DATE: 15-04-1998








MR PRIOR: Good morning Mr Chairman. It is the 15th of April 1998, the amnesty applications of Brian Madasi and Mr Diaho-Monaheng proceeds. Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Jerling family, I have been requested to ask the Committee whether Ds De Kock could put one or two questions to the applicant, Brian Madasi, if that would be permitted Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I can see no objection, have you got any objection?

MR MBANDAZAYO: None, Mr Chairman.


BRIAN MADASI: (still under oath)

DS DE KOCK: Thank you very much Mr Chairman. I am a close friend to Mrs Jerling and her family and I appreciate it that we can ask only a few questions.

The first one to Mr Madasi is, given your statement that you are proud of it having been the leader of the Yellowwoods operation, does it mean that you still consider yourself as a soldier or a fighter actually, for your earlier causes?

MR MADASI: First of all I am glad to see your sir. Your question of whether I see myself as a soldier to this day, first of all APLA is going through a process of integration.

I believe that was the decision of the leadership and of the High Command of APLA, I therefore abide by this decision. The decision taken by APLA I don't dispute, or I abide by it. I am in prison at the moment. I haven't experienced the changes my country has gone through yet.

As I am in jail, I am aware that nobody has the right to take another person's life. As you say that you are a friend to the deceased, I know that that is not easy to lose someone that you love.

It is not a small matter to lose somebody that you love. It was a battle, it was a war. It is painful that he lost his life, but it was a war. I am sure that we are here to reconcile and I am prepared to do that. However, the situation in the country at the time, led us to such.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, if I may just interrupt. Mr Madasi, you haven't answered the question, it was a simple question. Do you now still consider yourself to be a soldier for your earlier causes, I personally have not heard the answer yet. You, now?

MR MADASI: I am in prison, I am still a soldier. I can't change whilst in jail, I will change the day I am released from jail.

DS DE KOCK: Mr Madasi, do you still see yourself as a fighter for change and for your earlier causes, so what I mean is that the moment you will be released from prison, you will carry on with operations in which innocent people, perhaps, will be killed, and in this sense you are still a fighter for what you stand for, politically and also personally, please?

MR MADASI: First of all, I was - I did not do what I did, for my own benefit or for my parents. I did it for the country.

I did not do it for Madasi. We are an army of people or of soldiers and as I said we are going through integration now. APLA has taken a decision.

You were asking me if I were released, would I still regard myself as a soldier - I have my experience, but the person or the personality or the character of the person may change. We are in a new country now, black and white hold hands. I hope to be accommodated or to be part of that community to participate in the transformation because I also want to play my part, not through war or through arms, that does not apply any more.

Because APLA has been integrated into the South African Defence Force. I can't be a soldier in the way that I was, any more because the army that I belonged to, prior to this, is going through integration together with other armies, and I am willing to be part of the transformation process.

DS DE KOCK: Thank you Mr Madasi. Mr Chairman, the following questions are not specifically from the family, but if you will allow me, I just want to ask Mr Madasi from my own accord, if you don't mind.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you indicate the purpose of the questions, and the nature of the questions because we do not normally allow parties who are not interested parties, implicated parties or victims to put questions.

DS DE KOCK: Thank you Mr Chairman, it is more in the line of reconciliation. Mr Madasi said a few things yesterday and also this morning concerning reconciliation and I just want to - also in the interest of the family actually, just want to know exactly what he means by that, because it can further this cause.


DS DE KOCK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Madasi, do you as a person have any regret that people is being killed, any people in operations furthering political causes? Perhaps you have answered it already, but I just want to have clarity on this again?

MR MADASI: First of all according to the operations that we performed, I am not sorry. I believe that what APLA did was right, it was good, they were fighting for this country.

It is painful that people passed away or lost their lives. I am willing to talk to you because you have lost people that you care for. However, if we look at the other side like the Sharpville massacre, we also lost people. I am not regretting having taken part in the operation, but that you lost someone, I sympathise with you.

DS DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Madasi, you didn't answer specifically but let's leave it at that.

How do you feel about the killing of innocent people in the process?

MR MADASI: It is the first time I hear right now, that those people were innocent. Since I was small I was told that the oppressor is the white man, the enemy of the oppressed, the African people.

That question of how I feel about innocent people being killed, as I said nobody has the right to take another person's life, however, we were retaliating against what the white man did to us.

It is not, it shouldn't only be the one side that cries out or that complains, it should be the other side as well. The white community had a lot of benefits from the previous government of apartheid, and they did not cry then, but now they cry. I am sorry that you lost a loved one, and I sympathise with you.

DS DE KOCK: Mr Madasi, we hear what you say but another question coming out from the previous one, is what crime did you see in an 18 year old young man, he has just come out of school when being there in the bar, shooting at people and they were all young people, without arms. How will you respond to this please?

MR MADASI: The fact that the people who passed away there, were people who were not armed, the so-called soft targets, the order and my planning for the operation gave a report that that place was frequented by Security members. It is in these hearings that I hear that Jerling was a student and all that. It is painful to lose somebody you love, I know that you are only looking at this from your point of view as an individual, but I would like you to look at it holistically.

I lost people as well, in the same battle, the same kind of war. I would also like to know why is it that they lost their lives, I would also like to know who were the perpetrators. It is good for us to all know each other. I don't know if I have answered you.

DS DE KOCK: Mr Madasi, can you remember that you said yesterday and you actually repeated this morning, that you agree it is no person's right to take another person's life and that you are actually seeking for reconciliation. What exactly do you mean by saying that you are seeking reconciliation?

MR MADASI: The platform that we are at today is such that liberation fighters, I will not say perpetrator because that means something else altogether, this platform is such that liberation fighters and victims hold hands and reconcile in this new South Africa.

If this Truth and Reconciliation Commission would not be here, if it didn't exist, we wouldn't be here, I would not have come here. That in itself depicts my attitude. We made a decision as the PAC that we should come to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We have come to reconcile here as liberation fighters and the victims, so that we do not begrudge each other, or that you do not begrudge us.

If there is a way within you that we can meet, and talk and see what we can do. As APLA is an affiliation of the PAC, the PAC itself is trying to see which programmes can be constituted so that us as liberation fighters and the families of the victims, could reconcile.

We are at that level now, at that stage.

DS DE KOCK: Mr Madasi, one last question please. I hear that you say that the families of victims also, that you and they be reconciled and vice versa, is there anything that you want to say to Mrs Jerling personally, her father, Mr Goosen was actually the father of Johan, because he raised Johan. His own father was also passed away years ago and to the deceased's closest friend here, Mr Nel, is there anything that you want to say to them personally this morning, please?

ADV GCABASHE: If I can just suggest that you speak just a little slower, because the interpreter on my understanding, sitting next to you, is missing quite a few things that you are saying. The sense she is giving is correct, but maybe just slow down, so she can add a little more, if that is all right with you.

MR MADASI: Okay. What was the question, is there something I would like to say to the parents?

First of all I do not know these people, I don't know whether they are in this room. However, if they are here, I am prepared to talk to them and tell them that I am sorry that they lost their son.

However, they have to know and recognise that we were in a war, it was not my personal battle or war, it was for the country, there was war here at home. I would like to shake hands with them, because I have no problem with that.

However, they must know that it was a war. Everybody knows about it. I hope I have answered you.

DS DE KOCK: Mr Madasi, thank you. It would have been wonderful if I could have heard a deeper answer from you, but at this stage I have asked the question and you have answered and I think we can leave it at that, without further comments. Thank you very much.

MR MADASI: Thank you.


MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: (sworn states)

MR PRIOR: Thank you, just for the record, Mr Mtembu if you could just place yourself on record please.

MR MTEMBU: Thank you Mr Chairman, my name is Mtembu. I appear on behalf of Mr Nkopane Diaho-Monaheng. May I proceed Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR MTEMBU: Mr Diaho-Monaheng, how far did you go in school?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I did matric sir.

MR MTEMBU: And when did you join APLA?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I joined this APLA in 1990.

MR MTEMBU: Did you receive any military training, and if so, when and where?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct sir. I received training, it was in Transkei for about nine months.

MR LAX: Sorry the question was where did you receive your training and when did you receive that training. Could you just answer that question please?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I received training in Transkei, it was in 1990 sir.

MR MTEMBU: And it was for nine months, is that correct?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct, it was for nine months.

MR LAX: Which base in the Transkei, we know there were a number of bases in the Transkei, which base did you receive your training at?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I was an Nqobo base.

MR MTEMBU: Through you Mr Chairman, for the sake of curtailing proceedings, I will just ask Mr Diaho-Monaheng to confirm certain paragraphs of Mr Madasi's affidavit.

Is it permissible Mr Chairman, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Diaho-Monaheng, you have read the affidavit of Mr Madasi, is that correct?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct My Lord.

MR MTEMBU: Now, on paragraph 9 thereof, various firearms have been mentioned therein. Would you inform the Committee, amongst these firearms, which firearm or firearms did you use in the Yellowwoods Hotel attack?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Among the arms that have already been mentioned, those that I used when an attack took place, I had an R4, I had a revolver, 3.8, that is the one that was used to alert my other comrades that it was now time to retreat to the place we were attacking.

MR MTEMBU: Do you also confirm paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said affidavit?


MR MTEMBU: Now, with regard to paragraph 12, could you explain to the Committee how the owner of this Mazda Marathon was robbed of his vehicle?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The person who testified yesterday was my Commandant, and he already indicated that he issued out an order as the Commander of the Unit. He said we should bring a car that would be used to attack that target, which was the Hotel of course.

Yes, I left Lungesi Nqeba and Sky. At that time when a kombi was fetched, I had F1 hand grenades in my possession. Sky had 3.8 Special revolver. Nqeba had an Uzi machine pistol. Yes, we went until we met this kombi, we came across this kombi. We were lucky enough to find the occupant of the car alone, and we expressed ourselves as passengers.

We told him that we wanted to go to King William's Town. He said well, yes, I am also heading for King William's Town, get in. The three of us went into the kombi.

I was right behind him, that is just the seat after the driver's seat. Comrade Nqeba, because he was going to be the driver of the car, was seated next to the driver, the owner of the kombi. Comrade Sky was seated next to me.

We came across this kombi net to a hotel in Alex, I just happened to forget the name of the hotel. I already indicated that we were passengers in the kombi, and we drove for a little while and we pointed a gun at him and we told him that he should take instructions from us, because we are not taking this kombi, we are taking it to go and fulfil a mission, and we will tell him exactly on our way, the details of our mission.

Yes, he drove down the street. Towards the end of the street, he jumped out of his car. We were next to a taxi rank for taxi's from Alex to King William's Town. The driver of the, the Commander of the Unit which is comrade Nqeba jumped onto the driver's seat, because he was seated next to him, and then he drove. We carried on with our journey.

We arrived at the place where we left the Commander of the Unit, who is comrade Sutha and comrade Dizi. When we put into the car some of the arms that we were going to be used, we saw lights approaching and we decided to do it very quick, so that we can drive off.

These lights that were following us, were from the Police in Alice, these are the Police who pursued us. We sped off and we just dropped the kombi in the wilderness, that we went back to Fort Beaufort.

I think that will be the end of my explanation with regard to the kombi.

MR MTEMBU: Who actually produced the firearm and threatened the owner of this vehicle?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The person who produced the firearm in the kombi, was ... (tape ends) ...

MR MTEMBU: 13 and 14 of Mr Madasi's affidavit?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes sir, I confirm that.

MR MTEMBU: Do you also confirm paragraph 15, except that you are not the person who gave a report to Mr Mpahlele, but Mr Madasi did?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir, the Commander was Mr Madasi. It was his duty to report after the attack at the Hotel. I don't know whether I answered your question.

MR MTEMBU: Were you personally part of a regiment or detachment within APLA?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Are you referring to the attack sir?

MR MTEMBU: In general?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes. I was part of the regiment in APLA.

MR MTEMBU: So you were part of a regiment, do I understand you correctly?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct.

MR MTEMBU: Now, this operation Yellowwood Hotel ...

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, can you tell us what regiment?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I was part of the regiment that was assigned for special assignments.

MR MTEMBU: Did it have a name or not?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, it had a name, it was Phokela.

MR MTEMBU: Could you spell Phokela for the convenience of the Committee members?


MR MTEMBU: Now, the Yellowwoods attack, was it executed by the Phokela regiment or was it by some other unit within APLA, can you explain to the Committee?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: These members were selected from a regiment called Phokela, they went out on a special operation. I am referring to the Yellowwood attack.

I don't know whether I answered your question.

MR MTEMBU: Now, when your Commander informed you that he had received orders for this mission, did he tell you he had also received orders regarding the black staff that could be working at that hotel or civilians that could have been at the hotel at the time, what would happen to them, did he tell you anything about that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: No sir. I do not believe or rather I do not remember him telling us about orders, including black people. The orders that he got was that the hotel is situated outside Fort Beaufort, and members of the Security Forces go out there for entertainment especially on Friday and Saturday.

And he said whether we like it or not, we should hit the hotel on a Friday or Saturday evening.

MR MTEMBU: Now, could you please tell the Committee about your role in this Yellowwood Hotel attack?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The attack itself or the preparations?

MR MTEMBU: The Committee is aware of the planning, etc, now I want you to tell them specifically what did you do with regard to this attack?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The part I played in this attack, I had an R4 rifle because I already told you that. I had this 3.8 revolver. When we arrived at the Hotel, I shot through the window that was on the left side of the door, that is the door that was used by the Commander when he shot.

We shot towards the direction of the people, until I took out my 3.8 and I shot in the air to give a signal to my fellow colleagues that we can now retreat from this place of attack, which was the hotel. I think I explained sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Did your Commander go into the hotel, I think you said he shot through the door? Did he enter the hotel?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: He went into the hotel My Lord, and I was on the left side of the door he entered with.

ADV SANDI: From where you were standing, were you able to see who you were shooting at?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir, I saw that there were people inside the bar, and the people that I shot at, were the Boers.

MR MTEMBU: Can I proceed Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry before you go on for a minute, do you have the photographs there, page 21? Do you see the lower photograph, there's a window to the left of the door, is that the window you shot through?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Can I have a question, is this the main entrance to the bar? Is this a picture of the hotel?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if you look at the top picture, you will see it appears to be a picture of the hotel. You have been there, I haven't, and I am just seeking guidance.

There are two apparently - I think that is windows.

MR LAX: Perhaps, if you look on page 20 you will see there is another picture of probably a different side of the hotel. Which side were you on?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: If this is the door to the bar, I am referring to page 21, if this is the door to the bar, yes, this is the window I used. I hope I answered your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if you look at the photographs we are showing you now, they are proper coloured photographs, you might be able to see more clearly there.

If you look at photograph number 8, I have been told that is in fact the entrance to the bar.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: If this is the main door to the bar, I used the window that is next to that door, yes.

The window is marked (d) in the photo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you think that is the window, so that is a window that comes down fairly low, you can see through it fairly clearly.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct. When I was outside, I could see inside.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, may I be of assistance, the photostatted copies, at page 20, I think it is photograph 1 of the original, master bundle. You have a view from the car park, towards the hotel. You see there is an awning Mr Chairman, that is the entrance to the bar.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the one in photo 8, isn't it?

MR LAX: Would photo 8 be a close up version, because there is also an awning if you look at photo 8. You can see there are a whole lot of business cards on the inside of that door as you walk in?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, that is correct, that is a close up of the bar entrance and then the window to the left hand side with the bullet marks in the wall.

MR LAX: Correct. So in fact what the witness indicated is that is probably the window that he shot through if that is the entrance.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if you look - I am afraid I am the only one who can at the moment, look at photo 8, it would appear that there are at least two bullet holes through the glass of a window.

MR LAX: That is at page 23 of the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: The one you can see, the other is not clear on that, but if you look - thank you, carry on.

MR MTEMBU: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: Could I just ask, was there anybody in the car park when you drove in?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: There were no people, we did not see people.

ADV GCABASHE: Who drove your car?


MR MTEMBU: Mr Diaho-Monaheng, do you confirm that you told Mr Mashalaba when you took his vehicle, that you were going to kill whites. Do you confirm that statement or not?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Please elaborate sir, who is Mr Mashalaba because we did not just use one car.

MR MTEMBU: Mr Mashalaba is a Reverend, this is a person from whom you removed the Nissan Langley.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: We told Mr Mashalaba who we were and what our duties were. We assured him that he will get his car back. He will get it still in good condition, just after the attack, we will take it back, because we are fighting for the oppressed.

MR MTEMBU: Were you not perhaps scared that by blowing your cover that could affect your mission in that Mr Mashalaba when reporting his vehicle, could only tell the Police that it was actually APLA cadres that removed his vehicle?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Mr Mashalaba is an African and I believe he was also oppressed during that time of oppression.

We strongly believed that by telling him the details, he would understand that we were not taking his car for our individual benefits, his car was taken for the benefit of the oppressed masses.

We explained to him, we asked him to cooperate with us so that he can contribute something to the struggle for freedom. That is why we made it a point that we explained the situation to every African we took the car from so that they don't get afraid as to whether will they see their cars again or not.

When an African had a telephone at home, we would take the telephone numbers so that after completing our task, we would call him and let him know where the car is, so that he can go and get it. We did that to cut short the process of finding the car.

MR MTEMBU: We have since heard that instead of a Security Force member being killed, an innocent civilian was instead killed, Mr Jerling.

Now, how do you think this would have furthered your cause?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir, I do not have full evidence as to whether this person ...

MR MTEMBU: May I stop you there, it is common cause that Mr Jerling was not a member of any of the Security Forces, but was a civilian who that night, had gone to Yellowwoods Hotel to enjoy himself. That is not disputed.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Thank you for stopping me, now let me start my answer.

The Commander of the Unit explained yesterday that that place was already chosen as the target because the information was that some of the people who gather there, are members of the Security Force and they were always wearing guns.

We went there with an impression that we were going to get the members of the Security Force and we have to fight, we have to attack them, to kill them. That is why we did not have knowledge or rather a further explanation about this person, whether he was a Security Force or not.

MR MTEMBU: My question to you was how would this have furthered your cause?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Our cause would be furthered sir because we were in a war situation, fighting for the land, fighting for the oppression of the white, that is the reason why the place of the attack was chosen as a target place. We wanted to further the cause of fighting for the freedom of the Africans.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Mtembu, I just want to clarify something. You have said that some of you, your information was that some of the people there would be from the Security Forces. Does that mean that you realised that there would be other people there who were not from the Security Forces?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir I would not be able to tell, because we were told that the people who go there, mostly are Security Force members.

MR LAX: You see, you have used two words, you have said in your previous evidence, you said some of the people were Security Forces, now you said mostly were Security Forces. Now that implies that you realised that some other people who were not Security Force members, would be there?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I do not believe, I don't agree to that. When I explained, if you listened carefully, allow me to explain thoroughly now.

I said the instructions were taken out that the people who go to Yellowwood Hotel on Fridays and Saturdays, are the Security Force members because they want to go to isolated places.

I think I explained it that way. I do not remember saying others.

MR LAX: Look, I am just trying to help you, but you don't seem to be able to understand the question. You used, or otherwise you are just avoiding the question, one of the two, but I will leave it at that.

ADV GCABASHE: Just in terms again of the interpretation, what exactly is the position, just to clarify that finally, because there is a bit of a problem with the interpretation as well in people going there frequently and some people being there and others not.

Just give a final position on this.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: It was clarified that the people who go there were Security Forces members, who went there on Fridays and Saturdays. That is why the instruction was that they should be attacked on Friday or Saturday. I don't know whether my explanation is clear.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR MTEMBU: Do you have anything to say to the family of the late Mr Jerling?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: There is something sir.

MR MTEMBU: What is it?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: To the family members of the deceased I say I know there isn't anyone who has the right to take anyone's life, but I ask them to understand please that this was a war situation, we were fighting the enemy which was the white people.

Be strong please, because I also feel for you. A member of a family or a friend lost his life in this war, but I do not regret what happened in the war because it was war and it was a war for freedom.

But to the members of the family, we are now walking the road of reconciliation and we have to understand each other. I really sympathise with them and I say please be strong. Thank you.

MR MTEMBU: Is there anything more you wish to tell the Committee?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct sir.

MR MTEMBU: You may proceed.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I would request the Committee to take into cognisance the fact that the war was not an individual war, it was a war for freedom, we were fighting oppression.

The Africans were oppressed by the whites. That is why, that is the reason, because the whites on the other side were also protecting their oppression.

So I would request the Committee to take once again into consideration that we were fighting for freedom, it was a war, a struggle, not an individual fight. We were fighting for the country. I thank you.

MR MTEMBU: Is that your application?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir, I was explaining that when it comes to the war, I do not regret ...

MR MTEMBU: I want to know is that your application, you have now told the Committee whatever you wanted them to hear, is that correct?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, that is correct.

MR MTEMBU: Thank you Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Any questions? Mr Prior, I think you may have something.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman, there are a few questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Diaho-Monaheng, if I recall the various APLA applications for amnesty, in the St James church attack, the same reason was given that this was a target selected because the Intelligence was that Security Forces also attended that church.

Heidelberg Tavern was selected because the information was that Security Forces attended that restaurant and bar. The Crazy Beat disco in Newcastle, which was a discotheque the same information, Security Forces were expected to be there, and so too in Yellowwoods, that was the Intelligence.

Is this not just an excuse that has been thought up to make the attack sound more plausible, to put it in a military context, in fact which it is not?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is not so My Lord. Members of Security Forces go to church, they go to hotels, they go to sports fields, they go everywhere.

I think all these attacks as you have explained that Security Forces were present, it is true, they are found everywhere. I don't know whether I answered your question.

MR PRIOR: You see, 15 kilometres away at Adelaide, there was an Army base there, why didn't your Special Unit not attack that? There you would have found Security Forces in far larger numbers.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Which attack are you referring to sir, the Yellowwood attack?

MR PRIOR: No, I am saying you were in the area, if your Intelligence was so hot, there was an Army base at Adelaide, situated I understand about 15 kilometres away from the hotel. There you would have found Security Forces in numbers that you could have killed, or attacked. Do you agree with that or don't you agree?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir, I do not agree with you because I do not know that 15 kilometres from the hotel, there was a base.

MR PRIOR: All right. A week before the actual attack, you went to Yellowwoods, is that correct, but had to postpone the attack because the lights were off at the hotel, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't they say it was closed?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: It was closed, the lights were off, it was an indication that they were closed. That is the reason why we postponed the attack.

MR PRIOR: Yes, and that was at what time at night?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: It was already at night sir, because when we arrived the lights were off and we had an impression that it was already closed.

MR PRIOR: And that was either a Saturday or Friday night when you were expecting Security Forces to be present, is that right?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: It was on a Friday sir, if I remember very well, because we only had two days for the attack, either Friday or Saturday. We would not go there on any other day, we had to go there on those specific days.

MR PRIOR: Mr Vena, at page 31 of the bundle had his taxi stolen at about twenty to nine in the evening. Had you gone to the hotel at that occasion with the kombi, that is the aborted attack?

MR LAX: Sorry you are mistaken, they didn't get anywhere with the kombi, because they were suddenly being chased by the Police they thought, and then they abandoned it.

MR PRIOR: I beg your pardon, I am just trying to put a time ...

CHAIRPERSON: They took the red Langley.

MR PRIOR: That is the Reverend's vehicle? Yes, he puts it between nine and ten o'clock. In any event, were you surprised to see the hotel, this target where Security Forces are supposed to gather, that it was deserted? Did that surprise you at all, did it make you think anything about your orders?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: When we arrived there, finding the place empty, we thought that the people had already left because if you went to a certain place for entertainment, you go and stay for the time you want.

Maybe on that day people told themselves that they had enough entertainment for that day, so it was better for them then to go.

MR PRIOR: When you arrived at Yellowwood Hotel on the 20th of March, that is the night of the attack, is it correct there were only two vehicles in the car park as is evidenced on page 20 of the bundle, it was a, look like a Ford Escort or Ford type vehicle and a bakkie, an Isuzu bakkie, that were parked in the parking area?

Look at page 20, that is photograph 1 on the original bundle?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: This incident took place a long time ago, I don't know how many cars were parked when we arrived.

MR PRIOR: You see I want to suggest to you on the available information, there were only five young, white men in the hotel. Mr Swartz, the assistant Manager was there, and there were four other patrons. It was Mr Nel, Mr Jerling and I will get the other names in a short while, Mr Ferreira and a Mr Augustyn.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I do not know how many people were inside, I do not want to commit myself, I do not want to agree with you or disagree with you as to the number of the people who were inside the bar. I do not know.

MR PRIOR: I am attempting to sketch the factual position to you, that there were only four patrons, four guests at that time, there were only, from what I can gather from the photographs, only two vehicles in the car park when you arrived there and on that basis I am saying, or trying to enquire from you, did you think that there was a number of Security personnel in attendance at that hotel?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior, shouldn't you get your facts more accurate? You said there were four men in the Hotel when they arrived.

MR PRIOR: I said five.

CHAIRPERSON: If you look at page 40, paragraph three, Nel's affidavit, he talks about there already being four people in the bar when they arrived, two men and two women, went to the dining room, another two friends arrived.

MR PRIOR: Sorry, I was referring to the affidavit of Mr Swartz on page 53, I beg the Committee's pardon, paragraph four and I was talking about people in the bar.

It was Mr Nel, Mr Ferreira, Herbst Augustyn and Jerling. There were people in the dining room, but that was removed from the scene of the shooting.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the amount of people there, you are trying to rely on two cars.

MR PRIOR: In the car park.

CHAIRPERSON: There was one party of two men and two women.

MR PRIOR: I am suggesting that in the car park when they arrived, there were two vehicles parked there.

CHAIRPERSON: That seems to be a little inaccurate, doesn't it.

MR PRIOR: Well, we don't know if there were parking facilities behind the hotel for guests.

CHAIRPERSON: But what you put to him was that there were only two cars parked there when you arrived, and then you asked him to look at the photograph.

But the amount of people in the hotel ...

MR PRIOR: I take the Committee's point. You say you can't remember how many vehicles were in the car park?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct, I do not remember.

MR PRIOR: Is it correct that you were arrested in 1995 in Lesotho?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: Was that in May?


MR PRIOR: And the weapons that were used in the Yellowwoods Hotel attack, were they recovered by the Lesotho Royal Mounted Police in Lesotho?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I do not have the certainty that the arms that were found by the Lesotho Police were the ones used in the attack.

Allow me to tell you about the arrest in Lesotho. There were arms found in Lesotho. I do not know whether they were used at Yellowwoods Hotel, because the ones that were used at Yellowwoods, we did not take them with to Lesotho, we left them behind as explained yesterday.

If you want the name sir, of the village ...

MR PRIOR: Tell us where you, what did you do with the weapons used in the Yellowwoods attack after the attack, what did you do with those weapons?

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Prior, we didn't get the rest of his answer, the interpreter hadn't finished giving the rest of his answer. Please just let's hear that. He was starting to say something about where the arms were, and you cut him short, just hear the rest of it.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: It was explained yesterday, I fully agree with that, we left the arms at Makubeni village after using them at the Yellowwood attack.

On the next day, we used different modes of transport to go to Mdantsane where we lived and on that same day or a day thereafter we made arrangements to take different modes of transport again, to go to Transkei.

Now, on your question sir, whether these are the weapons found in Lesotho, my answer is I do not know because the ones that were used here, were left in that village that I have already told you about. Sir, did I answer your question, I don't know whether I answered your question.

MR PRIOR: Yes, so I need to ask you that question, were you still part of APLA at the time of your arrest?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: When I was arrested, I was still part of APLA Army, even though at that time decisions had already been taken that APLA must integrate into the National Defence Force to protect this country.

Yes, I was part.

MR PRIOR: And you had arms caches in Lesotho at that time, it would appear from the statement of Mr Kiane from the Lesotho Police at page 63? Is that right?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, there were arms in Lesotho as Mr Kiane explained.

MR PRIOR: Would you agree that during 1993, if your political information was correct, that there was the peace process had been kick started? There was a TEC transitional executive council, there was talk of the elections, the elections were roughly a year away? I think there was an electoral commission that had been set up, there was dialogue between political parties. Were you aware of that at that time, before the Yellowwoods attack?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Can Mr Prior please repeat his question, I really do not understand.

MR PRIOR: As I understood the evidence from Mr Madasi and in particular you, you received training, you were also getting political information. Information about the political condition in the country, is that correct?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, that is correct. Yes, we had military classes, we had political classes.

MR PRIOR: Were you aware that there was a transition, there was a process that had been started during and I think the beginning of, it could even have been in 1992, but particularly in 1993?

ADV SANDI: I am sorry Mr Prior, I think we will have to be careful and get out facts clear on that one. Are you suggesting that as early as March 1993 there was already a talk of elections? Wasn't that only decided in December 1993, on the 5th of December 1993 that there could be elections in April 1994?

MR PRIOR: Certainly, I am not clear precisely on the dates of everything, but there certainly was a TEC that had been established, and there certainly was political movement, there was dialogue between most of the parties.

The PAC had bought at joining the dialogue, and only at a very late stage, December the 5th, did they agree to come aboard, but the question is ...

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Prior, just to be fair to this witness, you have just sketched a picture in which the PAC wasn't part of that process.

MR PRIOR: Yes. But my question is was he aware that there was political change, there was dialogue, there was movement, despite the fact that his party had not joined? Was he aware of that reality, that is my question?

MR MTEMBU: Mr Chairman, in fairness to the witness, even if the witness had been aware that there was political movement, but if the PAC had not joined, how would that have affected his reasoning at the time?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that for him to answer?

MR MTEMBU: I will leave it at that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We are interested in his political feelings.

MR PRIOR: It is not a trick question Mr Diaho-Monaheng, were you aware that there was a movement, there was a beginning, there was a start to some form of new political dispensation, despite the fact and I accept that the PAC at that stage, weren't very keen in joining that process, but were you aware that there was this change?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, that is correct. I had that knowledge, there were negotiations between political parties. They were negotiating with the Nationalist Party.

MR PRIOR: Yes, all right.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it is very fair to say that the PAC was not very keen to join. Wasn't this the year of Operation Great Storm?


CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't the PAC totally opposed to those negotiations?

MR PRIOR: Well, I don't know. We have heard conflicting versions. Certainly APLA weren't keen to participate in the political and there was from the submissions that we have heard, there was some difference of opinion between the political leaders and the military leaders.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but is it not a question of a historical fact that the PAC was totally opposed to those negotiations at that stage?

MR PRIOR: Yes, the purpose of the question was simply to find out whether he as an individual was aware of the political change in the country, and I think I have conceded that the PAC or his instructions from his political party, was somewhat different.

I don't have the facts at my disposal, and I don't wish to maybe distort those facts, but whether they were all totally opposed or not, if one just look at the press clippings that we have seen in these amnesty applications, and listen to the, read the submissions given by the delegation in October. Even there they said that these attacks took the political leaders by surprise.

I don't know if the Committee wants me to refer specifically to those passages, I have referred to them in other amnesty applications, the last two weeks.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Prior, are you referring to the major submission by APLA leadership? Are they not saying in that submission that they were surprised and they would make enquiries and explanations would be given?

MR PRIOR: Yes, that is correct, but the witness has answered the question.

MR LAX: Shall we move on Mr Prior?

MR PRIOR: Yes, I would like to move on. I have lost my train of thought. Mr Diaho-Monaheng, yes, if I understand your evidence correctly, and the evidence of Mr Madasi, you were part of the struggle, we understand that. We understand the philosophy behind that, we understand the training that you received, but you attacked Yellowwoods Hotel because you had been given orders to do so, is that the bottom line?

It was part of your training as a soldier, you were part of a specially selected unit from the Phokela regiment. These were your orders to attack Yellowwoods Hotel and you carried out the operation pursuant to those orders?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Mr Madasi explained yesterday he was given orders by his seniors, that is the High Command of APLA to and attack that place. He was given a reason why specifically that place.

The reason was that the people who entertained themselves there on Friday and Saturday, are members of the Security Forces. I believe that explanation answers your question sir. I don't know whether you are satisfied.

MR PRIOR: Just to follow on and wrap that aspect up. I think one of the Committee members put it to Mr Madasi yesterday.

So in terms of your mandate in respect of that operation, there was no room, there was no space for any changes? For example if you had discovered that the hotel was full of elderly women, you could not have aborted the attack, you had to go through with the attack, because those were your specific instructions?

You had no discretion to break off the attack if you discovered that the true target was not what you had been informed about?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Mr Madasi answered that question yesterday, he said you do not question an order, you only seek clarification and you carry on with your order.

I don't know whether I answered your question.

MR PRIOR: Is that your position as well, is that what you believed and you knew at the time?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The instructions were carried out that your target has been selected and it has to be attacked in one of these two days, either a Friday or a Saturday.

MR PRIOR: I think from that ...

MR LAX: Sorry, sorry, can I just come in here. I just want to be clear in my own mind, because you are relying on what Mr Madasi said. We want to know what you think.

You are here an a applicant yourself, as well as Mr Madasi and we want to know what is in your head and what ideas you had when you were doing this thing. The question that was put to you was, you as an individual, as an individual APLA soldier, did you think you had any leeway if you realised that your Commander was wrong, to do anything about it?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I had no alternative or to bring any other change, I had to carry on with the work. I don't know whether you are answered.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR PRIOR: Thank you, I have noticed from a ballistic report that was attached to the papers, at page 57, that the Police found 28, 7.62 mm or calibre cartridges at the scene.

You said you had an R4, do you know the calibre of the R4?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I know it sir.

MR PRIOR: That is not 7.62 isn't it, isn't it 5.56 calibre, is that right?

Tell us the calibre, as you know it, of your R4.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir, if you bring me an R4 calibre, I will tell you that this is the one, it is written here at the back.

MR PRIOR: All right, I just want to make the point that there were 28 7.62 cartridges and 20 of 5.56. My understanding is that the R4 and the R5 rifle fires the smaller calibre, the 5.56. The 7.62 is an R1. Could you maybe just assist us, could there have been an R1, it really doesn't alter the situation, whether you used an R1 or an R4?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: There was not an R1 sir, it was an R4 that I used.

MR PRIOR: All right, and did you have a full magazine?


MR PRIOR: And did you use both magazines, did you empty both magazines?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I did not use them both.

MR PRIOR: When you shot from the outside where you say you were, through that window into the bar, did Mr Madasi, did he go into the doorway that we see on the right hand side of photograph, I think it is 8? Anyway, he went through the entrance into the bar, is that right, he disappeared from your view or could you still see him in the doorway when he was shooting?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I already told you that I was on the left side window, shooting through that window. He was not supposed to get into the building where I was shooting.

He would get into the building and only end up at the entrance. I don't know whether I gave you a full explanation.

MR PRIOR: And Mr Nqeba, he went around the back, is that correct, to the rear of the hotel?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: All right. Did you receive any resistance there, or encounter any resistance from your target?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I did not get any resistance from the position where I was, because we just shot and then left. If, when we gave reports as the unit, people might have come up with resistance that was present, but there was no resistance at all.

MR PRIOR: Right, the vehicle that you left the hotel in, where did you leave that? That is the Nissan Sentra, Mr Mashalaba's vehicle?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: After completing the Yellowwoods hotel work, we came with the car. Just before King William's Town we got a puncture, but I cannot tell the distance between the place where we got a puncture and King William's Town and the Commander of the unit took a decision because he was the leader at that time.

He said guys, here we are with a puncture. It would be difficult to stop other cars for help, let us leave it here and carry on. I think you are answered sir.

MR PRIOR: So it was just abandoned there, is that right, left there alongside the road?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: We left it on the side of the road, we locked the doors because that is what we normally do when we take somebody's car.

We asked him whether he had a spare key and he said no, and we said the key that we are using, you will get between the threads on the front wheel.

MR PRIOR: Now, he indicated and I think you confirmed, sorry, I don't know if you confirmed that, you certainly with the kombi you said a firearm was used on the owner, but with Mr Mashalaba, the Nissan Sentra vehicle you used on the night of the attack, was a firearm pointed at him?

Page 35 Mr Chairman.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: When Mr Mashalaba's car was taken, and there were two, it was himself and that lady, I was on the side of the lady and I was pointing the 3.8 at her.

What was happening to the driver, I do not have knowledge to that effect, I don't know what happened.

MR PRIOR: Well, he says in his statement that he beat someone there, he struck the person who was pushing him over from the driver's side to the passenger side with his fist, and that person then drew a firearm and pointed it at him and said he must be quiet.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Can I ask a question sir?


MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: If you are pointed with a gun, will you take out a fist to fight, I don't think he is telling the truth.

MR PRIOR: He said he first struck the person with the fist, then that person produced a firearm and then he was quiet.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: He is not telling the truth sir. He did not hit anyone with a fist. What happened was we told him sir, don't be troubled, and the lady that was next to him said, no, don't worry, just listen to them.

He did not hit anyone with a fist. He was just adding.

MR PRIOR: Why was it necessary for you to point your firearm at the woman, if there was no resistance and they were just complying? Then I do not understand?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The reason why I pointed a gun at that lady was that she must not be of any trouble to us, we did not have time. It was for the sole reason of smoothing the process. It had to be a quick process.

MR PRIOR: Well, I am suggesting to you that you are not telling us everything that occurred. You are not telling us the truth about how you obtained this vehicle.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir, I think I am answering the question you are asking. You asked me a question specifically referring to the car, and I am answering specifically to the car.

MR PRIOR: If I remember what Mr Madasi said, he said at no stage was any firearms used in that vehicle, Mr Mashalaba's vehicle, but now you say you pointed a firearm at the female occupant?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I don't think that is correct what is being said by Mr Prior.

If I remember very well, Mr Madasi, when he was giving evidence, he said that he was on the driver's side and he was holding a firearm and he answered the same way that it was not possible that he can be beaten by a fist, yet he was holding a firearm.

MR PRIOR: Sorry, with respect, my recollection and I need to get a ruling on this because this is important, Mr Madasi was quite clear that there was no need to use the firearm or to have force, there was no question. He was asked by Mr Lax about the assault or the striking, he said there was no question of an assault or any resistance by Mr Mashalaba.

We have now a contradiction, a material contradiction on how this vehicle was obtained. Mr Diaho-Monaheng now on his own (indistinct) says he pointed at the occupant, Mr Madasi certainly never gave any indication that there was any need to use firearms on those people to obtain the vehicle.

I think the witness ought to be able to explain that contradiction.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I think there is a difference between a force and a pointing of a firearm. I maybe wrong, my interpretation, Mr Chairman, there is a difference, somebody when he is using force.

ADV SANDI: What is the difference Mr Mbandazayo, if you are pointing a person with a firearm, are you not using force?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, technically I agree with you, but my interpretation was that if somebody resisted, then forcefully you did that, but my interpretation was that Mr Madasi indicated that they were having firearms with them, so there was no need for Mr Mashalaba to resist because of that.

There was no resistance on that score because they were having firearms, and he even said that it is not possible, because I would have killed him, because I was having a firearm if he did that. He said so. That was his answer.

MR LAX: What he in fact said was that if the person had fought with him, he would have beaten him up, that is what he said, those were his precise words.

He did go on to say after that, that he might have killed him if there had been some resistance.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR PRIOR: Maybe I will leave that for argument Mr Chairman. It is certainly clear that if firearms were used to subdue the occupants, then that was sufficient force to overcome any resistance that they might have offered.

You never answered the question of your Attorney when he asked you whether Mr Mashalaba was told by you people, that you were going to kill whites. Was that said to him?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I think the witness confirmed that, that was said to Mr Mashalaba, but then he went on to give an explanation why it was said to him.

MR PRIOR: Then I am happy with that. I think Mr Madasi also confirmed that that in fact was said.

Mr Diaho-Monaheng, I just want to move to Mr Vena, that is on page 31 of the bundle, that was the kombi vehicle. Is it not correct, I think if I listen to your evidence carefully, Mr Vena jumped out of his vehicle while it was still moving?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: When he was showed a gun, it was at the time when he was going to turn into a parking area.

The car was not speeding, it was driving normally you know for a car to turn. I think in his mind, he had this plan of escaping and then he jumped out of the car.

MR PRIOR: I want to suggest to you by that then, I think one can conclude that he was fearful of his life, or do you not agree?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I do not agree. He was not in danger. It is because of the explanations that we gave him, I think I told you already that if a person was an African, we explained the whole situation to him so that he can understand fully, the reasons why his car is chosen to be used by us.

MR PRIOR: And finally Mr Dingane, Rev Dingane at page 37 of the bundle, he was also threatened with a firearm. That was the Nissan Langley at paragraph 3 of his statement, is that also correct?

That seems to be a week before the Yellowwoods Hotel attack proper?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, it is a week before the Yellowwood Hotel attack. The owner of the Langley saw the guns that we had, but he was not threatened.

He was also given the explanation as we all do to others.

MR PRIOR: Why was it necessary to produce firearms at that stage? Was it to intimidate the owners of the vehicle?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: No, it was not to threaten the owner of the car, or to make him uncomfortable. It was part of the evidence when giving him the explanation he would see that it is true, these people have a mission.

The next day he would open, he would switch on the radio, listen to the radio, read the news. That is what I even told you earlier on, that we even asked people to give us their telephone numbers so that at the end of it all, we call him to tell him where the car is, so that he doesn't spend too much time looking around for a car.

MR PRIOR: Did you phone Mr Dingane, Rev Dingane and tell him where his car was?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Unfortunately we did not get the telephone numbers from him. I don't know whether we asked for that numbers.

MR PRIOR: Finally on this aspect, I want to just put to you what he said in his statement, no doubt your Attorney has taken you through his statement.

In paragraph 3 he says the firearms were pointed at him, and again in paragraph 5, he said he was told that he must make no mention of being robbed of his vehicle, and if he did mention that, that is obviously to the Police, that he had been robbed, they, referring to his assailants would kill him. Can you comment on that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: He did not tell you the truth when he did this statement. What happened when his car was taken, was that we explained to him who we were.

We told him that we were the PAC military wing, APLA, and we told him the reason for taking his car. I remember very well when we took him out of the car, one of us took out a R5-00 to give him, so that he is on time. We told him, we said please report your car tomorrow morning after the attack has been completed.

It is not true what he is telling you here in his statement.

MR LAX: Just one thing, so how do you say, how did you stop him, how did you approach him and stop him, tell us in your own words. You remember this thing very well, tell us in your own words, how did you stop him and approach him?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The owner of this Langley, we were at one of the units in Mdantsane, but I do not remember the unit number.

He was parking in a street, maybe he was going to get into one of the yards. When he opened the door, there was someone next to the door, and he ordered him to sit next to the driver's seat. Then the two of us got into the back and then on the way, he was given an explanation.

MR LAX: But you see, let me read to you what he says. He says I was travelling by myself in my red metal bronze Nissan Langley, he gives the registration number. I travelled from NU8 and reached the last set of robots. As one exists Mdantsane via Fort Jackson, the robots were red and I stopped my vehicle.

While waiting at the robots, three males approached me at my driver's door. The door was opened and they were pointing firearms at me.

They told me to get out of my car. While I was still asking them for what, they then said I must move over. I moved over into the passenger seat. The same one who had been talking to me, told me to get out of the car, took a position behind the steering wheel. The other two got into the back seat with guns, pointed at me.

That is a very different version of what happened to what you have just told us. Is he lying?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I repeat before this Commission, that he is not telling the truth.

He was parking the car. I don't know whether he was going into one of the yards on the left or on the right side, he was not stopped at the robots. It was within one of the units in the township. I have already told you that I do not remember specifically which unit it was.

ADV SANDI: Are you able to suggest any reason as to why this person could be lying about this, he doesn't know you, why should he distort what has happened, why should he lie about this?

Are you able to suggest any reason?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir, I am thinking he was just extending the evidence against us. He didn't just want to tell the truth of what happened on that day, that is what I think.

MR LAX: But you see, there is one other problem we have. You said earlier in your evidence you always took the phone numbers, if they had a phone, so that you could phone them, but you somehow, this man had a phone, you even offered him money, but you didn't take his phone number, how were you going to get his car back to him?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I explained that it might have been a mistake, it didn't come to our minds to take his telephone number at that time.

We normally explain to people. It was just his bad luck, maybe we dropped him off at a certain point before even taking his telephone numbers so that we can call him back.

All this happened so quick, we were in a hurry, so that the job can be finished. I don't know whether I answered you.

MR LAX: Carry on please.

MR PRIOR: I have no further questions Mr Chairman, thank you.


MR LAX: Mr Mtembu, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MTEMBU: Just one aspect Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Diaho-Monaheng, would you explain to the Committee on the orders that you would received as members of the APLA unit? Explain to them how these orders worked, from the person who receives them, until the time when they are actually executed.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir, with regard to instructions for the Yellowwood Hotel attack, they did not come straight to me, I took the instructions from the Commander of the unit.

He said there is a place that has to be hit, between either Friday or Saturday. This is a place ...

MR MTEMBU: Can I just stop you there, you didn't understand my question. I just want you to tell the Commission in general how the orders worked within APLA, in general.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I was once given orders, your seniors will call you, they will say listen, you are going. If there are any telephone numbers, they will give you the telephone number and they will tell you who the contact person is.

When you arrive at a certain place, there is someone to meet you, who will further explain to you what you should do or where you should go.

That is where you get all the instructions from above. I don't know whether I answered your question sir.

MR MTEMBU: Are you allowed any leeway to question them or not?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: There was no other way sir. If you were an uncommitted soldier, you would ignore or not listen to orders, but if you were committed to fighting for a just cause, which is the freedom of the people, you would not stand against orders.

MR MTEMBU: What would happen in a situation where the orders turned out not to be accurate and you would not pursue your mission?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The person who issued out instructions, would take a decision as to what to do. I don't know whether I answered you.

MR MTEMBU: Which person are you referring to, are you referring to the Commander of the Unit, or the person from whom the order emanated. I mean that is the person from within the Higher Command, or are you referring to the Commander of that specific unit?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I am referring to the person who issued out an instruction from the High Command.

CHAIRPERSON: But how does he know, are you allowed to question the order and go and tell him, there seems to be a mistake here?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: In my earlier explanations I said you do not resist an order, you do not stand against an order. What you rather do is ask further clarification, so that you can follow strict instructions.

You will then go back to the Commander and report back.

MR LAX: The question that you were asked, and you haven't really answered is you originally said you will report back to your Commander and try and seek clarification. The question you were asked was, how did you seek clarification before executing an order, if you knew it was wrong?

If you knew that there was some mistake, if it was clear to you the information that you had been given, or the basis of the order, for example, in this case you were told that you would go to that place, because there would be Security Force members on those two nights, Fridays and Saturdays.

Now, it is correct to assume that you had political education, you understood some of the policies and so on, is that right?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct.

MR LAX: Now, if having done your reconnaissance, you find that the target isn't what you were told it was, and in fact there is a terrible mistake, it is something else that is against your policy ...

ADV GCABASHE: Can you just clarify to the witness if this is a hypothetical situation, or if he should relate this to this particular mission, it might help.

MR LAX: This is hypothetical. We are just trying to understand how your orders worked, we are dealing in general here with orders. Do you understand what we are talking about now?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Carry on sir.

MR LAX: So, the question is, how would you in that context now, refer back to the people who gave you the orders, either you personally or your Unit Commander or the next level up, to say hang on chaps, there is a mistake here, this is the wrong target? How would you do that? Would you do that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir, to answer your question, a person who gave instructions, would never give instructions without any certainty. He gave you instructions with the certainty that that is the situation, and you have to carry out what he tells you.

If ever you do not understand how the work should be carried out, you then ask for clarifications because the person sends you to a place, knowing exactly that there will be no changes and no additions at all, I don't know whether I answered your question sir.

MR LAX: So are you saying that there was no space, no leeway whatsoever, once a target was selected, you didn't question the target, you just work out operationally what was required to execute your instruction, and you did that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Can you repeat your question sir?

MR LAX: Are you then saying that there was no space to question the target? All you could do was work out operationally how you should attack the target, and follow orders?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I explained sir, that you are given exact instructions regarding the target. You are given exact situations of the place and you go and execute an order.

During the time of issuing out an instruction, if you do not understand, you have a chance to ask for clarification and then after completing the task, you go back to report.

MR MTEMBU: I have no questions Mr Chairman.


ADV GCABASHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Diaho-Monaheng, were you ever a Commander of a unit?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, I was once a Commander.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Ms Gcabashe, can I just come in there on a question which is very related to this.

How does one become a Commander?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I think you become a Commander of the unit because of the work that you have taken part in. If the orders were correctly executed, according to instructions, then you stand a chance because you conformed to the instructions that is why you become a Commander.

There is no reason why you were involved in a mission and successfully attain the mission, and not be given a position of a Commander, because you now have knowledge as to how to conduct the operations. I don't know whether I answered your question sir.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Was this your first mission, the Yellowwoods Hotel mission?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Now, you have told us that you were a member of the Phokela regiment and that members were selected to go out on special operations. That is correct?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Did the members of this regiment, have any specialist skills? Another way of putting the same question really is, was there anything special about the people who went out on special operations, that is really what I want to know?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I indicated earlier on that we were members of, we were the members of the Phokela regiment. There wasn't anything special as such, because the training was the same, the lessons were the same.

It was, we were just chosen, we were selected for this task. Maybe it was a task as to see whether we will be in a position to carry out special instructions. I don't know whether I answered you.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Now this regiment was based at Nqobo, is that correct?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Nqobo is a place where I underwent training. It was not based there, because after the training we were not at Nqobo any more, we went to Umtata.

ADV GCABASHE: The Phokela regiment, was that therefore based at Umtata?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: After the training, it went to Umtata.

ADV GCABASHE: So, between 1990 and 1993, would it be correct to say you were based in Umtata?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Between 1990 and 1993, you would not be correct, even though I frequently visited Umtata, I was placed at a certain place to stay there, to wait for the instructions and to further my training.

Where of course Umtata is a place I visited frequently, you know, to go for the needs. I don't know whether I answered you.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. In terms of your role at the Yellowwoods Hotel, two questions. Were you any part of the planning of this operation, even at your level?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I was not part of the planning.

ADV GCABASHE: You did not even go and reconnoitre the area with your Commander?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The Commander is the person who selects from the unit the person he wants to be part of the reconnaissance, I was not selected, but at the end I saw the plan and I had an idea of the whole plan. I think I answered your question.

ADV GCABASHE: Now, do you have any idea at all as to who may have gone, which one of your party may have gone into the kitchen of the hotel?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The person who went behind the building, I don't know whether it was a kitchen or what, but it is comrade Nqeba.

ADV GCABASHE: I get the sense that you were a rather small group, there were only three of you who undertook this mission. Didn't you feel that you were short staffed, that there were too few of you to undertake a mission of this nature, where there would be military personnel at the venue, who might shoot back at you? What was your own sense?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: We did not, I did not have fear we were not under staffed, I explained already that I was a committed soldier to fight for the freedom of the people.

I did not have any, there was nothing hindering me to be involved in this. I don't know whether I answered your question.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Explain to me please what happened, you arrived there, the three of you.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, we arrived the three of us.

CHAIRPERSON: And two of you went towards the bar as I understand it?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: When we arrived there, we parked the car. One of us went behind and the two of us approached from the front.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you approach to?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: We approached the front of the bar, the front of the hotel.

CHAIRPERSON: And when did you start shooting?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I was told exactly the position from where I should operate and I, when I got out of the car, I went straight to a place where I was supposed to stand, that was a window, where I shot from.

My fellow comrade who was going to be with me on the front side, went straight to his position of operation.

CHAIRPERSON: So, you went straight to the window you have shown us, the window of the bar?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I went to the window, walking alongside the cars that were parked there, so that if there is anyone inside who looks through the window, he should not easily see me.

I was not walking straight, I was walking along the cars.

CHAIRPERSON: So, were there many cars parked there that you could walk behind?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I said this incident took place a long time ago, I don't remember how many cars were there, there were cars parked.

I don't know if there were other cars behind the building or not.

CHAIRPERSON: And you walked to where you had been told you should operate, which is a window outside, the bar window that you have indicated, is that so?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct. I was shooting inside the bar.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that where you started shooting, inside the bar?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And your colleague, Mr Madasi, you have told us I think, that he went into the bar?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: He operated from the entrance of the bar, yes, I agree with you. Even though I do not know the distance from the door and the place where he was.

CHAIRPERSON: But it was inside the door?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, he went through the door.

CHAIRPERSON: And is that where he started shooting?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: He was supposed to shoot from that point.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you gave the signal by firing shots with your revolver, that you should retreat?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you stop shooting then?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, the shooting stopped, we went to the car and left.

CHAIRPERSON: So from the time you left the building, there was no more shooting?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: There were no shooting, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: So the only shooting that took place, was the shooting by you, through the window into the bar, and by Mr Madasi while he was in the bar?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I think that is the only shooting sir, because if there was anything that took place, I would have heard.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the shooting stop when you fired the 38 revolver?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: When I shot with the revolver, I had the rifle in my other hand. After shooting, I think my comrades heard the signal and they stopped.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, we have a plan that was prepared by the Police and we will no doubt here evidence from it, but perhaps you can explain, that there were a number of shots fired outside the door of an old building next door to the hotel?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Can you repeat your question please?

CHAIRPERSON: There were a number of shots, apparently six of them, fired at a building next, at the door in the vicinity of the door of an old general dealer's shop, next door to the hotel?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I do not bear knowledge of that.

CHAIRPERSON: There were a further six shots fired at the corner of the hotel, at a portion of it, which was indicated as a store?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I do not remember that because after signalling for retreat, all of us went to the car.

Even though a person who came a bit late, was Nqeba because he was behind the building, because we were very close to the car, we were the first to be at the car, and he came later.

CHAIRPERSON: And there is indication that somebody fired two shots in the vicinity of the blue bakkie and broke its window? Can you say anything about that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: A bakkie outside?


MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I do not remember well, because I was operating from outside, I think it must have been shots from me, because I was operating from outside the building. I did not go inside.

CHAIRPERSON: And the photograph shows shots all over, scattered on the wall of the building, but you have told us you shot through the window into the bar?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: We were not aiming, we were rapidly shooting. It might have happened that when I was outside, some of my bullets hit the wall before signalling for retreat.

CHAIRPERSON: If you will look at photographs 5 and 6, you will see there are many bullet marks on the wall.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Diaho-Monaheng, do you know which side of the hotel this might be? You are looking at the shots that were fired, or the holes in the wall. Do you know which side of the hotel that might be?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: This is the front of the hotel, where we were according to my view.

CHAIRPERSON: How could these shots have been fired all over the wall, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, without you knowing it? You were standing there?

ADV SANDI: Mr Diaho-Monaheng, aren't those the shots you say might have come from you?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I said we were shooting rapidly, I shot from outside. It might have happened that these were the shots from my gun.

Because if you shoot and the gun jerks you, so it might have happened that when I was shooting inside, I was jerked and then they went to the wall. That is why I have not disputed that yes, it might be some of the bullets from my gun. I am the person who shot from outside.

ADV SANDI: And what about Nqeba, is it not also possible that some of the shots came from him?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I would not be certain, because he was behind the building. I don't know whether he shot or not. CHAIRPERSON: You haven't told us that you heard any other shooting. I have asked you about the shooting you have heard, you have told us about that.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is my explanation, and I am further explaining that because I was shooting from outside, I cannot dispute that these shots might have been from my gun, because I was operating from outside.

CHAIRPERSON: You were shooting through the window?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct, I was shooting through the window, inside, but I explained that I was shooting rapidly, and when you shoot rapidly, the gun jerks you, so it might have happened that when I was shooting, the gun jerked me and some of the bullets went to the wall.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand the bullets in the immediate vicinity of the window, that is a perfectly reasonable explanation, but bullets way up the top of the building do not fall into that category.

You have said there was no shooting at the other building next door where the photographs taken by the Police, and the plan, shows that there was a great deal of shooting.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I don't want to interpose, I have also photographs, other photographs of the pointing out which, and that is not the point of informing the Committee, the photographs, the clearer picture of the hotel building and this store room which I think may have been referred to as the general dealer's shop, it seems to be two distinct buildings, and I have a clear photograph of that if the Committee wishes to see that.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't intend to ask any more questions about this, I think we should take the adjournment at this stage. Some people had been working very hard since nine o'clock. We will take the short adjournment now.



CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on Mr Prior, we have been given a bundle and you have also made available now, the original photographs which are the original of the photographs at pages 19 to 30 in the bundle.

But part of the original photographs is a plan which I have referred to and should we perhaps give the original photographs and plan an Exhibit number. Have we got any Exhibit?

MR PRIOR: No. We can give it Exhibit A.


MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, on this point, I know I put up a bundle which contained several affidavits to which have been referred to.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps that bundle ought to be Exhibit A, and this will be Exhibit B.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, may I mention that we have not had sight of the map. It was not part of the bundle.

MR PRIOR: Yes, that wasn't part of the bundle, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us also call Mr Madasi affidavit, Exhibit C, because I am saying C, because I have already numbered the others and I don't want to have to scratch them out.

Would you like a short adjournment to look at this plan?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it only right that the Attorneys who have not seen the plan, should have the chance to see it, in case they want to put anything to the witness about it. We will take a very short adjournment when I will make this plan available to them. I regret the delay.



CHAIRPERSON: Before we go on, can we just record that we have now been given another affidavit, that of Lungisa Mzwonka Ntintili, which will be Exhibit D.

NKOPANE DIAHO-MONAHENG: (still under oath)

FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MTEMBU: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, Mr Diaho-Monaheng would like to refute or retract an earlier statement with regard to the bullets that hit the old store room.

Mr Diaho-Monaheng, would you now tell the Committee if indeed the bullets that hit the building adjacent to the hotel, could they be fired from your firearm or not?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The explanation that I can give to Mr Mtembu's question is that the first statement I gave before seeing the two buildings. I now saw the two buildings, and the building where six bullets are found, is a building on the other side of the hotel.

If you were referring to the bullets on the building that we were facing, that is the main building, I won't dispute that, but now it is the other building. I do not know. That is my explanation.

MR LAX: Sorry, you were asked would those bullets have been fired from your firearm? Please give a direct answer to that. You have explained the context, but you haven't said whether they were or weren't fired from your firearm, or whether you can say whether they were fired from your firearm.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I am explaining sir, that I did not see the two buildings before, and after a perusal of the map, I do not believe those bullets were from my gun, because the building was far from the building that I was facing.

If bullets were found on the building we were involved with, I wouldn't dispute that they might have been from my gun, but because they are now on this other building, I dispute that.

I don't know whether I answered your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand from that, that you deny having fired shots at this other building?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: This is my answer sir. I would have never shot at any other building, except the one that I was facing, I am against the fact that they might have been from my gun.

That is why I say to you if the bullets were on the building that I was facing when I shot, I wouldn't dispute that.

CHAIRPERSON: I have heard you say that, I have asked you a simple question. Do you deny firing the shots that hit that other building?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I disagree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that mean you deny firing those shots? Did you fire the shots that hit that other, old building?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I did not shoot.

MR MTEMBU: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.


MR LAX: When you got out of the vehicle, you said that Nqeba went to the back of the building, and the two of you proceeded towards the bar.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct, that is what I said.

MR LAX: Which direction, or let me start one step before that. Where did you park the car?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: We parked the car at the front of the building that we were going to attack, that is at the side of the bar.

ADV GCABASHE: In front of the bar?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: In front of the bar.

MR LAX: I am going to show you the plan, and maybe you can try and give us some idea on that plan, if you will just hang on a minute, you will see on photograph 1, have a look at photograph 1, you will see there are some cars parked there.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if I can interrupt. If you will look at the coloured photograph 1, you will see in the background the door with the canopy over it, which is the door to the bar.

MR LAX: Correct. Do you see that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, I see that.

MR LAX: Then you can see there is some cars parked in the foreground of the picture?


MR LAX: Where in relation to those cars, did you park?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I see two cars parked on the photo, we were parking on the right side of these two cars, not on their left side.

We went to the building.

MR LAX: So you would have moved to your left, towards the bar entrance?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: When I moved from the car we were driving in, I went towards the left side, to the window.

MR LAX: Correct. Now the earlier question, having set that context for you, the earlier question about where Mr Nqeba went, how did he move from the car? Did he go around between the two buildings, down that passage towards the back of the building?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: He went to the back, the kitchen door. There is a passage that he used, then he went to that side.

He went between two buildings, I saw that clearer picture on that other photo.

MR LAX: Thank you. So was the plan then that he would go to the kitchen door?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The plan was that he would use the back door, that is the kitchen door and we would approach from the front. I would stand next to the window, and our Commander, Mr Madasi will get into the bar.

MR LAX: You don't know whether he went inside the kitchen, or into the passages as you will have heard, questions being put to Mr Madasi. Are you able to say anything about that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Because he was at the back, I do not know, I do not have full knowledge as to whether he got inside or not. But when a report was given out, he reported that he went inside.

MR LAX: So he did report that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: He reported that he got inside. He said he was inside the kitchen.

MR LAX: You were present when he reported?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I was present when he reported.


MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: We were a unit gathering, discussing or reporting what happened after the attack.

MR LAX: So you haven't told us who he reported to. Did the three of you report to each other, in each other's presence?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: We were three and those were the reports. Before the Commander could take it further to the ones who issues out the instruction, we were reporting to each other about what happened there.

MR LAX: So that the Commander could prepare a report onwards, higher up the chain?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct.

MR LAX: So, Mr Madasi was present then when that report was made?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: He was present, we were three.

MR LAX: Well, you see in his evidence yesterday, he said no report of any nature, indicating that Nqeba had gone into the building, he said no such report was ever made to him, that was his evidence yesterday.

What do you say about that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Each one explained when we reported to each other, that he got into the building. I don't know whether I answered your question.

MR LAX: That is fine, you stick to your version then.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you finished now? Did he also report that his firearm had jammed?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I do not remember. I do not remember him reporting that his firearm jammed.

ADV SANDI: Mr Monaheng, we have listened to evidence in quite a number of APLA applications, we listened to you this morning, as well as Mr Madasi yesterday.

Would it be fair to say that for a whole number of historic and political reasons which have been given by members of APLA, it was the policy of APLA to attack whites wherever they may be. Would that be a fair statement to make regarding the policy of APLA?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Because our struggle was a struggle of war against the whites who were oppressing us, it was the policy of APLA to attack everyone who was our oppressor, as long as he was white.

ADV SANDI: Would it be fair to say that seemingly in the execution of that policy, no distinction was drawn as to whether those who were to be attacked, were civilians or no civilians? Would it be fair to say that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: It was clear in the policy that the black people were oppressed by the Boers.

It was the way of operating, that is attacking every Boer who had part in the oppression of the Africans, or anyone who benefitted from the oppression.

ADV SANDI: I will ask you to answer my questions very shortly, because we have listened to all the history, we do not require that you go through the history again.

Mr Monaheng, would it be fair to say that as a matter of policy, you did not draw any distinction between an armed and an unarmed target, did you?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: There was no difference because we were oppressed by the Settlers, the Boers.

ADV SANDI: Now coming to the attack on the day in question at the Yellowwood Hotel.

You had information that some of the patrons who were attending this Hotel, were from the Security Forces. Would you have continued to execute your operation if you did not have such information?

Let us suppose there was no such information, would you have continued to attack this people at that Hotel?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: If only the people who were found there, were the Boers, the oppressors, I would carry on with the operation.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Monaheng, that is all I wanted to ask you.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Diaho-Monaheng, you have actually got photo 2 in front of you. I don't know if you can furnish an explanation about the cartridges found at photo 2, and the window of that vehicle that has obviously been shot at. Do you know anything about that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I am looking at this photo right now, and I would not dispute that the bullet that hit here, might have been from my gun, because I was shooting from outside.

When we were retreating to the car, our guns were still faced at the building that were attacked. I think I answered your question.

ADV GCABASHE: I understood you to say that after you fired the .38 shots, that showed your comrades that you are now retreating, you didn't fire any other shots.

Are you now saying that those cartridges might have been fired after you fired the retreating shots, what are you saying?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I would like the Committee to understand that the emotions were high during this attack. We had a task to complete in a short time, I would not remember whether after firing the retreat, there were other shots, because our guns, firearms were still facing the direction of the building, so that anything that appears, we will be ready.

I explained already that our attack was aimed at the people inside, and to destroy that place. I am not disputing that it might have been me who shot here, or one of us. Because the intention was to kill and to destroy the property.

ADV GCABASHE: But we certainly need some clarity on whether or not shots were fired after the retreat shots were fired from the .38 revolver, because you are now saying something very different.

You did not say earlier, that you may have fired further shots. I understand what you are saying, but that wasn't your evidence earlier.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Maybe I made a mistake there. The reason for shooting the .38 as a retreat, was to indicate that we have to leave.

Maybe thereafter there were other shootings, because the reason for the attack of this property was to kill and destroy the same property.

CHAIRPERSON: But the question was, that you said in your evidence a short while ago, that there was no other shooting after you fired the shots from the 38 revolver. Which are we to believe?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I might have made a mistake when I gave my evidence, I am now explaining that our emotions were high, we had to operate in a very short space of time, destroying the place and killing the people.

It might have happened that during those high emotions, ... (tape ends) ... that will be used to go away.

ADV SANDI: Can you explain Mr Diaho-Monaheng, what do you mean when you say the emotions were high?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I am saying when you go to a war, you go with strong emotions and you want to do things the right way.

ADV SANDI: Were you not afraid that you could be killed in this operation?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Sir, there will be those who die in the war, there will be those who get injured, other will survive. I did not have any fear because I was fully committed to fight for the freedom of the Africans.

I did not have any fear of dying.

ADV SANDI: Did you anticipate that one of you could be killed, I am not talking about your fear?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: We did not have fear that even one might die.

MR LAX: Can I just pick up on something here.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, I just want to finish off the point that I was talking to you about the motor vehicle and the shots that may have been fired after the .38 shots.

First question, are you therefore saying that photo 2, the shots that were fired into that vehicle, were not fired deliberately, is this what you are saying?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Everything that took place at the place of attack, was deliberate. Now to answer your question, I would say that they were shot deliberately.

ADV GCABASHE: I don't want you to misunderstand me. Were you trying to damage this particular car, or was it just of your general action, the other deliberate? You see I am just distinguishing between your act in relation to the bar, and the people there, and trying to damage this particular car as you left, I may not have been clear earlier?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I have answered already. It was the intention to shoot and kill and destroy everything that was there.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, thanks and then the last aspect on the same point.

Is it therefore correct for me to conclude that the shots we spoke about earlier, the ones on the building adjacent to the bar, the building in photo 3 and 4, that you say you did not fire at, isn't it possible that as you retreated, if you were firing shots, that you shot at that building?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I already indicated that I did not know the building which was referred to, but after perusing the photo's I realised that the bullet holes were on the building adjacent to the hotel, and I dispute that I shot it.

But if they were on the building that we were attacking, then I would say they might have been from my gun. Now, I do not know whether when we retreated, there were shots that went to that building.

MR LAX: You see, the whole issue is here, you said earlier that you don't believe that those bullets were from your gun, and you denied firing those shots at that building. That was before we had established that in fact other shots were fired, after you fired the retreat signal.

You then go on to say well, in the heat of the moment and because of your emotions, you couldn't remember, maybe other shots were fired. The question is, as my colleague has put to you, is it not feasible and possible that you or one of the other colleagues in the heat of the moment, after retreating and after you had given your 38 retreat signal, carried on firing and hit that building?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Can you repeat your question sir, I do not understand it quite clearly.

MR LAX: Well, let me put it very simply. You were very sure that it wasn't you that fired the shots that hit that building, yet to explain why there were shots fired after the signal you said well, you were in high emotions, you might have made a mistake. Are you with me? Are you with me so far?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I am listening.

MR LAX: Do you understand what I am saying so far?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, I understand up to this far.

MR LAX: Right, so if you were in such high emotions and you made a mistake about the shots being fired after the 38, isn't it possible you are making a mistake now about firing shots at that building, that is the trust of what we are putting to you?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Allow me sir, to shortly explain this. I said I do not believe that I shot at this adjacent building, adjacent to the hotel. Our focus was on the hotel itself.

When we retreated, our firearms were facing the hotel itself, until we reached the car. That is why I say if the bullets were found on the hotel building, not the building adjacent to the hotel, I would say yes, they were from my firearm.

MR LAX: Well, you see your car was on the - facing those buildings, it was on the right, as you have indicated. And if you had carried on firing on your way to the car, you could quite easily have hit that building?

CHAIRPERSON: But he didn't say that they did carry on.

MR LAX: But now he is admitting that they did possibly carry on shooting after the signal. Anyway, you have given your answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Just explain, you fired the signal, the retreat signal, you were standing outside the window of the bar?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, I was outside.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Madasi come out of the door?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I did not see him getting out of the door, but when we retreated, we were together. I don't know at which stage did he leave the building, but because he was outside, it gave me an impression that he must have heard the retreat shot.

CHAIRPERSON: And he must have come out of the door to be outside the building, and you and he were together and you walked away, if I understood, from the building towards your car which was parked in front of that building, the main building?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: There are two buildings here. The other one is the building adjacent to the hotel, if I saw the pictures clearly.

We did not even park next to this other building, we were parking towards the end and we retreated to the car and that is why I say I do not believe that our bullets hit the building adjacent to the hotel, because it was on the other side of the hotel.

CHAIRPERSON: I missed one word, you were parked near where? When I said main building, I mean the hotel, were you parked in front of the hotel?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you went back, straight back to your car?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, our firearms were still facing the main building.

CHAIRPERSON: And the two of you were together?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Yes, we were together, retreating.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it Nqeba arrived there, because he was your driver?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Nqeba arrived just after a minute, because he was on the other side of the building. He got into the car, we drove off.


MR LAX: If you look at picture 3, you will see that that is part of the parking area, but it extends in front of the bigger building on the right of the bar.

Do you see that?


MR LAX: If you had parked on the right, you could only have parked there, there is no other parking place from the side, if you look at all the other photographs, because the parking place stops there and there is some bushes and then beyond those bushes, is the rest of the parking which is in front of that building.

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Allow me to demonstrate or point out here, or I would estimate on those photo's where we parked.

We were facing this main building and the parking area was visible, I can come and point, or even just mark with a pencil to show you where we were parking.

MR LAX: I am going to pass you the plan, I am going to pass you the plan, show us on the plan where you parked.

You have indicated a mark with a round pen, opposite the point roughly (j) on that plan, is that right?

There is a (j) here that you have indicated you have parked next to?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is correct, that is the direction we were parking at, next to the entrance of the bar.

CHAIRPERSON: So were you parked almost in line with the entrance to the bar?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: Not exactly facing the entrance, but it might have been a metre or a metre and a half from the entrance.

MR LAX: If you look at photograph 2 or 3, yes, look at photograph 2 first, you will see the general picture there, can you see the place, do you recognise that place?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: This is the bar we went to at Yellowwoods Hotel.

MR LAX: And were you parked directly in front of the door then?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: We parked slightly towards the side, not directly in front.

MR LAX: When you say the side, which side? Left or right facing the building?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The right side. Not far from the door of the bar.

MR LAX: That would then again correspond with the point you made on the plan? My final question on this issue is if you look at photograph 3, how do you explain the fact that there were shells found at points (b) and (c) on photograph 3?

The question is, how do you explain that those shells were there, at (b) and (c)?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I explained earlier on that when we retreated, the firearms were still facing the main building. It might happen that they were bullets from our guns. I do not dispute that.

MR LAX: You see, that is right in front of the second building?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: The building that is here, does not appear as the building I saw on that photo.

Now, this is the building we were facing, and there is yet another building where the bullets were found on the wall. But when I look, to me they are the same but there is this other one which is referred to as an old store room, but it is not far from the main building.

I heard it was an old store room that was not used. That is why I said I do not agree when it is said that the bullets on the other building, adjacent to the hotel, was from my gun.

MR LAX: I've got one last issue just to canvass with you. You said after your training, you went to another place where you were stationed, and where you had further training, while you were waiting for further instructions. Where was that place?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I stayed in Transkei.

MR LAX: Yes, we know it is in the Transkei, where in the Transkei?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: It is a village called Cantollo.

MR LAX: And that is where you were based until you went on this operation?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: That is where I stayed sir.

ADV SANDI: Mr Monaheng, the bullet holes on the building adjacent to the Hotel, is there any possibility that they could have come from the firearms of your colleagues and friends who were involved in this operation, would you deny that?

MR DIAHO-MONAHENG: I do not know sir.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: That concludes his evidence, does it?

MR MTEMBU: That is correct Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: All right, we will take the adjournment now.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, we are slightly pressed for time, I do have the other witnesses in the other matter that will be here after two o'clock, could I ask the Committee whether we could take a shorter adjournment than the full hour?

CHAIRPERSON: I was going to suggest until 1.45.

MR PRIOR: As you please Mr Chairman.



CHAIRPERSON: Have you got your next applicant?

MR MTEMBU: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have the next applicant which is my last applicant in this matter Mr Chairman, Lungisa Mzwonka Ntintili. May he be sworn in Mr Chairman.


EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ntintili ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, is he using earphones, are they tuned to the right thing?

MR LAX: Mr Ntintili, it might help to wear the earphones, you can actually hear better, even if you are going to be speaking English. Just put them to channel 2 on the side there. Can you hear me properly now?


MR LAX: You can see it does actually help a bit. Thank you, we are in your hands Mr Mbandazayo.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ntintili, do you confirm that the affidavit before the Committee has been made by you and you abide by it?


MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I will just go to, I will deal only with paragraphs 4 and 5 of his affidavit, just for clarification, for him to clarify before this Committee.

Mr Ntintili, paragraph 4 reads thus I became indirectly involved in the APLA operation in Yellowwoods Hotel in 1993, by delivering arms and ammunition which were left by comrade Thembalani Nqundu to Mqelo location on the 16th of February 1993, the day I was arrested at Komga T-junction.

Can you elaborate on this and tell the Committee how did it come that you have these arms and you were asked to deliver them at Mqelo base and by whom?

MR NTINTILI: Yes, as we left last week with the question of these arms which were left to me as I have said here, there was that time when the Euro Settler regime Police were up and up looking for me, then I had to leave the area of Thembasa where I was teaching.

Then I left for Transkei and now I was directly in contact with some of the comrades, especially who were in the High Command, like comrade Scomiso Nunxuba.

I gave a report to them that where the ammunition were and at a later stage, at the beginning of 1993, when I was supposed to go for registration at Fort Hare, then I informed comrade Nunxuba, because I was supposed to report each and every time that I am going to leave Transkei area, to the comrades in the High Command.

Then I told him that I was supposed to go to Fort Hare for registration and things, then it was then that he told me that I should also, if I will have transport, take those equipment that were left with me, and deliver them to the location, that is by the name of Nqelo.

That I did, then that was the day when I went to Thembasa and I took the whole ammunition and the arms and I was driving a Saffire, which I borrowed from one chap in Transkei, and I took them straight to Mqelo location, where I handed over them to Shorts.

MR LAX: Sorry, we didn't catch the person's name, could you just repeat that please?

MR NTINTILI: I handed over them to Shorts, that is Shooter.

MR MBANDAZAYO: What is his proper name?

MR NTINTILI: I don't know.

MR MBANDAZAYO: For the record Mr Chairman, it is Vuyisile Madasi, Brian Madasi.

Thank you Mr Chairman. I will move just lastly to paragraph 5. I discovered that a warrant of arrest was issued after the attack at Fort Beaufort, but they could not get me. Can you explain to the Committee how did you come to know that a warrant of arrest had been issued against you?

MR NTINTILI: Yes, first and foremost you will remember that I was once arrested on this day that I was delivering this ammunition and this arms. That was on the 16th of February 1993.

Then during my arrest, there was a lot of torture that was done as I once said in this Commission. After I was released and I was deported to Transkei by the Security regime, I mean Security Police.

Then there was a time when I had to make some civil claim which I did, and it went up to Grahamstown Supreme Court and it was then that I discovered because there were documents that the affidavit from the Euro Settler Security Police and the affidavits from me, which were exchanged with the lawyers and it was then that I saw that there were two warrants of arrest.

There was a warrant of arrest for Fort Beaufort attack and there was also a warrant of arrest for the East London attack, that is how I got to know that there was a warrant of arrest for me.

MR MBANDAZAYO: That is all Mr Chairman, thank you.


MR MTEMBU: Thank you Mr Chairman, no questions from me.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Thank you. Mr Ntintili, it would seem then that you supplied the arms to Mr Madasi, which were then eventually used in the Yellowwoods Hotel attack. It would seem a few days more than a month, before the actual attack. We know the attack was the 20th of March and you say you delivered the arms on the 16th of February, is that correct?


MR LAX: Could you just come a little closer to the microphone if you answer, please.

MR PRIOR: How familiar were you with ammunition and arms, arms and ammunition? Could you identify firearms and could you identify ammunition?

MR NTINTILI: I think I just know it from a general knowledge, but I am not familiar with the ...

MR PRIOR: Calibers?


MR PRIOR: Calibers, can you say whether certain ammunition is 7.62 mm or other calibers or are you unable to say that?

MR NTINTILI: With great respect Your Honour, I think you understand that my profession is teaching, and I am not a soldier, therefore I don't know those things.

MR PRIOR: Yes. Did you know anything about, were you informed at any stage after your arrest, that the operation at Fort Beaufort was to be called off because of your arrest?


MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.


RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, just as a follow up to the last question of Mr Prior, Adv Prior, did you know anything about the operation at Fort Beaufort?

MR NTINTILI: Actually I think I indicated when I was here last time, that this was a process and the call was made in 1986. I indicated therefore that there was a lot of deployment of APLA operatives, so therefore I was not exactly, specifically knowing where the operation would be done, but I was just aware that APLA has been deployed and the objective of that deployment was to attack.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.



MR PRIOR: I take it, are there any witnesses to be called, because I wish to call Mrs Jerling.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman, there are no other witnesses at this stage that we are going to call.

MR PRIOR: Do you confirm that Mr Mtembu?

MR MTEMBU: I do Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I am afraid I am a little confused. Have we had the name mentioned here of a senior Commander who may be giving evidence at a later stage?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman, I indicated even yesterday Mr Chairman, that I have contacted him about this matter, giving evidence, but not at this stage Mr Chairman.

As I have indicated that he is willing and even indicated to me that even his deputies can come and give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean it might be relevant to this hearing as well, might it not?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, but I indicated that he, I went to Bloemfontein to meet him, but I couldn't meet him on Saturday, but he indicated that he will be at Aliwal North, so I am hoping that I will give a definite answer to the Committee in the Aliwal North hearing, to when we will be in a position to give that evidence before the Committee.

MR LAX: Perhaps you should just place on record then that you reserve the right to call that person in due course, that you are not closing your evidence yet.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the position Mr Chairman, I am going to call evidence of the senior, the Director of Operations or his deputy to give clarity on some of these issues Mr Chairman.

MR MTEMBU: Mr Chairman, through you, may I retract my earlier statement and also say that I am not closing my case pending the calling of the PAC Higher Command, thank you.

MR PRIOR: I call Mrs Jerling.

ANNA HELENA JERLING: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Mrs Jerling, is it correct that you reside in Fort Beaufort?

MRS JERLING: Yes, I do reside in Fort Beaufort.

MR PRIOR: And during March 1993, during the incident at the Yellowwoods Hotel, you also resided there?

MRS JERLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: It is a common fact that your son, Johan Jerling was a victim in the attack about which we have heard today, the attack which occurred there, is that correct?

MRS JERLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: You made a written statement, is that correct?

MRS JERLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: Chairperson, this statement appears from page 51 in the bundle until page 54.

Do you confirm the contents of this statement?

MRS JERLING: Yes, this is my statement.

MR PRIOR: And do you confirm this under oath?

MRS JERLING: Yes, I confirm this under oath.

MR PRIOR: The facts and opinions which appear therein, you wish to submit as your testimony to this Committee, is that correct?

MRS JERLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: Your attitude towards the amnesty application of the two applicants, as set out is that you are opposing the application?

MRS JERLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: And the reasons which you have set out, are in your statement?

MRS JERLING: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: Mrs Jerling, would you briefly tell or describe to the Committee the sort of person that your son, Johan was? We have heard testimony that the target was a military target, the applicants received orders to attack military or people who were trained in the Security Forces.

Could you briefly describe to us what Johan was doing at that point in time, how old he was and so forth?

MRS JERLING: My son was young, full of life. He dearly loved sport and music, not at all politically orientated.

He never even voted in an election, he was not interested in politics. He was too young in any case, he was 18 when he died.

MR PRIOR: Before the incident, had he just finished his schooling?

MRS JERLING: At the end of the previous year, he passed his matriculation, and he was a student at the Port Elizabeth Technical College. He studied Electrical Engineering and he did quite well in his studies.

MR PRIOR: Had he received any military training?

MRS JERLING: No, he never received any military training.

MR PRIOR: Was he the owner of a weapon?

MRS JERLING: No, he never owned a weapon.

MR PRIOR: Could you perhaps tell the Committee how he arrived at the Hotel, was there a function there, or was it his habit to visit the Hotel, what was the situation?

MRS JERLING: In the neighbouring town, there had been a show or a festival dance, and the manager of the Hotel had gone to Adelaide and one of his friends had been asked to supervise temporarily in the bar, and they had gone to visit him.

It was not his habit to visit there.

MR PRIOR: After his death, was there any reaction within the community of Fort Beaufort which you would like to convey to the Committee?

MRS JERLING: My son had many friends, also from within the black community, and the week after his death, I think it was the ANC Youth League were going to hold sit ins at schools, they were going to hold protest marches.

They told the Police that they would set aside all their activities for that week, apart from one march on the Thursday, they wanted to tell me that it was not them who had killed him.

MR PRIOR: So, as I understand you, it was out of a sense of respect that they had cancelled the majority of their activities and their protests in the week after Johan's death?

MRS JERLING: They notified me that it was out of respect for him and for his family.

MR PRIOR: Is there anything else that you would like to tell the Committee regarding the amnesty application of the two applicants? Is there anything that you feel within your heart that you would like to express, now is your opportunity to express these things?

MRS JERLING: These people said that they attacked Security Officers. My son was not involved with any Security actions.

As far as I understood regarding the other attacks with which they have acknowledged their involvement, these attacks had taken place on churches, hotels, sports facilities, and so forth. Personally I do not think that they wanted to attack Security Officers, I think they were looking for soft targets, because at all those places there were no people who were armed.

As we understood it, on the evening of that attack, there would have been a stag party which had been cancelled at a very late stage. If a stag party had been held, there would not have been any armed people there.

I feel that these people did not go there to kill one person, there would have been many young men there, who were unarmed, who were having a party. These people would have been soft targets, and many people could have been shot dead. That party was cancelled that afternoon at the eleventh hour.

I don't think that these people received that information about the cancellation of the party, and that is why they attacked that place, not because Security Officers gathered there, that is my opinion.

MR PRIOR: Is that all Mr Jerling?

MRS JERLING: Furthermore I feel that the testimony of these people today and yesterday are so contradictory that it isn't possible for me to believe any of it. I don't believe that they are speaking the truth at all.

MR PRIOR: Is that all?


MR PRIOR: Thank you Chairperson, that is the testimony.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYO: Mrs Jerling, let me first say to you that I am sorry to hear what you went through after the death of your son, and also for the death of your son.

I am also expressing the feelings of the applicant. Having said that, would I be correct if I am expressing your feelings this way, that your opposition to their application for amnesty is out of bitterness to what happened to your son?

MRS JERLING: My son was 18 years old, he was murdered. My son's class mates have been married, at least five of them had gotten married, they have children already. I myself will never attend my son's wedding. I will never have grandchildren.

These children have robbed me of my child and my future. Yes, I am bitter towards them.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mrs Jerling, I understand that you are a Christian, isn't that so?

MRS JERLING: Yes, that is correct. I may be a Christian, but I do not believe that these people are Christians. Christians do not murder other people.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, I understand what you are saying, but I was talking about yourself, that I understand that you are a Christian. In terms of Christian values that you forgive those that sin you and if I am correct, I know the Bible, it is also that Christians believe that if somebody hit you on this side, you give him the other side, and that is the values of the Christian. Despite whatever happen to you, as a Christian, you must forgive, but of course you must not forget, am I correct if I interpret the Christian values that way?

MRS JERLING: You might be correct about it, but it is strange that you expect of me to be a Christian and not of them.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Well, I won't pursue that point. My next question will be having listened to them, I know that you don't agree with what they are saying, having listened to them, explaining the reason why they attacked it, the Yellowwoods Hotel, do you still feel that that was not enough reason for them to attack the Yellowwood Hotel? Just take yourself and put in their shoes, in the way they were thinking.

I am not saying that what they were doing, was right and correct, just put yourself, the way they were thinking before they did that, would you say after you have listened to them explaining what went through them, would you still say that they don't deserve to be granted amnesty?

MRS JERLING: These people indicated no remorse to me. In the first place they say that they had to go and kill the oppressors. All white people are not oppressors.

I worked for 23 years in a Magistrate's office where I worked with black people for a major part of the time, where I assisted them, and tried everything in my power to help them.

I have never oppressed a black person, and even after the death of my son, I never treated black people in any different manner to which I had always treated them. I am not an oppressor, my son was not an oppressor.

He had many friends among the black community and after his death, many of them attended his funeral and expressed their sympathy to me regarding his death, and called him their friend.

We were not oppressors. I cannot see why they had to kill my son.

MR MBANDAZAYO: My last question Mr Chairman will be, would you agree with me that because of your colour of your skin, you were privileged in South Africa?

MRS JERLING: In all honesty, I do not believe that the black people were that severely oppressed and that they have improved their situation to such an extent if I have to look at what is happening in the country at the moment.

I myself, have never placed myself at a greater advantage through the colour of my skin.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MTEMBU: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mrs Jerling I would initially start by conveying my applicant's sympathies to you and for what you have gone through.

Mrs Jerling, would you agree that inasmuch as the then apartheid government was waging a war against liberation movements like the PAC and APLA for instance, in the same breath APLA was also waging a war to topple the said apartheid regime?

MRS JERLING: If these people were in resistance to those who attacked them, I could understand that, but to attack soft targets of which they possessed no proof that those specific persons had committed offences against them, that I cannot agree with.

MR MTEMBU: Will you agree with me that in one way or the other before 1994, as a white person you had a vote, you either voted to entrench the apartheid regime or perhaps you voted for opposition parties, do you agree?

MRS JERLING: Yes, I did vote.

MR MTEMBU: Now, I do not want to know for which party you voted, would you agree that the black masses did not enjoy such vote and you were privileged to in fact exercise such vote at the time, being white?

MRS JERLING: I had the right to vote, but I did not deny that right from the black people.

MR MTEMBU: Yes, I agree with you that it is the apartheid system that denied blacks such rights, but afforded privileges to whites in South Africa. Do you agree on that?

MRS JERLING: I would agree with you.

MR MTEMBU: Now, do you agree that because of apartheid policies, it would have been expected of black people to perceive white people in general, as oppressors?

MRS JERLING: No, I don't agree with that because I and very many people about me, did not oppress black people and I can assure you that they would not regard me as an oppressor.

MR MTEMBU: That is why I am saying in general, unless the contrary is proven by the said white person, but on the face of it, he or she would be perceived to be an oppressor?

MRS JERLING: I do not regard myself as an oppressor, and I do not know any of the black community who would regard me as an oppressor.

MR MTEMBU: During the apartheid years, in your opinion, how did you perceive being white, how did you perceive the Security Forces?

MR PRIOR: With respect, the witness there is no obligation on her to persuade this Committee, she came to give evidence about her deceased son. Her political views, or her views on how the apartheid system was run, really is immaterial, it doesn't take the matter any further. She has told the Committee over and over again, she did not oppress black people, in the nature of her work, she assisted people.

I really think the question is unfair Mr Chairman.

MR MTEMBU: Mr Chairman, in line with the witness' answers in her cross-examination and in her evidence in chief, I believe the question is fair.

CHAIRPERSON: Does it take us anywhere?

MR MTEMBU: If Mr Chairman is of the opinion that it doesn't take us anywhere, I will not take that question further.

Mrs Jerling, are you also aware that in 1993 the PAC and APLA had not yet abandoned the armed struggle?

MRS JERLING: At that point they had probably not yet abandoned the armed struggle, but I still feel that they should not have killed soft targets in the name of that struggle.

MR MTEMBU: But, cadres of APLA who perceived white people in general to be oppressors, would you say it would have been unreasonable for them to have acted in the manner in which they did, taking into context the fact that their organisation has not as yet abandoned the armed struggle?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, with respect, what is suggested by this question is that white people in general, were fair game, they were legitimate targets. One would expected, if that was the policy, the general policy of APLA, that thousands of white people who were available to be shot, would have been killed on a daily basis.

It wasn't the case, we haven't heard any evidence of that, so I think the question is unfair in so much as he wants the witness to answer that white people were legitimate targets in the perception of APLA.

CHAIRPERSON: Haven't we heard a lot of evidence about white farmers being killed as apparently legitimate targets?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, with respect, given the numbers, if that was a general policy, one would have expected on a daily basis white people to have been killed on a far greater scale than in fact was the case.

There was certainly selected targets chosen by APLA, this wasn't a wholesale slaughter of white people, and the question seeks to evoke that response, that this was within the perception of APLA, white people were the enemy and they were fair game, that is my objection.

MR LAX: Is the issue here not, sorry Mr Mtembu, it is not your clients so far as you heard, your clients had a specific directive that they were following. They weren't following a general policy and in a sense if you are going to be questioning this witness, that is the issue that you should be canvassing.

Your clients had specific instructions, they didn't act out of the general policy.

MR MTEMBU: With due respect, it did not emanate from the applicants' own evidence that whites were perceived in the PAC, to be oppressors generally, even though in this specific instance, they were acting according to certain and specific instructions, but the general policy was that whites were seen to be oppressors and thus (indistinct)

MR LAX: Can this witness take it any further, that is the issue?

MR MTEMBU: I will leave it at that. Mrs Jerling, I am sure you are aware that historically, that there have been black mothers like yourself, who have lost their sons and daughters, who were shot at by white people including Security Forces. Are you aware or not, in general?

MRS JERLING: They were not murdered by me or my son. What the Security Forces did, I cannot answer for.

MR MTEMBU: Now, that being the case, if those parents were to adopt your stance, though sympathising with the grief that you suffer, do you think that would take reconciliation in this country any further or not?

MRS JERLING: I am not certain whether reconciliation would be improved in any way by that, but I cannot understand of what benefit my son's death, was to these people.

MR MTEMBU: I was not talking about the benefit, I was talking with regard to reconciliation, just only that aspect.

MRS JERLING: I don't know.

MR MTEMBU: Is it not Christian values that no matter how big the harm may be, but one is expected to forgive a wrongdoer, more especially when the wrongdoer asks for forgiveness?

MRS JERLING: Firstly these offenders did not ask for forgiveness, and secondly I am answering you as a mother and not as a Christian.

My son was killed, I would like to see how you would easily forgive someone if they had killed your child.

MR MTEMBU: Now you said that you do not believe that the applicants were speaking the truth. Are you saying their testimony as a whole is not the truth, or which aspect of their testimony are you saying, is not the truth?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it the witness' function to adjudicate on the credibility of your clients or is that the function of the Committee?

MR MTEMBU: It is the function of the Committee, Mr Chairman. I had perhaps hoped that perhaps the witness would say certain things perhaps, or that the applicants did convince her that they have not been telling the truth.

MR LAX: She did actually say in her earlier evidence that there were a number of contradictions that she felt was inherent in their evidence and on that basis, she did not feel they were saying, telling the truth. That was her earlier evidence.

MR MTEMBU: I will not take the matter further Mr Chairman. I have no further questions.


ADV GCABASHE: Mrs Jerling, on the same point, would you like to tell the Committee what you are unhappy about in the evidence of the applicants, if not, it is not a problem, but maybe you do want to say something about it?

MRS JERLING: I cannot think of any specific aspects right away.

ADV GCABASHE: That is quite fine. The only other comment I would want to make is you do accept that this wasn't anything personal against your son, that it was just something that was done in terms of there is a mission to be completed, not against your particular son?

MRS JERLING: Yes, I realise that it wasn't aimed only at my son, that they didn't go there to kill one specific person.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you Mr Jerling.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for having come before us, and telling us what your feelings are.


MR PRIOR: I call Mr Nel, this is my final witness regarding this aspect Chairperson.

JAN JOHANNES NEL: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Nel, is it correct that on the 20th of March 1993, it was during the evening, approximately eight o'clock, you arrived at the Yellowwoods Hotel, you were with friends and you sat in the bar and had some drinks, is that correct?

MR NEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: How old were you at that point?

MR NEL: I was 19.

MR PRIOR: And were you friends with Mr Jerling?

MR NEL: Yes.

MR PRIOR: Will you briefly explain to the Committee, or rather before I ask that question, is it correct that you made a statement to the Police after the incidents at the Hotel, that evening?

MR NEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: And that statement appears on page 40 to 42 of the bundle.

MR NEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: That is Exhibit A. And you have studied the statement yesterday?

MR NEL: Yes.

MR PRIOR: And do you confirm the contents of the statement?

MR NEL: Yes.

MR PRIOR: And you concede that the facts are as they happened on that evening?

MR NEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: Just briefly, I do not want you to relate the entire story, but could you just briefly explain to the Committee what occurred during the shooting incident?

MR NEL: During the shooting incident, or at least just before it happened, we were still laughing and chatting like old friends.

MR PRIOR: How many of you were in the bar, can you remember?

MR NEL: Two were playing darts and Johan and I were sitting together, chatting and at that point Mr Swartz left the room, and shortly after that we heard a gunshot and with that I saw one of the black men entering the building.

And as I thought about it after the time, with one of the gunshots I felt a light bump against my arm and I later realised that that was when Johan had been shot dead. After that I ran down the passage and we hid in a room, we were in fear of our lives.

MR PRIOR: Therefore you say that you heard a gunshot, were there any more gunshots?

MR NEL: Yes, there were.

MR PRIOR: And at that point you left the bar and you had gone to hide in another room?

MR NEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: Were the lights on, what was the condition of the lighting?

MR NEL: It was pitch dark.

MR PRIOR: When did the lights go out, can you remember?

MR NEL: It was after or the second gunshot, when the lights went out.

MR PRIOR: Do you recall the gunshots as single shots or as a volley of shots?

MR NEL: The first two or three were single shots, and after that a volley of shots.

MR PRIOR: When you left the bar, were the lights on or off?

MR NEL: They were off.

MR PRIOR: I want to refer you to page 28 and 29 of the bundle, which show Mr Jerling after the shooting incident. He is seated on a stool and he is slumped over the bar. Can you comment regarding that position, was he in that position before the shooting incident?

MR NEL: No, he sat upright as he usually sat with both his arms on the table, as he usually sat.

MR PRIOR: How did this incident affect you?

MR NEL: Firstly they took away my only bosom friend, I have never again managed to make another real friend like that. I have never entered into a personal relationship with a friend again.

I suffered terrible nightmares after the incident, I still fear the dark today. It changed me greatly, I have a very bad temper, I become angry very quickly, I don't trust anybody, and even today in my marriage, it happens from time to time that I think back to what happened on the 20th of March 1993, and I become excessively morbid and quiet and even today still I feel greatly embittered towards those who took Johan away from me.

MR PRIOR: Did you receive any treatment or therapy or counselling regarding the change which you experienced in your personality?

MR NEL: I did speak to ministers, but not with any professional people.

MR PRIOR: Were you armed that evening?

MR NEL: No, not at all.

MR PRIOR: Anything, from the other people, Mr Herbst, Mr Augustyn, Mr Swartz, in as far as you know?

MR NEL: Mr Herbst had a dart in his hand.

MR PRIOR: Was there music playing in the bar?

MR NEL: Yes, music was playing in the bar.

MR PRIOR: We have heard testimony as you have, that the applicants submitted that Security Police Officers visited the bar from time to time and on that specific evening Security Staff would be in the bar.

We do know that the facts did not support that that there was no Security staff there, is that correct?

MR NEL: Yes.

MR PRIOR: But in the past, was it a place where the young people from the Fort Beaufort area would come together?

MR NEL: Every now and then dances were held, which everyone attended, not only Security Force staff. Perhaps one or two Police Officers, but it wasn't generally known as a gathering point for Police Officers.

MR PRIOR: The Police at Fort Beaufort, do they have their own facilities, do you know about that?

MR NEL: At that point they did have facilities.

MR PRIOR: At Fort Beaufort?

MR NEL: Yes.

MR PRIOR: Did you ever visit the Police canteen or facilities?

MR NEL: Yes, after 1993 we visited their facilities once or twice.

MR PRIOR: I understand that there was a Army Base near Adelaide?

MR NEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: How far is that from the Hotel, approximately?

MR NEL: It is approximately 15 to 20 kilometres away from the Hotel.

MR PRIOR: Is it an Infantry Battalion?

MR NEL: It was a Commando.

MR PRIOR: Is it a base where soldiers lived or was it a Commando from time to time when people would be called up and the camp would be held there?

MR NEL: I would say from time to time, but there are people who reside there permanently.

MR PRIOR: Soldiers?

MR NEL: Yes, soldiers.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Chairperson, that is the testimony.


MR MBANDAZAYO: I have no questions Mr Chairman.


MR MTEMBU: I have not questions Mr Chairman.


MR LAX: Mr Nel, there is just one or two things that you might be able to help us with, with regard to the actual bar itself and the venue and so on.

If I could just show you this plan of the actual premises, maybe you can just tell us about it, confirm and clear up one or two issues.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, may I just assist in orientating the witness?

MR LAX: Sure. Mr Nel, you are now familiar with the plan?

MR NEL: Yes.

MR LAX: At the entrance to the bar, there appears to be some sort of obstruction right opposite the door, and in one of the photographs it looks like a screen of some kind. For example if you were to look at photograph 8, which is in that same package...

CHAIRPERSON: It is in front of the plans.

MR LAX: Okay, but if you look at the colour one, you get a better view of it. That is it there, you can see it is a sort of wooden slatted kind of obstruction in the doorway, with business cards and things on it.

MR NEL: Yes.

MR LAX: Is that the item that is depicted as obscuring the entrance as you would walk in?

MR NEL: No, that is the entrance to the bar itself through where the barman gets to behind the counter.

MR LAX: So does the bar open straight in, does that door open straight in, once you open that screen door that you can see in the picture for example, there is a wooden door that is opened inwards, if you opened the screen door, you would enter immediately straight into the bar, and see the whole of the bar at your disposal?

MR NEL: If you enter at this door, and you turn left, two steps then you get to the bar counter.

MR LAX: We are just trying to establish whether anything obscures your entry into the room, in other words if you were standing in that doorway, would you have a full view of the room?


MR LAX: What is that obstruction there then, what would obstruct your view?

MR NEL: The door, if you walk in at the door, then the structure is there, you would only see one of the bar, except if you walk passed that point of course, or if you walked closer, then you could have seen the whole bar.

MR LAX: What we are trying, what I am working towards is when one of the applicants came into the bar, and began shooting, where was he standing in relation to that plan when he shot?

MR NEL: He would have been looking in the direction of the window, he wouldn't have been shooting straight forward. He would have been turned in the direction of the window, and if he moved around, he would have shot into the bar, except if he was looking through the holes there at the barman.

MR LAX: So if I understand you, the window you are referring to is the window that presumably the other applicant would have shot through from the outside?

MR NEL: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Can I just ask on the same point. Would you recall whether the applicant who came into the bar, actually came right in or do you recall where he was when you saw him?

MR NEL: From where I sat, I could see him through this door or this, he came in and he turned left. He didn't look in our direction and that is when the lights went off, after the first shots.

ADV GCABASHE: Did he shoot through that barrier, whatever that is, or did he only shoot afterwards, would you recall?

MR NEL: I would say he shot after he turned left.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he shoot before or after the lights went off, or can't you say?

MR NEL: I wouldn't be able to say because everything happened at once, shots were fired and the lights went off.

I did not see him physically shooting.

ADV GCABASHE: And when you then look at the window where the second applicant was standing, there was no danger of shooting the first applicant if you had to try and picture how they were standing? There would be no danger of shooting the first one from the window?

MR LAX: Sorry the witness' microphone wasn't on, so the interpreter didn't hear the answer.

MR NEL: No, not at all.

ADV GCABASHE: So, you would say that all the shooting essentially if you were standing at the door or window, took place on the left hand side of the bar, not on the right hand side of the bar, would that be correct?

MR NEL: The first shots yes, came from the window. The other shots after that, I don't know.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR LAX: Did you and the others exit through the door on the opposite end of the bar, from the entrance and into the building from there?

MR NEL: Yes, we exited the back entrance, where the people who lived in the hotel, would have come into the bar, that is where we exited the bar.

MR LAX: That entrance is quite clearly marked on the plan, towards the end of the bar.

MR NEL: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You have told us, as I understand it, that two of your friends were playing darts at the time?

MR NEL: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And would they have been using the score board that appears on photo 15?

MR NEL: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: It looks from the photograph as if bullets came through that window and through the score board, is that so or don't you know?

MR NEL: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that where the shooting started?

MR NEL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: They must have been very lucky.

MR NEL: If I can recall correctly, the guys who were playing darts said when everything happened, they heard something that sounded like a hand grenade exploding, that was probably the first shot that went through the window.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Mr Chairperson, there is just one question. I just want the witness to comment on the last photo, photo number 21, the broken door. If we can place this door in this plan and possibly tell us if he knows who broke the door, or what had happened there? May I continue?

Mr Nel, can you see photo 21?

MR NEL: Yes.

MR PRIOR: Where is that door in relation to the plan, can you identify this for us?

MR NEL: I don't believe this is in the bar. It looks like it could be in the dining hall, if I look at the table, it looks like it could be in the dining hall.

MR PRIOR: Oh, I see here right at the bottom.

CHAIRPERSON: It is marked (v).

MR LAX: If you look on the plan, you would see (v), it is somewhere near the kitchen I seem to remember from looking at the plan.

CHAIRPERSON: Kitchen into dining room.

MR PRIOR: I am indebted to the Committee, thank you, I have no further questions, thank you Mr Nel.


CHAIRPERSON: You may be excused.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, that is all the evidence I have at this stage. I intend calling a ballistics expert or whoever attended the scene, to give us a better picture regarding the trajectory of bullets, etc and the damage to the out buildings but that person is not available today and I think to call such a person at short notice without properly preparing, would also not do justice to the matter.

Mr Chairman, I don't know, we talked around adjourning the matter till May.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, at the moment certain members of the Committee would like to recall the applicant, Madasi in the light of the subsequent evidence. Could we please have Mr Madasi up here?

VUYISILE MADASI: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: You have been present here, and you have heard the evidence given by Mr Diaho-Monaheng and the questions he was asked?

MR MADASI: Yes, I heard sir.

CHAIRPERSON: You also as I understand it, consulted with your Attorney about the plan that has been put up and about certain photographs showing the building next door to the Hotel?

MR MADASI: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you give any explanation as to how those bullet marks came onto that building?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, there seems to be a disturbance, could we maybe adjourn for a short while?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we will adjourn for a short while.



VUYISILE MADASI: (still under oath)

MR MADASI: I cannot remember because I was inside the Hotel, I can't remember or I don't know if a member of the unit shot at that building.

I was inside the building, I don't even remember if somebody shot after the withdrawal signal. The final shot I remember is the signal that was given to withdrawal. That is the only way I can answer your question.

CHAIRPERSON: That is a perfectly fair answer. You only shot inside the building, you yourself?

MR MADASI: Yes sir, I was inside the building.

MR LAX: Sorry, you haven't understood the question properly. The question was you only shot inside the building, you didn't shoot when you came out again, or while you were going in?

MR MADASI: Yes, I shot whilst I was inside.

CHAIRPERSON: What sort of gun did you have?


ADV SANDI: Did you shoot at any stage whilst you were outside the Hotel?

MR MADASI: I don't remember sir.

ADV GCABASHE: And the motor vehicle, if you have a look at those photo's, there is a blue van and its window has been shot. You again wouldn't know how that damage was occasioned?

MR LAX: It is photograph 2 on the first page, yes sorry.

ADV GCABASHE: Do you remember what might have happened there?

MR MADASI: As I said, I was outside, it was at night. Everything happened so fast, within minutes. Perhaps members of the unit shot, I don't know, a lot of time has elapsed. I hope I have answered you.

CHAIRPERSON: But you, we have been told, I want to know if you agree, that you and Mr Diaho-Monaheng walked down from the Hotel together, to your vehicle?

MR MADASI: From the Hotel to the car, yes, that is so. We stood in front of the car, and then Nqeba came, got into the car, and we drove off.

CHAIRPERSON: So you watched him coming to join you?

MR MADASI: Yes, we were watching him.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree that the car was parked in front of the Hotel?

MR MADASI: Yes, the car was parked right opposite the place that we were going to attack. However, I could never remember the specific angle.


ADV GCABASHE: Then there is just one other aspect that hasn't got anything to do with these pictures.

If you look at your paragraph 10 and 11, of your affidavit, where you say that you were informed that your comrade Ntintili had been arrested, and that you must retreat from that area. Can you just explain that to me, what was meant by you must retreat from that area and who said you must retreat from that area?

Sorry, I put two questions in one, if you could just deal with them one at a time.

MR MADASI: What is the first question Ma'am?

ADV GCABASHE: Okay, who said you must retreat from that area?

MR MADASI: The comrades after I had received the arms, the next morning the comrades went to the phone, I gave them instructions to go and phone and find out whether they could find Scomiso telephonically to report about the arms.

I then instructed Lungesi to accompany Nqeba to go and phone together. They came back, saying that they spoke to the comrade. They received information that comrade Ntintili was already arrested, that is when we retreated and went to the Transkei.

Fortunately Nqeba had relatives in the Transkei, we then went to stay there.

What is the second question Ma'am?

ADV GCABASHE: So you retreated from that particular area, the instruction was not to retreat if I might use that word, from the project, it was not to cancel the project, that was not the instruction?

MR MADASI: First of all, we are soldiers, we also have brains, we use initiation, we use flexibility, it applies to APLA. As a Commander of the Unit, I took an initiative to make sure that the plans go well.

When we found out that the comrade has relatives in the Eastern Cape, that gave us encouragement that we can continue with the job. We stayed at the place where the comrade had accommodation. That he came with the information that he had relatives in Mdantsane, that worked well for us as a Unit, and as a Unit Commander, I reported to my immediate superior to tell them that we have accommodation, we can continue with the operation.

I hope I have answered you.

ADV GCABASHE: Not quite. The question was did you get an instruction to cancel the operation?

MR MADASI: I hear you now, Ma'am. I got a report from other comrades that comrade Ntintili was arrested and that we should retreat. Fortunately comrade Nqeba had relatives around. I made plans to contact other comrades to find out more and tell them about the information that we had gotten.

I did not say that we should retreat, however, I gave them information that comrade Ntintili was arrested.

Boers do kill, we did not know what was going on. We wanted to make sure that we are not arrested. That is what happened.

ADV GCABASHE: Then we go to paragraph 11 where you start off by saying, as we were determined to hit the target. That determination was driven by your superiors, not by yourself, is that right or wrong?

MR MADASI: Please explain your question.

MR LAX: Maybe you should ask the question in a slightly different way. What do you mean by those words, as we were determined to hit the target, what exactly are you getting at? What are you trying to convey about putting that in your affidavit?

MR MADASI: When I say what?

ADV GCABASHE: In paragraph 11, you start off by saying as we were determined to hit the target, my question is that determination, was it controlled or driven by your superiors, that is the High Command in Transkei or by yourselves as a Unit? Can you explain what you mean by these words?

MR MADASI: Ma'am, I understand you now. In answer to your question, as guerillas, soldiers, we abide by the 15 points of attention, right, (indistinct) of a political fight.

Right, so under those 15 points of attention, each and every member of APLA is supposed to know this 15 points well. It is not, we were not determined to hit the target because we were obliged or forced to, we were also interested and we also wanted to do or to carry out this operation, according to this 15 points.

Each and everything we did, we did it by those rules, not just that we were forced to do this, no.

ADV GCABASHE: You have not answered my question, in fact you misunderstood the context of the question, and I would like to repeat it just to get clarity on this point.

We have heard you on being forced and not being forced, we have understood that point as a Committee, that you are voluntary people in this Army.

It has got nothing to do with forcing, it has got more to do with whether you were making your own decision to continue with the mission in circumstances where your superiors had said abandon it. I just want clarity on this.

Were you making your own decision to continue on a mission you had been told to abandon or were you continuing because it was the plan as originally conceived by your superiors, that is all?

MR MADASI: First of all, we continued this operation because we wanted to carry it out.

Not because the Commander would make the decisions for us. I was a Unit Commander, the plans to execute the operation, I had them. We had to make sure that they are carried out accordingly. We were not forced, that is right.

I hope I have answered you.

MR LAX: Really, my colleague is asking this question of you and you keep missing the point.

The point isn't that you were forced to do it or that you did it willingly. In the light of your command to retreat and that came from a higher Officer, retreat. Did that command mean you must abandon the operation or did it mean that you should leave the area only and at some later stage, continue with the operation. Let's clear that up first.

MR MADASI: I am going to answer this question yet again. The comrades came with a report after they went to the phones, that comrade Ntintili had been arrested and we were supposed to retreat from the area that we were staying in.

He also knows the place. Fortunately we got information that one of the comrades had accommodation. The command was not to retreat totally and go back to the Transkei, we were supposed to just retreat or leave the place at which the comrade had been arrested from.

We did not have a problem, because comrade Dizi was from around the area. As part of the Unit, the comrade volunteered and said that he had relatives where we could be accommodated.

That is the answer. I hope I have answered you well.

MR LAX: You have. You see, you also then went on to say that you then reported this to your senior Commander. When did you do that and how did you do that?

MR MADASI: What matter exactly?

MR LAX: The fact that you found alternative accommodation and you had been able to safely retreat.

MR MADASI: After we got the accommodation from comrade Lo from Mdantsane.

MR LAX: Yes, we know that. I am asking you about after that. You said that you reported to your seniors this new development that you were safe, you weren't coming back to the Transkei, that is what you said.

The question is how did you report to, and when did you do that?

MR MADASI: My contact in Transkei was Scomiso. The comrade that I liaised with was Scomiso. We would stipulate certain times at which we would contact each other. I got him, he then said that I must go to the phone and report the whole matter.

They wanted to know, they are the ones who told the other comrades that comrade Ntintili had been arrested, who told them that we are in a specific place in Mdantsane where comrade Nqeba provided accommodation.

That was all well and good to them.

MR LAX: You are confusing two different incidents. You have already told us about the fact that you sent Lungisa and Nqeba to go and contact comrade Scomiso.

After you had retreated and you had found a new place at Lo's, you reported that again.

MR MADASI: Please listen carefully sir. The comrades, I gave them instructions to go and report to comrade (indistinct). Lungisa accompanied comrade Nqeba to report that we had received the arms.

MR LAX: You are not listening to me.

MR MADASI: You are talking about two different issues, what is it exactly that you don't understand now.

MR LAX: It isn't me that doesn't understand, you are not listening to the question. The question is about the second report, not the first report.

I thought we had made that clear. Just listen and stop talking for a minute, just listen and maybe we will get through this a lot more quickly.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Lax, can I just come in and help here? I am listening to both the English and Xhosa version of the proceedings. I think I understand what the witness is saying.

It was reported to Scomiso that the arms had been secured, and those who were in contact with Scomiso were told by Scomiso that Ntintili had been arrested.

It is then that they decided to leave the Mqelo area to go to Mdantsane. They feared that they could be arrested in the Mqelo area. Maybe they thought, he didn't say that explicitly, maybe they thought that Ntintili could be beaten up and he could disclose where they are, and I think that is the only contact with Scomiso he had mentioned so far.

Maybe he can confirm it, I think I follow what he is saying.

MR LAX: If I could just explain what I am asking about. My understanding of your evidence after that, everything my colleague has spoken about is that you then found this place at Lo's, and I thought your evidence and I distinctly heard it, was that you then reported back to Scomiso a second time to say that you were now safe, you had a new place at Lo's and could you carry on with this operation or not? That is what I am talking about. Did that happen or didn't it, the second report?

MR MADASI: I am the person who reported, not all of us. Whilst we were staying at comrade Lo's place, I decided to get the phone, I found Scomiso, I reported to him that I received information from the other comrades that we must retreat from the area because comrade Ntintili had been arrested.

About the receiving of arms and the accommodation, I spoke of that. I hope I have answered you.

MR LAX: You have finally answered me, and the issue then is did he give you the command to continue with the operation at that stage, just a simple yes or no would suffice.

MR MADASI: In answer to that question, yes, he did give us a command that we should carry on with the operation. The fact that we got other accommodation, also reflected or showed that we could continue with the operation. Yes, he did give us the order.

MR LAX: Thank you, that is great, you have been very helpful.


MR MTEMBU: Just for the record Mr Chairman, I would request the Committee please in future, tell us about the procedure, because I am a little bit confused. I thought that when the applicant was re-called, was because of what transpired after the testimony of Diaho-Monaheng, not that he will be asked about new issues.

So at least in future, we should be told as to what to expect, to know at least, the client also to know, the applicant, what is expected, because he was told that he was going to be asked about what transpired during the testimony of Diaho-Monaheng and I don't think that was the case now.

It opened up a new thing, it was a new questioning based on questions which were not asked during his earlier testimony, not what transpired after Diaho-Monaheng's testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that with regard to the gunshots fired?

MR MTEMBU: Correct Mr Chairman, I have no objection about that. He was asked about that, I thought that he was going to be asked.

Now he was asked about this affidavit which he has already been asked about that. So that is where I am saying Mr Chairman, I am not saying the Committee - at least we should know what is the procedure, whether at any stage, somebody can be called if you have forgotten to ask something about his testimony or what transpired in the affidavit, we must be aware of that.

CHAIRPERSON: We will bear your objection, in as far as it is an objection, in mind and seek to reach agreement on that with you.

MR MTEMBU: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: Chair, through you might I just say that it is actually to the applicant's advantage for us to clarify matters that we have reflected on and we are not clear about.

There is no point in walking away, not knowing what he meant by certain things, and I would like him, you, especially as his counsel, to accept that, that you would rather have us know exactly what he means, than walk away guessing as to what he may have meant by saying something.

MR MTEMBU: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have no objection, except that we want at least to know the procedure, so that we know what to expect. I don't have any problem being asked on any aspect Mr Chairman, it is just that we must know at least, that you must expect this, that you can be asked questions not on what you have been asked, maybe other things can come up, the Committee can ask you.

So that is why I am requesting the Committee. I am not trying to confine it into that, at least we must be aware of that so that we can also tell the applicant to know that he can be asked anything, even regarding his earlier testimony, or his earlier testimony, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: We will try to explain to you next time, and not catch you unawares, sorry about that.


CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude the evidence that we can hear today?

MR PRIOR: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you propose now Mr Prior?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I understand that over the week that was identified, the 25th, commencing the 25th of May, I just, I haven't had any feedback from the venue whether this venue will be available on the 25th of May.

MR LAX: Perhaps I can help you there, our Logistics Officer has checked its availability. There are one or two other issues that need to be discussed. Provisionally it will probably be available, but the venue we can announce that later.

MR PRIOR: Then having said that, I am happy we can adjourn this matter, and probably all the other matters.

I think Mr Mtembu is pulling my leg. Yes, we can adjourn this matter and the other matters that have to be completed for the evidence of Mr Letlapa Mpahlele and possibly Mr Jimmy Jones, and whoever else may need to be called, to that period, Mr Chairman to that week.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if you will prepare a list of other matters with their numbers and everything, we can do that tomorrow morning. We will adjourn this one now.

There is no need for the Attorneys to be present, if you notify them, but I think also arrangements should be made to give Correctional Services notice now of whom will be required during that week so that they can make the necessary arrangements, we don't spring it on them.

Right, this matter is now adjourned until the 25th of May.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, that is all the business for today. The Meyers' matter was scheduled for today, however, I understand Mr Mbandazayo need some time to consult with the applicant.

I have communicated that to the witnesses and the victims. Mrs Meyers and her family in particular as well as their Attorney. They understand the situation and I have informed them that we will commence tomorrow morning at the pleasure of the Committee, at whatever time the Committee decides.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Half past nine Mr Chairman, will suit me because everything will be ready then.

CHAIRPERSON: I would like to express my sympathy with those who have been sitting so patiently in the back of the hall through out the day. I hope that we will be able to start at half past nine and continue uninterrupted with the matter they have come to hear.

We will now adjourn until 09h30 tomorrow morning.