CHAIRPERSON: .... and Judge Motata was putting questions and we'll take off from that point.

EDWARD MOTHIBE: (still under affirmation)

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Mothibe, let's just move on. You returned in 1992 according to you testimony. Would I be correct?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And again I had sight of the documentation in our possession, that your home was in Daveyton.

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And you further told us that you had this hiding place in Hillbrow where after the hijacking and the killing of Mr Kotelo, you were found.

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And I notice again that that is the Court record, the sentence that you were a married person with one child.

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: When you were using the hiding place in Hillbrow, where was your family, that is child and wife?

MR MOTHIBE: They were in Daveyton.

JUDGE MOTATA: When did you start using the hiding place?

MR MOTHIBE: In 1992.

JUDGE MOTATA: Upon your return?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Were you married when you returned?


JUDGE MOTATA: When did you get married and where?

MR MOTHIBE: In 1993 December.

JUDGE MOTATA: After the commission of this act?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: This is not terribly important but I notice in the Judgment that when you appeared in Court you were already convicted of another crime, the Judge said it was a similar crime.


JUDGE MOTATA: Wasn't it murder?


JUDGE MOTATA: What was it then?

MR MOTHIBE: This was the first incident that I was found guilty with, the one that I've applied amnesty for.

JUDGE MOTATA: Weren't you then when you were sentenced in this one, having had a total of 8 years and some of the years suspended?

MR MOTHIBE: I was given 8 years and 5 years was suspended.

JUDGE MOTATA: And a gun was found to have been used in that incident for which you got 8 years and 5 years suspended?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: What I found again is that the Judge said what was in your favour is that when the incident occurred, you had been drinking, that was a mitigating factor in your favour. You recall the Judge saying that?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes I do remember.

JUDGE MOTATA: And what I want an explanation for, is that where would the Judge have found that? I'll tell you why, before you respond to that, this was in mitigation, placed in mitigation in your favour that when you hijacked and you had been the driver of the vehicle, that's what is in the sentence, of Mr Kotelo's car, you had been drinking. Where would that come from?

MR MOTHIBE: He got that from the State Witness.

JUDGE MOTATA: Do you understand Court proceedings? What happened is this, if I may explain to you, is that evidence was led and you were convicted and it was now and opportunity for you before sentence to say what are your mitigating factors, which I should take into account before I impose sentence, that is what I would say in Court. do you follow?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I do.

JUDGE MOTATA: Because I'll read to you from page 72, which would have been page 5 of the sentence.

"However the Court will also take into account in your favour that you had been drinking that evening"

and my understanding of the evidence thus far, which has been given by you in respect of this application is that your comrades informed you that they first dealt with the police and thereafter went to Mr Kotelo and hijacked his car, but my question remains, where would the Judge find that?

MR MOTHIBE: The Judge got that from the witnesses.

JUDGE MOTATA: You testified that the fact that Mr Kotelo was financing and defending members of PASO, him and Dr Skosana, according to the information you received from your comrades, made them gain power in kwaThema. Now in your planning that you had to eliminate one of them so that COSAS could gain an upper hand, I want an explanation from you, how would you have achieved this and I'll sketch the two scenarios to you, that by eliminating and in this instance Mr Kotelo, by hijacking his car with him inside, kill him somewhere else, how would that have shown that COSAS was in power if you take the second scenario that if Mr Kotelo had been killed at his place and probably taken the car for get away, which would have been effective, because why I'm asking you this, anybody looking at the scenario that Mr Kotelo had been hijacked and killed somewhere, they would have said probably these are just criminals, this has nothing to do with the conflict between COSAS and PASO.

MR MOTHIBE: I do understand the way you put it. What I would say is that in the township when you do something like this, the first thing you have to protect yourself and your co-comrades who are with you. To kill Mr Kotelo at his place would have warranted some protection from us. We did not want to be identified as people who have committed that crime. The reason why he was kidnapped is that we were afraid that we would be identified as people who have committed that crime. It would be better if it is known that the incident was committed by a certain organisation, not the individuals. That is my explanation. I don't know whether I have answered you properly.

JUDGE MOTATA: Contrast this with the attacks, counter attacks if I may call it that, of the IFP at Zenzele, I think you said, by the residents who were largely affiliated to the ANC within Daveyton, that when those attacks were done, it was clear that this is a retaliation that the IFP people were attacking people from Daveyton and we look at COSAS, consists of a large number of youths from Daveyton and this attack and hijacking on Mr Kotelo was also done in the evening. How would people know the individuals because this wasn't done during daylight where people could be identified as individuals.

MR MOTHIBE: When you say people would not know because it happened at night, we would know because we were on the offensive at that time and it would be known which groups were fighting at that time and it would be known which group was on the offensive, but the following day it would not be known which individuals were involved. Yes, we were fighting against the IFP and it was known. They also knew that we would retaliate and it was known that the fight was between us and them, so concerning Mr Kotelo's incident, what was important was for us to achieve our goal that we sought to achieve at that time. The comrades would know that this was done by the members of the ANC so when I refer to the people, I refer to the members of the ANC or supporters of the ANC. That is my explanation.

JUDGE MOTATA: I should tell you this that I'm resident in Johannesburg and prior to occupying this acting office I was a practising advocate at the Johannesburg Bar and the papers never alluded to Mr Kotelo as having been involved in conflict which had a political tint, but they spoke of his hijacking and him not being found. Now I'm tell you, the Monday thereof because it carried the story of Mr Kotelo for a week, do you recall that?

MR MOTHIBE: No, I don't know.

JUDGE MOTATA: You did not read the papers to confirm what you've been told by your comrades?


JUDGE MOTATA: Because what you said that his motor vehicle was recovered in the central business district of Johannesburg is true, next to Carlton Centre, that is true. Do you know where the body was dumped after they killed him and shoved him out of the car?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, they said they threw his body out in Daveyton.

JUDGE MOTATA: Do you know precisely where in Daveyton?

MR MOTHIBE: I learned that in Court.

JUDGE MOTATA: You did not want to know from your comrades?

MR MOTHIBE: They just told me that they threw his body in Daveyton.

JUDGE MOTATA: In Court, which was recovered first, his corpse or car?

MR MOTHIBE: It was said that his car was recovered first.

JUDGE MOTATA: That is correct. That's why I said it gained prominence in the papers, according to how you reveal it now. So you still want to say that's political, the manner in which it is unfolding now, even in this hearing?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I still say that.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you very much Mr Mothibe. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Judge Motata. Mr Sandi do you have any questions?

ADV SANDI: Yes, thank you very much Chairman. Mr Mothibe, why did you not tell the Court that the reason why Mr Kotelo was killed, was because he was assisting PASO which was attacking members of your organisation? Why didn't you say that in Court?

MR MOTHIBE: I did not tell the Court about the reasons behind Mr Kotelo's killing, what I said to the Court, I tried to explain the conditions and the situation at that time, I did not give them the reasons.

CHAIRPERSON: But what Mr Sandi wants to know is why didn't you give the reasons? His question was why didn't you tell the Court that Mr Kotelo was assisting the PASO?

MR MOTHIBE: I was answering the questions, the way they were put to me in Court. I didn't get the opportunity. Had I told the reasons surrounding Mr Kotelo's killing, I would have been implicated in his killing.

ADV SANDI: Okay. Let's go back to the reasons for the murder of Mr Kotelo. Having listened to your evidence from yesterday, would I be correct to say that you did not care to confirm whether those allegations about him were true or not, am I correct? You didn't care to bother yourself about investigating the truthfulness of those allegations.

MR MOTHIBE: It is because I trusted my fellow comrades. I trusted them very much.

ADV SANDI: And that is the reason you did not care to confirm those allegations, isn't it?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, because they were loyal to me, I was also loyal to them.

ADV SANDI: And what is your attitude today? Do you care to know today whether or not those allegations were true about Mr Kotelo?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, my attitude today has changed because I want to know about Mr Kotelo because today we have to know the truth about what happened at that time.

ADV SANDI: I don't know what evidence is going to be given by Mrs Kotelo, but having listened to the questions that have been put to you by her counsel, it would appear that when she testifies she's going to show that those allegations were not true.

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I did hear that.

ADV SANDI: In the even of Mrs Kotelo testifying to the effect that those allegations about Mr Kotelo were not true, would you accept that Mr Kotelo died because you didn't care to investigate those allegations? Would you accept that?

MR MOTHIBE: What Monica will say, I would listen to her and I would understand why she is saying that because I know it's painful to her. I would not contest what she is going to say because I am also convinced that what I am saying is also the truth. The reason why I didn't do further investigations was that I trusted my fellow comrades, so what she is going to say here, I will understand.

ADV SANDI: Okay. Thank you. Thank you Chairman, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Just briefly Mr Mothibe, was it part of the plan, an integral part of the plan to hi-jack the motor vehicle?

MR MOTHIBE: It was our plan because we did not have a get-away car and that car helped them to reach me in Hillbrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now I'm not a military man and never have been, but I have a bit of difficulty with the logic of the planning. You said that you saw the two policemen and that you believed or heard that they lived in the vicinity, is that correct?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have information that they were the only two policemen who lived in that area?

MR MOTHIBE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was the next nearest policeman to the Kotelo's house after the two victims that are here before us now?

MR MOTHIBE: No, there were no other policemen near.

CHAIRPERSON: And these two policemen were shot in a shebeen, is that right?

MR MOTHIBE: Only one of them.

CHAIRPERSON: In a shebeen?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, that is what I learned, they were shot at the shebeen next to Mr Kotelo's place.

CHAIRPERSON: And there were other people in the shebeen at the time?

MR MOTHIBE: Well I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if there were, would they have known who the other people were? There might have been another policeman there.

MR MOTHIBE: Well, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's what I'm trying to get across. You wouldn't know within an area of 150 metres at that time at the Kotelo's house, that there wasn't any other policeman around. There might have been another policeman walking by, there might have been another policeman visiting somebody, you don't know. It would be impossible to know. Do you agree?

MR MOTHIBE: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, bearing that in mind, what I have difficulty with, with regard to the planning is, you go and hijack a car which may or may not involve the firing of a gun, okay? If a gun's not fired, then there's no risk of being heard by a policeman within 150 metres, yet in your planning, in order to avoid the risk of a shot being fired that may or may not be fired, your comrades expose themselves and go - enter into a shebeen and shoot a policeman, just to avoid that minimal risk. They expose themselves to a risk far greater than the risk they're trying to avoid. What sort of military tactic is that?

MR MOTHIBE: I don't know how to answer this question because those people were involved at that time, I was not present. I don't know what was in their minds, but what I know is that they did what was possible for them to do at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I understand that. Probably the question is better put to your co-applicant. Ms Makhubele, do you have any questions arising out of questions that have been put by members of the Panel?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Mr Mothibe, one of the questions by Judge Motata was the previous conviction referred to by the Judge when you were sentenced in the Kotelo matter, you recall the question that you had a previous conviction?

MR MOTHIBE: Yes, I do remember.

MS MAKHUBELE: According to the bundle, page 54, it would appear that you were sentenced for the Phadi incident prior your sentence on the Kotelo matter. When the Judge referred to a previous conviction, is this not the conviction Her Ladyship was referring to?

MR MOTHIBE: I think she was referring to Mr Phadi's incident, because it appears here in my application forms as well.

MS MAKHUBELE: Okay. Let's proceed then. In your trial, did any of your co-accused testify whether during the trial stage or for mitigation of sentence, that they had been drinking?


MS MAKHUBELE: You said you did not read news reports on the death of Mr Kotelo. Do you normally read newspapers, or did you read newspapers at the time?

MR MOTHIBE: No, I did not read newspapers at that time because I did not have enough time to sit down and read newspapers at that time.

MS MAKHUBELE: I have nothing further.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Makhubele. Mr Makondo, do you have any questions arising out of questions that were put by members of the Panel?

MR MAKONDO: No, Chairperson, thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, do you have any questions arising?

MR MAPOMA: No, Chairperson, no questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you Mr Mothibe, that concludes your evidence.


CHAIRPERSON: Ms Makhubele.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chairperson. May I then present the evidence of Mr Patrick Ndlela?




---------------------------------------------------------------------------PATRICK NDLELA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Makhubele.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Mr Ndlela, how old are you?

MR NDLELA: I'll be 31 years old on the 9th of October.

MS MAKHUBELE: Where do you reside?

MR NDLELA: In Daveyton.

MS MAKHUBELE: You are presently incarcerated at Leeukop Maximum Prison?

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: You are before this Commission to apply for amnesty in respect of an incident where two police officer, Mr Thabo and Mr Zweli, were injured and also Mr Kotelo was killed on the 1st of August 1993?

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: This incident you were convicted of and it's the sentence thereof you are serving at Leeukop Prison?

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: The effective period of sentence is 34 years.

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: Before we come to the incident, can you tell the Committee if at that period 1993 and at Daveyton you were - whether you were a member of any political organisation?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I was a member.

MS MAKHUBELE: Which organisation and what was your position?

MR NDLELA: I was a member of the ANC Youth League. I was an additional member.

MS MAKHUBELE: Prior ...(intervention)

JUDGE MOTATA: Could you clear that up what he means by additional member?

MR NDLELA: And additional member is a person who occupied any position in the event of a shortage.

JUDGE MOTATA: A shortage in what?

MR NDLELA: Such as the Chairperson, or the Secretary.

JUDGE MOTATA: Oh you mean in the Executive Committee of the ANC Youth League?

MR NDLELA: Yes, that is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Ms Makhubele.

MS MAKHUBELE: How long ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry just before you proceed, sorry to interrupt Ms Makhubele. You're just applying for the incident that took place on the 1st of August, namely the incident involving the shooting, the injury of Messrs Thabo and Zweli and the killing of Mr Kotelo, is that right?

MR NDLELA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just looking - yes. So you're not going to be concerned at all with - you weren't involved in that - you weren't part of that 500 or 600 in the group who attacked the IFP camp?

MR NDLELA: No, I was not part of that, I was at Thema.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Sorry Ms Makhubele, if you could just continue.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. Maybe a further clearing up on what incidents, Mr Ndlela, did you complete the application form yourself, that's form 1, page 58 of the bundle?

MR NDLELA: No, one of my comrades was helping me out at Modderbee Prison.

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you know if this comrade understood the questions which he - is it a he or a she?

MR NDLELA: It's a he. You see we don't have mixed sexes in the prison.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. Because - so do you know if this person understood the questions in that he was supposed to help you fill in the form?

MR NDLELA: Yes, he understood the questions but I cannot say how he was writing, I cannot.

CHAIRPERSON: You see it says here:

"We were fighting against gangsters and criminals at the locations"

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, gangsters and PASO.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but I mean - all right. And then you mention the person being killed as being Erasmus Rasta Mawele in the application form, page 60.

MR NDLELA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, carry on.

MS MAKHUBELE: On this clearing up, this Erasmus Rasta Mawele you referred to on page 60 of the bundle and also Makana Moloi, also page 60 and Skeer also on page 60, have these people been killed or can you just tell us what they are in relation to your involvement in any incident?

MR NDLELA: Rasta Mawele died. Makana Moloi and Skeer Zwane are my comrades, they are still alive, but yes, they were part of the incident where Rasta Mawele was killed.

MS MAKHUBELE: But Rasta Mawele was not killed by you, you're not applying for amnesty for his death?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I did not kill him. He was killed by PASO members.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. How long had you been a member of the ANC Youth League before 1 August 93?

MR NDLELA: I was a member of ANC Youth League from 1986.

MS MAKHUBELE: You are not, or were not a member of MK?

MR NDLELA: No, I've never been outside the country, I've always been here.

ADV SANDI: Are you sure you were a member of the ANC Youth League in 1996?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I'm sure.

ADV SANDI: But wasn't that a banned organisation at the time? Are you not talking about some other organisation?

MR NDLELA: Yes, it was banned but we were operating under COSAS, but yes, it was the Youth League.

ADV SANDI: You were a member of COSAS in 1986, are you saying that?

MR NDLELA: Yes, because I was still at school.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. How far did you go at school?

MR NDLELA: Standard 6.

ADV SANDI: When did you leave school?

MR NDLELA: In 1987.

MS MAKHUBELE: The period you're referring to as having been a member of ANC Youth League, or COSAS, you were still at primary school.

MR NDLELA: I was at high school.

MS MAKHUBELE: And furthermore, Mr Ndlela, if you can just clarify. Your level of understanding of politics, how would you describe it?

MR NDLELA: I understand politics, but yes it's true, there are some things that I do not understand.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. Going back to 1993 at Tokoza, what was the situation.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about Tokoza?

MS MAKHUBELE: I'm sorry, I don't know why I think of Tokoza. At Daveyton, how would you describe it?

MR NDLELA: The situation was bad, people were being killed. You wouldn't move about alone, you had to be in groups to move around.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who was fighting who?

MR NDLELA: PASO was fighting against COSAS and it was this fight again between the IFP and the ANC.

MS MAKHUBELE: And you as the Youth League, where were you in all this?

MR NDLELA: We were affected because PASO was killing our students.

JUDGE MOTATA: Why do you refer to them as gangsters?

"We were fighting gangsters, which called themselves PASO".

Was PASO not, were they not students but affiliated to the philosophy of the PAC?

MR NDLELA: Yes, some were students and some were not. As far as I saw them, I perceived them to be gangsters.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now the period 1993, when you were within the ANC, did you still regard them as gangsters?

MR NDLELA: Yes, the students were PASO members, yes, those are affiliates to the PAC and there were others who were not students and all that they were doing was against what PASO was standing for.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you, you may proceed.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. You said you as ANC Youth League, what role did you play in this conflict?

MR NDLELA: The ANC Youth League was patrolling the township and guarding the community.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you know or do you know your co-applicant Mr Mothibe?


MS MAKHUBELE: For how long have you known him?

MR NDLELA: I knew him before he went to exile.

MS MAKHUBELE: Can you tell the Committee specifically about the incident of the 1st of August 93 and the surrounding circumstances before the incident?

MR NDLELA: The situation was quite bad. People were being killed and there were meetings convened and attended to address the death of comrades.

MS MAKHUBELE: Proceed please.

MR NDLELA: We decided to do something. We didn't want to die without doing anything about it.

MS MAKHUBELE: Can you tell us what led to that incident?

MR NDLELA: Meetings were held and Mr Kotelo's name was mentioned now and then and it was alleged that he was assisting these people with transport and in many other ways and there was also another one who was also involved.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say he was assisting these people, are you referring to PASO members or supporters?

MR NDLELA: Yes, he was assisting PASO.

MS MAKHUBELE: Were you present in this meeting where Mr Kotelo's name came forward?


MS MAKHUBELE: Do you know the person who gave that information?


MS MAKHUBELE: Who was it?

MR NDLELA: Makana Moloi.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did this...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I just wanted to find out what position Makana Moloi held in the community.

MR NDLELA: He was in charge of the Martials and the SDUs.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did this Makana Moloi say in that meeting where he got the information from?

MR NDLELA: Yes, he did indicate that they captured one person who gave them this information.

MS MAKHUBELE: But the person captured was not in the meeting, this was a report by Makana Moloi.


MS MAKHUBELE: What decision was reached in that meeting about this issue?

MR NDLELA: A decision was made to the effect that we had to do something, that is why a platoon was created to take care of the situation.

MS MAKHUBELE: What do you mean by a platoon?

MR NDLELA: A unit.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who formed the unit?

MR NDLELA: My comrade here next to me and other comrades including Fanie.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who were the unit members?

MR NDLELA: I volunteered to be part of the unit. Colin Mashego, Dingane Molefe and Fanie as well as my comrade here next to me.

MS MAKHUBELE: Can you clarify this, did he form the unit or was he part of the unit, your comrade next to you?

MR NDLELA: He participated in the establishment of the unit as a Commander because himself, as well as Fanie and a few others, were repatriated exiles so we placed our trust in them and we trusted that they will make sure that we succeed.

CHAIRPERSON: So the first applicant, Mr Mothibe, was he the Commander of the unit or did it have more than one Commander?

MR NDLELA: Yes, he was a Commander.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say a Commander, we know that people who belonged to MK were all trained and considered themselves Commanders in that they had to take care of situations as and when they arose, but I want to know of that unit, who was the Commander? Who was the single Commander of that unit or were there more than one Commander in that unit?

MR NDLELA: There were two Commanders.

CHAIRPERSON: So the other one was Fanie?


MS MAKHUBELE: What were the instructions given to you by the Commander?

CHAIRPERSON: When you say the Commander, you better start identifying which one, because he's just said there were two.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes. Thank you Mr Chairperson. Were these Commanders acting simultaneously or you would get instructions from one of them at different times?

MR NDLELA: They worked in unison so that one would not issue an instruction without the knowledge of the other.

MS MAKHUBELE: In terms of giving instruction, who gave - who acted between Fanie and Mr Mothibe?

MR NDLELA: Mothibe, or should I say the person who was very close to the platoon was Fanie.

JUDGE MOTATA: Ms Makhubele, let me get clarity on this. Two incidents have been referred to, if we have regard to 9(c)(i) and (ii) and you look at page 62, the question asked is:

"If so, state particulars of such order or approval at the date thereof and if known, the name and address of the persons who gave the approval"

and then (ii) says:

"Skeer Zwane gave the approval."

That is the killing of the police, or shooting of the police rather, I beg your pardon. What is the position here because now we've got these Commanders Fanie and Mothibe?

MR NDLELA: I noticed the problem and the person here did not fill in the information as I wanted him to.

JUDGE MOTATA: How would the person filling in the application on your behalf know about Skeer Zwane?

MR NDLELA: In some instances he would ask me which people among my comrades were close to me and I will tell him names and he will write down and I did not make sure that he was filling in information in right columns.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. This Makana Moloi and Skeer which you mention here, are they the same people you indicated earlier on that they were actually your comrades who knew about the death of Erasmus Mawele?

MR NDLELA: Yes because Erasmus died when he was in their company.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. I had asked you who between Fanie and Mothibe gave instructions as to what is to be done about the Kotelo matter.

MR NDLELA: Mr Edward Mothibe instructed Fanie because he was not going to be available.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you personally get instructions from Mr Mothibe about what is to be done?

MR NDLELA: No, not me directly, he instructed Fanie.

MS MAKHUBELE: According to Fanie, what were the instructions?

MR NDLELA: The instructions were to the effect that seeing that Mothibe was not going to be available, Fanie will be in charge of the platoon and anything that he instructed had to be followed.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did he tell you what had to be done or what was supposed to be done?

MR NDLELA: Yes, he told us what should be done.

MS MAKHUBELE: Before I come to that Mr Ndlela can you just clarify, are you saying that you never got actual instructions from Mr Mothibe? That is, there has never been a situation where you and the other platoon members, as you call them, or unit members talked to Mr Mothibe about what is to be done with Kotelo?

MR NDLELA: That was discussed in a meeting. There were several of us. That was at a general meeting where we were discussing the situation in the township and the people with whom we had to deal.

MS MAKHUBELE: After the unit was identified, was it not put aside and given instructions other than at the meeting?

MR NDLELA: Yes, we received instructions from Fanie.

MS MAKHUBELE: But not from Mothibe?

MR NDLELA: No, he did not brief us. The one person who briefed us was Fanie because he is the one who was going to accompany us.

MS MAKHUBELE: So according to Fanie, what did Mothibe tell him to tell you?

MR NDLELA: He told us that Mothibe had provided him with firearms but he was not in a position to give us the firearms during the day, but we were going to get these in the evening on our way out to the mission and we are going to a place where we're going to meet two policemen and we had to look out for them and we did that.

MS MAKHUBELE: Why were you to look out for the two policemen and who are they?

MR NDLELA: The police had to be monitored because they resided around Kotelo's house. The one person whom I knew was a police person and resided next to Kotelo's was Lucky.

MS MAKHUBELE: Why were you to look for them and what were you supposed to do with them or to them?

MR NDLELA: We had to make sure that they do not interrupt us and we had to get them out of our way if that was necessary.

JUDGE MOTATA: If I may interpose, who told you about this policeman whom you knew who lived next to Lucky, who lived next to the Kotelo's? Who told you that?

MR NDLELA: Fanie said there are policeman next to Kotelo's household. I knew this other one, Lucky.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now when you spoke about the police, you already knew that there was Lucky who was living next to the Kotelo's, when Fanie said that to you?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I knew Lucky, we grew up together.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Ms Makhubele.

MS MAKHUBELE: What were you - you said you were supposed to make sure they don't disrupt you in your mission. What was your mission?

MR NDLELA: Our mission was to eliminate Mr Kotelo.

MS MAKHUBELE: What time did you go to carry out your instructions on that day?

MR NDLELA: We arrived there at round about past eight in the evening, that is if I'm not mistaken.

MS MAKHUBELE: Arrived where?

MR NDLELA: We went to Mojali Street at Skodipola and there were many people, it looked like there was a function going on and we realised that we couldn't take that route and we took a detour. We went through Madela street and it was suggested that we should take a shortcut to the main road via Island and in the shortcut that we took, there was a shebeen.

MS MAKHUBELE: By the way, how many were you?

MR NDLELA: There were six of us.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who is the sixth person, because the unit comprised of five people.

JUDGE MOTATA: Put it the other way round because Mr Mothibe wouldn't have been present. There would be four because the unit consisted of five. He wasn't present.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so who were the six that you were with?

MR NDLELA: We were accompanied by two family comrades.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was yourself, Fanie, Colin, Fanie.

MR NDLELA: It was myself, Fanie, Colin as well as Dingane and Maggie as well as Maripane.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, who was Maggie?

MR NDLELA: Maggie is the one who was turned State Witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Was she anybody's girlfriend?

MR NDLELA: She was Edward's girlfriend.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you call the first applicant as Edward within the unit?

MR NDLELA: No, we called him Skutchu Stimela.

CHAIRPERSON: And who was Maripane?

MR NDLELA: Maripane is one other family comrade.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but what do you mean family comrade?

MR NDLELA: A female comrade.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you take them along?

MR NDLELA: There were two of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but we've heard that there were four guns and now you're taking extra people, did they have firearms?

MR NDLELA: No they were not armed.

CHAIRPERSON: yes, but now the question is why did the unit, they weren't part of the unit, why did the unit ...(indistinct - talking simultaneously)

MR NDLELA: They were not part of the unit but they played a role seeing that we were on our mission.

CHAIRPERSON: This is what I'm asking you. Why did you take them along?

MR NDLELA: They were going to stage a front so that we are not suspected. The police were patrolling at night and they would search us and they will tell the police that we are going to a night vigil or going for some choral practices.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Makhubele.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chair. So you were saying you got to near the shebeen when I interrupted you, can you proceed?

MR NDLELA: Yes, that was at Madela street, next to Kotelo's house and as we were to walk through to the other side, we realised that Lucky was present. He was very light in complexion, similar to that of the coloured people and we didn't know whether they were in possession of firearms or not and Fanie suggested that we should get inside and disarm them. Indeed we went inside. We called Lucky outside and we searched him and he was not in possession of a firearm and we also called Zweli who was in his company and we did not get any firearm from him and we then proceeded and along the way, one of the comrades said: "Look, we cannot just let these people go after frisking them" and he said it might as well be that they gave their firearms to the shebeen owner.

CHAIRPERSON: Who said that?


MS MAKHUBELE: When you saw Lucky, where was he, because you say you then entered the shebeen?

MR NDLELA: Actually it was a thoroughfare from the shebeen street to the other street so that's the route we took.

MS MAKHUBELE: Was he in or outside the - or is the shebeen in an open area?

MR NDLELA: It's an ordinary formed house in a built-up area but then there was this thoroughfare from one street to the other.

MS MAKHUBELE: Was he in or outside the house?

MR NDLELA: No, he was outside.

MS MAKHUBELE: But when you went to search him and Ernest, was he still outside or inside?

MR NDLELA: We saw him as he was moving into the house. We went inside and brought him back outside, searched him and found nothing. We asked as to who was in his company,. He pointed out that he was in the company of Zweli. We brought him outside, frisked him and found nothing and then we proceeded to the other street and then along the way Fanie said: "Look, we should go back to those people because we don't know whether they gave the firearms to the shebeen owner or they left their firearms at home, so they should be shot in case they disrupt us."

MS MAKHUBELE: Then you went back specifically to shoot them?


MS MAKHUBELE: What happened then?

MR NDLELA: We went inside. Fanie stood at the door and three of us went inside, that was myself, Dingane and Colin. Dingane shot Mr Zweli, the one sitting over there and Colin shot Lucky.

JUDGE MOTATA: Between the two - sorry Ms Makhubele, between the two, who is Zweli and who is Lucky? Could you point them out to us because we don't know them, we just know there are two victims over there and we are informed they are police.

MR NDLELA: Mr Zweli is the one who is present today and Lucky is not here today.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is Mr Zweli there? Mr Zweli, could you just put your hand up please? Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Mr Zweli is sitting next to Mr Makondo.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you.

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you remember how many times and on which part of their bodies they were shot?

MR NDLELA: I cannot say exactly on which part of the body they were shot, but five shots rang at the scene.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you do anything yourself?

MR NDLELA: I was standing at the dining room door waiting for anybody who would attempt to leave.

CHAIRPERSON: With what sort of firearms were they shot, was it AK7's or hand guns?

MR NDLELA: Hand guns.

MS MAKHUBELE: Were there other patrons inside that house?

MR NDLELA: Pardon?

MS MAKHUBELE: Other shebeen, other people in the shebeen?

MR NDLELA: Yes, but there were not many of them, there could have been three of them so that in all there were five of them including the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient time to take the tea adjournment, Ms Makhubele?


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take a twenty minute tea adjournment, thank you.





CHAIRPERSON: Ms Makhubele.


Mr Ndlela why was it necessary for you to go back to shoot them when you had already ascertained they do not have firearms?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it perhaps - did you hear the question Mr Ndlela, or do you want Ms Makhubele - if you could just repeat your question Ms Makhubele.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. Why was it necessary for your unit to go back and shoot the two police officers when you have already ascertained they do not have firearms?

MR NDLELA: The instruction came from our Commander at the time.



MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, then let's proceed to Kotelo's home, what happened there?

MR NDLELA: After leaving the shebeen we were just a short distance away from Kotelo's home and when we got there it was dark and there was nobody in sight and after some time a white car appeared and Fanie said: "Yes, what we have been waiting for is going to happen now" and indeed we went and as Mr Kotelo was opening the gate, we came, held him and put him in the car and on the way Fanie said Kotelo should stop the car. He took Mr Kotelo out, shot him and we then left him on the scene and drove to Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Was Mr Kotelo alone when he was ....

MR NDLELA: No, he was with this lady and a child.

MS MAKHUBELE: The lady, you're referring to the wife who is before this Committee?


MS MAKHUBELE: And how old was this child?

MR NDLELA: I cannot say, but it was a small child.

MS MAKHUBELE: A toddler, a teenager?

MR NDLELA: It was still a small baby.

CHAIRPERSON: And sorry, what happened with the wife and the child?

MR NDLELA: They were left at the Kotelo premises.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they also get out of the car when the deceased got out or were they forced out of the vehicle? What are you saying? You said that the vehicle arrived and Mr Kotelo got out, opened the gate and you went to him and dragged him into the car.

MR NDLELA: They had already gotten out of the car, they were standing outside.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Makhubele.

MS MAKHUBELE: After accosting Mr Kotelo, were you still with these two women? So then you would be seven in the car.

MR NDLELA: Yes, they were still there and there were seven of us now.

ADV SANDI: Just to ask one thing. How long had you been waiting there before Mr Kotelo and his family arrived?

MR NDLELA: It could have been just less than five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what sort of vehicle was it? Was it - do you know what type, was it a sedan, was it a ...(intervention)

MR NDLELA: It was a white Camry.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who drove it?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not active.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who drove it?

MR NDLELA: Colin Mashego.

MS MAKHUBELE: And when the car stopped, who shot Mr Kotelo?


MS MAKHUBELE: What did you do with him?

MR NDLELA: He left him on the scene and we drove away.


MR NDLELA: We went to Johannesburg.

MS MAKHUBELE: What happened to his car? What happened to it? Where did you leave it?

MR NDLELA: We left the vehicle in Johannesburg and Fanie said nothing should be taken from it.

MS MAKHUBELE: Johannesburg where?

MR NDLELA: I have difficulty in saying because I am not quite familiar with Johannesburg.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you take anything from his person, from Mr Kotelo's person?

MR NDLELA: No. One person who got him out of the car was Fanie and nothing was taken off his person.

ADV SANDI: Did any one of you say anything to Mr Kotelo before he was shot?

MR NDLELA: I cannot say much because the one person who spoke to him was Fanie.

ADV SANDI: What did he say to him?

MR NDLELA: He said he should get out of the car and he followed him and a fire, a shot was released.

ADV SANDI: Are you sure? Is that all that was said to him?


CHAIRPERSON: Do you know why he wasn't questioned about his activities relating to the assistance of PASO?

MR NDLELA: I cannot say.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Makhubele.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chair. Were you all arrested for this incident?


MS MAKHUBELE: Including Fanie?

MR NDLELA: Fanie was not found, only three of us were arrested.

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you know or did you know Fanie's full names?

MR NDLELA: No, I only knew the name Fanie.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you hear how the two police officers were injured in Court?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I heard that one of them is no longer able to walk and the other one was not badly injured, that is Lucky.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you see Mothibe again after you had left the motor vehicle in Jo'burg?

MR NDLELA: No, I only saw him in the township.

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you know if any of your unit members saw him that evening?

MR NDLELA: Yes, some of us went to him, like Fanie for example.

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you know the purpose thereof?

MR NDLELA: No, I cannot.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you gain anything, benefit, for this incident, say given an award, paid money, or in any other way benefited?

MR NDLELA: No, I did not benefit because we were not being paid.

MS MAKHUBELE: What can you say to this Committee as well as the victims before it, Mrs Kotelo, who has lost her husband as well as Mr Zweli sitting there? You have heard in Court he cannot walk, you have seen him here, he is being carried around. What can you say to them?

MR NDLELA: I would like to apologise and if I had powers, I would do something and my sincere apologies to Mrs Kotelo and Zweli.

MS MAKHUBELE: Evidence-in-chief.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Makhubele. Mr Makondo do you have any questions you'd like to put to Mr Ndlela?

MR MAKONDO: Yes, Chairperson, I do.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAKONDO: Mr Ndlela, you said that you lived or you grew up in Daveyton, is it correct?


MR MAKONDO: And you said you knew Lucky?

MR NDLELA: Yes, we grew up together.

MR MAKONDO: And you said you also knew that Lucky was residing not far from the Kotelo's house?


MR MAKONDO: I take it therefore that when your Commanders talk of the two policemen who are residing next to the Kotelos you only knew of one and you were sure there was no one else.

MR NDLELA: Yes, I only knew Lucky.

MR MAKONDO: I take it therefore that when the second person was shot, you knew that if he's a policeman at all, he does not reside around the Kotelo's house?

MR NDLELA: Zweli resided at Lucky's household.

MR MAKONDO: And where you found them at the shebeen, according to my instructions it was at Lucky's house, what do you say about that?

MR NDLELA: No, Lucky resided at Mojali and we found them at Madela Street.

MR MAKONDO: When you went back to shoot these people, after you had satisfied yourself that they don't have firearms, in what way were you going to achieve your aim of them not be obstacles?

MR NDLELA: Unfortunately I cannot, I'm not in the position to answer that because we followed an instruction form our Commander at the time.

MR MAKONDO: You said you were never a member of the MK, correct?

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

MR MAKONDO: Therefore when you talk of the Commander, the person who was in charge, you are not talking in terms of military discipline, because you were never a member of that department.

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

MR MAKONDO: You also said that you were a member of COSAS when you were at High School.


MR MAKONDO: And later became a member of the ANC Youth League.


MR MAKONDO: I take it therefore you knew that both COSAS and PASO had one common enemy, the then regime of the apartheid.

MR NDLELA: Yes, that is correct, but some things led into - some things led to them being in loggerheads.

MR MAKONDO: Therefore you knew that if any PASO member or COSAS member was to appear in Court charged with political activity was against your common enemy, am I correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Not necessarily. I mean what if you had a case involving a matter where a member of PASO killed a member of COSAS and now he's been charged with the murder of a COSAS member?

MR MAKONDO: Correct, Chairperson, but I was talking not in a criminal term, but in terms of political, if one is accused of a political activity or a political action, not a criminal act.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you can just rephrase it, home it in, because it was a little bit general the way it was put.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. You therefore knew that if any member of either COSAS or PASO is charged with a political offence, it was against your common enemy, of both you COSAS and PASO?

MR NDLELA: You see that is a different matter altogether in relation to what we were fighting for.

MR MAKONDO: Do you know any case, a court case whereby Mr Kotelo represented a PASO person?

MR NDLELA: No unfortunately I didn't know that. That only was mentioned at the meeting by other comrades.

MR MAKONDO: As a resident of Daveyton, did you know of any other activity where Mr Kotelo was seen associating himself with PASO?

MR NDLELA: No I did not know that, I only heard about that at the meeting.

MR MAKONDO: Do you know of any incident where perhaps Dr Skosana was seen associating himself with PASO?

MR NDLELA: I had not seen him to date, I only know his name.

MR MAKONDO: How did you know your co-applicant prior to him going to exile?

MR NDLELA: We were involved in the struggle together.

MR MAKONDO: You said that the assistance amongst others that Mr Kotelo did according to your information was to help PASO with transport, am I correct?

MR NDLELA: Yes, financially as well.

MR MAKONDO: Was this information, did you get this information from one meeting where you co-applicant was?

MR NDLELA: Yes, but this had been raised in three or several meetings prior to that.

ADV SANDI: Can I just come in here? When you say he was providing them with transport as well, do you mean to say that he was personally transporting them with his vehicle? Can you explain that?

MR NDLELA: No, I did not see him transporting the people using his vehicle, but the information that I got was that he was helping them in whatever way they wanted.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. And do you remember in which of the meetings that you held - do you remember in which meeting was it decided that Mr Kotelo, or the alleged Dr Skosana, should be eliminated?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I still recall.

MR MAKONDO: Which one is that?

MR NDLELA: It was a meeting that was held at Davey Secondary School.

MR MAKONDO: Can you perhaps remember the time period, even if not the exact date?

MR NDLELA: I cannot recall the time, but it was in the evening, early in 1993. It was before May.

MR MAKONDO: Do you remember after how long did you execute that plan?

MR NDLELA: It was - I am ...

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't get the answer.

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, I'm trying to - a month had lapsed.

MR MAKONDO: You said that you volunteered as a member of the unit. Who else volunteered?

MR NDLELA: Colin, Colin also volunteered, Dingane also, Fanie as well as Stimela.

MR MAKONDO: Are you therefore meaning that as members you were not selected, you actually volunteered?

MR NDLELA: Yes, we were not selected, we volunteered because we were very much concerned about the situation.

MR MAKONDO: You were here and it was interpreted to you what your co-applicant was saying, am I correct?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I heard, but not all of it because he is speaking Sotho.

MR MAKONDO: Wasn't that interpreted to you in Zulu?

MR NDLELA: No, only English and Sotho.

MR MAKONDO: He said ...

JUDGE MOTATA: May I just interpose? May we request the interpreters to interpret in Sotho as well for Mr Mothibe to be able to follow what Mr Ndlela is saying?

INTERPRETER: That is certainly in place, Chairperson.

MR MAKONDO: Mr Ndlela, Mr Mothibe said he was given the task to form the unit and he picked the members of the unit, contrary to what you're saying. What do you say about that?

MR NDLELA: I would not dispute that.

MR MAKONDO: Do you agree with me that volunteering is different from when one is picked or selected?

MS MAKHUBELE: Mr Chairperson, I just want to object here. I don't recall a word picked being used. According to my recollection, he formed a unit comprising of ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I can't recall myself the exact precise words that were used.

MS MAKHUBELE: So if he says he formed a unit comprising of the manner in which it was formed, whether the people volunteered, they were selected, they were picked, it was not put before this Committee.

ADV SANDI: Yes, my recollection is that he used the word formed, he formed a unit, but how he went - as to how exactly he went about establishing that unit, was not canvassed with him, whether these people, he selected them himself, or they volunteered, that was not specifically canvassed with him.

MR MAKONDO: On that basis Chairperson I'll withdraw that question.


MR MAKONDO: But Mr Ndlela, your co-applicant said it was his initiative to form the unit, relative to the volunteering that they're talking about. What do you say about that?

INTERPRETER: May the question please be repeated?

MR MAKONDO: Mr Mothibe said it was his initiative to form the unit contrary to you saying members volunteered, what do you say about that?

MR NDLELA: No, that is not in contrast with what I am saying because I volunteered to participate in the unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think Mr Makondo, earlier you were questioning him about not being a member of the military and not being subject to the command because he wasn't a member of the MK. Bearing that in mind, I think any participation by him in a unit would certainly to an extent involve an element of volunteering because it wasn't the army.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Mothibe, your co-applicant, also said that he was the Commander and you're saying there were two Commanders acting in unison and you also said that Fanie was actually the person who was close to the unit, now what is your response to him saying he was the Commander of the unit?

MR NDLELA: I would not dispute that because like I was saying, they worked in unison.

MR MAKONDO: I want to come to your instructions prior to going to the Kotelo's house. Was it your instructions to abduct him?

MR NDLELA: The instruction was that we should play safe.

MR MAKONDO: Was it your instructions to kill him?

MR NDLELA: Yes, that was an instruction.

MR MAKONDO: Was it your instructions to shoot the police?

MR NDLELA: Yes, that was known, it was known that there were going to be police around Kotelo's or in the neighbourhood.

MR MAKONDO: Since you knew Lucky, do you know if Lucky was already - had you seen Lucky associating with Mr Kotelo?

MR NDLELA: No, I had not seen him speak to Mr Kotelo?

MR MAKONDO: Do you know of any incident where Lucky defended Mr Kotelo's position?


MR MAKONDO: How did you come to the conclusion that at that time he would do that?

JUDGE MOTATA: I think in all fairness ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously) In all fairness the tenor of the evidence was that if they attack Kotelo, because they were in the vicinity, they would hear probably a gunshot or so, not necessarily that they were cohorting in some way with Mr Kotelo, they were just living in the vicinity, I think that's the tenor of the evidence thus far, in fairness to the witness.

MR MAKONDO: Chairperson, the witness, the surrounding of the place where Kotelo was living, the witness knew Lucky, the police, and that is the reason why I asked those reasons, personally to get information from him, ...(indistinct) than the instructions. If I could proceed. You said that you had these two females who were playing front, am I correct?

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

MR MAKONDO: And that was not part of the planning, am I correct?

MR NDLELA: It was part of the planning because the Commander is the one who brought these people along.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when you say the Commander, I'd prefer it if you could use Fanie or Mothibe.

MR NDLELA: I'm referring to Fanie because he's the one who was present at the time, in charge of the unit.

MR MAKONDO: What role did they play that day, these two females?

MR NDLELA: Their role was that if we happen to come across the police, we would create a story that we were going to a choral practice, or to a vigil, night vigil, because there were people patrolling the area at the time.

ADV SANDI: Did they know you were on the way to attack Mr Kotelo?

MR NDLELA: No, they didn't know, they were not told.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chair. You said in your evidence that you got Mr Kotelo at the gate and contrary to my instructions, you got him inside the premises in the front door, what do you say about that? Back door, sorry.

MR NDLELA: No, we found him at the gate because the vehicle was still in the street.

MR MAKONDO: As I put it to your co-applicant, my instructions are that there were items taken from his person, a bundle of keys, his leather jacket, his wallet and his watch, what do you say about that?

MR NDLELA: I did not see any leather jacket. The keys, yes we took them because these were going to be used to start the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Makondo. What ultimately happened with the keys? Were they left in the car when it was abandoned in Jo'burg, or were they taken?

MR NDLELA: The keys were left in the vehicle in Johannesburg. We locked the keys inside because we didn't have to take anything from the vehicle.

ADV SANDI: Before you proceed, just for information, these items you've just mentioned, were they recovered? What happened?

MR MAKONDO: Chairperson I'm informed that the watch and the wallet were never recovered, only the leather jacket was mentioned in Court, that it was sold. I think one of the co-accused. Thank you Chair. So I'm saying according to my instructions you went outside, you left from the premises - you left without him from the premises and you came back for him because you said you could not start the car, is that correct?

MR NDLELA: No that is not correct. We started the vehicle with ease because it didn't have an immobiliser

MR MAKONDO: Do you know who started it?

MR NDLELA: Colin did.

MR MAKONDO: Also it is said that when you came for the second time, Mr Kotelo said he did not resist to go and start the car for you, only he pleaded for his life, is that correct?

MR NDLELA: No, we didn't come back for the second time, we only came once and left.

MR MAKONDO: When you, according to your version, when you abducted Mr Kotelo, when you went for him, you said his wife and child were in the house, where was he? In the premises, where was he?

MR NDLELA: Not in the house. They had got out of the vehicle and they were getting into the yard and Mr Kotelo was opening the gate to get the car into the yard.

JUDGE MOTATA: If I may interpose just there. When he opened the gate, was the car switched off, that the is the engine, or was it still idling?

MR NDLELA: It was switched off because apparently the gate, the keys to the gate were in the same bunch of keys, bundle of keys, as that of the vehicle.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chair. And you said you don't know where, which area of Daveyton was the deceased dumped, is that correct?

MR NDLELA: I know very well because I was there.

MR MAKONDO: Where was it dumped?

MR NDLELA: Between Mandela and Emapupene squatter camp.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Ndlela, the place where the deceased's body was left, was it a built-up place, was it left on the street? Was the body out of sight from the road? If you could just describe the area where the body was, or where Mr Kotelo was ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously)

MR NDLELA: It's an area that is surrounded by shacks, the Mandela squatter camp and the Emapupene squatter camps, it's just on the side of the road.

MR MAKONDO: Is it also correct to say that ...(indistinct - mike turned off)

ADV SANDI: This, I'm afraid I might forget this question. This idea of kidnapping or taking Mr Kotelo along with, had it been mentioned before?

MR NDLELA: Yes, it was mentioned.

ADV SANDI: Where was that?

MR NDLELA: At the last meeting, the last briefing where we were to receive firearms, but at a later stage.

ADV SANDI: Was any reason given for the kidnapping?

MR NDLELA: Yes, a reason was furnished.

ADV SANDI: What reason was given?

MR NDLELA: To derail any investigation or to cover all tracks.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: You said when you left the car where you dumped it, the place that you don't remember, you said Lucky gave the instruction that nothing must be taken from the car. Do you know why did he give that instruction?




MR MAKONDO: Why did he give such an instruction?

MR NDLELA: It is because we didn't go there for a criminal robbery, we wanted to carry out our mission as we have planned.

MR MAKONDO: Before he could say this, was there anyone who attempted to take something from the car perhaps?

MR NDLELA: Nobody attempted to take anything because Fanie indicated this clearly quite early on.

MR MAKONDO: When did he indicate this?

MR NDLELA: Whilst we were still in the vehicle.

MR MAKONDO: In Court during your trial, it was said that you co-applicant is the one who was driving. Where did the Court get such an information?

MR NDLELA: That was a blue lie. That was a statement that was made by the other one in our company, the one who ultimately became State Witness.

MR MAKONDO: Can you say the name of that person for the record?

MR NDLELA: Meitjie.

MR MAKONDO: What information did you pick in Court which you did not know?

MR NDLELA: There is no information that I came across that I didn't know.

MR MAKONDO: Do you know why you had to wait for Mr Kotelo to come back from his house?

MR NDLELA: I knew.

MR MAKONDO: When did you know that?

MR NDLELA: I knew this during our last meeting.

MR MAKONDO: Are you talking of the meeting of a month before the execution of the act?

MR NDLELA: No. The last briefing session as a unit.

MR MAKONDO: Do you remember when was that before the execution of the mission?

MR NDLELA: It was around 11 in the morning.

MR MAKONDO: Who came with that information?


MR MAKONDO: What information was that?

MR NDLELA: The information was to the effect that Mr Kotelo would come back in the evening and that should be the time when we should carry out the mission.

MR MAKONDO: Would I be right to say when he said evening, he did not specify time?

MR NDLELA: Yes, no mention was made of the time because it was not know when exactly - at what time exactly he was coming back.

MR MAKONDO: The issue of going to Pretoria, did you know about it before you heard it in Court?

MR NDLELA: I heard about this Pretoria issue during the platoon session.

MR MAKONDO: So you heard it from Fanie also?


MR MAKONDO: Mr Ndlela, Mrs Kotelo when she gives evidence, she's going to say that the car, yes, was left outside, but she and her late husband and the child, they were already in the yard when you confronted them.

MR NDLELA: No, that is not correct. Mr Kotelo was opening the vehicle, it was at night, he could not have left the vehicle in the street and get into his homestead.

MR MAKONDO: She's also going to say that the vehicle was left outside because it was not parked in the yard, it was supposed to be parked three houses away from Kotelo's house. Any comment?

MR NDLELA: No, the vehicle was on the pavement in front of his yard.

MR MAKONDO: She's also going to testify to the effect that it was after three when they got an urgent call to go to Pretoria, so they did not know of going to Pretoria in the morning, what do you say about that?

MR NDLELA: No, I don't know anything about that.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson, that will be all.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Makondo. Mr Mapoma, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, I do.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr Ndlela, did you know Mr Kotelo prior to the day of the incident?


MR MAPOMA: How far is - where do you reside in - where's your home in Meadowlands? I mean in Daveyton?

MR NDLELA: My home is at Keswa, but my aunt stays at Skodi, at Mandela.

MR MAPOMA: Where did you reside?

MR NDLELA: At Keswa.

MR MAPOMA: What is Keswa? Is it a street or a section or what?

MR NDLELA: It's a street in Vergenoeg.

MR MAPOMA: Is that in Daveyton?


MR MAPOMA: And how far is that from Mr Kotelo's place?

MR NDLELA: It's very far.

MR MAPOMA: How did you know Lucky when it is that far, because I understand Lucky stays nearby Mr Kotelo?

MR NDLELA: Yes, that is correct. I knew him because I used to stay at my aunt's place at Skodi, that's where I got to know Lucky.

MR MAPOMA: And how far is that from Mr Kotelo's place, I mean - ja, Skodi?

MR NDLELA: It's not very far.

MR MAPOMA: And how far is that, that is Madela and Skodi from Lucky's home?

MR NDLELA: Madela Street runs through towards Mr Kotelo's house and then ...(indistinct) runs through to the squatter camp, Mandela squatter camp.

JUDGE MOTATA: Mr Mapoma if I may interpose here. When you say Madela runs through Kotelo's house, what do you mean? Is it the same street as where Mr Kotelo lives?

MR NDLELA: Madela and Tjali run in confluence towards ...(indistinct)

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson. Did you know Lucky's home?


MR MAPOMA: Now, which one is nearer to each other between Lucky's home and Madela, your aunt and Mr Kotelo's home?

MR NDLELA: Lucky's home is the one nearest to Kotelo's home.

MR MAPOMA: And you say you knew Lucky because you grew up with him?

MR NDLELA: Yes, we grew up together at Skodi because I used to stay at Skodi at my aunt's place at Madela.

MR MAPOMA: Okay. Now I take it that the PAC was in existence in Daveyton, am I correct?

MR NDLELA: Yes, that is correct.

MR MAPOMA: And it had it's leaders operating in that area whom you knew of?

MR NDLELA: The ones that I know of are not elderly, they are our age, it's Skodi and Modi who resided at Ngcoba Street and Berera who resided at Tuatua East. There were several of them that I knew from the PAC.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, now during the meeting that you had about the conflict between PASO and COSAS, is there any member of the PAC who was identified as problematic, who had to be dealt with?

MR NDLELA: Yes, within the youth, but he was evasive, he was always on the run, we couldn't get hold of him.

MR MAPOMA: Who is that?

CHAIRPERSON: What was his name?

MR NDLELA: Berera is the name.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry I didn't hear that.

MR NDLELA: Berera.

MR MAPOMA: And then the other person was Mr Kotelo?

MR NDLELA: I heard that he was assisting them.

ADV SANDI: And is there someone else from the PAC?

MR NDLELA: Yes, the other one about whom I heard was Mr Skosana.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Mapoma, was there ever a decision taken that Berera should be killed?

MR NDLELA: Yes, the Bereras were also people who were wanted, but they were always on the run.

ADV SANDI: Did you try to get hold of them and kill them, is that what you are saying?

MR NDLELA: We used to go out looking for them, but we were not able to get hold of them.

JUDGE MOTATA: When you say we, who are you referring to, your unit, platoon, or are you referring to the ANC Youth League?

MR NDLELA: I'm referring to the ANC Youth League before the formation of the platoon.

JUDGE MOTATA: You may proceed Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson. Now was it alleged that Mr Kotelo was also a PAC member at all?

MR NDLELA: No, it was not alleged but he's one person who was assisting the PAC people.

MR MAPOMA: And you will agree with me that it will be very strange for a card carrying member of the ANC to assist PASO in a conflict between PASO and COSAS, that would be very strange, is it not so?

MR NDLELA: If that is the case, I'm hearing that for the first time.

MR MAPOMA: You are not answering the question. You are not answering my questions. My question is, do you agree with me or not that it would be very strange for a card carrying member of the ANC to assist PASO in a conflict between PASO and COSAS?

MR NDLELA: Yes, that would be very strange.

MR MAPOMA: And I put it to you that Mr Kotelo was a card carrying member of the ANC. Do you dispute that?

MR NDLELA: I cannot dispute that and I would not accept it, because I do not know.

MR MAPOMA: I will make you know. Can I have that card please? Chairperson, for the record I do have a membership card of the ANC which I would like to hand in to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if you could hand it in via Ms Makhubele, so that she can show it to her clients.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us look at it and then you can ...(indistinct - mike not on)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

MS MAKHUBELE: Chairperson, I don't know whether it will be at this stage because both applicants want to comment about the card. I don't know what the position will be because it has been introduced now after the closure of Mothibe's application, whether he will be afforded an opportunity to comment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think so, we're not in a trial here, but perhaps seeing Mr Ndlela's in the box and being questioned about the card, he can comment now on it and we'll give Mr Mothibe if he wants, an opportunity when Mr Ndlela's finished his testimony.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thanks Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: I have no objection Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you've seen the card Mr Ndlela.

MR NDLELA: Yes, I have.


MR MAPOMA: What is your comment to that card?

MR NDLELA: I would like to know as to when this card was obtained.

MR MAPOMA: Yours is to answer questions Sir. You said ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think just for the record, unless I missed it, there doesn't appear to be a date or year on the card. Perhaps just to describe it, it's an ANC membership card, carrying the colours and logo of the ANC, it has the name of the deceased in it, it has a number and it is signed by some person and it's got the birthday of the deceased 1954, I've forgotten the exact date and then it's got on the other page the months of the year contained in a type of calendar form in little squares that has been printed as part of the card but nothing is marked on that.

MR MAPOMA: And it also contains Chairperson, Daveyton Branch, region PWV and membership fee R12-00. The card number Chairperson is 605411.


MR MAPOMA: I may as well, Chairperson, point out that there is no space provided for a date of issue of the membership card.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I was just wondering and it's not evidence now, but looking - what would be the purpose of the months that are set out on the second page?

MR MAPOMA: I wouldn't know Chairperson but there is just a heading Membership Levies."

CHAIRPERSON: Membership Levies, oh so there might, if there were to be a monthly levy to indicate a receipt or something like that. Yes, Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: Mr Ndlela, I thought that you had a comment to make on the card. I'm giving you that opportunity to comment on the card.

MR NDLELA: I would say if the card is issued, it is issued with an issue date and expiry date and it is indicated on the card and it is written on the card every month when you pay your membership fee, but this one I find very strange because it does not indicate when it was issued and the date of registration and it should have an expiry date as well, but I do not see all of those things.

JUDGE MOTATA: But other than that, is it an ANC card?

MR NDLELA: Yes, the colours, yes, are ANC colours, but the contents really do not convince me that this person was a member of the ANC.

JUDGE MOTATA: If you look at the dates on the right-hand side of the card, if they were all for instance marked up to December, wouldn't that be the expiry date?

MR NDLELA: That could be so, but they had to include the date on which the card was issued and the date on which the card was registered or the member was registered.

JUDGE MOTATA: As at this date, that is the 1st October 1993,


JUDGE MOTATA: August, thank you Chairperson. 1st August 1993, you were a member of the ANC Youth League, would I be correct?


JUDGE MOTATA: Were you carrying similar cards?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I have one.

JUDGE MOTATA: The same as ANC?

MR NDLELA: ANC Youth League.

JUDGE MOTATA: What would be yours marked, because to identify that you belonged to the Youth League?

MR NDLELA: It had my membership number and the date on which I registered and the date of issue and the expiry date, because it expires every year and it had to be renewed annually as a member.

JUDGE MOTATA: Wouldn't it have the calendar on the right-hand side?

MR NDLELA: Yes, the calendar was part of it so that that column is ticked every month once you have paid your monthly membership fee. Sometimes you would pay in advance for the whole year and those columns would be filled for the whole year.

JUDGE MOTATA: What I'm saying is that would your card for instance say you joined the ANC on X date and the card would expire on X date, Y date, rather?

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Over and above the calendar on the right-hand side?

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: And what would be that if ...(indistinct) that somebody would immediately notice that you are actually not a member of, if we may call it the adult ANC membership, but you belong to the Youth League of the ANC, what would - would there be any indication of that?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I had my branch number which would be stated on the card, but here I cannot see the branch number.

CHAIRPERSON: The - I think what Judge Motata's asking you, was your card an ANCYL card as opposed to an ANC card? Did it say ANC Youth League, or did it say, was it a card like that?

MR NDLELA: It was a card written ANC, it was not written Youth League.

JUDGE MOTATA: ...(indistinct)

MR NDLELA: Yes, just like that one, but there were certain details which are not applicable or which are not in this card.

JUDGE MOTATA: You had an opportunity to see the signature oft he secretary, do you recognise that signature?

CHAIRPERSON: If you want to look at it again, you can.

MR NDLELA: I would appreciate that.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recognise that signature?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I can see the signature. There's no invoice number but no, I don't know this signature.

JUDGE MOTATA: I'm asking you one simple question. I'm not here to cross-examine you, I just want clarification. Do you only recognise that signature?

MR NDLELA: No, I don't know it.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you know the secretary of the ANC in Daveyton?

MR NDLELA: I don't know whether the same person is still secretary in Daveyton.

JUDGE MOTATA: Mr Ndlela, I think we are all agreed that we speak, as I said earlier, as at the 1st August, 1993, we are speaking of 1993.


JUDGE MOTATA: I know that you are incarcerated, so you wouldn't know precisely what happens outside. Okay?

MR NDLELA: Yes, that is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Yes. I say the secretary, I don't know whether it is a 1993 card or what, but did you know the secretary then?


JUDGE MOTATA: Who was it?


JUDGE MOTATA: Yes, but there's a signature there that contains a surname, it wouldn't sign Oupa.

MR NDLELA: No, that's not the surname of the person that I know as Oupa.

JUDGE MOTATA: It's very simple. I said the surname there, the signature which contains the surname, because firstly up to now you haven't told me who Oupa was, you simply told me Oupa.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is easy. Do you - You either know it or you don't, or you know it partially. Do you know who the secretary of the ANC in the Daveyton branch was during 1993? That's the question. You've said Oupa, but now the question is, do you know what his real name was?

MR NDLELA: Oupa is the real name. He was secretary of the Youth League but I didn't know the surname of the ANC at the high level.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Mapoma.

JUDGE MOTATA: That suffices.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Mapoma, just on this issue. I don't know, maybe you'll be asking him a question on something else. Before this membership card was produced, I understood you to say that you won't dispute that the deceased was a member of the ANC because you know nothing about that, is that still the position?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I still maintain, but there are certain things that throw some doubt on the card.

ADV SANDI: Are you saying you still maintain that you don't dispute that the deceased was ANC?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I cannot dispute that and I cannot accept it at the same time because I'm very sceptical about certain things in the card.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Sir.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson. Were you ever a member of the ANC? A card carrying member of the ANC?

MR NDLELA: I was a card carrying member of the ANC Youth League.

MR MAPOMA: Is it your evidence that the membership card of the ANC Youth League was like this card, which has been, which is ...(indistinct- speaking simultaneously)

MR NDLELA: Yes, it was similar to this one and on registering it is ticked on the right where you have the month column and it is indicated that you registered on this day and you paid so much.

JUDGE MOTATA: What was the registration fee, or membership fee for the ANC?

MR NDLELA: It was R10,00.

MR MAPOMA: For the Youth League or the ANC itself? You were - you said you were a member of the ...(intervention)

MR NDLELA: I'm referring to the Youth League.

JUDGE MOTATA: So the other members who were not members of the Youth League.

MR NDLELA: The amount was not the same.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Ndlela on this one, I'm not trying to be a witness but I would like a comment. I thought the ANC Youth League membership card is a red card outside with an ANC Youth League Logo and not like that one, completely different from that one.

MR NDLELA: I cannot dispute that, maybe those are recent ones.

MR MAPOMA: No, no, when the ANC Youth League was launched in South African, after the South African Youth Congress was disbanded and ANC Youth League came into being, it had a ready card with an ANC Youth League logo outside on the outside cover of it, that's how I understood it. Dispute it if you dispute it, then I'll leave it there.

MR NDLELA: I cannot dispute that but I have never carried such a card.

MR MAPOMA: Is it your evidence that you never carried an ANC Youth League Membership Card which is red?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I've never carried a red one, I've always carried the one similar to the one exhibited here.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, let us leave it there. Now during that day, did you ever meet Mr Mothibe, the day of the 1st August 1993?


MR MAPOMA: Now when the briefing was made, a final briefing before you went to, for the operation, you never met with him?

MR NDLELA: We were together in the morning before he left the firearms with Fanie, I never met him again.

MR MAPOMA: Are you now changing your version? You've just told ...(intervention)

MR NDLELA: No, I'm not, I did not hear you properly. The question I thought was whether I saw Mothibe after the incident.

MR MAPOMA: I heard your evidence, you saying that Mr Kotelo was shot outside his car. Is that correct?

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: Mrs Kotelo's version is that when the car was found, it had bullet holes and there was blood on the back seat of the car, have you got any knowledge of that?

MR NDLELA: No, there were no bullet holes. The only blood that could have been there was Fanie's blood because he too got injured in the process.

CHAIRPERSON: In the process of doing what, Mr Ndlela?

MR NDLELA: When we left the shebeen where there were police, he got cut by a fence in the hand.


MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions. Thank you Mr Ndlela.


CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any re-examination Ms Makhubele?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Mr Ndlela you said you were sceptical about these certain things in the card and you indicated that you - normally there would be dates written. Where in the card would the date be written? Can you just ...

MR NDLELA: They are usually written on the columns with the amounts.

MS MAKHUBELE: So say if it's January, the tick will also indicate if it's January of 1993, or whatever year that would be?

MR NDLELA: They write the year and the month.

MS MAKHUBELE: For the benefit of the Committee, what would be the reason for renewing membership, do you know?

MR NDLELA: The reason behind that is that the card should not expire because when you register you are given a date and it is indicated whether you pay for two months, three months or the whole year.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, other than the financial aspects, is there any reason why a membership card should be renewed, or let me put it, does having a card, is it proof that you are still a member of the organisation?

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: I have nothing further.


CHAIRPERSON: I can't understand your last answer, Mr Ndlela. You say, by a person merely having a card is proof that he is a member, now what would happen if a person joined, got a card and then two months later wrote a letter saying: "I resign from my membership" and he keeps the card for the next 10 years, that doesn't mean he's a member just because he's got a card.

MR NDLELA: The proof to the effect that you are still a member is reflected on the months. If you had resigned, it will not be indicated in the subsequent months, because there will be no ticks.

CHAIRPERSON: One would imagine that a card reflecting current membership would be proof of your membership, in other words there should be some indication that the card is valid.

MR NDLELA: Yes, because you can get hold of the card with no indication that you are a member, with an indication that you are a member, yet there is no proof.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Makhubele.

MS MAKHUBELE: Nothing further, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata, do you have any questions?

JUDGE MOTATA: Just a few Chairperson thank you. Mr Ndlela, during 1988 and 89 were you a member of any organisation?

MR NDLELA: In 1988, 89 up to 1992 on the 24th of September I was in prison.

JUDGE MOTATA: May you just repeat that because I asked you about these two years, 88 and 89?

MR NDLELA: I was in prison during that period.

JUDGE MOTATA: Therefore you were not a member of any organisation? This imprisonment doesn't say you have ceased your membership of the party you're supporting, does it suggest that?

MR NDLELA: Yes, that is correct, but I was not participating because I was now in prison.

JUDGE MOTATA: You said you don't know where the white Camry was abandoned in Johannesburg, do you recall saying so, because you didn't know Johannesburg well?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I don't know Johannesburg very well, but yes the Camry was dropped in Johannesburg.

JUDGE MOTATA: We know that according to your evidence, this incident occurred round about, we could put it between 8 and 9 in the evening, isn't it so? That is the killing of Mr Kotelo and the hijacking.

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: What time did you arrive in Johannesburg, now abandoning the car there?

MR NDLELA: I did not check the time.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now you said after Mr Kotelo was told to get out of the car and shot by Fanie, the six of you proceeded to Johannesburg in the car.

MR NDLELA: Yes, that is correct.

JUDGE MOTATA: Help me, when you abandoned the car, what was the decision? How many people had to go to your co-applicant Mr Mothibe and how many of you had to go back without reporting to Mr Mothibe?

MR NDLELA: People who went to Mothibe were the two females as well as Fanie. Myself and Dingane went to some other place in town.

JUDGE MOTATA: What other place?

MR NDLELA: We went to a flat, the name of which I do not know. We slept there and the following day myself and Dingane went back to the township and the others remained behind in town.


MR NDLELA: Colin Mashego remained behind with Fanie.

CHAIRPERSON: So did Colin go with Fanie to Mothibe's place?


ADV SANDI: Sorry, and the two ladies as well?

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: Does she have a name, you've given us the name of the other one, you said she's ....

MR NDLELA: Yes, I said the names were Maggie and Maripane.

JUDGE MOTATA: So following from what my colleagues have said here, is that now it was only the two of you that slept at this flat?

MR NDLELA: Yes, it was only myself and Dingane and the others went to Fanie. We don't know where they slept.

JUDGE MOTATA: When you woke up in the morning, you couldn't see where you were, where this flat was situated?

MR NDLELA: I identified the place as Braamfontein, near the bridges.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you walk a long distance to this place?

MR NDLELA: Not at all, because there were taxis nearby.

JUDGE MOTATA: So in other words you caught a taxi, don't say there was a taxi nearby. The question - we caught a taxi. Did you catch a taxi?

MR NDLELA: Not when we went to sleep, we only caught a taxi the following morning when we went back to Daveyton.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did it take you - could you approximate how long it took you then to walk to Braamfontein?

MR NDLELA: It did not take us a long time.

JUDGE MOTATA: Half an hour, an hour? Let me tell you why I'm asking this question. The motor vehicle belonging to Mr Kotelo was recovered in Commissioner Street and Braamfontein would be after the Queen Elizabeth bridge and that makes you walking from Carlton Centre, to go through 12 robots, meaning you had to cross 12 streets to get to that bridge and beyond would be Braamfontein. I'm not trying to be funny, that's why I'm asking you approximately how long, half an hour, an hour.

MR NDLELA: Yes, that's correct, we took that direction.

JUDGE MOTATA: My question was, I wanted a time it took you and that's an approximation, we can't say as you walk, you look at your watch, I've walked for five minutes, it doesn't happen like that in real life, but you can approximate and say, I've walked for so long, that's all I'm asking you. There's no - from here I'm not going to put trap questions to you, but I want to clarify things in my mind. Do we understand each other?

MR NDLELA: Yes. It's going to be very difficult because I did not have a watch and I was not noticing the distance as we were walking, I just wanted to get to sleep. I did not really notice the length of the distance.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Mr Ndlela. Now this Mr Kotelo, in relation to this shebeen where you found the two policemen, was it in the same street?

MR NDLELA: No. Mr Kotelo's house is at the t-junction, the others were in the other street.

JUDGE MOTATA: Now these squatter camps where he was told to go out at and shot at, how far are they from where Mr Kotelo lived?

MR NDLELA: Would you please repeat the question?

JUDGE MOTATA: I say in relation to Kotelo's residence, his house, how far is the squatter camp? You said between two squatter camps, Mandela or Madela and another name, how far are those camps from the Kotelos?

CHAIRPERSON: Or the place where the body was dumped. How far was the place where the body was dumped from the Kotelo's household?

MR NDLELA: It could be 200 metres away from Mr Kotelo's home.

JUDGE MOTATA: And whilst driving for this 200 metres, you never spoke to him about his affiliation or his assistance to PASO, nothing was said of that nature?

MR NDLELA: No, I did not talk to Mr Kotelo, only Fanie spoke to him.

JUDGE MOTATA: Ja, no, no, I'm saying because you are all a unit, other than the ladies who were going to provide cover, should you meet police, you were all - but you are in the same vehicle, if somebody says something to probably Mr Kotelo, say Fanie your Commander then, you would be able to hear? That's all I'm finding out, whether in the car anything was asked of him whilst inside the car because your evidence is that when you shot him outside, Fanie spoke but you could not hear what he was saying, you recall that? That I understood.


JUDGE MOTATA: Now I want in the car.

MR NDLELA: Nobody was sad, nothing was said.

JUDGE MOTATA: You people had no interest because at this juncture nobody knew for a fact that he was a member of the PAC, nobody knew as a fact but because he assisted PASO financially and provided transport and defending them, nobody had true facts that he belonged to the PAC. Wasn't it of interest to you?

MR NDLELA: It would be very difficult to answer that question because I was not investigating, I only received an instruction as a member.

JUDGE MOTATA: But this was said even in a meeting, or let me ask you this question perhaps, did you know that interested your co-applicant that he even approached Jackie Selebe, the present Commissioner of Police, and Peter Mokaba who is the member of Parliament about Kotelo's involvement and the response he got was that they would see the peaceful ...(indistinct) of the East Rand. That was not know to you either?

MR NDLELA: They did not inform us about such visitations to those people.

JUDGE MOTATA: You heard his evidence that it took quite a while, it could have been around February, March, he's not precise, he cannot remember well, but Mr Kotelo approximately five to six months thereafter when he was killed, because nothing was done, do you recall your co-applicant saying that?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I recall that.

JUDGE MOTATA: Let's leave that because you say it's not within your knowledge.

ADV SANDI: Sorry before you leave that one. But according to Mothibe yesterday, you gentlemen were very upset and angry that Mr Kotelo was assisting PASO against you. Were you not also upset about what he was doing? Why didn't you ask him in the car?

MR NDLELA: Yes, that got us very angry. I tried to ask but the information that I got - I tried to ask and I got satisfactory information.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I didn't hear that. I didn't hear that. I tried to ask, but what? Could you just repeat?

MR NDLELA: It made us very angry yes and the information that I got satisfied me at my level.

ADV SANDI: Did Mr Kotelo say anything to you whilst you were in the car?

MR NDLELA: No, he didn't say anything to us.

JUDGE MOTATA: It wasn't ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not active.

JUDGE MOTATA: It was not actually asked of you but it was a response by my colleague to one of the legal representatives about the leather jacket, whether these items were recovered or not and the response came that that came out in Court, was that the leather jacket was sold, did you hear them saying that? That's once you were under cross-examination.

MR NDLELA: Yes, I heard that.

JUDGE MOTATA: Did you also hear it in Court that the leather jacket was sold?

MR NDLELA: Yes, I heard that in Court but that was new to me.

JUDGE MOTATA: Even if it was new to you, did you hear who amongst you people sold the leather jacket?

MR NDLELA: No, I did not.

JUDGE MOTATA: You obviously also heard about the watch and the wallet belonging to Mr Kotelo, that it was taken from him?

MR NDLELA: Yes, it was indicated that he was not in possession of his leather jacket, a wallet and a watch.

JUDGE MOTATA: Which witness came with that? We know this Maggie Dladla at least and we know Mrs Kotelo also testified, who came up with that kind of testimony?

MR NDLELA: I am not quite certain because it's been a long time now.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sandi, any questions?

ADV SANDI: Yes, maybe two, Chairperson. Where exactly were you waiting for Mr Kotelo at his house to come back from Pretoria?

MR NDLELA: ...(not translated)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, I didn't get the interpretation.

MR NDLELA: We were at the corner of Eselin and Seso Streets.

ADV SANDI: And where were the two ladies at that stage?

MR NDLELA: They were there among us.

ADV SANDI: Did they know what you were waiting for?

MR NDLELA: No, they had not been told.

ADV SANDI: You said you were waiting there for something not more than five minutes before Mr Kotelo arrived?

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: Were you not worried? You had just shot these two policemen at the shebeen, were you not worried that someone may have given a chase or alerted the police to go and look for you? Were you not worried about that?

MR NDLELA: No, that did not bother us.

ADV SANDI: Why not?

MR NDLELA: Because one of us was standing at the corner of Madela and Seso, looking up towards the street to watch for any police vehicle that might come.

ADV SANDI: So the two ladies I suppose must have been quite shocked, or taken by surprise, when they saw you attacking Mr Kotelo?

MR NDLELA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV SANDI: Did they at any stage maybe in the car or wherever, ask you why Mr Kotelo was being attacked?

MR NDLELA: No, they did not ask that question.

ADV SANDI: You mean to say that they just sat quietly in the vehicle whilst you were travelling with Mr Kotelo without asking a single question?

MR NDLELA: They also were shocked, so that that could be the reason why they didn't ask a question or questions.

ADV SANDI: Why do you say they were shocked?

MR NDLELA: Because what was happening was very scary.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you think of any reasonable reason why Fanie ordered you and the others to go back and shoot those two policemen in the shebeen after they'd been searched and found not to have any weapons?

MR NDLELA: Yes, because he said it could be that the firearms of these policemen were in the shebeen, or they were at Lucky's home.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just one. By the way, did you say Zweli was staying with Lucky?


ADV SANDI: I didn't follow that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he did.

MR NDLELA: Yes, he came to Skodi because he knew Lucky.

ADV SANDI: At what stage did you become aware that Zweli was staying with Lucky?

MR NDLELA: I only heard about that in Court.

CHAIRPERSON: But Lucky's home was next to the deceased's home?

MR NDLELA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So if the firearms were at Lucky's home, they would have to get past you in any event to get the firearms, because you were keeping watch on the deceased's home.

MR NDLELA: When we were standing at the corner, we had already shot them.

CHAIRPERSON: But I mean, I'm trying to find out why the - if they thought that the firearms were in Lucky's house, why go back into the shebeen and shoot them in front of witnesses, when you knew that if they wanted to get their arms, they'd have to come out to get to the house and you could shoot them there?

MR NDLELA: Fanie said it is possible that the firearms were given to the shebeen owner because firearms were not allowed after all.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you really believe that a policeman would had his service pistol over to a shebeen owner?

MR NDLELA: It is possible. Such things used to happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, any questions arising, Ms Makhubele?



MR MAKONDO: Chairperson, if I could be allowed to ask something about the card, the membership card, Chairperson?


FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAKONDO: Mr Ndlela, I noted from the card that there is a card number written in red, printed in red, do you see it?


MR MAKONDO: The card that you used to carry or the cards that you are used to, are they similarly having such numbers?


MR MAKONDO: Would you dispute that that number is the number of that card?

MR NDLELA: I would not dispute that. There's one thing that I don't see, the date of issue.

MR MAKONDO: Is there a space provided for a date of issue on that card?

CHAIRPERSON: He's already explained that, he says that what would happen is if you joined let's say in March, then there would be something written under that little calendar in the March block saying: "Date of joining" and whatever, "Payment of R10" or whatever, it would be reflected there, that's what he said earlier, but it's clear that there's no provision on the card for a date of registration and expiry, it's not contained on the card.

MR MAKONDO: If I've got it correct, Chairperson, he said that the card that he knows, there's a space provided for those two.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the ANCYL card, he said, yes. He said his card had a date of registration and an expiry date.

MR MAKONDO: Mr Ndlela, saving the issue of the date, do you dispute that that is a real original ANC card?

MR NDLELA: I would not dispute that.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson, that will be all.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions arising Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: No questions Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ndlela, that concludes your testimony.


CHAIRPERSON: Shall we take the lunch adjournment.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I would propose that we take a late lunch.

MR MAKONDO: I'm of the same opinion.

CHAIRPERSON: We've just been asked for a short adjournment at this stage. Sorry, before we adjourn, Ms Makhubele are you going to lead any other witnesses?

MS MAKHUBELE: Chairperson that will be the evidence of the applicants, except for maybe just a comment by him about the card.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we'll let Mr Mothibe comment now. Let's just hear that.


CHAIRPERSON: I don't what any further evidence, just make a comment about the card that's been handed in after your testimony.

MR MOTHIBE: My comments about the card, the purpose of the card is to show the amount and the membership of the ANC each and every year. It is ...(indistinct) to include the date of the registration on the card. The secretary when he signs, he also enters the date of the signature and then again the amount paid for the membership and the person who was issuing the card is not the branch in Daveyton, or maybe the branch in Soweto, the Regional Office of the ANC are the people who issue out the card which, during that time, which was Obed Bapena and Patience, they used to come here some of the time, are those people, which during that time they were in charge over the card.

Now in front of the Committee I'm not disputing about the card, but I know many of the people have got ANC cards, even the criminals, even the IFP members, for the sake, if you go to the other people's zone, they say to you: "You're a member of the IFP" or a member of the what, you can produce. But now the clarity in this card, I have got a fear in this card, because the purpose of this card is ..(indistinct). You can carry this card from generation to generation to come, which is not the purpose of the organisation, but the purpose of this card again, to raise funds for the organisation, to help financially. Now I want to try to say, that's why you have to bought the card, I've never had the card of the ANC. I was a member of the ANC but when I joined the ANC, I've joined the ANC during the time of the apartheid and other things, we never used any card.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it was banned.

MR MOTHIBE: Yes. But I've been involved in a lot of cards. I started to carry a card when I was in prison, which was two years back and that card I was given by the members of the ANC when they come to prison, the National Executive, because I was in condemn, they gave me the card, before I've never carried a card, but I know what's happening about the card.

Truly speaking, if there's any member of any political organisation in this house, he's got his own card, I don't know, he can bear with me practically about the card. I'm not arguing because I'm here for the truth, honesty and fair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mothibe. Does anybody wish to ask him questions, just on that point?

MR MAKONDO: No questions, Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: No questions Chair.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you Mr Mothibe. We'll take the short adjournment and then, Mr Makondo, are you leading any evidence?

MR MAKONDO: Yes, Chairperson, I will ask Mrs Kotelo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, then as soon as you're ready or as soon as we receive an indication, then we will resume again. It won't be long. Thank you.


MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to be calling Mrs Kotelo?

MR MAKONDO: Mrs Kotelo, Chairperson.

MONICA ANTINA KOTELO: (sworn states)

INTERPRETER: Just a minute, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, we've just been asked by the translator to wait for a while. Thank you.

INTERPRETER: She is on the right channel.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, will this be - Mrs Kotelo, are you going to testify in English or which language are you going to testify in? It's your choice.

MRS KOTELO: I could do it in English.

CHAIRPERSON: You can do it in whatever language you like. If you want to switch during the course of your testimony, you may do so.

MRS KOTELO: I'll switch to Tswana.

CHAIRPERSON: You can do so. So it will be English and/or Tswana and/or both of them.


CHAIRPERSON: Is it going to be translated for Mr Ndlela?

INTERPRETER: He understands Sotho.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Makondo.

MR MOTATA: Why shouldn't we perhaps, Chairperson, ask Mr Ndlela himself whether he would be comfortable either in English or Tswana? Let's get it from him, whether he prefers it to be translated in his own language.

MR NDLELA: I have no problem in any language.

JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Mr Ndlela.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR MAKONDO: Mrs Kotelo, you are the widow of the late Mr Arnold Kotelo, is that correct?

MRS KOTELO: It is correct.

MR MAKONDO: And basically can you tell us of his political life?

MRS KOTELO: I know him as a person who is not politically active. The only thing that I know is that he was a card-carrying member of the ANC, but he was not an active member.

MR MAKONDO: Do you perhaps know if he has represented people in a political charges, or something like that?

MRS KOTELO: No to my knowledge.

MR MAKONDO: Mrs Kotelo, let's come to the day in question. Is it correct that it was a Sunday?

MRS KOTELO: It is correct.

MR MAKONDO: And briefly can you explain how did it come about that you and Mr Kotelo took this trip to Pretoria?

MRS KOTELO: It was around 3 o'clock when my mother phoned to ask whether my sister is already on the way. My sister was at my place because she attended a funeral on Saturday the 31st of July in Daveyton, so she was supposed to go back home to Pretoria. So something very urgent emerged at home. Prof Nogane wanted the keys for the office, they wanted to hold a meeting, so she was the secretary to Prof Nogane, so Prof wanted those keys very urgently, so that's when Mr Kotelo decided that she won't use public transport, he would rather take her to Pretoria.

MR MAKONDO: If I can ...

CHAIRPERSON: You said 3 o'clock, I take it that's what - 3 p.m. or 3 a.m.?

MRS KOTELO: It was 3 p.m. and the meeting was supposed to start 4 p.m. in Pretoria.

MR MAKONDO: In this sudden trip, who did he take along?

MRS KOTELO: He asked his friend, Mr Papenyano who was a traffic cop, then I also asked whether I could come with the child, then he said there's no problem, we could come with him.

MR MAKONDO: And what time did you come back from Pretoria?

MRS KOTELO: We left home at about half-past eight in the evening, left Mamelodi, left Pretoria at about half-past eight.

MR MAKONDO: Were you also in the company of his friend?

MRS KOTELO: Yes, Mr Papenyano was still with us.

MR MAKONDO: On your way back home, can you briefly explain what happened?

MRS KOTELO: When we reached home, I didn't check time but I would take it, it's - we usually take about 40 minutes from Mamelodi to - Mamelodi is in Pretoria to our place, so when we reached our house, it was past nine and then we parked our vehicle in front, Mr Kotelo parked the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry before you proceed, Mr Papenyano, did he come to your home as well?

MRS KOTELO: No, we dropped him at his place.

CHAIRPERSON: You dropped him first, where? Also in Daveyton?


CHAIRPERSON: And then went to your place and you say you arrived there at some time just after nine.

MRS KOTELO: Just after nine, yes and then he parked the vehicle right in front of our big gate, the motor gate and then he tried to open the gate. There was a problem with that gate. Sometimes if you are outside, you can't open it because it's not a lock. It's easy to open it when you are inside, so he struggled with the gate, he couldn't open the gate. Then we decided to go and look for another guy who used to help us with washing the car and so on, to ask him to come and jump and open the gate from inside and then I came with the suggestion that I don't think it's necessary to go and look for Robert because anyway you're not going to park your car in the garage, your car is staying, the car was staying four or five houses away from us, in one of the neighbour's garages.

MR MAKONDO: So if I get correctly, you left the car where it was in the street because you were going to park it somewhere else.

MRS KOTELO: Ja, but we didn't leave it in the driveway then, he decided that, okay, let's use the small gate, then he reversed, he climbed over the pavement and then he stopped the car next to the small gate.

MR MAKONDO: And then after stopping there, did you go into the house, into the premises?

MRS KOTELO: Yes, he went with us into the premises, to go and open for us because I did not have my key.

MR MAKONDO: Now which door was he going to open?

MRS KOTELO: He was going to open the back door, the kitchen door.

MR MAKONDO: Did he manage to open the door?

MRS KOTELO: He didn't. When he was trying to open the door, one of the guys, one of the three gentlemen came with a gun. Because I had a baby on my back, when I looked on my right side I saw somebody coming through that corner, holding a gun.

MR MAKONDO: And from where you were standing, how close was he to you?


MR MAKONDO: Mr Kotelo.

MRS KOTELO: Mr Kotelo was just in front of me.

MR MAKONDO: And with the appearance of this person, did other people appear?

MRS KOTELO: No, it was just one guy first, then I was also shocked, I couldn't tell him that here is a person coming with a gun, I was thinking about the baby, I was thinking about our safety, so I didn't comment, but at the end I said, "But somebody is coming with a gun".

MR MAKONDO: And this person as he was approaching, was he going to reach you first or Mr Kotelo first?

MRS KOTELO: Me first.

MR MAKONDO: And what happened after you alerted him?

MRS KOTELO: The gentleman - the guy with the gun said: "We want the car, give us the car keys". At first he wanted to resist and then I said: "Ag man, just give them the keys." He did give them the keys. Before they went away with the keys, they took away his leather jacket, they took away his watch, they searched him, they took away his R20, they took away his wallet.

MR MAKONDO: You said there was one person with a gun. When you say they who are you referring to?

MRS KOTELO: After the other one with the gun came, I think two of them emerged again. The other one emerged from the right-hand side of the house.

MR MAKONDO: So from your left-hand side?

MRS KOTELO: From my left, I'm sorry.

MR MAKONDO: And after he gave away all that they requested, what happened?

MRS KOTELO: They kept on shooting in the air.

CHAIRPERSON: What - just the one with the gun?

MRS KOTELO: I saw one with the gun, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then that one was shooting in the air.

MRS KOTELO: Ja, he kept on shooting in the air while the others were busy searching him, taking his jacket in front of the child, I mean really.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you determine or arrive at a conclusion as to the sobriety of these people?

MRS KOTELO: You could see that they were drunk.

MR MAKONDO: Did you perhaps smell liquor?

MRS KOTELO: Yes, I did, because they were very close to me, especially when they came to Mr Kotelo, when he was still opening the door.

MR MAKONDO: These people after they got everything else, did they leave?

MRS KOTELO: Yes after getting the keys, the jacket, the wallet and the watch, they left for the car.

MR MAKONDO: And what did you do at the time?

MRS KOTELO: He struggled to open with another key that I had but it couldn't open because that key was not meant for that door. The keys that they took, it was together with the house keys.

MR MAKONDO: Did they leave immediately thereafter?

MRS KOTELO: Leave to where?

MR MAKONDO: After they left you there, did they go for good?

MRS KOTELO: No, no, no, they came back immediately. I think they had a problem with the car then they said: "You have to come and start the car for us".

MR MAKONDO: Did he comply?

MRS KOTELO: Yes he did comply.

MR MAKONDO: When he went to start the car, did you go with him?

MRS KOTELO: I didn't go with him but you know after, I thought no maybe I must just go and see what is happening, you know, because I was scared for the child also, then I went to see what is happening. When I looked at the car, they were just forcing him in the back. I think by that time the car was already started, they were just forcing him to get into the car at the back, shoving him inside, doing all sorts of thing.

MR MAKONDO: After he got into the car?

MRS KOTELO: They drove away.

MR MAKONDO: Drove away. The direction they took?

MRS KOTELO: They took the direction of Ituatua.

MR MAKONDO: After they left, what did you do?

MRS KOTELO: I went to the lady that is helping us, to ask for a key, because she's got our key, so that I can gain entrance into the house and take my car and follow them. I tried to follow them, I never found them.

MR MAKONDO: Did you report the matter to the police?

MRS KOTELO: Yes, I did.

MR MAKONDO: And thereafter, after you followed them, how far did you go?

MRS KOTELO: I drove as far as, I think I took a turn at Holfontein bridge. I went back home and I decided that I should phone the colleagues. I did phone the colleagues. They came.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say Doornfontein bridge?

MRS KOTELO: Holfontein.

CHAIRPERSON: Holfontein.

MR MAKONDO: And thereafter, after phoning the colleagues, who came to your rescue?

MRS KOTELO: Mr Matibela came to my rescue and after that the rest followed.

MR MAKONDO: Thank you Chairperson, that will be all.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Makhubele, do you have any questions that you'd like to ask Mrs Kotelo?

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chairperson. It's not - just on one aspect.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Mrs Kotelo, I'm very sorry about your husband's death and how old is your child?

CHAIRPERSON: At that time?

MS MAKHUBELE: At the time?

MRS KOTELO: She was three years.

MS MAKHUBELE: Was she the only child?


MS MAKHUBELE: How many others are you having and what are their ages?

MRS KOTELO: I've got the one of 24 and this one of 11.

MS MAKHUBELE: Sorry, 24 and 11.

MRS KOTELO: ... (indistinct - mike not on)

MS MAKHUBELE: Is the one that is 11 now. I just want you to - because you're the only one who can clarify the Committee, up to now there's this truth about your husband's role in the PAC or the PASO struggle. The applicants have testified that they do not know for certain that he was a PAC person, or personally knew that he was assisting PASO but they heard. So I just want you to clarify the Commission and furthermore Mrs Kotelo, your husband was an attorney, are you aware of whether he did, because apparently during this time it was unrest period, are you aware whether he did court cases whether involving PAC, ANC, or any political parties?

MRS KOTELO: Not to my knowledge. I don't remember anything like that. I don't remember him representing PAC or ANC members or assisting anybody with anything and as for the money part of it, of assisting, to assist an organisation you have to have funds. If you are an attorney and you are still living in a four-roomed house, how can you assist an organisation? Where are you going to get the money to assist the organisation?

MS MAKHUBELE: How long had your husband been practising prior 1993?

MRS KOTELO: Five years.

MS MAKHUBELE: On the same breath, Mrs Kotelo, are you aware or were you aware then, or let me put it this way, did it happen say in Daveyton that some people were targeted by mere association? Say if I am seen to be with an ANC person, or to assist them, just be association I would be targeted, did this sort of thing happen in Daveyton during the unrest period, or at all? It didn't?

MRS KOTELO: I don't know anybody who was targeted and they said he was a political this, political that.

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you know - this friend you talked about Papenyano, do you know which political organisation he belonged to?

MRS KOTELO: No, I don't know, I only know that he's a traffic cop.

MS MAKHUBELE: I recently received instructions as you were giving evidence that this Papenyano is actually a PAC person. What's your comment to this?

MRS KOTELO: I don't know anything of that sort. The only thing that I know, the relationship that Mr Kotelo had with Mr Papenyano, it started with the maintenance case of Mr Papenyano, further than that I don't know.

MS MAKHUBELE: If I can be excused for a second. Do you know where this Papenyano stays?

MRS KOTELO: Papenyano is late.

MS MAKHUBELE: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MRS KOTELO: I don't know, I'm not sure but I think it's Titon, but I can't say with certainty because I only saw his place once when we dropped him from Pretoria.

MS MAKHUBELE: The instructions here are he's staying, or used to stay at Nareng, or between Nareng and Lovedi. I don't know whether these are streets.

MRS KOTELO: I can't say with certainty.

MS MAKHUBELE: I have nothing further.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mapoma, any questions you'd like to put?

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions Chairperson, thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Judge Motata, any questions?

JUDGE MOTATA: I've got none, Chairperson.


ADV SANDI: No questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a couple of questions if I may put to you Mrs Kotelo. After this tragic incident, did you see the motor vehicle again.

MRS KOTELO: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: What was it's condition?

MRS KOTELO: The vehicle had some bullet holes, there was blood all over the back seat.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say bullet holes, was it like the car had been shot from the outside? Where were the bullet holes?

MRS KOTELO: I can't remember where were the bullet holes, but the car had some bullet holes, so I can't tell whether they were shooting from inside or from outside, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you say that you first of all saw the one person with the gun and then later two others came and the items you mentioned were taken, when you went to the vehicle and saw them forcing your husband into the vehicle, did you see any other persons?

MRS KOTELO: No, I couldn't see anybody, but there was a lade that I saw. I saw one lade in the car, I think.

CHAIRPERSON: What in the car or near the car, or where?

MRS KOTELO: No, the lady was not in the car, not when I saw my husband being forced at the back seat.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereabout would she have been?

MRS KOTELO: She was next to the car.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you - were you in a position to identify any of your assailants?

MRS KOTELO: At the spot?


MRS KOTELO: Yes, I did, though I cannot say it was - my neighbour's lights were on, the street lights were on, only my lights were not on, but you could see the faces.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you identify persons when you testified in Court?

MRS KOTELO: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Who did you identify?

MRS KOTELO: Especially Mr Mothibe, he's the one that I remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember him doing what?

MRS KOTELO: I remember him emerging with that gun.


MRS KOTELO: In Court, I remember him giving evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I mean at the incident.

MRS KOTELO: At the incident, I remember him coming next to me and tell Mr Kotelo that he wants the keys.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you identify the person who had the gun?

MRS KOTELO: He was the one with the gun.

CHAIRPERSON: And Lucky, do you know Lucky?

MRS KOTELO: I don't know him.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it Lucky Thabo? Do you know Mr Zweli?

MR KOTELO: No, I don't know Mr Zweli.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you've heard the evidence today that Lucky lived either very close to you or next to you, did you hear that evidence?

MRS KOTELO: Yes, I know where he lives, I know his mother, but I don't know him.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereabout does he live in relation to your house?

MRS KOTELO: It's not very far, it's about I can't count the houses, but it's not very far.

CHAIRPERSON: And we've also heard evidence about a shebeen. Do you know of any shebeen close by?

MRS KOTELO: No, I don't know of the shebeen, I only know the street where the shebeen is.

CHAIRPERSON: You've produced this ANC membership card. When did you first see the card? Did you see the card while your husband was still alive?

MS KOTELO: No, I saw the card after the death, when I was sorting the papers.

CHAIRPERSON: So you can't say when he became a member?

MRS KOTELO: No, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Kotelo, I'd just like to express our condolences about the death of your husband and we thank you for giving evidence and I'll ask Mr Makondo whether he has any questions arising out of questions that have been put.

MR MAKONDO: Nothing Chairperson, thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Ms Makhubele do you have any questions arising out of questions that have been put?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, Chairperson.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Mrs Kotelo, fortunately the applicants have managed to get statements that were made for the Court trial which the Committee have failed to do for the benefit of the Committee and I have here in my possession, I will circulate it around, a statement made by the police officer who found the car at the scene where it was abandoned.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry ...(indistinct - mike not on) could just give the name of that policeman who made the statement.

MS MAKHUBELE: Sgt Adriaan F Bosman.


MS MAKHUBELE: Yes of the Satellite Station.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I just wanted the name so that we - and then are you going to hand this in as an exhibit?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, I will.

CHAIRPERSON: That will be Exhibit B.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes. He has described there what he found in the car and if I can just read the relevant portions regarding the condition of the car. He says that:

"Ek het ondersoek gaan instel ..." ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: They translate with difficulty from Afrikaans into - could you give an English translation?

MS MAKHUBELE: Okay, the English translation says that when he inspected the vehicle he found the blood and then "leë doppies" I think it means ...

CHAIRPERSON: Cartridges.

MS MAKHUBELE: Cartridges, shells, yes and the keys which had been locked in in the car and then in a supplementary statement he still talks about blood and the keys and he did mention that the blood was at the back seat of the car, but he says nothing in both these statements about the bullet holes. Would you say that this is an omission on the part of the police?

MRS KOTELO: I don't know whether it's an omission on the part of the police, but that's what I saw.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you need these statements, because I was passing them on to Mr Makondo to take a look at.

MS MAKHUBELE: Oh, okay, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Just after my colleagues ...

MS MAKHUBELE: Thanks Chairperson. Did you attend an identification parade prior the trial?


MS MAKHUBELE: So you only identified him in Court?


MS MAKHUBELE: Unfortunately we don't have the Court record. Mr Mothibe says that he was not in the scene, that is at your home, the night your husband was abducted.

MRS KOTELO: He was there.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma do you have any questions arising?

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mrs Kotelo, thank you very much for testifying. That concludes your testimony.

MR MAKONDO: Chairperson, I'm not sure if I could comment about the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly, you've just seen it now. Of course you can Mr Makondo.

MR MAKONDO: Chairperson, I've just gone through and it doesn't state whether this person when he says "deursoek" him and looking at it, observing or going inside and Chairperson therefore I think it will not be an omission. Maybe the bullet wounds will be visible only at close range or something like that. I just want to put it on record that it doesn't state. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Makondo do you intend calling any further evidence?

MR MAKONDO: No Chairperson because my other client, Chairperson, as you could have seen, it's difficult to not only hearing but even in talking, and I won't call any other evidence. This will conclude the evidence of the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we understand, yes thank you.

MR MAKONDO: Only Chairperson perhaps to put on record that the applicants, both of them, from my instructions, they oppose the application Chairperson, on the basis that I will give forth when I give argument.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the position with Lucky?

MR MAKONDO: It came to my attention this morning that apparently, from Mrs Kotelo, when she checked yesterday he was still waiting to be fetched by the Committee so he knows we are here. Apparently it's only getting this way, but when I talked to the Co-ordinator the problem was they were not informed that he's supposed to be fetched or something like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. That then concludes the evidence in this matter. Ms Makhubele do you wish to make any submissions?

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chairperson. I will start with the first applicant Chairperson.

MS MAKHUBELE IN ARGUMENT: With regard to the first and the second incident, that's the incident of Phadi and the IFP attacks on IFP, I do not think - I think he has made a full disclosure and unless the Committee wants me to address on a specific issue, I believe he qualifies.

CHAIRPERSON: Just perhaps one issue, just flashed through my mind, with regard to the other incident, the Kotelo and the two policemen incident, if it was found and I'm not saying it's going to be found, this is just for purposes of argument, that there hasn't been a full disclosure in regard to that incident, does that in any way taint the question of full disclosure with regard to the other incidents, or can we compartmentalise them or not? I just want to know what your views are, we don't have any strong feelings about ...

MS MAKHUBELE: I believe it cannot taint the findings in the other incidents. The reason being Honourable Chair, what complicates matters in the Kotelo and the Thabo incidents is the disputes of facts which I believe would have been minimised by some more investigation. For instance ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: In other words - you see the Act says that an applicant has to make full disclosure of all relevant facts. Now, it's a question of interpretation now, if an applicant comes and again I'm not suggesting that we're finding, it's just for purposes of argument, if an applicant comes and mentions one incident and he gives it in a straight forth fashion, but then he turns out to be a horrible liar in respect of the other incident, can it be said that he's given full disclosure of all relevant facts?

MS MAKHUBELE: Depending on ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Or is that relevant facts just applicable to each particular crime that's been committed or offence, or incident?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, if ultimately the Committee finds that say he hasn't made a full disclosure in one, obviously it will be because there is evidence which has been accepted which contradicts his and the reason I'm saying that in the first two incidents that should not be the case, it's because there is no contrary evidence which has been tendered before the Committee.

On the incident of Kotelo and two police officers there, only these two which would lead to him not having made a full disclosure, would be the verification, why he acted with haste and why he got impatient when his superiors had assured him that he should wait for the Peace Forum which would, as far as I can submit, not even constitute a non disclosure, but rather whether he had authority. He submitted that he believed he had authority because as a person on the ground who was watching people dying, he had to take steps which he was authorised to do and whether one would then interpret that as having usurped the powers of his superiors, depends on the circumstances in consideration. The question being, at that time, was there enough time to sit and make verifications, reasoning beyond what is happening, or not? I'm not suggesting that this was a situation where there was urgency, where he had to act.

CHAIRPERSON: But we have a situation, just for your comment again, where we have evidence from the wife of the deceased who says look, he wasn't a politically active person, but she did find that he was in possession of an ANC membership card, but he wasn't an activist. There doesn't seem to be any reason at all why that evidence shouldn't be accepted, so the chances are of the deceased having been an activist to such an extent that he's now supplying money and transport to PASO is remote, which means that there are now two possibilities, one, that if information was received by the applicants relating to the deceased being involved in PASO, that was wrong and it also raises the possibility or on the evidence of Mrs Kotelo namely that there was robbery of watches and lumberjackets and stuff like that and the motor car and when they first came, they only asked for the car and the deceased wasn't a target, he only became a target as an afterthought when they took him back to the car, that this is a recent fabrication, there was never any information received about the deceased supporting PASO. It's a story that's been designed to try to make it political for the Amnesty Committee purposes. I'm not saying that is so, but that is one of the possibilities that we must consider now.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, Chairperson, on that the question then, on the belief that he was a member or helping, then the question will be, did he subjectively believe that at that time and he testified that the way they were operating at the time was on trust, the superiors trusting the juniors and maybe them trusting the informers because it would appear this information was obtained in a manner where they had captured one person maybe during the process of extracting a confession which is the way that not even political organisations then were acting on, even the Government, you capture one person, you extract information from him. Who is your handler? Then he mentions the name, then the information is acted upon at the time which is why I submit he submitted that at the time, because it's not the same like when you are investigating something illegal where you have - you can do so openly.

Again on the question of the events, whether that took place at the house, that applied to the second applicant because he was there, but as far as the first applicant is concerned, his instructions were that they should kidnap him and whether the people who actually went there did that or saw an opportunity to do something for their own benefit ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But of course you know, subject to the evidence of Mrs Kotelo that she saw him there.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, that I accept that, yes. I'm sorry Chairperson the applicant was just interrupting me. So on the - and my submission is, I'm not giving evidence, but I want the Court to take judicial notice, during that time, not the Court I'm sorry to refer to you as the Court.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, well look, just carry on but we know very well now, after being involved in so many hearings, what the situation was like in the townships.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes. What I want to submit is that people were targeted, more especially it happened with attorneys, people represent - if it was that period, I would be representing the applicants here at my own risk, or on my own risk.

CHAIRPERSON: We even know that if people lived in a certain street they'd be targets, just because they lived in a certain area.


CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't matter who they were. I think you can accept that we understand your argument relating to targeting by association.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chairperson. Finally, I just want to comment on one aspect which was raised by Judge Motata during the cross-examination of Mr Mothibe.

JUDGE MOTATA: I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: I was just going to say, I hope it wasn't cross-examination.

JUDGE MOTATA: I did not.

MS MAKHUBELE: Not cross-examination, I just want to comment on the - yes, on clarification that is sought from Mr Mothibe on the question of newspapers, media reports. Whilst the Committee can take judicial notice that there have been media reports which put the matter in a particular manner, the Committee should also take note of the fact that media reports, particularly in political issues, were not always accurate.

JUDGE MOTATA: No, I think you should understand this in the context in which I asked. I asked the corpse and the vehicle, which one was found first? He said the vehicle and the corpse thereafter, that's why I didn't want to go into what the media was saying, but he confirmed that was the story which emerged in Court.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in any event, the question of what the newspaper said is completely irrelevant because the applicant says he didn't read them and we're not going to find that he read the newspapers, we've got no basis for finding that.

MS MAKHUBELE: My comment is based on a statement which the Judge made further to the effect that in the report there was nothing political mentioned, that's why I'm raising this. Thank you.

And that would be all in respect of the first applicant.

Regarding the second applicant, my submission is, he has given a view which even where he, where things which under normal circumstances a person - it could have been easy for him to say: "The two police officers, we realised that they would be a threat, then we shot them", but he indicated how they did it and that they actually first ascertained they didn't have firearms, then they went back specifically to shoot them, so in my mind, this is a person who was willing to disclose things which are even detrimental to his application and as regards what actually happened in that place, he carried the orders of the person who had been charged with the duty to oversee them and whether or not he could have disobeyed him and it appears from the evidence, even when the Court gave judgement, it's this Fanie whom you referred to as the Commander, who although the cop didn't state that so and so is the one who pulled the trigger, but then the Court said that it's not them, meaning the people who were being tried, who pulled the trigger, which would be in accordance with his evidence before this Committee that it's Fanie who pulled the trigger and which would - and it's therefore my submission that the second applicant, having believed that what was discussed at the meeting about Mr Kotelo had to be carried out, he followed the instructions to the letter.

Unless there is something that I should clarify the Committee on, that will be all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Makhubele. Mr Makondo do you wish to make any submissions?

MR MAKONDO: Yes, Chairperson, thank you.

MR MAKONDO IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, I will in that order follow the process of the first applicant and then the second applicant. Chairperson, it's difficult from our point of view to see how political this incident has been, given the way the initiatives or the idea came about as per evidence of the applicant and execution thereof.

Chairperson, the first applicant has said his duty was to train the SDUs. As to what really led to him doing further than training, going into the meetings where issues of the area are discussed, what the problems are and how to go about the, it beats my understanding. His duty was to train. SDUs were trained underground. People who were training them would not be seen to be amidst the area where they are working. Therefore as a trainer it was not his duty, Chairperson, to execute any other thing, unless if he was commanded to do so. In the military department, Chairperson, we know people work according to orders. He has said that following the way things are done in the military, he went to Shell House to report to his senior and he was given the response, this matter will be taken to the Peace Committee. It is clear Chairperson that at that time negotiations were generally everywhere, the idea and the philosophy of reconstructing the whole set-up and correcting the wrongs was already on the way. His reason of four months later deciding with the others to execute this mission, Chairperson, cannot be understood in any other way excluding to say it was not the command from the top. He was not following the process that was supposed to be followed.

My submission Chairperson is that this is an afterthought, this is merely to cover the criminal activities in which both applicants were involved. The reasons are the following, Chairperson. A person in, be it in MK, be it in any army, has to work with orders. If there are no orders, then the person is not acting according to the rules and if one's not acting according to the rules, Chairperson, he cannot come back and say: "This is my way of doing things", because he must follow the discipline of the ranks. Hence, Chairperson, it is difficult for the first applicant to do exactly what he was supposed to do, assessment, making sure that the information he's getting is proper, making sure that even the person who is being alleged is the right person, an innocent person could have been shot. He failed to do that because those were not his duties, he could not do them, his duty was to train and not to go further than that.

Four months, Chairperson, perhaps it's a very long time to some people and short to others. However, in the four months that he went back, as he said, every time that he went back, there is no time where he reported to the military person to whom he reported to at the end, Zakes, as he said. Initially it was Jackie Selebe and then Peter Mokaba, but he says he knew that Zakes was the person who had to be reported to in military activities.

I therefore submit, Chairperson, that looking at the way the set-up is, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that there was a political objective that was aimed at, hence failing to carry his duties, Chairperson, as I have said. There was little knowledge of the facts, though he was born and probably bred in Daveyton, he could not go around to assess, so he says. His comrades came with this information which they got from someone who got it from the informer. There's no verification, there is no way that a person could act, Chairperson, take such drastic steps, going as far as targeting and eliminating a person with such little knowledge, not when you are a disciplined, trained, military person, put in the position of a Commander. It is entirely your duty to see to it that what you are acting upon are facts and not purely allegations.

CHAIRPERSON: Would a disciplined, trained MK Commander take an eye witness on a mission? I'm thinking about these two ladies that were brought along, they're not members and it doesn't sound like a very professional step to take, as far as I'm concerned, notwithstanding the reason given that they would form a front to give if the police came. I can't see what real difference having two ladies around would assist them.

MR MAKONDO: Chairperson, taking it even further than that, would a Commander stay behind when a mission is executed and when such a high profile issue is involved? Why wouldn't such a high profile issue be carried by people who not only you rely on in terms of being comrades, who you rely on, are people being combatants, people who have been trained as far as you are. They knew the risk involved, they allege even the issue of the police, Chairperson. I find it difficult to say that there was any political motive behind this. Very, very difficult. Also Chairperson, as to who was really in charge of the unit, after the second applicant's evidence I find it difficult to find out as to these two people who were supposed to act in unison, but who don't contact each other that close, or who, one is actually a bit remote, one is closer, can act together and be able to communicate properly, when they're actually carrying out an underground mission. A mission which is not only lethal to their lives, but even to someone else. They said they were afraid of being known. They said they knew if they were known they would be arrested, or perhaps they could be shot. How could they, as Commanders, act in this way? Chairperson, I fail to see how - what was thought about in the meetings that were set, when they were discussing, the first applicant said: "A week before we executed we decided we are going to act because the Shell House is doing nothing". The second applicant said: "No, I think a month before or so, we decided we are going to act." I'm not clear as to really when was it decided that there's going to be acted on who, because Chairperson even the issue of Dr Skosana is not clear as to whether, saving what the first applicant has said, it's not clear as to whether Dr Skosana ,,,(indistinct) attempt, because at lest the co-applicant has no idea about it. Frankly, from what I heard, he's not even sure if Dr Skosana is a real person who was also implicated.

Also the first applicant acted on information when they were not certain about this person, the leadership. The Evidence Leader asked if he knew leaders of PASO or PAC, numerous names were named, Kotelo was never said. Chairperson, with their knowledge they know x, y, or z is in this organisation, that they get this information, this one is doing this, it's leading really it's merely supporting. How could you target a person who's merely adding a drop in an ocean and not go for the exact leadership if the idea was really to destabilise PASO per se. He has said also, the first applicant, that PASO was gaining power in kwaThema, perhaps 20/30 kilometres away. Why would someone who is outside the area of kwaThema, if Kotelo was in kwaThema, also linked to PASO, perhaps he would say that's where the worry is, why would they go and eliminate someone who is 35 kilometres away? PASO would still gain power from where it was. If that was the objective, then the way it was done, it was wrong, it was not intended to gain that.

I also, Chairperson, have a problem with, as I alluded, with the papers. He said somewhere he wanted to gain popularity, which I take it as a personal benefit, Chairperson, hence his initiative as he has said, which later comes out that actually it was himself and Fanie, he wanted the things done this way, he says he went to the Kotelo's house. Chairperson, the applicant put himself into the action as if he was really in charge of the unit, but from the co-applicant it was actually Fanie who was close and who was in the unit. When I asked him about finding Mrs Kotelo there he changed and said: "No, I only found that in Court." "What else is contained in these papers that you found in Court?" I asked. He said: "Only that." My interpretation, Chairperson and my submission is that there could have been more. The Pretoria trip Chairperson is one. The findings of the police could be another and the names, Chairperson, particularly the name of Mrs Kotelo, of which the applicant always referred to her in the first name, it brings this view of saying not only was there a plan relating and linking Mr Kotelo, there was also an objective intended and that objective can be anything else but not political. They found him alone with his wife unarmed, he gave them everything and they took him along. Chairperson, generally he could have been taken perhaps for interrogation somewhere in one of their hiding places where information would be elicited more as to: "Is it you? Who else is doing this?" and what and what and what. If the aim was to normalise or at least was to balance the set-up as it was, or maybe to destabilise PASO, but that is not the idea. He's taken there, he's put into his car, obviously he has seen them. If he's left, he would be able to identify them and the obvious thing is to eliminate him and that's precisely what happened. The car is dumped somewhere, perhaps as an afterthought. Alternatively perhaps there could have been a mistake of locking the keys in. Said by Mrs Kotelo that initially they could not start the car, that could be another thing that could have happened along the way, that the car could have jammed or they could have failed to start it in any other way. Hence the submission, Chairperson, that in no way is it seen as a political action or there is a political link to it, Chairperson. To ask please on behalf of the victims Chairperson, its submitted that this should be seen merely as a criminal activity. The membership of the applicant is not questioned, Chairperson, but this action, the act per se that is being applied for, is the one that is being questioned and put in to the Committee that it should be seen in neither way, either than in a non political way.

The applicant said when he met Zakes four months later he merely asked, after the reporting, he didn't comment anything else. Chairperson, I find it very strange. I find it strange that after he has reported the action, the person who is in charge, the military man who wouldn't ask anything about it, obviously their action was contrary to the Peace philosophy that was being preached and that was being taken ...(indistinct). I find it difficult to say the people in Shell House will sit and do nothing about it. They'll obviously be worried because that will be destabilising what they need.

In terms of the State Witness, Maggie Dladla, I think Chairperson, perhaps her testimony could be tinted in Court, however she was there. It's true that they took her along, it's true that she was with them in the car, so Chairperson, I submit that some of the facts that the witness did put forth in Court, which I believe made the Court to believe and to come to the conclusion that the Court came to, will apply here. Similarly she was there, she saw it, perhaps if she was State Witness, as is alleged, being the girlfriend or former girlfriend of first applicant, could also tint one or two things, but it could also add that that could be one of the reasons why she could be taken along, she could be trusted because being one's girlfriend, maybe for humanitarian reasons, the conscience, the guilt made her to decide otherwise. Hence our submission Chairperson that this was never political and it has never achieved any political objective.

Chairperson in terms of the second applicant, it's difficult to understand why, when the other policeman Lucky was known to him, when he knew the vicinity very well, when they had realised that Lucky and Mr Zweli, they were not armed, it's difficult to understand how does he come to say the instructions that were given were in accordance. He knew the distance, they know the area, they know the getaway, they know where to jump to get the next street and so on. If that was the idea, Chairperson, if the idea was to eliminate Mr Kotelo, he could have been shot in his house or at his car, you jump and get away before the person in the next house reacts, you are completely out of the picture. Hence the issue of having the police shot as being an obstacle, Chairperson it's difficult to believe. These people knew the area. It was at night. They were not seen by anyone else. The people they were with, they were their comrades, or they were in their confidence. There they were, they met this person, the idea is to eliminate him, why not do it there and then? They are armed, he's there, he's in his house, he's alone, it is at night and they could have escaped and no one else could have traced them. Actually according to what is being said, if the two ladies who perhaps were not much of comrades, but comrades were left out, the three of them could have disappeared to kwaThema and stage a robbery and go, or even take the car and stage a hi-jacking and go, but that was not the way it's been done. He's taken along, that makes - hence my submission that taking him along was to start the car and the kidnapping and whatever, Chairperson, perhaps if it was planned, it was not intended for a political objective. Mr Kotelo, he was known around, he was an attorney, Chairperson, in a community like any other township, we know the few professionals who are there. Also, people who are in the legal profession are very well-known, particularly at the turmoil where everyone would know where to run to. I fail to understand why either the second applicant or both of them, said they did not know about him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Kotelo testified that the one was shooting in the air.

MR MAKONDO: Correct, Chairperson, so she said, but neither of them ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That's what I'm saying, that doesn't fit in with the applicant's version that in case a bullet goes out take the police, when they purposely shoot in the air.

MR MAKONDO: Correct, Chairperson, that will also attract another attention and hence our submission Chairperson, that these political painting of the picture is an afterthought. Perhaps could have been thought of but there are loopholes which we cannot really fill, merely because there's nothing to fill those loopholes with and it's my submission, Chairperson, that the two acts should be seen in their proper perspective as criminal acts and not political actions. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mapoma, do you wish to make any submissions?

MR MAPOMA: Not much, Chairperson, just except to address the Committee on the issue of credibility finding being made of the applicants relating to other incidents.

MR MAPOMA IN ARGUMENT: It is my submission Chairperson that given the circumstance, all these applications, the incidents for which application is sought, are contended to have occurred in the same context and by persons who claim to have been members of political organisations. In the circumstances, Chairperson, it is my submission, if a credibility finding has been made on a particular incident about the applicant, it ought to have an impact on other incidents as well, given the context being the same, it's difficult to divorce one finding, I mean concerning one incident and the other. That is all Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Makhubele, do you have any reply?

MS MAKHUBELE: Only on Mr Makondo's address, just two issues I want to respond on.

MS MAKHUBELE IN REPLY: First, is the weight which Mr Makondo attacked to written applications. As evidence has been led, Honourable Committee, the applicants have indicated that they are not the ones who wrote the applications, there are so many contradictions which even when one reads irrelevant questions were answered, answers were not put in the correct columns and as such my submission is that their submission as regards their written applications should be taken into account. Secondly, the second thing is the issue relating to Zakes, that, or the people at Shell House, why they were not worried. Honourable Committee has as Judge Miller indicated yesterday that you have dealt with many applications, I believe you have dealt with many applications by the people at Shell House. Their leadership, it would appear, even they themselves at the time because the struggle was still intense, they were even themselves involved in some violence in one way or the other at that time. On, was it Monday or Tuesday, the Committee had an application by amongst others ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It was Cosatu I think.

MS MAKHUBELE: Cosatu yes, which is an alliance of ANC, so at that time, one can safely submit that perhaps the leadership was not worried too, because they were not satisfied with the negotiations, that they were taking long, maybe they would not work, and the people on the ground like the applicants, they are the ones who were even more restless, so if Shell House people too were restless, what about the people on the ground, applicants included?

ADV SANDI: May I just ask you a question? Is there any reason why the first applicant and his group, after attacking and killing Mr Kotelo, didn't go back to Mr Selebe and Peter Mokaba and say: "Look, remember that problem we were talking about of Kotelo in Daveyton? I took an initiative and we've killed - we've sorted it out." Is there any reason why he didn't do that? He talks to someone else after the operation.

MS MAKHUBELE: I'm not sure if he gave an answer, I cannot recall, but I cannot comment now.

ADV SANDI: Isn't that a bit - isn't that one of the strange things about this case?

MS MAKHUBELE: I think he indicated that the person he was supposed to have reported to initially is Zakes. Had he found Zakes, there wouldn't have been a need for him to go to Jackie Selebe or Peter Mokaba, because Zakes it the person who he had to report to initially, which is why he reported to him after the incident. That would be the explanation.

JUDGE MOTATA: Or perhaps to say to Jackie Selebe and Peter Mokaba, forget about the Peace Forum, that matter has been dealt with.

MS MAKHUBELE: That's one of the things which, in retrospect, one could have done, but then under the circumstances, I think he indicated that the person he thought he should report back to is the one he should have reported to initially.

ADV SANDI: But wouldn't you expect a disciplined soldier in those kind of circumstances, to go back to Peter Mokaba and Mr Selebe and say: "Look, if you gentlemen continue delaying to deal with this matter, I will be compelled to take my own initiative and do something about it. You'd better hurry up. Do something about this immediately."

JUDGE MOTATA: ... the present Commissioner, who has also been outside the country, then he knew the discipline of the soldiers.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, but in - I'm not - I have no idea about military - the hierarchy or the discipline there, but then I can imagine that if you report a matter to your superior, he does nothing and you on the ground are the person who is left to mop the mess, which is what he described as military combat work, that you take the initiative, which is what he did.

JUDGE MOTATA: If you could probably get me through this process, I mean of this incident that the initial person was Zakes whom they had to report to, he wasn't found the first time Jackie Selebe was found and he undertook to take it to the Peace Forum in the East Rand, the second occasion it's Peter Mokaba who said they shouldn't worry, he would deal with the situation and we see four months lapses, no mention is made of trying to retrace Zakes, we don't have evidence before us and now we find that at the end of the day a person who knew nothing about this problem, somebody reports to him. I can mention to you that the matters we have heard, thousands of them, that the MK cadres never acted in that fashion, but perhaps each case depends on it's own evidence. We could listen to you if you take us through that.

MS MAKHUBELE: If I were to comment, would that then not indicate that there was no proper reporting structures. When today you go and you find someone else, there's no follow-up. The question would then be, what happens to - can we say that the people on the ground should then be penalised because the seniors, thought there's a mandate, but then they are not - when he wanted to get a specific one, he could not find the relevant person, but then he has been entrusted with this duty on the ground to make sure that there is peace. He says he was involved with the Self Defence Units and the ANC except that the Self-Defence Unit was formed and the purpose for which it was formed, what the would have been the purpose for it if each time they had to get specific instructions, when they themselves could not take the initiatives which is what he did. He tried - he knew that there is this Jackie which, in terms of the local structures, he has to report to, but he cannot find him, but he also has this mandate which he can utilise and he utilises it.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but a decision to take a person's life, a particular person's life, isn't that a very drastic decision only to be taken in compelling circumstances?

MS MAKHUBELE: Well we don't know what the specific mandates or mandate of the SDUs was or is.

ADV SANDI: But the specific person we are talking about here is Mr Kotelo.

JUDGE MOTATA: Take us through that. If you listen to the evidence, it emanated also from the meetings which the ANC Youth League had, that's where some of these things were reported about the actions of Kotelo. It was not a question that the SDUs were seized with this and as the second applicant was an additional member of the Executive of the ANC Youth League, that's where it also emerged, at least in three meetings, about what Kotelo was doing in assisting COSAS to overcome PASO, or PASO to overcome COSAS, the other way around, that's the evidence we have heard, unless I did not follow precisely, but that's the evidence that emerged in this hearing. So what should we make about that?

MS MAKHUBELE: I didn't get the question.

JUDGE MOTATA: I say the evidence before us is that at least in three meetings the problem which Kotelo was causing by, as the second applicant put it, assisting PASO financially, assisting PASO with transport and defending PASO, this was mentioned in three of the ANC Youth League meetings, of which the second applicant was a member, an additional member.

MS MAKHUBELE: I believed there was interaction between ANC, ANC Youth League, SDUs and COSAS, which is the evidence of the first applicant, that they as SDUs came in to assist there. Besides the conflict which involved the IFP, they came in to assist the student organisations which were fighting which is PASO and, what's this other? COSAS, yes. Which is how they came in.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Is that all? Any further submissions?

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chairperson. As I do not know how the - finally my submission, as I indicated during my initial submission, that one of the things I believe if this matter had been investigated further, they would have a much clearer picture. The investigation had the names of people who were mentioned, Jackie Selebe, Peter Mokaba, which evidence would have assisted us to come to a conclusion that clearly there's no way they would have ratified the action or there was no mandate that if they don't get their approval, they are prevented from taking initiatives on the ground, which is what he is basing his application on, that as a person on the ground, as a Commander, if he cannot get a mandate, he is entitled to exercise his mandate as a, or take initiative in terms of his duties. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will reserve our decision in this matter. We'll have to deliberate amongst ourselves and we'll hand down a written decision as soon as possible. That then concludes this hearing and Mr Mapoma our role?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I'd just like to thank everybody who made our stay here at JISS Centre this week possible, very much for everything they've done, the translators who have worked so hard, Joe Japhta who in his usual efficiency has handled matters in a most professional and friendly manner. I would like to thank the sound engineers, the media people, the television and also the JISS Centre for making this - Institute for making this venue which is very convenient available and to the caterers who fed us so well and I would also like to make particular mention and pay particular thanks to the members of the Correction Services who have without fail, been here more than punctual, early every morning. We've sat at irregular hours, one night we sat until it was almost dark and I thank them very much and commend them for their efficiency and also for their professionalism in the way that they have carried out their duties this week. Thank you very much indeed. I'd like to thank the legal representatives in this matter for their kind assistance, Ms Makhubele, thank you very much and Mr Makondo and Mr Mapoma, thank you very much.

We'll then adjourn now. Thank you.