DAY: 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, we're starting with the Shabangu matter.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee remains the same. Could the legal representatives of the applicants put themselves on record?

MS QUNTA: As it pleases, Mr Chairman. My name is Christine Qunta from the firm Qunta and Ntsebeza and I represent the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: And of the victims?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, my name is Brian Koopedi. I appear here for an interested party being the ANC.

MS COLERIDGE: My name is Lyn Coleridge and I appear on behalf of the victim, Mr Mayeza Mahule, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Right are we ready to proceed?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is nobody appearing for the victims?

MS COLERIDGE: I am. Chairperson, if I can just address you in relation to implicated persons and to the notification. Mr Anthony Tsosobe has been notified in this instance, Mr David Moyese, they are co-accused in the applicant's High Court trial, Chairperson and then Mr David Mompane was also notified as he was arrested at the time or found with the applicant and he's mentioned in the Court Judgement as well in relation to arms and ammunition and so forth, Chairperson. And then Faith Mnisi was also served with a Section 19(iv) notice, Chairperson. Thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was there an reaction from Mr Tsosobe and Moyese?

MS COLERIDGE: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: As a matter of interest, can you tell us where they are?

MS COLERIDGE: I can't, I don't know if the applicant can help us but he says that, I've just liaised with him early this morning, I think they are aware of this as well Chairperson but we've had no response from them.

CHAIRPERSON: Are they still in custody?

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I can't give you a clear indication thereof.

JUDGE DE JAGER: We've given notice to them at what address?

MS COLERIDGE: We've given notification to our investigative unit. Mr Johannes Moeme is here, I can just clarify and he was served with these notices to serve them on them, Chairperson. Chairperson, if you can just indulge me for 5 minutes just to - a few minutes, just to speak to Mr Moeme.

MS QUNTA: I'm informed by my client that they are aware of these proceedings but apparently they are not quite sure of the implications or what it means, but that's what I'm instructed.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Are they still in jail, or are they ...?

MS QUNTA: Perhaps I can hand over to my client.

MR SHABANGU: No, they are not in jail. The point of the matter is that at the end of the day they were never part and parcel of anything that relates to the matter under question now and the difficulty that was posed to them, is as to whether they should come and in the event that they do come, they would spend probably the whole day doing absolutely nothing because they don't know anything that relates to this matter. It was the matter actually that brings us together, is that we were charged with this ...(indistinct) so-called common purpose and they are not directly implicated in this matter in so far as that is concerned.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know whether they applied for amnesty as far as the other matters are concerned, the treason aspect of the conviction?

MR SHABANGU: As far as I'm concerned, yes, they did apply for an amnesty for treason, the other matter that concerns them directly.

CHAIRPERSON: Has such an application been dealt with?

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson I think - I'll just have to check whether there's a part-heard, no it's not in this matter. Chairperson, I can't give you a conclusive answer as to whether their matters have been heard. The only matter that's been placed on the roll for us, Chairperson, is this applicant and I'm sure that our analysts, in this instance, because also they're not related to this specific incident Chairperson, in the Mahule matter, we can say that - I'm not sure whether they've had a hearing in their instances, Chairperson, but I'm sure we could just check with our offices and get a direction Chairperson and I can inform you thereof.

Chairperson and just in so far as the applicant is concerned, he states that they were not involved in these matters with him, Chairperson, so we can also see it as separate, although they were all charged with a common purpose instance and they just lumped the accused in this matter together, so therefore we can regard it as separate, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure the Court didn't find common purpose, did it? At page 805 of the Judgment it appears to say that the State thought to allege common purpose but the Court didn't consider it necessary to go into that aspect as each act committed, or shown to have been committed by each of the accused falls under the description of high treason.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson, that is correct. Can we proceed Chairperson?


MS COLERIDGE: Thank you.

MS QUNTA: I'm not sure, I thought that the applicant would be sworn in.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling the applicant as a witness?

MS QUNTA: As a witness, that's correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What language would he using?

MS QUNTA: He's going to speak in English.

J M SHABANGU: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MS QUNTA: Mr Shabangu can you explain to the Committee what you do at present?

MR SHABANGU: At the present moment I'm employed as an Executive Director of the company called ...(indistinct) Africa Limited.

MS QUNTA: And could you give the Committee a background of your growing up, where you went to school?

MR SHABANGU: I was born and brought up in Middleburg in the province of Mpumalanga, in 1959. I attended my school there until I passed Standard 8, at which period then I left the country to join the African National Congress and ultimately Umkhonto weSizwe.

I left early 1978 and I landed in Swaziland. From there onwards I proceeded to Mozambique, Angola. That's where I got my military training, until 1979. Late 1979 in December, to be specific, I started to come back inside the country and that's the background as to when I joined the African National Congress.

MS QUNTA: Could you just explain what prompted you to leave the country, leave school and leave the country?

MR SHABANGU: Well at the time I left the country there was a social upheaval in the country and I happened to be active at school, the SRC and by being active at that particular level, I then got exposed to the political situation which was quite unbearable, in particular to the black people of this country and which social conditions forced me to leave the country and to go and seek better means to bring about an end to the obnoxious system of apartheid.

MS QUNTA: Can you explain to the Committee when you joined the ANC, where you were stationed and the activities that you engaged in whilst stationed outside?

MR SHABANGU: I joined the ANC in Swaziland, that was in 1978, the period it was July. I was given an option of going to school because at that particular stage I was still very young. Because of the unbearable social conditions back home, I was quite militant, so much so that I could not accept an option of going to school. I therefore opted to go for military training, in spite of persuasions not to do so. Because I was very young, I should go to school and so forth, but I felt that I want to join those that will bring an end to the unjust system of apartheid and therefore I opted to go for military training. I went to Angola where I trained quite extensively.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Where in Angola did you train?

MR SHABANGU: The first camp that I went to, it was Ibashe and the second one I went to Funde and the last one, I went to next to Malange, there was a military training camp there that we opened.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is that in the East or South or North of Angola?

MR SHABANGU: It was in the East.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

MS QUNTA: And after your training, what happened then, after you completed your training?

MR SHABANGU: Well, after I completed my training I was one of those that selected to go to the front line and at that particular stage, I should think that I regard myself that I've grown up quite well to distinguish what was wrong and what was right and I was finally stationed in Mozambique and subsequently Swaziland. I was commuting between Swaziland, Mozambique or Maputo and Mbabane and finally South Africa.

MS QUNTA: Whilst you were stationed in Mozambique, can you explain what activities you engaged in and just give us a background of your time there?

MR SHABANGU: Whilst I was stationed in Mozambique, we were then divided into small units for security reasons and initially I operated alone and secondly I was put in a unit of two and I was the lead in that unit, which can be called a Section Commander and I did reconnaissance whilst I was based in Mozambique. I had to come inside the country to identified targets that were in keeping with our broad objectives of bringing to an end the apartheid system.

MS QUNTA: And what were these targets? Can you explain?

MR SHABANGU: The machinery that I was involved in, it was basically to deal with the targets, that was the police, in particular the police that were in the apartheid machinery. The purpose was to immobilise them not to continue to participate in the system that does not serve the best interests of them, but it serves only the interests of the minority whites in the country.

MS QUNTA: Now ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Was this black police that you were aiming at?

MR SHABANGU: I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: You say it was so they wouldn't serve the aims of the white, were you aiming at the black police?

MR SHABANGU: The particular aim, it was to demoralise black policemen who were serving in the apartheid machinery, that's correct.

MS QUNTA: Now when did you - at the time you were talking now, you were the Section Commander, when did you actually come back into the country? Did you stay, or did you come and go and give us time periods.

MR SHABANGU; Well, I came inside the country on quite a number of occasions, in and out of the country and so forth and so on, looking into specific areas that we'd set down and identify those at the possible areas that we should involve and the first time I came inside the country, it was on the 26th of December, 1979 and I spent a period of a week inside the country, identifying areas where one would stay comfortably and also having some ...(indistinct) base so that I should be in a better position to retreat quite safely.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Would I be correct in assuming that your aim was in fact to overthrow the then Government and replace it by the democratic elected Government?

MR SHABANGU: That's absolutely correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And could you now come to the present instance? Why did you target Mr Mahule?

MR SHABANGU: Well, coming to the specific incident, he was identified as one of those policemen at the time participating within the broader structures of the apartheid police machinery and which machinery was meant, in most instances, to attack any uprising that was directed against the then Government and people who were used who would be put in the forefront of such suppressions were our own fellow black policemen and hence therefore the purpose essentially was to say to them: "We are warning you, don't be part and parcel of a system that has no moral standing in the international community or any international body for that matter."

MS QUNTA: Was there a particular reason why you chose Sgt Mahule?

MR SHABANGU: Well at the time of his attack, there was a school boycott in an area called Bosfontein where Sgt Mahule was stationed in that particular area and to deter some of these black police from participating in those actions of suppressing the angry protests of the students against the system of apartheid, it was therefore felt it was important to send a particular message to them that they should not participate, they should not be part and parcel of suppressing such students in their just protests.

MS QUNTA: Now can you explain to the Committee exactly how you planned the act and the details of the act and what weapon you used?

MR SHABANGU: Well, the first thing that happened is, I ...(indistinct) identifying policemen who were residing around that particular area and also getting the views of ordinary people, the view of the students, of policemen, that actually serve as a threat against, and having done so, he was singularly pointed out as a person that should be given a warning not to continue to be part and parcel of the police that were being used to suppress the students or any social unrest that could be taking place, be it of whatever nature, be it a rank boycott or whatever and the planning then went as follows:

Having got those ...(indistinct) I then submitted the information in to our Commanders in Maputo and we looked whether it forms part and parcel of the broader strategy of bringing to an end the apartheid system and we felt that it was indeed essential that we demobilised quite effectively our own fellow black policemen from continuing to participate in actions where their own children are involved in. Having agreed on that, then it was agreed that an act of deterrent should then be carried out against Mr Mahule and I must point out here ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: You said you agreed, you reported back and you agreed on that. With whom did you agree?

MR SHABANGU: We agreed with our Commanders back at ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Who were the Commanders?

MR SHABANGU: Unfortunately some of them died in the ...(indistinct) actions of the apartheid system when they were attacking Mozambique, but the living one at the time, who continues to be inside the country, it was Vosloo and I must point out that we, having agreed, we then felt that the suitable deterrent weapon that we can use against such policemen, it should be either we use pamphlets against them and if it is not possible to use pamphlets, we can then use offensive hand grenades and for the specific instant an offensive hand grenade, RGD5 was used, not an F1 deliberate. An F1 is a defensive one which definitely, if we had used a defensive one, it could have meant that the aim was to kill and the aim was not to kill, that is why we used an offensive one. An offensive is meant - in combat operations you use it when you are to attack. You throw a hand grenade and then during the confusion you come with an assault weapon and so forth and I personally then used the offensive hand grenade and it was thrown in his bedroom specifically. It was in terms of my own reconnaissances that at least around half-past ten, eleven or twelve, he's already at home and the explosion will then indicate that certainly this is a clear warning because if it was intended to kill, I would have simply done so.

MS QUNTA: After you threw the hand grenade you then left the premises?

MR SHABANGU: Well, after the hand grenade was thrown, because there was already by that time - I waited outside, I waited some distance away until the bedroom light was switched off. I stayed for an hour after that and I was sure that even if there could be anything around, I will be able to carry out my operation quite successfully and I threw in the hand grenade and I disappeared in the dark of the night.

JUDGE DE JAGER: At the trial it was stated that the hand grenade struck the window bar. Was that so, or was it thrown into the house?

MR SHABANGU: Well, the hand grenade was thrown into the window, so there were window frames there. It's possible that it could have hit the window frames but the aim, as I've indicated earlier on, it was not to kill.

MS QUNTA: Now you've also applied ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Surely if you throw a hand grenade through a window into a bedroom where you think a man is asleep in his bed, there is every likelihood it would kill?

MR SHABANGU: Not as far as I know the offensive hand grenades, but certainly if it was a defensive F1 hand grenade it would have killed, it can kill a person, not an offensive one.

MS QUNTA: At what distance - an offensive hand grenade, at what distance would it cause harm to a person, an individual?

MR SHABANGU: Well it can cause harm if the room is as small as a toilet, but certainly if a room is quite big enough, it will explode and there will be gasses and during that pandemonium, because that is why it is called an offensive one, you'd throw it and during the pandemonium then you move forward with an assault rifle and so forth and so on and that one, it was simply meant, no weapons were used, only the hand grenade, that is the offensive, was used, so in that regard it's not possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't it also cause shrapnel?

MR SHABANGU; Shrapnel of an offensive, it's not possible that it could kill a person or impale or so forth.

CHAIRPERSON: There was evidence led, was there not, at the trial that there was shrapnel found in the external wall?

MR SHABANGU: Well certainly, you see if it explodes and there is sand or stones and so forth, where it explodes there would be those shrapnel that you could get, probably if there could be some many matters around, then it can cause that, in as much as probably you can think of the glasses that will be flying in the event it explodes and so forth, but certainly that won't kill a person, not an offensive. I haven't heard of any incidents so far in any military combat work, where a person died as a result of an offensive grenade otherwise they would have changed them and made them less effective, because the purpose of an offensive is that you use it and then during the confusion, then you attack.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did it cause fire?

MR SHABANGU: It doesn't cause fire unless there is petrol around.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was this house - did it burn afterwards or while you were watching, or what was the result?

MR SHABANGU: Well the purpose was not actually to watch about the repercussions. The repercussions, in so far as an identification of a target was concerned, it was to ...(indistinct) a person from continuing to participate in activities that were not popular and therefore as soon as a hand grenade is thrown, you run away.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You disappear.

MR SHABANGU: You escape, ja.

MS QUNTA: Now you also applied for amnesty in respect of the charges of possession of weapons in the trial for high treason. Can you explain to the Committee about that? Can you give some details?

MR SHABANGU: Well I applied precisely because I was found in possession of a Makarov pistol and in terms of the new democratic Government, no one is allowed to be in possession of illegal weapons and in the event that those weapons were used in the past for activities which could be described today as having caused injuries or death, I applied for that, but certainly the weapons were not used, I'm merely following also the Act, what is it that you are supposed to apply for.

MS QUNTA; But you're applying for amnesty in respect of the charges raised in that trial of the high treason that you were convicted of, is that correct?

MR SHABANGU: Yes, I'm also applying for the charges that I was found guilty and sentenced for and served a sentence therein.

JUDGE DE JAGER: It's not clear but from page 49 it seems as though you've only been found guilty of high treason.

MR SHABANGU: Well high treason ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well yes, but there was a separate sentence, for instance illegal possession of a firearm, apart from the high treason sentence.

MR SHABANGU: Well as far as I could remember, I was found guilty for - under terrorism, high treason, all those things and high treason encompasses everything.


MR SHABANGU: Including the weapons, including the common purpose, including the attack, including belonging to an unlawful organisation and so forth and so on, with the intention of bringing an end to the then present State and so on and that constitutes high treason. That's how it was defined by our attorney and that's how also, when we were found guilty the then Justice Theron explained as to why he felt that we should be found guilty, rather why he found us guilty of high treason.

Well, the other thing that I've indicated is that I'm applying for amnesty with a view to expunging my name from the South African criminal records and to supply any aggrieved or harmed individuals with an explanation as to my actions with a view to reconciling our differences.

JUDGE DE JAGER: It would be correct and it would cover everything, Ms Qunta, if we would consider amnesty for high treason and any act directly connected with the explosion caused at the house of Mr Mahule?

MS QUNTA: That is correct, Judge, and those are my instructions.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, but then still it may not cover the weapons, so there must be separate mentioning of illegal possession of the weapons because he had the weapons at the stage when he actually threw the hand grenade.

MS QUNTA: That is correct, Judge, I have asked and I will ask him again now to explain the possession of the weapons.

CHAIRPERSON: With respect to what my colleague has said, shouldn't we rather say, if we grant amnesty that it should be in respect of the attack made on the house of Mr Mahule on the precise date and the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition which gave rise to his conviction on a charge of high treason?

MS QUNTA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it appears that he has totally distinguishing himself from the other acts which the Judge dealt with which, also in respect of the other persons charged, gave rise to their conviction. He is just this one incident and the possession of firearms and ammunition.

MR QUNTA: I think the applicant's concern is and he said this, that he did not participate in those acts that he was found guilty of because he had nothing to do with those acts.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he wasn't found guilty of them. If you look at the Judgment, the Judge mentions the fact that the State argued that there was common purpose but said the Court was not going into that because there was at least one event involving each of the accused, which gave rise to a conviction of high treason.

MS QUNTA: Thank you for drawing my attention to that and I will ask the applicant to deal with the possession of weapons, unlawful possession of weapons because those in fact added two incidents that he was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Was he charged with that at the same time at the one trial, or was there a separate trial?

MS QUNTA: Perhaps I can ask him to explain because that's my understanding, Judge.

MR SHABANGU: It was only one trial and charged all those acts and activities outlined in the Judgement, under one trial, not separately. There was no any other trial that took place other than the one that took place here in Pretoria.

MS QUNTA: I see the Judge is quoting the indictment on pages 23 and 24 onwards, but whether the weapon was included in the indictment it wouldn't matter, he's admitting that he had an illegal and he's asking for amnesty in that regard, so whether it's included in the indictment or not, wouldn't ...

MS QUNTA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Further questions?

MS QUNTA: I have no further questions Chairperson.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson. It is my instructions, Chairperson, that the victim, Mr Mayeza Mahule does not oppose the applicant's application for amnesty and there are however just a few questions that we'd like to put to the applicant.

In relation to your training, who gave you the specific training? Who was the person that trained you initially? You were in Angola, Mozambique, can you just give us some names in relation to that?

MR SHABANGU: The name is Umkhonto weSizwe.

MS COLERIDGE: But the instructor who trained you, did you have an instructor?

MR SHABANGU: Certainly I did.

MS COLERIDGE: Can you give us the name of your instructors?

MR SHABANGU: One instructor is Mike and all those are pseudonyms, the other is Rashid and that's a pseudonym, the other one is Stewart and that's a pseudonym and the list can go on endlessly.

MS COLERIDGE: And do you have their real names, not their code names?


MS COLERIDGE: For this incident, you threw a hand grenade. How did you come in possession of that hand grenade? Who supplied you with that weapon?

MR SHABANGU: It was supplied by the then immediate Commander whose MK name is Victor.

MS COLERIDGE: And what is his real name?

MR SHABANGU: I don't know and he subsequently died in exile.

MS COLERIDGE: How long before the incident did he supply you with these weapons?

MR SHABANGU: Well the weapons were intended to a specific target, it was only then and that was it.

MS COLERIDGE: Was it intended for Mr Mahule's house, I mean as a target?

MR SHABANGU: It was intended for that particular operation, that's correct.

MS COLERIDGE: Then just in relation to, Mr Mahule gave some evidence to our Human Rights Violations Committee. I just want to ask a question in relation to that evidence that he presented there. He stated that there was a Mr Masheko who was also station, who was also a police officer at the time and who was also responsible for acts against the person for arresting young boys and so forth in the community. At any instance was Mr Masheko or was Mr Mahule mistakenly identified as Mr Masheko?

MR SHABANGU: No, my ability to identify the target at a particular point in time, was 100% accurate and the information supplied as all civilians in the documentation, it remains as accurate as it was then.

MS COLERIDGE: Did you personally target Mr Mahule? Was it - were you solely responsible for say for instance the target list? Were you responsible for it?

MR SHABANGU: I was personally responsible and no any other person.

MS COLERIDGE: And then he also mentions Mr Natiwan who shot...(intervention)


MS COLERIDGE: Mr Natiwan. I'll get the name Chairperson, it's page 10 of the Bundle. You can see in the middle of the page, line 20.

MR SHABANGU: Yes, I see that.

MS COLERIDGE: You see the spelling there, Natiwan, that he was responsible for shooting a boy in that area and that people actually thought that it was Mr Mahule that was responsible for it, also once again a mistaken identity, do you know anything of that, or ...?

MR SHABANGU: If the name was correctly spelled out, I would be knowing the person, but the manner in which it is spelled, I have difficulty in identifying as to who the person might be.

MS COLERIDGE: But it wasn't your information that he was responsible for the shooting of Paulus Mabusa?

MR SHABANGU: My information remained consistent, that of Mr Mahule.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears that was a completely separate incident and they burned his shop on that incident. It had nothing to do with this.

MS COLERIDGE; Yes, Chairperson, I'm just asking whether he knows about it, Chairperson and also that people thought it was the victim that was responsible for that matter Chairperson. And then I just want to refer you to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You see also I think if we're going to refer to that, you should look at page 13, middle of the page where Mr Mashala says:

"As I have said, I said this during my deliberation with Captain Natiwan. He is actually the person who shot the son of Mr Paulus Mabusa, but because people hated me, they turned round and said, they said it is myself who shot that one."

So he would appear to indicate there that he was disliked by the community.

MS COLERIDGE: That's right, Chairperson.

MR SHABANGU: And probably that also would indicate the accuracy of my information.

MS COLERIDGE: And then I just also just want to refer to Faith Mnisi's evidence that she thought that you belonged to an assassination group, can you ...(intervention)

MR SHABANGU: I beg your pardon.

MS COLERIDGE: She stated in the Court that you belonged to an assassination group. Can you comment on that?

MR SHABANGU: Who stated that in Court?

MS COLERIDGE: Faith Mnisi.


MS COLERIDGE: I can turn to page 35 of the Bundle.

MR SHABANGU: Well, I can't comment, I can't comment on the strength of what is written here. Probably it would have been better if the person is here, so that I could cross-question her on that strength of evidence.

MS COLERIDGE: So you're basically denying that?


MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I don't know if it's necessary for me to read that into the record, where she states that. Shall I read it into the record? Just at the top of ...(intervention)

MS QUNTA: Sorry, if I could just find out what the relevance of that allegation is in relation to the charges because the applicant has stated that the attack on Mr Mahule's house was meant not to kill him and explained that, so I wonder how relevant the question of an allegation by someone whom we don't know is.

MS COLERIDGE: Well, it's - Chairperson if I may respond to that, it's relevant in relation to the applicant and whether he in fact, well the allegation is put and it's before the Committee and it's part of the record that this person stated that she thought he was part of this assassination group and I just want to get some clarity.

CHAIRPERSON: She didn't say she thought he was part, what she said - that he told her that he had undergone military training in Angola and also that he was one of a group which was known as the assassination group, not that they were an assassination group, but that was apparently their title.

MS COLERIDGE: I just want to get his comment in relation to that.

MR SHABANGU: No comment.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.


MR KOOPEDI: A few questions Chairperson, Honourable Committee members.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Mr Shabangu, is it correct that during this relevant time, the late Joe Slovo was operating from Maputo and was in fact the overall Command of the front?

MR SHABANGU: Absolutely correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Is it also correct that although one could say you were responsible for your actions when you were in the country, but with regard to this particular incident you reported to the front in Maputo and you were in fact ordered to proceed with this attack?

MR SHABANGU: Correct, Sir.

MR KOOPEDI: Now another thing, will it be correct to say that in fact you yourself were attacked with a hand grenade some years after this incident, thrown at a window and you didn't die and the other five occupants of the house who were with you, didn't die?

MR SHABANGU: That's correct, Sir.

MR KOOPEDI: Now just a few other things. Do you think that you have told this Honourable Committee everything in relation to this incident for you to comply with the requirement of full disclosure?

MR SHABANGU: To the best of my knowledge, I think so.

MR KOOPEDI: And the last question - did you receive any financial or personal gain out of this operation?

MR SHABANGU: The only gain that I received is the democratic Government that is in order today.

MR KOOPEDI: No further questions, Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MS QUNTA: No re-examination, Chair.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any further evidence on behalf of the applicant?

MS QUNTA: No further evidence Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: No other witnesses led Chairperson and I've spoken with Mr Mohale and he's not opposing and he also does not want to make a statement or any submission. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I gather it has been put on behalf of the ANC that they issued the instructions to the applicant to carry out this act.

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so and it is not denied by the ANC that they issued that instruction Chairperson, thank you.


MS QUNTA: May we be excused then, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Can you wait a minute? It is the practise for the Committee to reserve decisions and we will do so in this case, but I think if the applicant consults with his legal adviser she can tell him what she anticipates the decision will be in the light of the attitude of the other parties.

MS QUNTA: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: That adjourns this matter.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson, I think we should - I don't know if it's a convenient time just to break now before we call the next applicant, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright if you want to get things organised. We'll take a short adjournment now.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, the next matter on the roll is Mr Mohale Motlokwa.

CHAIRPERSON: Are we now going on to the case of Motlokwa?

MS COLERIDGE: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee remains the same but I see the applicant's legal adviser has changed sides. Could he place himself for his new position on record?

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, my name is Brian Koopedi. I'm appearing in this matter for Mr Mohale Oscar Motlokwa.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson, Lyn Coleridge on record. Chairperson, in relation to this incident, the victims could not be traced, Chairperson. We have advertised in the Star newspaper on the 24th of February, to the next of kin of the two deceased, that's Mr Motlela and Mr Zondi and then we also advertised in the Langa newspaper, that's a Natal paper, Chairperson, dated the 9th of March 2000, because we believed that the next of kin of the deceased lived in Gauteng and then they moved to Natal, Chairperson, therefore we advertised in both places.

CHAIRPERSON: There is, appears to be no-one representing either the IFP or the ANC.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson a notice has been served on the offices of the IFP in this instance as the deceased were IFP members, but we've had no response.


MS COLERIDGE: No, Chairperson, but Mr Brian Koopedi, from that section of the ANC, is aware of the application, Chairperson, but it was served on the IFP because of the victims, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Perhaps to clarify things, Chairperson, our application is such that we believe that we are not implicating the ANC as an organisation. We were members of the ANC, but you know that's about it and we therefore did not think that it was important for the ANC to have been notified as an interested party or even an implicated party, thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You are not holding an open brief for the ANC?

MR KOOPEDI: I beg your pardon.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You're not holding an open brief for the ANC, sort of?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, as it might be known, I head the ANC's desk which is the Truth and Reconciliation desk and all matters relating to this Committee and the TRC under general would come to me and I know for a fact that this matter does not implicate the ANC and I believe therefore it's safe to say the matter can proceed without the ANC having been served any notice.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, shall we continue?

MR KOOPEDI: I believe we can proceed Chairperson. The applicant will testify in North Sotho. He says he understands South Sotho and he's ready to take the oath.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we continue with the applicant's evidence, in the event of it becoming necessary, are there any other witnesses available?

MS COLERIDGE: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Because there was a witness at the trial, an eye witness as to what happened.

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct. We're not calling any witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Has contact been made with that person?

MS COLERIDGE: Not according to my knowledge Chairperson. We notify implicated persons and interested persons, but in this instance, because we had the Judgment, Chairperson, as well as

the witness's version of what occurred, we didn't think it was necessary to call him as a witness, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll see. Carry on then.


EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Mr Motlokwa is it correct that you are an applicant in this matter and that the form appearing on page 2 of the bundle of documents which I'm showing to you now, is your application form?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Now on page 5 of the same bundle of documents, there is a signature appearing towards the bottom. Is that your signature?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Now during 1983, were you a member of any political organisation?

MR MOTLOKWA: During 1983 I was an ANC member and again I was the Chairperson of the ANC, area 6, in Moleleke section in Katlehong and again I was a member of the SDU, which is Self Defence Unit in Katlehong and then again I was a worker. I was a member of the NUMSA Union and I was a shop steward at work and NUMSA is an affiliate of Cosatu.

MR KOOPEDI: Where did you work?

MR MOTLOKWA: I was an employee of Tricamp company in Isando.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, what did you use to go to work?

MR MOTLOKWA: I was using a train to work, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Could you briefly describe to this Honourable Committee what the situation was like in the trains, those that you used to go to work?

MR MOTLOKWA: In short I would say, as from 1982 if not 1983, we formed a structure which was called a train sector. It's aim was to mobilise workers within the trains to join Unions. This structure was launched under difficult circumstances because the police were harassing us at that time, but at the end we were able to continue with the structure until 1990 where we encountered problems. The problems were in this way. The leader of IFP, who is Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, published a public order within the IFP members, that if they are members of the Union like NUMSA, because NUMSA is an affiliate of Cosatu and Cosatu is an ally with ANC, therefore members of IFP resigned from NUMSA. Those who were hostel dwellers, who were still members of the Union, were harassed at the hostels. As I've already stated that the train sector structure, in the morning we used to toyi-toyi in the trains and then even after work we used to toyi-toyi within the trains.

In 1990, that is when the attacks started to happen within the trains from members of the IFP attacking members of the train sector. Many comrades were murdered in trains. Even myself, I'm one of the victims or survivors within the train violence. Therefore we saw that it was important that we should call a mass meeting. We would invite people from East Rand, West Rand and Pretoria train sector. We met in Germiston where we took a decision that ...(indistinct).

ADV SIGODI: Could you speak a little bit slower so we can keep up with the interpreter, he's going rather too fast. Thank you.

MR MOTLOKWA: We took a decision that we had enough about the train violence, therefore we resolved that, we as train commuters should buy guns so as that we would be able to protect ourselves. Money was contributed. Every member was contributing R50 so that we should buy firearms and those firearms were bought by our Chairperson. Those firearms were bought so that we would be able to protect ourselves.

MR KOOPEDI: Now do you remember exactly when were you shot at? You say you were also injured or shot at in the trains?

MR MOTLOKWA: I remember, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: When was it?

MR MOTLOKWA: I was shot at in July, though I don't remember - it was on the 5th, I think, or the 6th in 1983.

MR KOOPEDI: Did you sustain any...(intervention)

MR MOTLOKWA: I was shot at in 1993.

MR KOOPEDI: Did you sustain any injuries?

MR MOTLOKWA: Yes, I was injured.

MR KOOPEDI: What injuries were those?

MR MOTLOKWA: I was injured on the knee.

MR KOOPEDI: Now let's move to the events of the 11th of November 1993. Where were you on this date?

MR MOTLOKWA: On the 11th ...

MR KOOPEDI: The 11th of November 1993.

MR MOTLOKWA: On that day of the 11th of November 1993, I left home with a taxi. I commuted a taxi from home and then I alighted at Germiston where I bordered a train number 613 or 617. On that day it was raining, so the trains were a little bit late therefore we were supposed to commute the Vereeniging which was taking the direction to Pretoria. We bordered the Vereeniging train. As I've already stated that when we bordered the train to work, we used to toyi-toyi, even in the afternoon when we came back. On that day we did the same. As I was a person who was still nursing an injury, I was not able to toyi-toyi as usual, but I was supporting them by clapping hands. On that day we started by shouting: "Amandla" then sang freedom songs. Between Knights and Germiston stations a fight started to erupt between IFP members and the train sector. They should - Usuthu and insulting in Zulu then therefore we heard gunshots, then one comrade was injured. There was one comrade who wanted to shoot but his firearm jammed. I was able to take the gun from him. I braced, then I was able to shoot two IFP members. I shot them and then the train arrived at Knights station. Those who were still left in the train, they were able to run away. I was not able to shoot those who were left. After the train had proceeded, we took the two deceased and threw them outside the train because we were not able to toyi-toyi with the corpses in the train. When I arrived at Elandsfontein, I alighted and went to work. That is all.

MR KOOPEDI: Is it correct that you were then arrested for this matter?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson, I was arrested.

MR KOOPEDI: Is it also correct that you were subsequently convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for this matter?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: So for the possession of unlicensed firearm and also of ammunition?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Now in as far as you can remember, do you think you have fully disclosed all the relevant facts in this matter to this Honourable Committee?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson. I think I did not leave anything behind.

MR KOOPEDI: Did you receive any financial or personal benefit out of this matter?

MR MOTLOKWA; No, Chairperson, the only thing I received, the only benefit I received was to defend the people.

MR KOOPEDI: Now do you think that this shooting was politically motivated and had political objectives?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson, it was politically motivated because we were recruiting members. We were recruiting employees to be members of the Union and then IFP didn't allow us to do that, as I've already said that there was violence within the train therefore there was a political climate within that context.

MR KOOPEDI: I have no further questions, Chairperson and that will be the evidence-in-chief of this applicant.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson. You said that you were a shop steward at Tricamp. How long were you a shop steward there?

MR MOTLOKWA: I am not able to recollect correctly, I think it was 9 years.

MS COLERIDGE: And you were the Chairperson of, is that the Self Defence Unit in Katlehong, is that correct?

MR MOTLOKWA: Not a Chairperson of the SDU, but the Chairperson of the ANC.

MS COLERIDGE; Okay, I just misunderstood you on page two. You are correct there. And you were a member of the Self Defence Unit as well?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct.

MS COLERIDGE: How long were you the Chairperson of the ANC in the Katlehong area?

MR MOTLOKWA: I was the Chairperson of the ANC in that area from 1993 to 1994.

MS COLERIDGE: And how long were you involved in the Self Defence Unit?

MR MOTLOKWA: If I'm not mistaken it was from 1991.

MS COLERIDGE; Until when?

MR MOTLOKWA: Until 1994 before elections, because the SDUs were disbanded.

MS COLERIDGE: What date were you arrested for this instance?

MR MOTLOKWA: I don't remember well, Chairperson. Perhaps it was after three weeks, or two weeks.

MS COLERIDGE: And who was the Chairperson or your Commander of your SDU unit?

MR MOTLOKWA: It was Mr Manyela.

MS COLERIDGE: The day in question, what was your objective when you bordered the train? Was it to recruit members for your union or was it just because you were travelling, you went to work from one point to another? What was your intention that day?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already stated that we used to train to go to work and during that process we used to toyi-toyi so my aim was to board a train to work and to do our daily work, that is to toyi-toyi within the process of commuting to work.

MS COLERIDGE: You had a firearm on that day. Where did you get that firearm from?

MR MOTLOKWA; I took the gun from one a certain comrade who was trying to shoot and that firearm jammed, then I took it from him.

MS COLERIDGE: What is that comrade's name?

MR MOTLOKWA: He used to be called 626, that is his comrade name.

MS COLERIDGE: Did he work with you?

MR MOTLOKWA: He was working at Kempton Park.

MS COLERIDGE: Do you know where in Kempton Park?

MR MOTLOKWA: No, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: Was his combat name 626? What was his real name?

MR MOTLOKWA: I don't know his real name, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: Now it's clear from the Judgment and the fact that there was toyi-toying on the train on that specific day. Was it the IFP people toyi-toying as well as the ANC people? Can you just explain to us, what was the mood on that particular day?

MR MOTLOKWA: Members of the ANC started the toyi-toyi. As I've already stated that the train we used it was 613 or 617. We boarded at Vereeniging. We started singing the slogans and the freedom songs and toyi-toying and then during the week, that's when the fight started.

MS COLERIDGE: How many IFP members were on the train? Could you more or less tell, I mean was it a group, or couldn't you tell?

MR MOTLOKWA: It was a group.

MS COLERIDGE: How many people were in that group, if you can give us some estimation? It doesn't have to be an exact figure.

MR MOTLOKWA: Maybe 11 to 12 members.

MS COLERIDGE: So were you the only person who shot on that day or were there other people with guns as well, or what?

MR MOTLOKWA: ...(indistinct) I was the only person who shot and those two people were shot by me.

MS COLERIDGE: Did other people have weapons on them as well, maybe sticks or what did the IFP people have, traditional weapons or anything like that?

MR MOTLOKWA: Yes, they had traditional weapons on their persons.

MS COLERIDGE: Who was that now, the ANC or the IFP? Can you...?

MR MOTLOKWA: I'm referring to IFP members.

MS COLERIDGE: And you, how many - you said the group was about between 11 and 12, how many of those people did you think had traditional weapons on their persons?

MR MOTLOKWA: I was not able to count them Chairperson. I was able to see those I was able to see because one comrade was stabbed.

MS COLERIDGE: Was the comrade stabbed on the train, also during ...?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: And do you know who stabbed the person? Was it an ANC member or was it an IFP member, or couldn't you tell?

MR MOTLOKWA: The person who was stabbed was a member of the train sector.

MS COLERIDGE: Yes, but who stabbed him?

MR MOTLOKWA: He was stabbed by members of the IFP or a member of the IFP.

MS COLERIDGE: How did you know that?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've stated that when I dropped the gun, the fight was going on at that time, that is when I was able to observe that incident.

MS COLERIDGE: And then if you turn to page 11 of the bundle, it's just the summary of substantial facts, it states that the two deceased were questioned as to what Nationality they were and both of them answered that they were Zulus. Did you ask them, or did someone else ask them what culture group they belonged to?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already stated that I was not fit, I was nursing an injury therefore I was not able to do my usual work in the train. Regarding that questioning of those people, it just so happened in this way; people used to board the trains, at times we used to think that they were going to work, then we would be able to continue with our toyi-toying, then in the process, a person would shoot. The struggle within the train was just the same as the one which used to happen in any community. If you were not able to fight, therefore you've got to go through the window whilst the train is - at times you'd survive or you'd die, it would depend on your luck on that particular day.

JUDGE DE JAGER: The question wasn't what usually happened, what happened on that day and who questioned the people, whether they were Zulus or Xhosas or whatever nation they belonged to?

MR MOTLOKWA: I don't know who asked them, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you hear the question but you don't know who asked them? Was there such a question put to them?

MR MOTLOKWA: I did not hear the question Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: When you aimed, did you aim at the deceased or did you just shoot into the crowd?

MR MOTLOKWA: I shot at people who were armed.

CHAIRPERSON: How was this man - these two men armed?

MR MOTLOKWA: They had spears or assegais.

MS COLERIDGE: Was it normal for people to travel with spears and assegais, going to work, generally? Was it practice?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already stated that the situation was bad therefore it was usual to see people armed in trains.

MS COLERIDGE: So you said basically you didn't aim to shoot the deceased? Am I correct in saying that? You just shot, almost you can say ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well he said he shot at people who were armed.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson. Were these two people the only people that were armed in that group?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already stated that there were many who were armed in that group, that is why I was able to shoot two people. If I continued, then I thought I would shoot innocent people.

MS COLERIDGE: And then I just want to refer you to page 3 of the bundle, that's your amnesty application form. You stated:

"The murder"

that's the first paragraph there,

"The murders were committed on the 11th of November 1993 by a group of men and women including myself."

Now is that correct?

MR MOTLOKWA: Please repeat your question.

MS COLERIDGE: You stated that the murders were committed by a group of men and women, including yourself. Can you explain to us what you meant by that?

MR MOTLOKWA: I was trying to say, when we entered the coach there were a group of men and women, so these two people were not killed by this group, I myself did that.

CHAIRPERSON: But you said specifically, what's just been read to you:

"The murders were committed by a group of men and women, including myself."

You did not say they were not committed by them, it was only by me, you say the opposite in your application.

MR MOTLOKWA: Maybe that's a mistake, as I've stated that we used to commute the trains with men and women. When I committed these murders these people were there and those are the people I was trying to protect.

MS COLERIDGE: And then on page 5 of the bundle, that's at paragraph 11(a) you state:

"The acts were committed on behalf of - I don't know if it's comrades or train commuters - whom I was defending."

Can you explain to us what did you mean by that? Were you defending your comrades in this instance?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: Were these IFP people, were they threatening the ANC members?

MR MOTLOKWA: Will you please repeat your question?

MS COLERIDGE: On the train, were these ANC members posing a threat to the ANC? Did they launch any attacks on you? I'm just trying to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think you mean to say were these IFP people posing a threat, you said ANC people?

MS COLERIDGE: Sorry, I'm indebted to you Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these IFP people posing a threat to the other people on the train?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: And what did this threat include?

MR MOTLOKWA: Are you referring to this particular day, or do you refer to other days?

MS COLERIDGE: To this particular day on the train.

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already stated that we started singing the freedom songs and during the way, the IFP group started to sing Usuthu and therefore the fight started. That was the threat I saw.

MS COLERIDGE: Can you explain to us, what does Usuthu mean?

MR MOTLOKWA: It will be difficult for me to explain because I'm not an IFP member. It was an IFP slogan, if they wanted to start a fight.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But weren't they - were they singing in the language Sotho or was it a song that they sang named Usuthu, or a slogan name? Sorry I don't follow, maybe my colleague could help us there.

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already stated that it will be difficult to explain because I'm not an IFP member, because I would not know as to whether it was a song or a slogan, but all the time when they fight they will sing that Usuthu.

CHAIRPERSON: I have a little difficulty with your evidence now, Mr Motlokwa. My note of your evidence earlier is that you said that between Knights Station and Germiston, the fight started.

"I heard shots and one comrade was injured. One comrade tried to shoot, his gun jammed and I took it."

What shots did you hear before you took this gun?

MR MOTLOKWA: I did not say that Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't say you heard shots? Well, we can check it with the record. So you were the first person to shoot and the only person to shoot?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already stated that there was a fight.

CHAIRPERSON: Am I correct in saying, you were the first person to shoot and the only person to shoot?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And as I understand from the record of the evidence led at the trial, you shot the first man a few times, he fell to the ground and the second man was then thrown onto his body and you shot him. Is that correct?

MR MOTLOKWA: Though I cannot remember in which I shot at them, it may be that way or not because this thing happened a long time ago.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did the first one fall on the ground?

MR MOTLOKWA: There is one who fell on the ground.

CHAIRPERSON: You shot both of them more than once, didn't you?

MR MOTLOKWA; It may be that way Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why? Just to kill them?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I stated that we had had enough because our comrades were murdered, then that is where I had to do it.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was just a grudge fight, they'd murdered your comrades, now you were going to murder them?

MR MOTLOKWA: No Chairperson, it was not a revenge, we were protecting ourselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Couldn't you have protected yourselves by merely travelling quietly and peacefully on the trains?

MR MOTLOKWA: It would be difficult to be quiet in trains because firstly we were facing elections and therefore we were mobilising people to vote for the ANC, therefore it would be difficult to not be able to do our work properly.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were doing this to get people to vote for the ANC, is that what you're saying now?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already said that the aim of the structure of the train sector was to give the people a message. Maybe civic members of ANC members were able to use the train sector as a vehicle of communication.


MS COLERIDGE: Is there no other way that you could have, for instance, sent a message to these IFP members by not using such extreme measures by actually killing them?

MR MOTLOKWA: Discussions between ANC and IFP were not possible. There was no way you would be able to communicate with the IFP members because there were conflicts in 1993 and maybe the Committee would know the situation in that 1993 in East Rand at that time.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.


MR KOOPEDI: Just a few questions.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Is it correct that on this day when you boarded the train, you did not have with you a firearm?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Is it then also correct that you only got to be in possession of the firearm when the commotion had ensued, had begun?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: So would I be correct then in assuming that the shooting of these two people was not a retaliation or a revenge of the other people who have been shot or even yourself as having been shot?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson, I was not revenging.

MR KOOPEDI: No further questions, Chairperson.


JUDGE DE JAGER: When you threw these people off the train, were they dead or were they still alive?

MR MOTLOKWA: According to my observations, I thought they were dead, but I learned in Court that all of them died in hospital.

CHAIRPERSON: And am I correct, the reason for throwing them off the train was that because lying in the passage there, they stopped you toyi-toying?

MR MOTLOKWA: To stay with a corpse inside a coach, it was difficult, therefore that is why we were not able to sit with them and toyi-toyi or going on with the struggle with them in the train that is why we threw them out.

ADV SIGODI: Who helped you to throw these bodies out of the train?

MR MOTLOKWA: We threw them through the door, some of the comrades who were in that coach at that particular moment.

ADV SIGODI: Do you still know them, who they were, their names, the comrades who helped you to throw the bodies out through the door?

MR MOTLOKWA: I will not be able to know where they are because we boarded the train in Germiston and then comrades from Daveyton, Pholapark, Natalspruit and Vereeniging used to board the train there, so we were not able to know where they are now.

ADV SIGODI: But who they are, their names?

MR MOTLOKWA: No, Chairperson, I don't know their identity. We used to call ourselves with combat names.

ADV SIGODI; Thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you in fact touch the person and carry him to the door and assist in throwing him out?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already stated that I was not fit enough to take that person to throw him out. There were many comrades who helped to throw those people out.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But you've heard the evidence that you, in fact you and another man threw them out of the train, the evidence in Court given at that stage?

MR MOTLOKWA: It is possible that a certain witness said that in Court because that person maybe was trying to implicate me. It did not happen that way. We together as comrades threw those people outside.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You had a rainsuit on, on that day?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct Chairperson, as I've already stated that it was raining.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And you did the shooting and they say:

"Thereafter the man in the rainsuit and an unknown person threw Mr Zondi out of the moving train and then returned and threw Mr Motlela out of the train."

Do you agree with this or not? It's on page 17.

MR MOTLOKWA: May you please explain it? I'm not able to understand.

JUDGE DE JAGER: According to the evidence at the trial, the man in the raincoat and I think it's clear that they refer to you as the man in the raincoat, rainsuit, and another person, threw the two injured people out of the train. Do you agree with that that you in fact assisted another one in throwing them out?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already stated that these two people were thrown outside the train, because this thing happened a long time ago, I'm not able to recall how.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Can we assume that you acted as leader of the group of ANC people on that train?

MR MOTLOKWA: There was the Chairperson of the train sector in the train at that time, therefore I did not have a position in the train sector.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, did you act out of your own in shooting or did anybody order you to shoot?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already stated that firearms were bought so that we would be able to protect ourselves, that is why I took the initiative to protect the commuters.

CHAIRPERSON: But you grabbed the firearm and took it away from someone else who was trying to use it. Did you do that because you decided you wanted to shoot, or were you ordered to do so?

MR MOTLOKWA: I did that because of my own initiative to protect the commuters, because that person had already purchased the firearm.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And on shooting these people couldn't you threaten them and say: "Stand there or I'll shoot you."

Why was it necessary to kill them?

MR MOTLOKWA: It would be difficult to shoot as one who's shot, or to warn them. Maybe I'd be the one who was killed on that particular day. I had to protect myself and again other commuters.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But did they attack you? What did they do? What did the deceased do?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already stated that they were armed with short assegais and there was one comrade who was injured before I shot at them, those are the two reasons why I attacked them.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But they didn't have a gun, you could have threatened them with the gun. You had the lethal weapon.

MR MOTLOKWA: Please explain the question, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Why didn't you just point the gun at them and tell them unless they stand back, you're going to shoot?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already stated that I did not have the opportunity to warn them, I did not have that idea because I saw women and others who were trying to save themselves by going through the windows.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did they jump through the windows?

MR MOTLOKWA: They wanted to jump through the windows to save themselves.

JUDGE DE JAGER: How many ANC people were on the train?

MR MOTLOKWA: We were a group of approximately 30 people.



JUDGE DE JAGER: And they were a group of approximately 11/12?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is possible, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt? Evidence was led at the trial, it was accepted by the Court that a shot was fired which struck Mr Motlela, who lay on the floor. When he tried to get up a number of other shots were fired at him by you. Do you remember that evidence?

MR MOTLOKWA: I do remember that evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were the only person who was seen to have a gun at that time, you agree with that? You were the only person with a gun.

MR MOTLOKWA: With regards to the firearm within the ANC section, I would agree with them, but I did not know in the IFP section who had firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't see any, did you?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already stated that they were armed.

CHAIRPERSON: You have told us that you did not see any firearms, you saw them with assegais. Are you now trying to pretend that you saw them with firearms?

MR MOTLOKWA: I don't want to ...(indistinct) that they had firearms, but I'll say from the ANC side I was the only one who had a firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: No shots were fired from the IFP side, you were the only person there who fired shots. Correct?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And after you had fired a number of shots as Mr Motlela, Mr Zondi was brought to where Motlela was lying and thrown or fell on the body and then you shot him.

MR MOTLOKWA: I don't remember well, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't remember well. If that is what happened, isn't it quite clear that what my friend, my colleague has suggested to you is correct, that you could have stood there pointing your gun and saying: "Now just be still, don't resist."

MR MOTLOKWA: That is not so, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you didn't, at your trial, say you were acting in self-defence, did you?

MR MOTLOKWA: At my trial I did not tell the truth. As I'm here, I'm here to tell the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: But you didn't say you were acting in self-defence.

MR MOTLOKWA: No, Chairperson, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you do that and get the other ANC members who were there, to give evidence on your behalf, to say: "We had been attacked, one of us had already been stabbed"?

MR MOTLOKWA: If, by doing so I was acting in self-defence, if I stated that I was acting in self-defence in Court, I would ascertain the charges.

MR KOOPEDI: If I could assist, Chairperson, I think the interpretation ought to have been: "Had I pleaded self-defence, I would be implicating myself in the charges. I denied knowledge or involvement in this matter to save myself."

CHAIRPERSON: Rather than tell the truth?


CHAIRPERSON: That you say you now are telling us the truth that you were acting to defend others, even yourself.

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Just one aspect. When you started shooting at those two people, what happened to the IFP people? Where were they? Did they get out of the compartment, or did they stand on one side? What did they do?

MR MOTLOKWA: As I've already stated that there was confusion in that coach and the train was just about to arrive at Knights, then others were able to get out of the train and ran.

ADV SIGODI; When you threw the bodies out of the train, you knew that you were not far from Knights where you were going to alight, is that so?

MR MOTLOKWA: Not Knights, but it was between Knights and ...(indistinct).

ADV SIGODI; So when you threw the bodies out of the train, how far were you from the nearest station? Were you still very far, or were you half-way, or were you almost close tot he nearest station?

MR MOTLOKWA: It will be difficult to reply to that question. There was quite a distance from Knights and Riversklip, that is where we threw them out.

ADV SIGODI; But my question was, after shooting these people you say you were still a distance from the next station, you threw them out of the train.

CHAIRPERSON: No, he shot them just before Knights. He threw them out after Knights.


CHAIRPERSON: It's correct, isn't it, you shot them just before you got to Knights, a lot of people jumped out of the train at Knights and the train then went on and then you threw the bodies out, after you'd left Knights?

MR MOTLOKWA: That is correct, Chairperson.


MR KOOPEDI: No questions thanks, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE; We're not calling any witnesses thank you Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: The applicant is also not calling any other witness Chairperson and that will be his case, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we'll take time to consider our decision. Oh sorry, sorry.

MR KOOPEDI; A brief address, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, it is my submission that this applicant before you was, at a relevant time, a member of a political organisation. As I understand his evidence, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, this is at a time when there was great rivalry between two political organisations, one of which he belonged to. Not only did this applicant belong to the ANC as a political organisation, but he was a member of what was known as the train sector. These were a group of workers whose primary duty was, in terms of what had put them together, to recruit for their Unions, to recruit for their political organisation.

My understanding of the evidence, Chairperson, is that on this day, applicant and his group were seated in a train. They had begun their singing and chanting and during this period a rival group, a known rival group, in a sense opposed their singing by bringing in their own slogans. Chairperson I believe and I stand to be corrected, I believe that Usuthu is a war cry Chairperson. It has been there for years immemorial. It belongs to a particular ethnic group and the minute there is this chant, this tells that the people who are uttering Usuthu, are on a warpath. This is not just political mongering, this is not just an attempt to quieten others or to recruit members. This was a war chant. That's my submission, Chairperson, and it is the result of this war chant, the injuring of one of the people whom I would refer to as belonging to applicant's group, that the applicant then acted in this manner and in fact one of his comrades took out a firearm to repair, not just eminent danger, but an attack that had already ensued in that someone was injured. This gun, according to the evidence, jammed. He took this gun, he grabbed this gun from his comrade, he uses the word "breach". He breached the gun and used it to shoot. My submission Chairperson is that in a war situation and particularly where this war situation is accompanied by very, I would say sacred or religious war cries such as those, that signified the very intentions of these people. It is my submission that this applicant would not have had the comfort of pointing a firearm at such people and just hoping that they would desist from commencing.

It's my submission that although it is not part of the evidence before and I believe this is common cause, as one would know from previous amnesty applications, before this group and the IFP in particular, would go on war, they would always have a traditional ceremony. There would be some cleansing of some sort. Some medicine is poured over them, it's called "Ntelezi" and it is only when you have undergone that ritual that you are fit to go and fight and Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, my submission is that people who would have gone through that ritual, who would have then boarded a train knowing that there would be their political rivals, who would, in the continuation of the chanting and sloganism of their rivals, be brave enough to chant Usuthu and display their weapons. These were people who were on the warpath and therefore it's my submission that these are the type of people who would not be scared off by a man pointing a firearm at them. My further submission, Chairperson, is that there hasn't been any personal gain or financial gain by this accused person. It is on that basis therefore, I will ask that the Honourable Committee grant amnesty to this applicant. Thank you, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Koopedi, I've got this problem. Wasn't this contrary to the policy of the ANC and the IFP, these train killings? Didn't they act on frolics of their own, contrary to the commands of their leaders?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, I would give you a yes and no and try and explain. At leadership level, the national leadership would discourage people from fighting one another. However, the reality of the situation was that their own members were being killed and attacked and this is what gave birth to such structures like the SDUs, which I believe is common cause that SDUs were also armed by these leaders. I believe there has been ample evidence before a Committee such as this where prominent leaders came forward and said: "We are the ones who brought arms to the people who belonged to SDUs." It is of course true that at some stage there used to be a question mark in terms of who is perpetrating train violence and ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER; Specifically as far as train violence was concerned, my recollection is that all the leaders spoke out against it and said: "This should stop."

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, Chairperson. The train violence was discouraged, in fact from the ANC side, my understanding was the ANC did not believe that it was perpetuating train violence. If anything, it believed that it's members and supporters are the ones who are meeting this train violence. It is therefore understandable why then the working class belonging to this ANC, would at some stage come together and say: "We are dying and we can't let this go on" and it is therefore understandable why they would then come to an agreement of making contributions to have firearms. Not firearms to, for no apparent reason shoot at IFP people, but firearms to defend themselves. So I believe this shooting was a result of a person trying to defend his fellow comrades, trying to defend what I would term a political territory.

CHAIRPERSON: But he knew that his leaders, the organisation that he belonged to, was opposed to these acts, which is why they didn't ask the ANC to arm them, as they did with SDUs. They went and collected money and bought weapons for themselves. Doesn't that make it a different type of question, where you do not believe that what you are doing is something you are doing on behalf of a known political or liberation movement.

MR KOOPEDI: I seem to disagree with that Chairperson. This applicant was not only a member of the ANC, he was also a member of other structures which were affiliates of the ANC. There was particular violence meted out at a worker level, where workers themselves fought and my submission, Chairperson, is that when they were confronted with these deaths, it meant to them that they had to defend themselves and it is on that basis that money was collected and people were to defend themselves. It is on that basis that you would find that some trains had people who had the so-called revolutionary guns, that is for protecting them and not to provoke others and shoot at others and my submission still would be that this firearm was produced only after the commotion had ensued, which clearly shows that this was not part of their daily politicking. They were not toyi-toying with firearms in hand, ready to shoot at anyone who was opposing them.


MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE IN ARGUMENT: It is clear that there was a mood in the carriage on that particular day, Chairperson. Here we have an applicant who travels to work, that was his sole purpose, to get to work on that day and not having any aim or objective or anything, but faced with a situation where you had two groups of people probably toyi-toying as it was stated and then you have someone else wanting to shoot into the crowd,

wanting to shoot IFP members. The applicant doesn't hear anything in relation to the questions that were asked to the deceased, as to whether they were Zulus or Xhosas, or their response thereto, Chairperson. He says he didn't hear that. Then you have the person, he doesn't know the name of the person, or anything like that. One of the commuters were going to shoot the IFP members, but he took the firearm on his own initiative. He wasn't part of the group in a sense, he wasn't the leader of that group, took the initiative Chairperson, and made no attempt to actually effect a warning or as Judge de Jager asked him: "What did you do? Why didn't you do something else instead of just shooting them, in terms of the proportionality aspect" and the applicant stated, well it didn't occur to him, he didn't have an opportunity firstly and secondly it just didn't occur to him to maybe also perhaps throw them out of the train for instance. I don't know what damage it would have caused., but then he shoots the one deceased, goes back and he actually shoots him again.

In the proportionality aspect, I don't know if it was necessary in the circumstances, to actually shoot the deceased in that light and then shooting another person thereafter. We don't know if it was even necessary. Surely the group was so small, it was 11/12 people and the ANC group was quite big, that would have scared them off alone, just the fact that he had shot one person, but yet he'd gone on and shot another person, Chairperson and the fact that in his application he stated that the men and women actually committed this murder, which he then later stated was incorrect, he himself did it. The fact that he was defending the group, this also poses a few problems in relation to the group that it was so big and here him, one person, took it upon himself to shoot and defend the group in that respect.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Should we accept that this happened, on the evidence, in reaction or during a political event, a political, I won't say uprising, but a sort of political confrontation at least?

MS COLERIDGE: I would say the context in this situation was almost a heated situation and the mood on the train was, I would admit, was very heated and the context was the political differences between the ANC and the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, when considering the context, mustn't one have regard for the fact, as my colleague put, that the leaders of the ANC had spoken out against train violence and condemned it? Now on the day in question what we had was not a defence by an innocent group of ANC people, who were suddenly attacked. On the evidence they, from the time they got into the train, started toyi-toying, started singing freedom songs, started behaving in the manner which was likely to provoke violence and doesn't that indicate that they were being aggressive?

MS COLERIDGE: I would agree with you, Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: But then is it not a known fact at that time, that there was actually violence between the ANC and the IFP? This incident is not the only incident that took place. There was a spate of violence between the IFP and the ANC and that is why the leaders called upon the people to stop the violence, is that not so?

MS COLERIDGE; That is correct. That's why this is actually a - it just worries me in terms of - the only aspect that bothers me is in relation to the proportionality aspect, whether it was necessary for him to actually kill the deceased in this instance, whether he could have used other methods, warning shots, or just by them being so many, they could have overwhelmed that group and the fact that the ANC had the gun and the IFP had the assegai so the power was also in their hands in that respect and that's the only real aspect that bothers me, Chairperson and that's basically my submission in this regard.

ADV SIGODI; What about the fact that he has mentioned in his evidence that they used the opportunity in the train, when they formed the train sector to mobilise the people, we know that it was at the time towards the elections, to mobilise the people to join the ANC, to join NUMSA and in fact what caused the difference between the ANC and the IFP was when, according to his evidence, the leader of the IFP issued a statement that they must not join the NUMSA or the Trade Union. What would you say to that?

MS COLERIDGE: This is indeed correct and the fact that he was also the shop steward at that stage, makes you also understand that, in terms of the membership, they were working on the membership issues, sure, but - and then a question was posed whether you know they were trying to get votes, it was just before the election, whether their behaviour was also to get votes from the ANC side, or anybody else and he said not really, it wasn't really his motive then, for that particular day, for instances.

ADV SIGODI: So would you say that toyi-toying was per se provocative? What would you say? Should they have toyi-toyied, or not have toyi-toyied, taking into consideration the mood and what was happening at that time? Would you say that toyi-toying at that time was per se provocative?

MS COLERIDGE: If you have two rival groups in a situation like a train carriage and the one group toyi-toying, it would obviously provoke the other side. So for instance if the ANC members were all toyi-toying and then the IFP members, obviously we don't know who started, but retaliating and then shouting Usuthu, which is the war cry, a provocative situation and it could be for a situation where something like this would occur but to the extent of the one person taking everything into his hands in a sense and killing two people, that's also the other side of the coin.

MR KOOPEDI IN REPLY: May I just respond to just one fact? The fact that the IFP people seem to have been fewer than the ANC people and the fact that ANC on it's side, also had a gun which would mean that perhaps scaring them off would have caused you know no killings at all. I know this is not part of evidence, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, however I wish to try and describe what a train situation would be like in those days.

I believe that before the Unions and the so-called train sectors started operating in these trains, there were various types of people you would find in the train. You would find Christians in the train, who would sing from the time when they board this train and they wouldn't just be singing because they loved singing but it was meant to protect a particular territory. If Christians were singing in this train, it would mean that your card players, your gamblers, some such people should get out of this coach, that was a way of life, the way of dealing with the situation and in my own mind I believe therefore that once in a coach you find that there are these ANC chanting people, you would not then come in and change what they were doing. Similarly you wouldn't do that when the Christians or other people were singing. The normal procedure would be that if there is this type of a grouping here, you move on to another coach, but in this situation this was not the case. We had people who were aware that they were in the midst of their rivals who were, at that time, chanting their slogans and singing freedom songs and this group challenged these people by bringing in their war cry. It's therefore my submission that they realised before challenging that they were few in numbers. They were challenging a larger number, but they were bold to do it, they believed that they were strong enough to challenge these people and therefore I don't see how they would have relented with a person just saying to them I will shoot, or firing a warning shot. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: On that basis the applicant of course says they unfortunately boarded a train filled to capacity by Inkatha members.

MR KOOPEDI: I am just not sure what it means, whether he was referring to a whole train or a whole coach, therefore I am unable to comment on that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: It seems as though they've missed their usual train because of the rain and then they boarded another train and I don't know, but it seems some trains were sort of known as IFP trains and others as ANC trains.

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, and not only the trains but the coaches were also known to be political, Christian, so-called tsotsis, non-participators, that was the culture in the trains and I believe it is still so today. We may not have the same distinctions as political and stuff, but you still have types and groups of people sitting in certain coaches.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, do we accept what he has said on oath in his application or in his evidence?

MR KOOPEDI: I missed that Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do we accept what he has said on oath in his application, or in his evidence? In his application he said and it appears at two places in his application, that they unfortunately boarded a train filled to capacity by Inkatha Freedom Party members. Here he has said there were 30 ANC and 11/12 Inkatha.

MR KOOPEDI: Like I said, Chairperson, I am not sure what they means. It is possible that because this was a wrong train so to speak, this train was filled with Inkatha members, but in this coach, that is the coach they were in, in this coach the evidence is that there were about, there could have been about 30 pro-ANC people and 11 or 12 pro-Inkatha people.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, thank you.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude all the argument?

MS COLERIDGE: Indeed, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we will take time. I'm not sure what the position is at the moment regarding this hearing.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, that concludes our roll for the week.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we have asked someone to make inquiries about the availability of a potential witness. I don't know if information is coming to you.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson Linki is not living in Atteridgeville at the moment, she's in Soshanguve and they've just gone to proceed to see if they could find her, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What should do? Adjourn till 2 o'clock? Quarter past 12 now. Perhaps the most sensible thing then would be to adjourn till 2 o'clock to give them an opportunity to get there, make inquiries and let us know as soon as they do.

MS COLERIDGE: In order, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just wondering, if we get information earlier than that, whether there's any point in making people hang around till 2 if we're not going to sit any further? What do you think? Just adjourn, not to a fixed time?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja, 2 o'clock or we'll let them know earlier.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn till 2 o'clock or earlier. If any information becomes available, we will then deal with the matter on the basis of that information, otherwise if we don't deal with it earlier we carry on at 2.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson.



CHAIRPERSON: Arrangements have been made and the young lady concerned has very kindly come here this afternoon and you have been able to have discussions with her.

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct, Chairperson. I've explained her rights to her. She says that she's willing to testify and she stated that she needs a lawyer. We've arranged, through our legal department, to appoint a legal representative of her behalf. We have succeeded in doing that, Chairperson. We've appointed Tony Richard. He will be here this afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you'll be able to speak to him to tell him what the evidence is that has been led.

MS COLERIDGE: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And make other arrangements and also arrange for transport for the young lady, both home and here tomorrow morning.

MS COLERIDGE: Correct, Chairperson. We shall hopefully do that with the assistance of Mr Johannes Moeme.

CHAIRPERSON: We're obliged to him for that and she will be here, will she, by 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and are we likely to have the applicants here? I'm obliged to you. And I gather the victims will be represented, everybody will be here.

MS COLERIDGE: That's right, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So we can then finish this one on our re-opening. I leave everything to you then to make the necessary arrangements. I was going to offer, I don't think my handwriting is all that legible, of record of the evidence led. If you want to borrow it for the attorney, you're quite at liberty to do so.

MS COLERIDGE: That would be really useful to do so Chairperson, we appreciate it.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything further that we should attend to then? Right we'll now adjourn this hearing till 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and thank you for having come.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson.