DAY: 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga, why are we starting so late?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, we had a problem with the arrival of Mr Mahlangu, Godfrey Mahlangu, the implicated person. A notice was served on him in prison at Modder B, on the 4th of April, and it was received by a certain Mr Hermanus Swanepoel, but when we phoned in this morning we were told that they didn't have records that he was supposed to appear here and arrangements were only made this morning for him to be brought to the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there no explanation from Mr Swanepoel?

MS MTANGA: I spoke to a Mrs Masuku from Modder B Prison, who said Mr Swanepoel is not at work today, so they couldn't get an explanation from him as to what happened to the documents that he received. That is the notification of the implicated person.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you ensure that Mr Swanepoel is informed of our displeasure, and as far as we are concerned, it can only be regarded as negligent that an implicated person who so happened to be an incarcerated person at his prison, was not brought to this hearing on time. It has all types of implications, in particular the money the public has to pay in form of taxes.

Are we doing the application of Twala?

MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: For the purposes of the record, I'm Judge Pillay, I'm going to ask my colleagues and different representatives to do the same for the purposes of the record.

JUDGE MOTATA: I am Judge Motata from the Transvaal Provincial Division. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Advocate Sigodi from the Port Elizabeth Bar, Member of the Amnesty Committee.

MS MAKHUBELE: I'm Advocate T A Makhubele, appearing on behalf of the applicant, from the Pretoria Bar.

MR VAN TWISK: Advocate Martin van Twisk from the Pretoria Bar, appearing for both the victims' families.

MS MTANGA: I am Lula Mtanga, the Evidence Leader.

Chairperson, can I be allowed to place on record the situation of the victims. We have two victims, the family of Mr Engelbrecht, who was killed in this incident and also the family of Mrs de Freitas, who was also killed in the robbery. Both victims were notified. Mrs Engelbrecht, who is now Mrs Bierman, is here and she'll be represented by Adv van Twisk. The second victim, Mr de Freitas, he received his notice and he confirmed receipt, we have the confirmation from him, but he has not attended the hearing. We don't know what the reason is.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Twisk, you said you are appearing for both victims. What is the position about the second lot of victims?

MR VAN TWISK: Mr Chairperson, I received instructions to appear for both persons. I have not made contact with Mr de Freitas. The letter I received from the Amnesty Committee, says that they have no contact number whatsoever for Mr de Freitas, so I could not make contact. But the instructions to me also indicate that Mr de Freitas has indicated that he is opposing the application, but I have no formal instructions from Mr de Freitas in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it would be safe to then accept that he is a victim in as far as your instructions allow you to go, to oppose the application with all that difficulty.

Now Ms Mtanga, I see the implicated person for whom we've waited so long, is present.

MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Has he been able to secure the services of a representative?

MS MTANGA: No, Chairperson, I will be calling him as a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to cover his interests?

MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. Ms Makhubele, your applicant, what language would he prefer to use?

MS MAKHUBELE: He will speak Zulu.


CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Twala, how old are you?

MR TWALA: I am 26 years old.

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you know your date of birth?

MR TWALA: I was born on the 21st of March 1975.

MS MAKHUBELE: You reside at Duduza township.

MR TWALA: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: On the 5th of September 1997 you were convicted.

MR TWALA: Yes, I was convicted.

MS MAKHUBELE: Of murder and possession of two unlicensed firearms and ammunition.


MS MAKHUBELE: Murder yes, one count.

MR TWALA: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: You were also charged with another murder in the same trial, but you were not convicted for that.

MR TWALA: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: It's in respect of these acts, the two murders, the robbery, the possession of two unlicensed firearms and ammunition and also escaping from lawful custody, that you are before this Committee today to seek amnesty.

MR TWALA: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: Before we come to the incidents themselves, can you just tell us whether at Duduza, before, you were a member of any political organisation.

MR TWALA: I was a member of Azanyo, the Youth League of the PAC.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you have any position, or were you just a card-carrying member?

MR TWALA: I was just a card-carrying member without any position.

MS MAKHUBELE: The Azanyo branch of Duduza township, do you know the local structure, like who was the Commander, who was in what position?

MR TWALA: I cannot recall quite well the names and the portfolios in our branch, but I can only recall Nkosana Mahlangu, who was a branch organiser.

MS MAKHUBELE: Any other person you remember who was in the Executive?

MR TWALA: One other person is Dumisani Ntismande and Mshini. Those are the ones that I can still recall.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, I didn't get the name of the second person. You say Dumisani Ntismande, and who else?

MR TWALA: Mshini.

MS MAKHUBELE: You don't know his surname?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated. May the question please be repeated. My the question please be repeated ...(intervention)

MS MAKHUBELE: This branch organiser, what was his duties there?

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, may the question please be repeated.

MR TWALA: His duty was to convene meetings and workshops and he was giving us instructions as to what we had to do as newly recruited members of the PAC, and how to conduct ourselves.

MS MAKHUBELE: You personally, what did you learn from these meetings, workshops, about the PAC?

MR TWALA: What I learnt was that I as an African who was oppressed, this should not mean that I was born to suffer but this came as me as an African having lost my land to people who made me suffer. These are the people who made me work for them.

MS MAKHUBELE: Any plan of action you were told of as policy of PAC?

MR TWALA: Yes, we were told within the PAC, that the police and the whites were enemies and these are our oppressors and therefore we should kill them.

MS MAKHUBELE: And how were you supposed to do that?

MR TWALA: We would kill them by firearms. They taught us how to procure firearms, these we could procure from the police and the whites or anybody else who was in possession of a firearm. We would kill them and rob them of their firearms.

MS MAKHUBELE: And how were you supposed to get hold of their firearms, the police and the white people?

MR TWALA: We were issued firearms to use whenever we were out searching for firearms. We were to use the firearms issued to us, to procure other firearms.

MS MAKHUBELE: Other than the general suffering you have just described, in your township was there any political tension, say real things that were happening, involving the police and the people you were told to hate and the white people?

MR TWALA: Yes, there are things that I can testify to.

MS MAKHUBELE: Can you tell us.

MR TWALA: In 1993 there was a conflict between Passo and Cosas, and among these Passo members you'd have police coming to attack them wherever they grouped, and they would be beaten up and the police would take away their firearms and thereafter they would blame Cosas.

MS MAKHUBELE: Can you just enlighten us what Passo is.

MR TWALA: Passo is the PAC Student Organisation.


MR TWALA: Cosas is the student organisation belonging to the ANC.

MS MAKHUBELE: Before we come to these specific incidents, were you involved in, say the fight between Passo and Cosas, which was helped by the police? Yourself personally.

MR TWALA: I had not been involved at the time because I was not a student. I was not involved because I was not a student, but the comrades who were running away would come to us for assistance and others were used to guard around.

MS MAKHUBELE: Can you come to the first incident that occurred at J F Supermarket, Ratanda, where Ms Maria de Freitas was killed. Did you have any instruction from any person?

MR TWALA: In 1993, it could have been around September, yes I received an instruction from Major that there is a shop that is in possession of firearms and we had to go to the shop on a Friday and there would be only one person, the owner, the others would be employees.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who is this Major? If you can just tell us his name or her name.

MR TWALA: Major's real name is Nkosana Mahlangu.

MS MAKHUBELE: This is the person you referred to as the branch organiser.

MR TWALA: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: Is he in here? If you can identify him for us.

MR TWALA: Yes, he's present here.

MS MAKHUBELE: By showing him.

MR TWALA: Over there.

MS MAKHUBELE: The applicant points at - I don't know whether his name is Nkosana, but it's ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The person who was identified to us as the implicated person.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thanks, Mr Chairperson.

Then after he gave you that order, what did you do? Did he give you anything to go and carry out that order? Explain further please.

MR TWALA: After the order was issued he also issued me with a 7.65 firearm and said I was going to be accompanied by comrades from Duduza or Ratanda, and I preferred to use the ones from Ratanda. We went there on a Friday and the comrades were three - there were four of us including myself. On arrival there were some people playing snooker ...(intervention)

MS MAKHUBELE: Can you identify them by names, the three soldiers in your company?

MR TWALA: Ntlantla Koole, Moss, Vusi Makhanya, as well as Lucky.


MR TWALA: Those are the names.

Upon arrival I went to the counter and produced a firearm and on realising this, the shop owner produced his and at that instance there was no way for me to explain to him. I fired a shot and he exchanged gunfire. I produced my firearm and the shop owner saw me producing my firearm and he did the same thing, and I realised that there was no time to talk to him. I fired a shot and he exchanged a gunfire, but his shot missed.

MS MAKHUBELE: What was your intention when you produced your firearm?

MR TWALA: My intention was to frightening him into opening the room where we could get the firearms, and after having secured those firearms we would kill him.

MS MAKHUBELE: So because she produced her firearm you thought of shooting her first, before she did.

MR TWALA: Yes, that is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: After shooting her, what happened?

MR TWALA: After shooting at the shop owner, Vusi went into the counter and took the firearm in the shop owner's possession and she had died and there was nothing we could do, we had to flee.

As we were leaving one customer was walking in. A lorry had been parked in front of the shop, but we managed to flee back into the township. When we arrived at the cemetery, I inspected the firearm that we had brought along. We fled into the shacks. We did not go in the same direction, we took different directions into the shack, all headed towards one house.

Along the way I came across a police, whilst I was still in possession of the firearm that we had brought along from the shop, and I realised that the police was in possession of a firearm and I saw an opportunity of getting yet another firearm from this police.

MS MAKHUBELE: Can you just hold it there. This policeman that you met, was he in a car alone or with other police officers?

MR TWALA: He was alone in a car. The police car was stationary. He was inside with the door open. I walked past the door. I stopped, went to the police. He came out of the vehicle. He said nothing to me and I said nothing to him. I fired a shot and took his firearm.

MS MAKHUBELE: When you shot him was he in the car?

MR TWALA: No, he was outside the car. The car was stationary with the door open and he was outside.

MS MAKHUBELE: What was your intention for shooting him?

MR TWALA: I had been taught that a police is an enemy and given a chance I should kill them. I saw such an opportunity to shoot the police and rob him or her of the firearm.

MS MAKHUBELE: In your application, page 9, that's the typed version of your statement, you stated that - that will be line 7 under paragraph 9(a)4:

"That since I had an unlicensed weapon in my possession and since the SAP was regarded as the enemy anyway, I shot him."

Does this mean that you shot him that you had an - one of the reasons, other than the fact that he was regarded as an enemy as you were taught, one of the other reasons was because you had an unlicensed firearm in your possession?

MR TWALA: I shot him because I had been taught that he's an enemy, given a chance if I'm in possession of a firearm and if I can shoot him and rob him of the firearm, I should do exactly that.

MS MAKHUBELE: How many times did you shoot him?

MR TWALA: Five rounds of ammunition. He was wearing a windbreaker and I was not quite sure whether he had a bulletproof vest underneath that, so I unloaded five rounds of ammunition.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did he shoot back?

MR TWALA: No, no, he didn't get that chance. He did not return fire.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you get his firearm?

MR TWALA: Yes, I did.

MS MAKHUBELE: What kind of an arm was it?

MR TWALA: Z88, a pistol.

MS MAKHUBELE: Before we proceed, exactly how many hours between these two incidents, the first on at the supermarket and then where you met and shot the police officer, how many hours or minutes, if you still remember?

MR TWALA: The shooting at the shop and that of the police happened within an hour.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you perhaps fear that the police officer was looking fro the people who had shot Mrs de Freitas? Did this cross your mind?

MR TWALA: No, I did not because had I thought about that I would have fled. I spotted the car parked from a distance.

MS MAKHUBELE: After taking the firearm you had two firearms in your possession, did you report back to Major, Nkosana Mahlangu, about your accomplishments? If so, when?

MR TWALA: I went to our rendezvous and I took the third firearm, the one that I had given to Vusi, and we left in the early evening at around six, we left for Duduza. Upon arrival I did not find Major at the shack where we usually meet, instead I found Dumisani and Mshini. I explained to them how we fared and I showed them the firearms that we had brought along. They took two firearms, the one that we had used initially for the attack and the one that I robbed from the police.

MS MAKHUBELE: What's the relation between Mshini and Dumisani, the people you found when you went to report the results of your assignment?

MR TWALA: They were soldiers of the PAC. I cannot recall what positions they had, but yes, they were soldiers.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you ultimately see Major and report personally to him?

MR TWALA: Major arrived, I think around eight in the evening, and he met us at our meeting spot. At which time I reported to him how we fared and he instructed that remain in the house and not move about. And Dumisani and the other one came and left these two firearms and took the 38 revolver with which they left. The place that we were using was our secret spot and therefore safe.

MS MAKHUBELE: When were you arrested?

MR TWALA: I was arrested the following day. I slept at the shack and the following morning, very early in the morning, police came. I cannot say where they got information from. That's how I was arrested.

MS MAKHUBELE: Were you arrested alone?

MR TWALA: No, not alone, I was arrested with Ntlantla, Vusi, as well as Lucky.

MS MAKHUBELE: Major Mahlangu, Nkosana Godfrey Mahlangu, as I indicated to you during consultation, he has made a statement which is seen on page 16 of the bundle, and basically he denies having instructed you to go and obtain firearms at J F Supermarket. What will you say to this?

MR TWALA: He might have disputed that, thinking that if he owned up he might be arrested. That could be the reason why he's denying any knowledge of me.

MS MAKHUBELE: Is that the only reason you can think of why he would deny this?

MR TWALA: Yes, because the one person who came to him, investigating this matter, was a white person, he could have thought perhaps that this white man comes from the Brixton Murder and Robbery Squad.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you talk to him at any other time about this incident?

MR TWALA: I had not spoken to him after I was arrested, at least not about this matter.

MS MAKHUBELE: But did you talk to him at any other time?

MR TWALA: I met him and I greeted him this morning, we shook hands and there was no problem.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you talk about this thing?

MR TWALA: I asked him that I heard that he's made a statement denying knowledge of me and he said that is not a problem, that matter will be sorted out.

MS MAKHUBELE: The relatives of the policeman you shot, in particular, Maria Adriana Engelbrecht, has also made a statement where she says that basically you had no political motive for killing the police officer, but you were just acting in a criminal manner, what will you say to this?

MR TWALA: Which one are you talking about?

MS MAKHUBELE: It's the wife to the police officer you shot. His name is Karel Engelbrecht. That your actions were just of a criminal nature, what do you say?

MR TWALA: This was a political offence, I shot him in the township at the shacks. She was not present and therefore cannot testify otherwise.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you receive any gift perhaps for, or an award for instance, for having done what you did, going to kill Mrs de Freitas and also the police officer?

MR TWALA: No, I did not receive anything. All I did I did in the name of the organisation, not for myself. They did not give me any gift nor money.

MS MAKHUBELE: Now that you are before this Committee, what would you like to say to the Committee and also to the victims' families?

MR TWALA: To the Committee and the members of the deceased, my apologies to all of them. Please forgive me.

MS MAKHUBELE: You say as a member of the PAC, the policy was that the enemy were the white people and the police and your victims are white people, what's your stance now about white people and the police?

MR TWALA: You see at the time of apartheid we were fighting for our liberation and now I would have no reason to perceive them the same way as I did, now we have a democratic government.

MS MAKHUBELE: That's the evidence-in-chief of the applicant, Mr Chairman.



Mr Twala, I want to start with the last statement that you made, namely that now that we have a democratic government it's not necessary to view whites and policemen as enemies. In September/November 1993, when these offences were committed, were you aware that at that stage the democratic process was already far, in the sense that everybody knew that in 1994 there would be a democratic one man one vote election, where the then government would be replaced with a democratic government?

MR TWALA: Talks were going on about the elections that were to come. Yes, efforts were made from all corners. The PAC itself was engaged in its own efforts.

CHAIRPERSON: What efforts?

MR TWALA: The PAC was still engaged in the armed struggle, continuing to fight the then government and instructing that we rob these people of their firearms, that is the police and the whites. They were not involved in the negotiations.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the PAC one of those groupings that did not support the negotiations?

MR TWALA: Yes, it was not in favour of the negotiations at the time.

MR VAN TWISK: Do you know why the PAC was still involved in the armed struggle? Were you taught anything by Major Mahlangu, for instance, about this?

MR TWALA: What I knew was that the PAC was continuing with the armed struggle as entailed in the PAC documents, to the effect that we were to liberate ourselves through the barrel of the gun, not negotiations.

MR VAN TWISK: Did Major Mahlangu teach new recruits and you specifically, how to conduct the armed struggle?


MR VAN TWISK: On page 16 of the record, the second-last paragraph of the page, that is the statement by Mahlangu, he says that:

"As Executive member I had to lead the meetings in connection with Africanism, politics, economy and social life."

It seems as if he was not involved in teaching members about the armed struggle and how to further that aim.

MR TWALA: He was teaching us about the armed struggle and we were instructed about the armed struggle in meetings and in workshops. Yes, I can see that is not included here.

CHAIRPERSON: By November 1993, the date for elections had been set and preparations were being conducted for this first democratic election, do you recall that?

MR TWALA: Yes, I do recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say that the PAC was still conducting its armed struggle. According to you, for what purpose? What was the aim of this armed struggle?

MR TWALA: The reason why the PAC was continuing with the armed struggle during those days is because they believed that the land can only be recovered through the gun.

CHAIRPERSON: So what has changed since?

MR TWALA: Would you please repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: Why have you not got the same beliefs today?

MR TWALA: The reason is because now I can see that the people have since recovered their land and we voted for a majority government.

CHAIRPERSON: But you see this is what I don't understand. By November 1993 everybody knew that the democratic system was going to be put in place, which included the recovery of land.

MR TWALA: Yes, that had already been mentioned in November 1993, but we within the PAC were not quite convinced that that was a reality, we feared that the then government might as well go back and rule over us.

MR VAN TWISK: You testified that you were also charged with another murder but not convicted, is your evidence that during your trial for the murder of Capt Engelbrecht, you were also charged with the murder of Mrs de Freitas, or was it another offence that you referred to?

MR TWALA: I was convicted for killing the police, but I was not convicted of the murder of the one person in the shop, because the Court did not find convincing evidence to the effect that I was involved in the killing of the woman in the shop.

MR VAN TWISK: Although you apply in your application for amnesty for the killing of Mrs de Freitas, you initially denied, as ...(intervention)

MR TWALA: Yes, I did submit an application.

MR VAN TWISK: Yes. And on the 3rd of March 2000, you made a statement to Mr Calitz, where you initially denied your involvement in the shooting at the J F Supermarket, is that correct?

MR TWALA: On the 3rd of March this gentleman came to me. I was expecting the police to come and charge me. I knew.

MR VAN TWISK: Surely you know that once you have been found not guilty of an offence, that you cannot be charged anew.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it's fair to expect him to know the niceties of law.

MR VAN TWISK: I will ask him then if he knew. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Twala, did you not know that you cannot be charged again once you were acquitted?

MR TWALA: I was thinking that perhaps the police would come with new evidence and maybe they would want me to reappear in Court on the same charge.

MR VAN TWISK: But in 1997 when you submitted your application, therein you admitted your participation in the shooting at J F Supermarket, not so?

MR TWALA: My application to the TRC pertains to the J F Supermarket. Yes, I agree that I was involved in that offence. I am asking for amnesty for that and the fact that I was acquitted of that offence, does not mean that I should not apply for amnesty.

MR VAN TWISK: Do I understand your evidence correctly, Mr Twala, that even though Mrs de Freitas would have handed over the firearm to you, you would have killed her regardless?

MR TWALA: Yes, that is correct, we were killing whites that we came across, if we had a chance to do that. We were killing them according to the teachings that we received.

CHAIRPERSON: Well why didn't you go around in the middle of town and shoot the whites there? You remember the "Wit Wolf"?

MR TWALA: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: He went into the middle of Pretoria and shot black people. Remember?

MR TWALA: Yes, I remember that.

CHAIRPERSON: If it was your intention to kill whites because they were the enemy, why did you not do that then, or something similar?

MR TWALA: We would not go to town because we knew that if we did that in town we would shoot and be arrested on the same day. Our strategy was that we should corner them where possible, shoot them and rob them of their firearms, and we had to retreat where necessary and attack where it was possible to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: This supermarket, J F Supermarket, where was that located?

MR TWALA: It's in the old Vaal Dam Road, next to Ratanda.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that a busy place?

MR TWALA: No, it's not busy.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it in a township?

MR TWALA: Slightly outside the township. It is around the entrance to the township. And you see, we had agreed on a time that we knew it was not busy.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR VAN TWISK: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Twala, this supermarket, was it mostly frequented by black people from the township?

MR TWALA: Everybody passing by.

MR VAN TWISK: Did you receive instructions from Mr Mahlangu to specifically kill the shop owner as well, regardless of whether she hands over the firearms and other goods without resisting?

MR TWALA: We were instructed to go and get the firearms, but because we had been trained from long ago that if you come across a settler and have an opportunity, go ahead and kill the settler.

MR VAN TWISK: On page 9 of the record, at paragraph 9.4, the fourth line, you stated in the application:

"I was instructed to go with others to the store, shoot the owner and obtain the weapons."

Is it correct that your instructions were to shoot the owner regardless?

MR TWALA: She was supposed to give us the firearms and we would then shoot her thereafter.

MR VAN TWISK: Was that an instruction by Mahlangu?

MR TWALA: Yes. That is why he issued us with a firearm, because he knew that we might encounter a problem during our attack and therefore we needed this firearm to protect ourselves.

MR VAN TWISK: Did you and the three accomplices enter the shop together?


MR VAN TWISK: Did you only have the one firearm between the four of you?

MR TWALA: Yes, there were four of us to one firearm. It was in my possession.

MR VAN TWISK: Did you carry the firearm openly, could Mrs de Freitas see that you were armed?

MR TWALA: When I walked into the shop she did not see it, she only saw the firearm when I drew it. I had concealed it so that it couldn't be seen as I was walking.

MR VAN TWISK: And where did she produce her firearm from?

MR TWALA: She produced it from her waist.

MR VAN TWISK: So is your evidence that Mrs de Freitas saw the four people, one producing a firearm, coming to rob the shop and she nevertheless defended herself, a woman alone in the shop against the four of you?

MR TWALA: The other three stood around the pool table and the other playing machines and I alone went to the counter. They stood around at the pool table looking around.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there anybody in the shop when you went in there, besides the owner?

MR TWALA: There were employees, but the room from which they were working is a little bit distant from where we were.

CHAIRPERSON: Any customers?

MR TWALA: One customer came in as we were leaving the shop. We were no longer interested in seeing what he was doing inside and what mess he discovered as he walked in.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it a black person or a white person?

MR TWALA: A black person who had just parked his truck outside the shop, just across the road.

MR VAN TWISK: The employees, were they whites or there whites amongst them?

MR TWALA: No, there were no whites, only black people.

MR VAN TWISK: Was anything else robbed?

MR TWALA: We took the firearm only, nothing else.

MR VAN TWISK: Did you have an arrangement with Major Mahlangu to hand over the firearm or firearms that you procured from the shop to him?

MR TWALA: Yes, we were supposed to produce or hand over these to him.

MR VAN TWISK: Was that at this safehouse where you spent the night, where you were supposed to meet him?

MR TWALA: We were supposed to meet where we met before we went to the safehouse.

MR VAN TWISK: Where were you supposed to meet him?

MR TWALA: We met at Dumisani's house where we met Dumisani and Mshini. That is before they took us to the safehouse for the night. That is in a shack area.

MR VAN TWISK: Did you come across any other white people after you shot Mrs de Freitas and before you went to the safehouse?

MR TWALA: No, we took a taxi from the township to the taxi rank and we did not come across any white person anywhere along the way.

MR VAN TWISK: What were your instructions from Major Mahlangu, where were these firearms kept that were in the shop?

MR TWALA: They kept the firearms, or should I say there was a storeroom where they kept bicycles, shoes etcetera, that is where we were supposed to have retrieved the firearms and that is the room that was supposed to have been opened by the shop owner.

MR VAN TWISK: Why did you not then, after having shot Mrs de Freitas, go into that room to look for the other firearms as were your instructions?

MR TWALA: The room was locked and Mrs de Freitas had already been fatally wounded and she is the one who could have had the keys and therefore we didn't have ample time to look all over the shop for the keys.

MR VAN TWISK: Surely you could have taken the keys from her person or asked the employees whom you testified about to assist you.

MR TWALA: If the keys were in her possession we would have taken them, but then we did not see any keys in her possession.

MR VAN TWISK: When you saw Capt Engelbrecht, what was your initial thought?

MR TWALA: My initial thought was that the firearm in his possession would be of value to us.

MR VAN TWISK: If he was not armed, would you have fled?

MR TWALA: Had he not been armed, you see we were trained that if you came across a policeman and if you had the chance, go ahead and shoot him. I would have killed him because we were killing the police.

MR VAN TWISK: Were there many patrols in the area where you stayed, by policemen, or did you come across policemen quite often in the township or anywhere else?

MR TWALA: We always had the presence of police in the township, patrolling in hippos and casspirs.

MR VAN TWISK: You never went out with the specific intention of shooting as many policemen as you could, to further the aims of the PAC?

MR TWALA: We would not go out randomly, we had to plan where to go, what to do there. If we knew we'd come across police at a particular point, we would do exactly that, go out there, attack them, kill them and take the firearms.

MR VAN TWISK: Isn't is so that when you saw Capt Engelbrecht and when he asked you to come to him, you knew that you were probably a suspect in the robbery at the supermarket and that your only purpose of shooting him was to escape arrest?

MR TWALA: I was walking and I saw this police vehicle parked with the door open and I approached. You see the shooting in the shop and the shooting of the policeman happened within an hour and by the time I met him he had not received any information about the shooting that occurred at the shop.

MR VAN TWISK: On page 14 of the record, that is the statement you made on the 17th of March 2000, the second-last paragraph thereof reads as follows:

"Godfrey did not give me instructions to kill the policeman, I killed the policeman because I knew he was going to arrest me and find the revolver in my possession."

Isn't that precisely the reason why you shot Capt Engelbrecht?

MR TWALA: No. See I spotted his vehicle from a distance and I had an option to take alternative routes, because you see the area is a shack land, so I could have easily have taken an alternative route, but I went straight to him.

MS MAKHUBELE: Mr Chairman, the applicant has a request, apparently he wants to go to the rest room.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's adjourn for lunch in any event.



MR TWALA: (s.u.o.)


Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Twala, before the lunch adjournment I asked you a question, I don't know if I received an answer. I refer again to page 14 of the record, the second-last paragraph ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.

MR VAN TWISK: On the 17th of March 2000 you made this statement where you say:

"Godfrey did not give me instructions to kill the policeman, I killed the policeman because I knew he was going to arrest me and find the revolver in my possession."

I then wanted to know, is that not the reason you shot Capt Engelbrecht, because you wanted avoid being found in possession of this firearm and avoid being arrested?

MR TWALA: No, that is not the reason why I shot the police. I did explain that I shot the police because I knew that he was an enemy, I had to shoot him.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you say that in your statement?

MR TWALA: The person who was taking the statement from me asked me a question, he said "Now that you have committed the crime, if this policeman had stopped you, frisked you and found you in possession of a firearm, would he have arrested you?" And I said "No, that's not the reason why I did the crime, the police were known to frisk the Africans and arrest them for many other reasons, but this is not the reason why I shot the policeman on that day".

CHAIRPERSON: Can you read and write?

MR TWALA: Yes, I can read, but when it comes to writing I'm very poor in spelling.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you look at page 15. At the second line there, is that your signature?

MR TWALA: Yes, that's my handwriting, I did sign here.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall signing that document?

MR TWALA: Yes, I remember signing here.

CHAIRPERSON: When you signed it, did you read this document before you signed it?

MR TWALA: No, as I've stated, I cannot read well and my spelling is poor.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this document read over to you before you signed it?

MR TWALA: The person, yes, did read it to me.

CHAIRPERSON: And did he read the section that was just quoted to you now? About why you shot the police, because you knew he was going to arrest you and find that revolver in your possession?

MR TWALA: The person read the whole document to me including the section, but I think I did not understand him quite well what he meant.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but did he read it the way it was read over to you now by Mr van Twisk?

MR TWALA: It is only now as it is being interpreted that I understand what it means.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but was it read in the same way by the person who took the statement from you?

MR TWALA: Yes, he read the whole document.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you remember if that particular section was read over to you before you signed it, in the manner Mr van Twisk read it to you now?

MR TWALA: I cannot recall very well, I cannot recall him reading this particular section.

CHAIRPERSON: But you just told me now that he read the whole document over to you, including this section. You just said so about two minutes ago.

MR TWALA: Yes, he read the whole document, including this section, but it is only now that I understand what the contents in this section mean. I mean, that I killed him because I was afraid he was going to arrest me. I did not understand that at the time of him reading this section to me.

CHAIRPERSON: When it was read over to you, was it read over to you in the same way Mr van Twisk read it over to you, that particular section?

MR TWALA: I only understand it now as it is being interpreted after it was read.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you understand it to mean then?

MR TWALA: What I understood was that I have submitted an application for amnesty for killing the person in the shop and the police and that I submitted this application in 1997.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got a problem with the Zulu language?

MR TWALA: No, I don't have a problem with isiZulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you understand my last question?

MR TWALA: I would say not quite well. Would you please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: When it was read over to you before you signed this document, that particular section, what did you understand it to mean then? You say you didn't understand it properly that time, I'm asking you what did you understand by it.

MR TWALA: When the document was - this section was read to me, I understood it to mean that I killed the person because I wanted the firearm and that I knew that the police were known to continuously arrest our members, and it could be that the person did not understand what I was saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr van Twisk.

MR VAN TWISK: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE MOTATA: In what language were you speaking to the person who took down this?

MR TWALA: Mr Chaka is the one who was the intermediary between myself and the other person.

JUDGE MOTATA: But you understood Mr Chaka well when he spoke to you?

MR TWALA: Yes, I understood him, but he speaks isiXhosa. But yes, I did understand him.

JUDGE MOTATA: And when he finished you said you understood the statement well?

MR TWALA: I understood the statement well when Mr Chaka explained it to me.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further...

MR VAN TWISK: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Twala, when it was read back to you, you did not tell Mr Ntsikelelo, who was the interpreter, Mr Chaka Ntsikelelo, that it was wrongly written down and that it should be changed before you signed the document, is that not so?

MR TWALA: I did not see any problem in the statement at the time, because this was not explained to me as it is explained to me now.

MR VAN TWISK: During the trial, is it correct that you pleaded guilty to the murder of Capt Engelbrecht and to the possession of two firearms?

MR TWALA: Yes, I pleaded guilty.

MR VAN TWISK: Now I don't have the whole transcript of the proceedings, but on page 21 of the record, the Honourable Judge who gave the judgment said, and I quote from line 2 on page 21:

"On the accused's own version he shot the police officer because he feared that the police officer would search him, find his unlawful firearm and arrest him."

Now according to the judgment by Judge Marais, that is what your version to the Court was during the trial, which is the same that was given in the statement barely a month ago.

MR TWALA: In the statement that I issued in Court, yes, I did say that because I did not want the Court to associate the two offences, because in the other crime I was found not guilty and I had pleaded not guilty to that charge.

MR VAN TWISK: Mr Twala, if you gave that version to the Court in 1997, and you gave the same version to the person taking the statement in 2000, can't we then assume that that is indeed the reason for you having killed Capt Engelbrecht and that there was no political motivation?

MR TWALA: No, that is not the reason why I murdered Capt Engelbrecht, the reason is purely political.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you tell the judge that then? You pleaded guilty.

MR TWALA: I feared that the Judge would sentence me to many years in prison if I said so.

CHAIRPERSON: Well what did you think was going to happen when you pleaded guilty on that basis that you did?

MR TWALA: I knew that if I pleaded guilty to the other charge, the Court would be lenient towards me because I was not wasting their time.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not talking about the other charge, I'm talking about the reason for killing Mr Engelbrecht. In the Court you said you killed him because you feared he might arrest you. I'm asking you, when you pleaded guilty, why didn't you say it was for political reasons, as you are saying now?

MR TWALA: I think it's because I feared that if I told the Court that the crime was political, I would be given a heavy sentence.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you think you were going to get as a sentence if you told them what you say you did tell them? That you'd get a light sentence?

MR TWALA: I did not get a light sentence either.

CHAIRPERSON: But you thought you're going to get a light sentence.

MR TWALA: Yes, I thought so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr van Twisk.

MR VAN TWISK: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

The Z88 pistol that you took from Capt Engelbrecht, did you had that over to Major Mahlangu that same day, or to anybody else?

MR TWALA: I gave it to Dumisani, who was in the company of Mshini. That was that very same evening. We were now in another township in Duduza, we had already left Ratanda.

MR VAN TWISK: And was the Z88 pistol ever given back to you?

MR TWALA: Yes, they came back in the evening, that is we met at the house where we were to spend the night and they left the other pistol as well.

MR VAN TWISK: I just want to get it straight, you gave the Z88 and the 7.65 pistol to these two persons, is that correct? And they took it with them.

MR TWALA: That is correct.

MR VAN TWISK: And the same evening they gave it back to you?

MR TWALA: They brought it at the house where we were sitting. They did not give them to me, but they brought them back to the house.

MR VAN TWISK: And when was that Z88 pistol and the 7.65 found by the police?

MR TWALA: On the day when the police arrested us. They came and found these two firearms and they found some vehicle papers in the shack.

MR VAN TWISK: As I recall your evidence-in-chief you said you were arrested the following morning, is that correct?

MR TWALA: That is correct.

MR VAN TWISK: So that must have been the 6th of November '93, was that also the same date that firearms were found?

MR TWALA: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN TWISK: You see in the indictment, count 6 of the indictment on the High Court matter, the charge is that you were found in possession of the Z88 pistol on the 10th of November '93, some four days after the date you say you were arrested in possession of these firearms.

MS MAKHUBELE: Mr Chairman, before the response, we've just been given this document, can I just explain to him what it's all about?





MR VAN TWISK: ... found in possession of the Z88 on the 10th of November if you say you were arrested on the 6th when the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Twisk, the indictment reads:

"Op of omtrent"

Besides that, I'm not too sure whether these are typing errors ...(indistinct - no microphone)

INTERPRETER: ... if they are such mistakes, I don't know if this witness can comment on it.

MR VAN TWISK: Yes. Mr Chairperson, I won't belabour the point if the witness can't explain that. Perhaps - I'm also not sure if it is the same Z88, so he might just give us an explanation.


MR VAN TWISK: Mr Twala, do you understand the question? Can you just explain the difference in the dates, if at all?

MR TWALA: The discrepancy is something I cannot explain really.

MR VAN TWISK: When did you escape from custody?

MR TWALA: In 1994. It could have been January or February in 1994.

MR VAN TWISK: I just want to go back to the supermarket incident. You say - after Mrs de Freitas was shot, did you then go around the counter to take the firearm that she had with her?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not active.

MR TWALA: She got shot and fell behind the counter, Vusi jumped for the firearm on the other side of the counter and I did satisfy myself that she is dead and we were no longer in the position to talk to her about the reason for our visit.

MR VAN TWISK: And did you, Vusi and the other two persons then flee the scene?

MR TWALA: Yes, we fled the scene and as we were leaving the shop we met somebody who was walking into the shop, a person who had just parked his truck across the street.

MR VAN TWISK: And you only took the revolver of Mrs de Freitas with you.

MR TWALA: Yes, only the firearm.

MR VAN TWISK: I want to refer to count 1 of the indictment, it is the count of robbery of Mrs de Freitas, where you were charged with robbing Mrs de Freitas of a revolver, three kilogrammes of bananas, R50 in cash and 30 packets of cigarettes.

MR TWALA: That statement is not correct, that is not correct. We only went there specifically for the firearm. We were even not using a vehicle, we were travelling on foot.

MR VAN TWISK: So do you deny that either you or any of the other three persons took the other items mentioned in the indictment?

MR TWALA: I did not see anyone among us carrying anything.

MR VAN TWISK: Mr Chairperson, I don't want to be unfair to the applicant because I don't have all the documentation, but I will ask the question nevertheless.

Why do you think the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General, as he then was, charged you with robbing Mrs de Freitas of these other items, if that was not the indication from the investigation that those items were missing as well?

MR TWALA: It might as well be that the Judge received information from the police, because you see, when we left the person was dead. It's possible that people came in afterward we had left and took whatever they were able to take. That could be the reason.

MR VAN TWISK: What were you supposed to do with the firearms that you collect, either those from Mrs de Freitas or Capt Engelbrecht? Was there one person who received it, where it was stored for use by other members of the PAC, or what was the arrangement?

MR TWALA: I was supposed to take these firearms to the organisation and when I arrived at the house I found Dumisani and Mshini, to whom I handed these firearms over.

MR VAN TWISK: You said that they were just soldiers, is that correct?

MR TWALA: They were members of the PAC. They were not soldiers from exile, they were members within, but they had positions in the township.

MR VAN TWISK: Were they the persons you were supposed to hand all firearms to for redistribution, or was Major Mahlangu this person who was supposed to receive the firearms?

MR TWALA: I was supposed to have given Major all the details in terms of my report back, and he would in turn relate these to the other soldiers.

MR VAN TWISK: I just want to make sure that you understand me. Were you not supposed to hand the firearms to Major for him to decide what to do with them?

MR TWALA: Yes, I was supposed to have given him the firearms, but he was not present upon arrival and hence I gave these to the other members.

MR VAN TWISK: But when Major Mahlangu did meet you that same evening, did you have the firearms with you?

MR TWALA: I had already given them the firearms and they only met with me later at the secret base, that's when I met Major, who said I should take care of myself until such time that we know what's happening, pertaining to the police.

MR VAN TWISK: When you and Major Mahlangu met at the secret place, were the other two persons with the firearms present at any stage?

MR TWALA: Yes, they were present.

MR VAN TWISK: And were those firearms then handed over to Major Mahlangu?

MR TWALA: They brought the firearms along and they kept them in the house and they said the other one's also kept in the house.

MR VAN TWISK: Why did Major Mahlangu then not take the firearms with him, as was the original plan?

MR TWALA: I had no idea as to where Major Mahlangu was going to keep the firearms, the ones which he said I should go and collect. I only managed to bring the two firearms, the one from the shop owner and the other one from the police.

MR VAN TWISK: But the point is he did not take possession of those firearms.

MR TWALA: When they arrived with him from the other house I cannot say what conversation they had along the way. Yes, he did not take possession of the firearms, but they kept the firearms in the house.

MR VAN TWISK: Thank you, I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.



Mr Twala, on page 2 of your application, the hand-written one, paragraph 9(a)(2), you give dates on which you committed the offences that you are applying for today and one of the dates you've given there is the 10th of November, what offence did you commit on that day, that you are applying for?

MR TWALA: You mean on the 10th of November? I cannot recall quite well, it has been a long time now, but I remember that I was arrested the following day after having committed the crime. I just cannot remember exactly what date it was when I was arrested for this crime.

MS MTANGA: Did you fill in this application yourself or someone filled it in for you?

MR TWALA: Somebody filled in the application on my behalf.

MS MTANGA: Who is this person?

MR TWALA: The legal representative who was representing me.

MS MTANGA: Did he read this application to you, Mr Twala?

MR TWALA: No, he did not, he just filled in the application and said I should wait for a response.

ADV SIGODI: Who was your legal representative?

MR TWALA: I cannot recall the name nor the surname.

ADV SIGODI: Was he speaking to you in English or in Zulu?

MR TWALA: In Afrikaans.

MS MTANGA: Mr Twala, are you saying that this application was not read to you?

MR TWALA: Yes, he did not read it back to me, he just told me that we have done the work, we just have to wait.

MS MTANGA: Mr Twala, are you aware that when a document is commissioned by a Commissioner of Oaths, which is the case in your application, the document is read to you by the Commissioner? Are you aware of that legal role?

MR TWALA: That he had to read it back to me, really, I didn't know how important it is. I really didn't know its importance because I assumed that he would not fill in an application form and fill in information that would not reach its destination.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, what Ms Mtanga is asking you is the Commissioner, not the person who filled in the document for you. Would I be correct?

MS MTANGA: Yes, you are correct, Chairperson, thank you.

Mr Twala, did the Commissioner of Oaths not read the application back to you? I'm not talking about your lawyer who filled in the application. Before you signed, the Commissioner of Oaths would have read this document to you, before you put your signature on it. He did not do that?

MR TWALA: Which Commissioner are you talking about?

MS MTANGA: I'm talking about - if you look on page 7, under Commissioner of Oaths, that is the last sentence on that page, there is a name there written "Booysen (I can't read the second one) Johannes. That person would have read to you what the contents of this document was.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you say so, Ms Mtanga?

MS MTANGA: Chairperson, according to the legal rules that I'm referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: The Commissioner of Oaths only takes the oath and witnesses perhaps, the signature of the deponent, but it doesn't fall within the ambit of his duty to ensure that the person who signs knows exactly what he's signing.

MS MTANGA: Mr Twala, why did you put a signature onto a document that you are not sure what it was saying?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) purpose of your argument or your question, you could put it to him that he was asked if he knew and understood the contents, what did he respond to that.

MS MTANGA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Twala, I'll rephrase my question. Before you signed this document, were you asked if you understand and know the contents of the application, that is the document that you're about to put your signature onto?

MR TWALA: The legal representative told me to sign after having filled in the application form. I confided in him. I had placed my trust in him and I had no reason to look for a person who would interpret and explain the contents of the documents to me before signing.

MS MTANGA: I'll move on, Mr Twala. When did you join Azanyo?

MR TWALA: In 1993, at the beginning, thereabouts.

MS MTANGA: If you were to estimate for this Committee, how many meetings of the PAC and Azanyo did you attend during 1993?

MR TWALA: There are numerous meetings, innumerable meetings that I attended because we would also go to funerals with some our soldiers and we would attend funerals as well. There are so many of these meetings that we attended.

MS MTANGA: Did you have any procedure within the PAC or the Azanyo, for appointing people who will represent you in the Executive of the PAC? In the structures that you had in Duduza.

MR TWALA: Yes, we were supposed to elect people who would represent us.

MS MTANGA: You were asked a question about the structures that existed in Duduza, that is PAC structures, and you indicated that you could not remember what structures were there that time. Do you remember this?

MR TWALA: Yes, I think I did say that I cannot recall their names.

MS MTANGA: Besides the names, Mr Twala, you indicated that you cannot recall what structures were in place at the time.

MS MAKHUBELE: I'm sorry, Mr Chairperson, I think the Evidence Leader is misleading the applicant. There are names that he could not recall, that's why he went on to say that he recalls there was a Branch Commander, there was some person he mentioned by the name of Dumisani, who was in the Executive, but he couldn't recall the other names.

MS MTANGA: Can you tell this Committee, Mr Twala, what structure was there in Duduza? What structure was the organiser, Mr Mahlangu, involved in? That is the person who ordered you to commit this offence.

MR TWALA: Mr Mahlangu was our branch organiser and our speaker in many of the meetings that we had.

MS MTANGA: According to Mr Mahlangu he was a branch organiser, but he belonged to a structure that was elected by the members of the PAC, and as a member of the PAC you would have known what structure that was. I'm asking you, what structure was there that he participated in as an organiser.

MR TWALA: He was teaching people about the objectives of the PAC and how we members of the PAC should carry out our duties.

JUDGE MOTATA: Do you understand the question, Mr Twala?

MR TWALA: I'm not quite sure I understand the question.

JUDGE MOTATA: If you don't, please say so, then we won't waste lots of time. Okay?

MR TWALA: Thank you.

MS MTANGA: I'll repeat the question, Mr Twala. My question is, Mr Mahlangu, who seems to be the person that you knew very well as an organiser of the PAC in Duduza, he was a participant in a structure that existed, that you and other PAC members elected and put in place at Duduza. What I'm asking you is, what was that structure that he belonged to?

MR TWALA: Would you please explain the name "structure" to me.

MS MTANGA: A body, there was a body elected by you as PAC members and then in that body you had people with different portfolios ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe I can help. The Executive Committee is a structure with the PAC, the Youth League was a structure attached to the PAC in Duduza. Those are structures. Now the question is, in which structure was Major - is that the person - Mahlangu involved in?

MR TWALA: He was a member of Azanyo.

MS MTANGA: Okay, I will leave that question, Mr Twala. In your evidence you mentioned three people who were involved in these offences with you, you mentioned Mr Ntlantla Koole, Moss, Vusi Makhanya and Lucky, were these PAC members at the time of this offence?

MR TWALA: No, they were not fully-fledged members of the PAC, because they did not have PAC cards, they were newly recruits or they were in the process of being recruited.

MS MTANGA: Who was recruiting them, Mr Twala? Who was recruiting these there people?

MR TWALA: Anybody within Azanyo could play the role of a recruiter, so that we could increase the membership. I too used to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you trying to tell us that Mahlangu as the organiser of the structure there, would employ non-members on an operation that you were involved in? Is that what you're saying?


CHAIRPERSON: Now you are saying that you accompanied three others who were not members of the PAC or any of its structures, they were being recruited. I'm asking you, are you saying that the instructor, being Mahlangu, would send you with three people who were not members of the PAC or its structures, on an operation like this?

MR TWALA: No, I took these three people from Ratanda, I was at Duduza when he instructed me and when I got to Duduza, these are the people that I chose who should accompany me.

CHAIRPERSON: So he didn't tell you who to go with? That is Mahlangu.

MR TWALA: Yes, he did not mention any particular names, but he said it's up to me to decide which members do I want to make use of, those in Duduza or those in Ratanda.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, I recall you saying so, and I must say - certainly I speak for myself, I got the impression that at that time he gave you a choice of identifiable people from either one location or the other. Did I understand you incorrectly?

MR TWALA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So you took people with you that the organiser who gave you instructions didn't even know - would not have known when he told you to take three people with. Is that so?

MR TWALA: He knew that later because I came back with the same people ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm talking before.

MR TWALA: Before I went out on the mission he didn't know that I had taken people who were not members of the PAC.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't even know the people.

MR TWALA: Yes, because these are people who were not yet card-carrying members of the organisation.

MS MTANGA: Thank you, Chairperson.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did Ratanda have its own youth structure within the Youth League of the PAC?

MR TWALA: Yes, even though it was not as big, but yes, they had their own membership.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you know all the members there who belonged to its Youth League structure?

MR TWALA: No, not all of them, because I would not find them all in one place each time I went there. I only knew two as full members of Azanyo.

JUDGE MOTATA: The three you recruited - rather, the three you took along, who recruited them? Did you recruit them yourselves?

MR TWALA: These people used to come to Tabang's place. Tabang was our member and he would teach them about the PAC and read PAC documents to them, and I then requested that they accompany me somewhere to carry out a mission and they pleasantly agreed.

JUDGE MOTATA: Proceed, Ms Mtanga.

CHAIRPERSON: Before that. Tell me, were there firearms in Court as exhibits when you were on trial?

MR TWALA: Yes, there were firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: Were any one of ...(indistinct - no microphone)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not active.

CHAIRPERSON: Were any of those firearms, firearms that you used on that day of the murders, or that you had robbed people of, or what is the position?



MR TWALA: Yes, the firearms that were used as exhibits were the ones that I used during the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. The Z88?

MR TWALA: Yes, the Z88.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume the police would have brought it to Court, correct?

MR TWALA: Yes, they brought it to Court.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did the police get it from?

MR TWALA: They found it in the house where I was arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was in the house with you when you were arrested?

MR TWALA: It was myself, Lucky, Godfrey Koole and Vusi Makhanya. There was also another rastafarian, one of us, he was questioned and then released.

CHAIRPERSON: So the four of you that went on this mission and then another rastafarian.

MR TWALA: Yes, there were four of us in the house. The other one, the rastafarian was not part of the mission, but he was present when we were arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Now tell me, was that the same house that you met Mahlangu that night?

MR TWALA: Yes, that's the same house.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you known where they found these firearms?

MR TWALA: I only saw the police holding these firearms, as to whereabout in the house they found them, I cannot say, but Dumisani had indicated that they had left the firearms in the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Who indicated?

MR TWALA: Dumisani told me that the firearms remained behind in the house, but as to whereabout in the house I cannot say because the shack is very big.

CHAIRPERSON: Dumisani was one of the people who went with you on the mission, isn't it?

MR TWALA: No, Dumisani is one of the people that I met after coming back from the attack. He's one of the people to whom I handed over the firearms.

CHAIRPERSON: Dumisani was one of the people with whom you were arrested.

MR TWALA: No, I was not arrested with him, he was one of the people that I found in the company of Mshini in the house. That was on our way back from Ratanda.

CHAIRPERSON: Now where would he have told you that he had left these firearms in the house?

MR TWALA: You see, I gave him the firearms and they gave us another secret base and around eight in the evening they came, in the company of Major and Mshini, and he said "We have brought the firearms, they are here in the house", and they took the other one, the one that we obtained from the shop, he took it along.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's where you were arrested.

MR TWALA: I was only arrested the following day. Because they did not sleep at the base, they left the firearms and they left for the township.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you arrested at that house?


CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga, have you got anymore questions?

MS MTANGA: Just a few, Chairperson.

Mr Twala, in your understanding of the politics of the Azanyo at that time, was Mr Mahlangu, Major Mahlangu, in a position to give orders for operations to be carried out by people, by members of the Azanyo or the PAC?

MR TWALA: Yes, because he was one of the speakers in most of our meetings.

MS MTANGA: What would you say were the reasons for Mr Mahlangu to trust you - to entrust you with an operation of this kind?

MR TWALA: The reason for him to entrust me with this commitment, I think is because he realised how committed I was and how frequent I attended the meetings without any default.

MS MTANGA: But Mr Twala, you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Could I ask you something - sorry, Ms Mtanga - do you know what the military wing of the PAC was called?

MR TWALA: Yes, I know it.



CHAIRPERSON: Was it not only Apla and that structure alone that was involved in an armed struggle?

MR TWALA: No, not Apla, no. Members of Apla were still in exile and those of us who were within the country had a duty to carry out.

CHAIRPERSON: In 1993 Apla was still in exile?


CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you know?

MR TWALA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: From my working out your membership of a PAC structure or a structure attached to the PAC, before the 5th of November, was about 10 months. Am I correct?

MR TWALA: Would you please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood your evidence is you became a member of the PAC structure, the Youth League, in January or February 1993.

MR TWALA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And this incident occurred, or these incidents occurred in November 1993.

MR TWALA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So by my calculation you were a member of the structure attached to the PAC, for approximately 10 months.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: Mr Twala, I will be calling Major Mahlangu as a witness and he will testify that during that time as an organiser he was not in a position to instruct members of the PAC or any other person who was a member of Azanyo, to carry out an operation. What do you say to this?

MR TWALA: For him to say he was not in that position, really I cannot say, but he is the person from whom I received the instructions.

MS MTANGA: In fact, Mr Mahlangu will testify that for operations that did take place at Duduza in that time, were carried out members of the PAC, who were instructed by cadres. That is APLA members, but not the Executive Committee that he belonged to. What do you say to this?

MR TWALA: APLA members as I indicated were still in exile and I had not met and discussed anything with them, such that I could receive instructions from them.

MS MTANGA: Lastly, Mr Mahlangu will deny that he ever gave you instructions to carry out the offences you are applying for. What do you say to that?

MR TWALA: He did issue an instruction that I should go and attack. If he disputes that today, I really cannot say what is frightening him. Maybe he was scared by the TRC Investigator who visited him, he could have thought it could be police. But I did hear that he is disputing this in his statement.

MS MTANGA: I have no further questions, Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Ms Makhubele, have you got any re-examination?


Mr Twala, when you were arrested the next day, that will be after the 5th of November, did you stay in prison throughout, or did the police take you out for investigation?

MR TWALA: I was up and own with the police during the investigation. I was also taken to the shop and to the scene where I shot the police and they took me to the Attorney-General in Springs, where I made another statement and they also took photo shots of me. That was before I appeared before the Court.

MS MAKHUBELE: Because from the indictment here it appears that you killed both deceased in one day, that's the 5th of November, but that the firearms, the Z88 and the 7.65 were not recovered on that day. Could they have been recovered on the 10th, as the indictment says, but when the police were doing their investigations when you were inside?

MR TWALA: Yes, it's possible the police found the firearms on the very same day, but when we were arrested some of us were taken into a minibus and others were taken into a hippo. I only saw the firearms in Court, during the prosecution of the trial.

MS MAKHUBELE: You say you were not present when they were recovered on the 10th of November.

MR TWALA: ...(no English interpretation)

MS MAKHUBELE: Okay. How far did you go with your education?

MR TWALA: I cannot say exactly when the firearms were obtained. And I went as far as standard six of my education.

MS MAKHUBELE: You told the Chairperson during one of the questions, that you read but you have problems with spellings, can you read English?

MR TWALA: Yes, I can read English a little bit, but I experience a problem also when it comes to people's handwriting. I can read better if a document is written in bold letters.

MS MAKHUBELE: The statement which is on page 1, which is your application and the statement referred to which is on page - if the Chairman can just bear with me - which is on page 13, which one was taken first? The one taken by Mr Calitz from the TRC and your application, which one was taken first?

MR TWALA: The gentleman came to me twice, that was on the 3rd of March 2000 and he came again on the 17th, and on both occasions he took statements. And when he visited me for the first time I was not convinced that he was from the TRC and he came again on the 17th. But I an say in my section where I am kept, where I am incarcerated, I was told that the police would be coming looking for me.

MS MAKHUBELE: Mr Twala, you're explaining a very long thing, I just wanted to know, the application preceded the statement by Mr Calitz, is this correct?

MR TWALA: I filled in the application after I was sentenced. I did it in Modder B.

MS MAKHUBELE: In which language were the statements read back to you?

MR TWALA: The TRC form was filled in on my behalf by my legal representative who was communicating in Afrikaans, but he did not read the statement back to me.

MS MAKHUBELE: I have nothing further, Mr Chairman.


JUDGE MOTATA: Mr Twala, the legal representative you are talking about, is it the legal representative who represented you in Court?

MR TWALA: Yes, that is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And the Court, if I'm correct, commenced on the 5th of September 1997. Can you recall that?

CHAIRPERSON: When judgment was given.

JUDGE MOTATA: And judgment was given on the 5th, rather, of September, to be more precise.

MR TWALA: Yes, I was sentenced on the 5th of September. It could have been thereabouts, I'm not quite sure but it's written somewhere.

JUDGE MOTATA: Ja, no, I can tell you that the records we have, page 20 says: 5th September 1987. Can you see that? Look at it. No, no, further up Ms Makhubele, just after the case number. And your application form was filled in on the 17th September 1997.

MR TWALA: Yes, that is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: By that time you were aware of the amnesty process, when you filled in this document.


JUDGE MOTATA: And when you appeared in Court you knew about this process of amnesty.

MR TWALA: Yes, it had been in existence for some time.

JUDGE MOTATA: And that people who admitted to their political involvement would get amnesty.

MR TWALA: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And in the state of one month, in one breath you denied how you took the gun from the policeman and again you say in the same month that your actions were political.

MR TWALA: Would you please repeat the question.

JUDGE MOTATA: What I'm saying to you is that in Court you denied that it was the policy of the Pan Africanist Congress that whites and police should be killed. You did not say that in Court, isn't it so?

MR TWALA: I saw no reason to tell the Judge that the police and the whites were to be killed because I thought that would infuriate the Court, resulting in me getting a heavy sentence.

JUDGE MOTATA: And 12 days thereafter you say your actions were political, when you filled in your application form.

MR TWALA: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Because you knew of the process of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and more specifically the Amnesty Committee, what harm would there have been for you to say "I shot the policeman because I wanted his gun and he was an enemy"?

MR TWALA: Had I said or given the reasons why I shot the police, I also feared that the Court would be very furious and it would hand down a very heavy sentence.

JUDGE MOTATA: The PAC at that stage when you committed this offence, was involved in Codessa, wasn't PAC involved in Codessa negotiations?

MR TWALA: Yes, there were people who were party to Codessa, but then there was this division and there were those who followed Kipapi of Vosloorus, and they were opposed to the process, and there were also those who followed Clarence Makwetu, involved in the negotiations.

JUDGE MOTATA: Wasn't Clarence Makwetu the National President of PAC? He was not just a person within the PAC, he was the National President of PAC.

MR TWALA: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now these other people who are talking about, which people are those?

MR TWALA: There were those of us who did not follow his policies and were therefore opposed to his involvement in the negotiations and that we viewed as against the policies of the PAC.

JUDGE MOTATA: Mlambo, Gorra, they were involved in the negotiations, were you against those people as well?

MR TWALA: Those who were involved in the negotiations were totally opposed to our beliefs.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now you say you were taught by Mahlangu about the policies of the PAC, did he explain that this is the time some of our members are involved in the negotiations for a transition in South Africa?

MR TWALA: Yes, we were informed about that in our meetings, and he also indicated that those who were involved in the negotiations were referred to as AmaZambane, and those were the people against whom we operated.

JUDGE MOTATA: So if I understand you correctly, Duduza was not part of those belonging to the national PAC, and if so, who were they following?

MR TWALA: Not all soldiers in Duduza were opposed to the negotiations. You see, there were documents that were usually read in the meetings and it was indicated that these documents are opposed to PAC members negotiating with their enemies, negotiating the return of the land.

CHAIRPERSON: On what basis then can you say your activities, as part of those opposed to negotiation, was political, if it went against the policy of the PAC?

MR TWALA: It was political because the documents that we read were old PAC documents. There were people in Duduza who perused those policies. Yes, there were others who were opposed to the negotiations.

JUDGE MOTATA: When you say that - I want to understand you, Mr Twala, are you saying that you opposed the National Executive of the PAC, that drew up those old documents that guided the PAC in its policies?

MR TWALA: I am saying when I joined the PAC, we and others were informed about the policies of the PAC, which policies we followed.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now that's what I don't understand, because you are now following the policies of the PAC, but you go against the people who are negotiating, you say no, those people are AmaZambane. I don't follow that.

MR TWALA: Insofar as I know, when I joined the PAC with others, we received teachings and where we were informed about the fact that there were others who were now so-called AmaZambane, because they were no longer following the old PAC policies because they are now involved in the negotiations.

JUDGE MOTATA: Were you trained as a soldier?


JUDGE MOTATA: And you executed this operation without having been trained.

MR TWALA: Yes, we committed similar crimes without any training.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you're excused.


MS MAKHUBELE: No witness, Mr Chairman, that will be the applicant's case.

MR VAN TWISK: Mr Chairman, no witnesses for the victims.

MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson, I have one witness to call. I will call Nkosana Godfrey Mahlangu.

CHAIRPERSON: What language would you prefer to use, Mr Mahlangu?


CHAIRPERSON: Have you any objections to the taking of the oath?



EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Mahlangu, can you please state your full names for the record.

MR MAHLANGU: Nkosana Godfrey Mahlangu.

MS MTANGA: When did you join Azanyo, Mr Mahlangu?

MR MAHLANGU: In the 1980s, but I'm not quite sure whether it was 1988 or '89.

MS MTANGA: On the 16th of March 2000, an affidavit was obtained from you by Mr Calitz, do you recall this?

MR MAHLANGU: Yes, I do recall this.

MS MTANGA: On page 16 of the application - you have a copy of this affidavit, can you have a look at it and confirm whether it is the affidavit that you gave to Mr Calitz.

MR MAHLANGU: Yes, that's the affidavit.

MS MTANGA: Do you confirm your signature on page 17?

MR MAHLANGU: That is correct.

MS MTANGA: Do you confirm that I have read to you the contents of this affidavit?

MR MAHLANGU: That is correct.

MS MTANGA: On page 13 of the bundle, there is an affidavit by the applicant, Shadrack Paseka Twala.

MR MAHLANGU: That is correct.

MS MTANGA: Do you confirm that I read this affidavit to you?

MR MAHLANGU: That is correct.

MS MTANGA: Mr Mahlangu, you have heard the evidence of the applicant, Mr Twala.

MR MAHLANGU: That is correct.

MS MTANGA: Before we go into his evidence, can you tell this Committee, as an organiser, which you have indicated in your affidavit already, as an organiser of the Azanyo, what were your responsibilities?

MR MAHLANGU: As an organiser of Azanyo, I was charged with the responsibility of organising venues, meetings and conferences, and educate them about Africanism, so that I can remove from their minds the attitude of white oppression.

MS MTANGA: As an organiser you belonged to the Executive Committee.


MS MTANGA: Can you tell this Committee ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mahlangu, the applicant has told us that he committed these offences that he described, as a result of instructions given by you to him, what do you say about that?

MR MAHLANGU: I cannot say he was following my instructions, but the PAC teachings mean different things to different people.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, we're not going to philosophise about it now, the fact of the matter is he says you gave him direct instructions to go to a particular shop and rob and kill a person, at a particular time.

MR MAHLANGU: No, I did not say that.

MS MTANGA: Did you give the applicant a firearm to use?

MR MAHLANGU: No, I did not.

MS MTANGA: Did you have a meeting with the applicant sometime in September 1993?

MR MAHLANGU: Yes, that was the time during which I had meetings and workshops and conferences. They would come to the meetings of the organisation to be taught about the policies of the PAC, and be informed about the situation in South Africa at the time.

MS MTANGA: You have heard the evidence of the applicant, that you have given him the orders to carry out this offence and when he had carried out this offence he handed over weapons to Dumisani. In your understanding of the PAC, Azanyo and PAC activities at that time and APLA, can you explain to this Committee if this would have been the situation at the time, maybe you or Dumisani could have been in a position to give such instructions to the applicant?

MR MAHLANGU: We were teachers of the youth within the PAC. I would answer the question by saying that yes, we used to teach people that "Kill a settler ...(indistinct) struggle for ...(indistinct) position and socialism. Each and every ...

MS MTANGA: Okay, you've answered the question. So you were merely teachers, not people instructing people to carry out operations.


MS MTANGA: That's your answer.


MS MTANGA: Who would have been in the position to instruct people at that time to carry out operations for the PAC?

MR MAHLANGU: The Azanian People's Liberation Army.

MS MTANGA: Were you at any time part of these operations, as an organiser for Azanyo?

MR MAHLANGU: No, my task was to educate. People had confidence in me, especially the youth. People would come to me for advice and therefore I would not withhold information, I would help them out where necessary.

MS MTANGA: I have no further evidence to lead, Chairperson.



Mr Mahlangu, you did not meet with Mr Twala on the 5th of November, is that correct? 1993.

MR MAHLANGU: I cannot recall the date, but I remember that after his first mission it was during the night when I went to our base and I came across two of my comrades, Dumisani and Mshini and they told me that Paseka is here and he had conducted a mission and he had come back with this and that, and I wanted to know where he was and they told me where he was, and I indicated that I wanted to see him, because I knew that possibly he is frustrated wherever he was. I went to see him and I found him in the company of his friends and other comrades, and I said to him "Now that you have committed this crime, we should just sit still, we should just read the newspaper and see how this appears in the newspapers and what the police are doing, so that we can work on our safety.

MR VAN TWISK: So you only heard about this mission, if we can call it that, once it was completed.

MR MAHLANGU: That is correct.

MR VAN TWISK: You were never involved, if I understand you correctly, at all with the armed struggle or instructing or educating people in furthering the armed struggle specifically.

MR MAHLANGU: I wouldn't say that I was not teaching them about the involvement in the armed struggle, but our general ideology is that each and every PAC member was involved in the armed struggle, including the mothers, because we within the PAC believed that the land question was not negotiable, so that people could only be liberated through the gun. We would not negotiate with anybody concerning our land and we just wanted to fight until we got our land back. If the blacks were able to get back their land, then everything would be okay, but if they did not want to give back that which belonged to the Africans, we would fight until the last drop of our blood to retain that which belongs to us.

MR VAN TWISK: You were never a person that gave direct instructions as to how a mission had to be conducted and to issue firearms ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Twisk, he's already testified to all that.

MR VAN TWISK: As the Court pleases, Mr Chairperson.


INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not active.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: May I for a brief moment approach the applicant?

It's common cause that by 1993, we were approaching a new order, was the PAC then still involved in these teachings that you just described to the Commission? In Duduza.

MR MAHLANGU: Not in Duduza only, PAC Nationally. Our boss in the PAC is our ideology, because ...(intervention)

MS MAKHUBELE: I'm referring to Duduza specifically because that's where the applicant says he got the teachings from. So even at that late stage, November 1993, you were still involved in mobilising the Africans for the liberation by the gun, not through negotiations.

MR MAHLANGU: Our belief within the PAC at the time, in general, nationally, not only in Duduza. I was not doing what I was doing for my personal interest, but for the nation and for my organisation. What we used to do was that we believed that the negotiations were for the traitors, people who were going to agree with the settlers that the ... only a political ...(indistinct) and the freedom without economy is worthless to us, we'll suffer more. And it will be difficult for us to organise the people for the socialist revolution or economical struggle, when we've got the government of the Africans.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mahlangu, I think all of us understand these philosophies and some of us believe in it, some of us don't. The applicant has made an application for amnesty, there are certain requirements that are required to be complied with, one of which is that he should make a full disclosure in respect of why and how he committed these crimes. He has come along here to say look, he's done these things on your instructions, now let us deal with that please, we haven't got much time today.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

You said you heard about the mission, where did you - which mission are you referring to?

MR MAHLANGU: I only heard about the mission after it had been carried out. I met two of my brothers who informed me that "Paseka had come with three comrades and they had committed this crime at such a place and here is their ammunition and we don't know how to go about handling this", and I said "Let's got and have a look at them, discuss with them and maybe we might as well inform the office that might give us advice." And I told them, "Listen, sit here, do not move, just stay still. Let's read the papers the following day and see what's happening, so that when we go to the office to report we should know exactly what's happening."

MS MAKHUBELE: So you were part of the people that tried to - if I may use this word "cover up" after the acts were committed.

MR MAHLANGU: I tried as much not to betray our fellow brothers because they confided in us as their political teachers and now they came to us and explained to us what happened. They brought these firearms along and they indicated that they did what they did in the name of the organisation. And they did this because they believed they could be helped.

MS MAKHUBELE: If you were not part of the planning for this mission, you only heard about it later, why would you be prepared to give a political protection to their actions?

MR MAHLANGU: According to the PAC, anybody who was fighting the whites was indeed a freedom fighter, fighting for the African people, the oppressed African people.

MS MAKHUBELE: I see, and as I read from your statement on page 16, you are in prison serving a prison term, and you say you haven't applied for amnesty because the crime was not politically motivated. When did you commit this?


CHAIRPERSON: The offence for which he's now presently - of what relevance is that?

MS MAKHUBELE: My instructions are that apparently he was late to apply for amnesty and he feels that the applicant should not get amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay ...(indistinct - no microphone)


I put it to you that since you have not applied for amnesty, that's the reason you are disputing that the applicant was acting under your instructions.

MR MAHLANGU: I cannot say he was following my instructions, but he was following the PAC's instructions, not my instructions, because it was known internationally that the PAC was fighting against the settlers.

CHAIRPERSON: He specifically said you gave him an order to go do these things, especially at that shop, and it's being put to you now that the reason why you're disputing it is because you want him in jail too because you are in jail. You were late in applying for amnesty, so you want him there with you.

MR MAHLANGU: No, I would very much wish for him to get amnesty because he did all he did in the name of the organisation, but that was not my instruction. I am serving a sentence purely for crime.

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you know of any ...(indistinct - no microphone)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not active.

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you know of any other person who may have given him instructions, or are you telling us that the PAC members in Duduza were so undisciplined that they would go out and commit criminal acts, but in turn you would protect them, as an organisation? To save your face.

MR MAHLANGU: What I can say is that there were underground APLA members. I cannot say, maybe it's possible he came across one of the underground APLA members with whom they plotted this crime. Anybody else who is a member within APLA would not know, except for those involved.

MS MAKHUBELE: I've nothing further, Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MS MTANGA: I have no re-examination, Chairperson.


You say that whatever he did you wish that he would get amnesty because whatever he did he did in the name of the organisation. How do you know that if you didn't give him the instruction?

MR MAHLANGU: It's because I only met him after he had committed the crime and at the time I was a member of the organisation and my evaluation of the situation was that he did exactly what he was told by the PAC, and I gave him direction as to how to go about. And I believe that had it not been for the PAC teachings, he would not have committed the crime.

CHAIRPERSON: But you cannot comment, am I correct, you cannot comment on his motive for committing the killing at J F Supermarket that day? You cannot say.

MR MAHLANGU: What I can say here is that I understand that before they became members of the PAC, they had no idea of committing such a crime, but only when they became members of the PAC, did they get ideas as to who their enemies were and who their brothers were.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that, but you can't discount the possibility that he also involved himself in purely criminal activities, like you did. Not in the name of the organisation.

MR MAHLANGU: I would not say - truly speaking, Almighty God can punish me, why, because I know, better me I can die for the truth, because I know if these brothers did not have ideas, especially this one, he would not have committed the crime that he committed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. You're excused.



CHAIRPERSON: Any further witnesses?

MS MTANGA: No further witnesses, Chairperson. Yes Ms Makhubele, have you got anything to submit to us?

MS MAKHUBELE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. My submission on the political motive, I won't be long, more especially on the first incident. The Evidence Leader did inform me and the application that maybe it's more submissions we need to make regarding the second incident, the killing of the police officer. In the first incident my submission is that on the question of political motive, the applicant has evidence which up to now has not been contested, regarding his membership of Azanyo, as well as the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Even if you are correct, the crux of the matter is that he said he committed this offence on the basis of an instruction he got.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes. If I may proceed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MS MAKHUBELE: If I may proceed from that angle. The evidence - as we have heard the evidence of Mr Mahlangu, he was really non-committal. The evidence of the applicant is that he committed these offences the same day, he was arrested the morning of the following day, and he placed Mr Mahlangu on the scene, as the person that he reported to. He went to look for him, he didn't find him, but then ultimately he was in the scene. And Mr Mahlangu too in his evidence also places himself in the company of the applicant within that time, and within that time there is a discussion where he gets to know about the mission. The only thing he was short of saying is that yes, he knew beforehand, but then we see him protecting these people, at the same time denying that he was the one who gave the direct instruction, but he doesn't want to dispute that they had an instruction.

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't that favour the applicant?


CHAIRPERSON: So? Aren't you caught between the devil and the deep blue sea? Not so?

MS MAKHUBELE: That's correct. That's regarding the first incident.

The second incident, there was confusion about dates, which would - if they were committed on different dates, I believe some people would submit that when he committed the second offence, then it had nothing to do with politics, he was acting in self-defence, or it was a robbery. But then these offences were committed, according to him, within an hour of each other and although the indictment doesn't state the time, but it's on the same date, which would - the most likely or the probability would be that he is coming from J F Supermarket and then he meets this police officer and as he stated in his affidavit, he committed this under the general mandate to obtain more arms. I believe that explanation is more probable than the one which would say that when he committed the second offence, he was afraid that the police officer would arrest him.

There is no evidence to suggest that this police officer was looking for him. There's also no evidence to suggest that the police officer tried to shoot him. And in that breath, one would say that the explanation that he saw this police officer there in his car and then he is the one who approached him, will be more probable. And as such, my submission regarding both incidents is that there was a political motive.

Coming to the question of whether he has testified and there has been - except for the words in the indictment where it says that they took some items, he testified that he did not gain anything other than the firearms which he set out to obtain.

And it is my submission finally, that he has made a full disclosure of all relevant facts, and as such he should be granted amnesty.

ADV SIGODI: He's also applied for amnesty in respect of escaping from custody. We haven't heard any evidence as to why he escaped from custody and how that has a political objective.

MS MAKHUBELE: Before I answer, may ...



MS MAKHUBELE: ... I don't know, Mr Chairperson, what the correct procedure would be now regarding this, because it's correct, no evidence was led on it. If I respond I would be testifying.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) to you is, what do you argue about that, what do you tell - what must we do with that application, in view of there not being any evidence? Would you concede then that we must ignore that application, or refuse that part of the application? Because there's no real evidence as to ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MS MAKHUBELE: The explanation - I don't know if any evidence could have been obtained, but the explanation is that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, we don't want to know what the explanation is. We are saying that we must assess the evidence in determining whether amnesty must be granted or not. He has made the application for amnesty in respect of escaping from custody, but we have no evidence before us to assess that application. Would you not concede then that the application on escaping from custody, must be refused?

MS MAKHUBELE: I concede that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Twisk and Ms Mtanga, we don't need to hear you. We'll reserve our decision on this matter. We will adjourn till half past nine tomorrow.

Ms Mtanga, I hope we're not going to experience a similar delay tomorrow as we had today. I understand that that applicant tomorrow must also come from one of the prisons. Will you see to it that we put that into operation now?

MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson, I will do that.

MS MAKHUBELE: Before Mr Chairperson - are we excused or are we coming in tomorrow?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, you're excused.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you.