDAY: And Mr Ngema, how many times he assaulted you?

MR NKOMO: He was the first one to assault me from morning. He kept on assaulting me with a knopkierie from morning, such that I couldn't even see. In fact I was convinced that I wasn't going to use my left eye. Even now I still have problems with this eye.

MR PANDAY: So you said he continued assaulting you from the morning? Till what time did he assault you?

MR NKOMO: Until past 4 to 5 o'clock in the afternoon, from half-past seven in the morning.

MR PANDAY: And you mentioned that you saw him run after Mape, is that correct? When did he do that?

MR NKOMO: Yes. When we were being assaulted, myself and Mape.

MR PANDAY: So did he stop assaulting at any time?

MR NKOMO: He would assault me and when he's tired, he'll take a break and then he will come back and keep on taking breaks, but he kept on doing that the whole day.

MR PANDAY: And do you know when he ran after Mape?

MR NKOMO: It was after he was told that he must stop using the knopkierie and assaulting me and after he realised that Mape was running away, and then he ran after Mape as well.

MR PANDAY: Did anyone else run after Mape?

MR NKOMO: Yes, a group of people ran after Mape together with him.

MR PANDAY: Now how can you be so sure he ran after Mape because he denies that.

MR NKOMO: In fact it wasn't going to be easy for me not to realise that Jo had run after Mape because he's the one I concentrated on because he was the one who was assaulting me more than anyone.

MR PANDAY: Yes, but ...(indistinct) correct, you couldn't see properly when he was assaulting you.

MR NKOMO: Maybe you didn't understand what I said. I said my left eye couldn't see properly. At that moment I could see with my right eye.

MR PANDAY: Okay. Thank you. Nothing further.


MS REDDY: No re-examination.


MR MAPOMA: I have no questions Chairperson.


JUDGE DE JAGER: Were you left there at the scene or did they take you home, or how, what happened to you after the assault?

MR MAPOMA: After that I pretended like I was unconscious and I heard them talking that there was someone who was staying in number 32 and that person had two i.d.s, one ANC and one IFP. I could see them and I saw them walking down because they had already decided to go to that person and somebody came and rescued me. As he was trying to help me, somebody saw us and whistled for Jo and his group. I kept on walking slowly until I got into another house. I had already told this person where to find me and when he came back to that house, he told me that Jo and his group had stopped and they've heard that I was still alive and now they are deciding to come back and finish me and so this guy said I mustn't leave that house because they were going to come and finish me and I stayed there until it was dark and they took me to his car to hospital.

MR SIBANYONI: You said they were assaulting you since half-past seven in the morning until about four. Did they chain you or how did that happen? Were you chained throughout this assault?

MR NKOMO: No, I wasn't. I wasn't chained.

MR SIBANYONI: When Jo and the other group ran after Mape, who remained behind with you?

MR NKOMO: Another group was left there with me.

MR PANDAY: Chair, may I just pose one question as resulting out of ...

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PANDAY: You say another group was left with you, is that correct? Now where was this group when the person came to help you?

MR NKOMO: The one who helped me is one of the people who actually shambokked me because they said to him he was supposed to shambok me because he was my friend.

MR PANDAY: And what was this person's name?

MR NKOMO: Makwero Sinoi Sokomete.

MR PANDAY: Thank you.



JUDGE DE JAGER: Will your other witness testify ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MS REDDY: Martin Ngema.

MARTIN NGEMA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MS REDDY: Were you present at the scene on the 29th of June 1993?

MR NGEMA: Yes, I was.

MS REDDY: Did you witness the whole incident?

MR NGEMA: Yes, I did see some of them and in some I didn't.

MS REDDY: Did you see whether the deceased ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MS REDDY: Did you see the deceased Hlatswayo and Miya having any firearms?

MR NGEMA: No, I didn't see them carrying firearms.

MS REDDY: Did you hear any fire shots - did you hear any gunshots?


MS REDDY: Can you tell us whether the applicant acted on his own accord or whether his actions were approved by the other members of the gang?

MR NGEMA: I wouldn't say that he was acting on behalf of the community but I would say him and his group agreed on what they did.

MS REDDY: Do you have any idea what was the motive of the assault?

MR NGEMA: No, I'll be lying if I can say I have an idea why they were being attacked.

MS REDDY: Were the people in your area afraid of the applicant?

MR NGEMA: No, I don't think that they were afraid of him but I think that he was famous, he was well-known in the community.

MS REDDY: Why do you actually say he was well-known?

MR NGEMA: He was known as a Chief Marshal in the area.

MR MAPOMA: I'm sorry Chairperson. I have been approached by some of the present officials. They ask leave to be released now with the prisoners.

MS REDDY: Mr Chairperson, I'm actually now over with leading the witness.


CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: What were you doing there?

MR NGEMA: You mean at Umkababa?

CHAIRPERSON: Where this incident took place on the 29th of June, or weren't you there?

MR NGEMA: I went there to see as to what was happening there.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see the applicant assaulting anybody?

MR NGEMA: Yes, I saw him assaulting people.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see him assaulting Miya and Hlatswayo, Ducks?

MR NGEMA: Yes, I saw him assaulting both of them.

CHAIRPERSON: How did he assault them?

MR NGEMA: With a knopkierie.

CHAIRPERSON: And what were they doing?

MR NGEMA: He instructed them to sit down. They were sitting down whilst he was assaulting them with a knopkierie.

CHAIRPERSON: They were sitting down while he was assaulting them with a knopkierie?

MR NGEMA: Yes, exactly, it was like that.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want to ask any further questions.

MS REDDY: No re-examination.



MR MAPOMA: Excuse me, Chairperson, just one or two questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Is it your evidence that the applicant alone assaulted the victims?

MR NGEMA: There were many who were assaulting them but he was the main person.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you.


MS REDDY: Mr Chairperson, that closes the evidence on behalf of the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to recall, if you wouldn't mind, for one question only Mr Hlongwa.

MS REDDY: No opposition on that.



CHAIRPERSON: The only question I wanted to ask you is, can you remember now what time it was when you went and found your son, when you were told that your son had died and you went to find his body?

MR HLONGWA: I will remember quite well because it was after my lunchtime. I usually take my lunch at one. I would say it was about 2 o'clock when I was told and then I left there and then to go to the scene.



CHAIRPERSON: Right. Now we'll adjourn till tomorrow morning. What time?

MR PANDAY: 9 o'clock is fine Mr Chairman. At least we can get this argument over by then if the prisoners are here on time and then we can start with the Mafu matter.

MS REDDY: I'm actually in consensus with that.

CHAIRPERSON: 9 o'clock then.

MR MAPOMA: May I, Chairperson, for the record point out that I have been approached by some of the implicated persons in this matter. They were saying that they are willing to testify in support of the applicant's application, but they are not legally represented, so I discouraged them then because I was of the view because there would be no need for their testimony. I understand they are here. I will in the meantime today find out from them whether they are still willing to go ahead with the testimony and then I will only be able to report tomorrow morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. I think you must - justice demands that you do enquire as to what they can tell us in the light of the other evidence we have heard. So we'll adjourn this matter to 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.