TRUTH & RECONCILIATION COMMISSION HEARING
ON MONDAY, 4 AUGUST 1997
[VOLUME 1 : PAGES 1 - 65]
1A/0 ON 1997/08/04
MR LYSTER: ... For the delay. Prior to making any opening remarks, I'm going to call on Advocate Chris Macadam to give a broad overview of the evidence which will be heard over the next ten days. Mr Macadam.
MR MACADAM: In 1995 two members of the KwaZulu Police and a supporter of the Inkatha Freedom Party were convicted in a Circuit Court of the then Natal Provincial Division for various politically motivated murders in the Esikhaweni district of KwaZulu/Natal. In passing sentence, the Learned Judge called for an investigation into the accused's allegations that their activities formed part of a greater conspiracy to orchestrate political violence in the province. The three accused claimed membership of a group which has been given the title of, "The Esikhaweni Hit Squad". This hearing will focus on certain of the activities of this squad. The three accused will be called as witnesses. Evidence will be led by Gcina Mkhize, the self-confessed leader of the squad.
For those Zulu-speaking members of the audience, we would ask you to get hold of earphones. The evidence will be broadcast to the floor in English. If there are Zulu speakers in the audience, who cannot speak English, please get hold of the simultaneous translation earphones, so that you can follow the proceedings in Zulu if you wish to. Otherwise the language broadcast out to the floor will be in English.
The three accused will be called as witnesses. Firstly, evidence will be led by Gcina Mkhize, who is the self-confessed leader of the squad. He will testify
1A concerning the creation of the squad, the persons from whom he received instructions, who were aware of the squad's illegal activities, the selection of targets for elimination and the persons who instructed such eliminations. Finally, he will testify as to various attempts which were devised to prevent the activities of the squad being detected and prosecutions being instituted.
Secondly, Romeo Mbambo, a member of the squad, will give evidence as to how eliminations were executed and, furthermore, describe a range of strategies which were designed to avoid detection and prosecution.
Finally, Israel Hlongwane, who was also a member of the squad, will describe how he came to be involved in its activities. He will also highlight other political violence which took place in the area over and above the activities of this squad.
There will be new evidence which has not been raised in any court of law from a person by the name of Zweli Mkhize, who was also a member of the squad, and the person, Daluxolo Luthuli, who testified in sentence at the trial of these accused and who played a pivotal role in its creation and structure.
It should be noted that this is a hearing and not a trial and that the evidence which will be presented will merely attempt to present an overall view of the squad's activities and not document each and every illegal act. The record of the trial against the three accused will be handed in as an exhibit at these proceedings. In order to fit the squad's activities into their proper context, it is necessary to examine the role played by certain of the
1A above witnesses in prior politically-motivated violence in the Hammarsdale and Pietermaritzburg areas in KwaZulu/Natal. The witnesses in this regard will be Daluxolo Luthuli and Zweli Dlamini.
Finally, since three of the members of the squad were part of a group of IFP supporters who received training by components of the former SADF in the Caprivi in 1986, it will be necessary to explore whether any of the illegal activities testified to may be linked with or attributed to the training which formed part of an operation which bore the code name, "Marion". In this regard, the motives of the various components of the SADF and their individual members responsible for the operation will have to be considered. Since the operation was approved of by the State Security Council and certain aspects sanctioned at what is termed the highest political level, the role of the Government of the day itself will have to be assessed.
Finally, the involvement of the Security Force members involved with the so-called Caprivi trainees and their political leaders, once the group returned to KwaZulu/Natal, will also be canvassed.
Since these issues were canvassed in the trial of S v Peter Msane and Others, which was heard in the Durban High Court in 1996, the record of this trial, including the Operation Marion documents, which were handed in as an exhibit in the case, will form part of these proceedings. In this regard it should be noted that this hearing will not be a retrial of the so-called KwaMakutha attack itself, the specific allegations against each accused in relation to that offence. The relevance
/is only to
1A is only to the evidence and testimony which was given relating to Operation Marion and the Court's finding as to who was responsible for the attack. It's worthy at this stage to look at two sections of the judgment. I read, firstly, from page 4447 of the judgment, where the Learned Judge found that,
"There can be no doubt that the deceased at KwaMakutha were gunned down by people who were members of the trainees recruited by Inkatha and trained in the Caprivi, but as to their numbers there is conflicting evidence within the State case itself. There can also be little doubt that Opperman and Cloete ..."
These were two members of the former South African Defence Force, who were involved in some form of liaison capacity with the trainees both in the Caprivi and on their return to KwaZulu Natal,
"... between the two of them planned the operation, instructed or guided those trainees that took part in it as to what to do about it. This emerges from the evidence relating to the vehicle that was used, signed placed upon the vehicle, which is confirmed by the witnesses present at the scene. It is common cause that the weapons used were AK-47 rifles and there is a broad correspondence in evidence of the three of them as to the events immediately preceding, during and after the
1A KwaMakutha massacre."
Turning then to page 4405 of the judgment and dealing further with the remarks concerned as to the role played by Opperman and Cloete, quoting again from the judgment,
"It is likely it seems to us, that Opperman and Cloete must have had backing from somewhere. The question is from where and from whom."
The purpose of this hearing is to attempt to shed light on these questions which were raised by the Learned Judge, which warranted further investigation and follow-up action.
In regard to these specific allegations, the evidence before this hearing will be the following. There will be the evidence of the political commissar of the group, that is Daluxolo Luthuli. He played a pivotal role in the training that was received in the Caprivi and was also involved with the deployment of the trainees in KwaZulu/Natal. Two members of the group, Zweli Dlamini and Gcina Mkhize, who were trained in the Caprivi, will give evidence concerning their training. There will be further evidence by an expert in the field of counter-revolutionary warfare. His evidence will be tendered once these three witnesses have testified.
There will be a submission, and I stress it is a submission, it is not evidence, from Howard Varney, who is the convenor of the now disbanded Investigation Task Unit, which launched the investigation into Operation Marion. His submission will be tendered first before any of the witnesses testify, simply as it conveniently sets the scene and explains the operation to the community which
/has an interest
1A has an interest in the hearing.
In this regard it should be noted that prior to the hearing, the Commission sent a notice, in terms of section 30 of the Act which governs the Commission's proceedings, to each and every party who may be implicated to his or her detriment by the nature of the evidence. The notice took the form of a submission by Mr Varney in respect of those specific role-players. It was divided into various categories - members of political parties, member of the SADF structures, member of the State Security Councils. Mr Varney made a written submission in respect of each and every one of those role-players and the Commission then, in terms of its notice, attached that submission together with the relevant documentation which related to the submission.
What has transpired subsequently is that Mr Varney decided, for his own purpose, to compile or combine these separate submissions into one document. This was only done, unfortunately, at a late stage, due to the fact that he was overseas until shortly before the commencement of this hearing and this document, which does not add any new allegations, but merely combines the circulated allegations, is in the process of being compiled and will be submitted to the relevant parties and there has also been, it would appear, certain administrative difficulties that not all the persons received certain of the documentation. This is being rectified and will be made available to all the parties during the luncheon adjournment.
MR LYSTER: Thank you, Mr Macadam. Prior to some opening technical remarks, I will just briefly introduce the
1A panel. On my left is Mr Dumisa Ntsebeza, a member of the Human Rights Violations Committee. I am Richard Lyster. On my right is Dr Alex Boraine, acting Chair of the Commission in the absence of Archbishop Tutu. On his right, Mr Ilun Lax, Miss Yasmin Sooka and Mr Mdu Dlamini, all members of the Human Rights Violations Committee.
This is a public hearing of the Human Rights Violations Committee of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, held in terms of section 29 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No 34 of 1995. By virtue of the powers granted to it by the Act, the Commission has called on a number of persons by subpoena to give evidence and to make submissions to the Commission concerning the subject matter of the hearing as has just been outlined by Mr Macadam.
In terms of section 30 of the Act any person who is implicated in a manner which may be to his detriment, arising out of submissions to or evidence to the Commission, shall be given an opportunity to make representations at the hearing of the Commission. In terms of section 30(4)(2) of the Act, the Commission may place limits with regard to time allowed in respect of cross-examination of a witness. In terms of authority delegated to it by the Minister of Justice in terms of section 30(1) of the Act, a sub-committee of this Commission has determined procedures for the conduct of this hearing, a copy of which has been made available to all persons to whom section 30 notices were sent. Such determined procedures incorporate the obligations placed upon the Commission by the relevant legislation and by relevant court judgments and this hearing shall be
1A conducted in terms of those duly determined procedures.
Following the making of a submission or the giving of evidence by any person the Commission may permit, on application by any interested person, the making of a submission, the giving of evidence or cross-examination in rebuttal of the specific allegations.
The Commission places on record that this is not a court of law and that the rules of evidence and procedure applicable to and appropriate in a criminal or civil court are not mutatis mutandis applicable in this forum. The Commission does not seek to establish the guilt or otherwise of any person and it does not intend to make findings at this hearing.
The Commission will take full cognisance of the Supreme Court record in the matter of S v Msane and Others, as well as the judgment of Mr Justice Hugo, as well as any oral or written representations or submissions which those persons who have been detrimentally implicated may choose to make through their legal counsel.
For logistical, financial and other reasons, this hearing is of an extremely limited duration and, accordingly, the panel will not permit any evidence, submissions or cross-examination which amounts to a repetition of versions which have already been put forward in other forums. Accordingly, the panel will not hesitate to exercise its rights in terms of section 30(4)(2) of this Act within the boundaries of what is fair and equitable.
Those are then the opening remarks. Mr Macadam, I leave it to you then to call on the first person who will be making - I apologise, prior to doing that I would ask
1A the attorneys and counsel present here to place themselves on record, and please do it in whatever order is convenient.
MR STEWART: I am Angus Stewart, instructed by the Campus Law Clinic. I represent two of the witnesses - Daluxolo Luthuli and Mr Dlamini.
MR VAN DER HOVEN: My name is A B T van der Hoven from the firm, Rooth and Wessels in Pretoria, Advocate H J de Vos, SC, with Advocate E M Coetzee and we represent General Geldenhuys, General Liebenberg, Admiral Putter, General Groenewald, General Pretorius and Brigadier Sonnekus.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, my name is Louis Visser. I am instructed by Attorneys Wagner, Miller and Du Plessis of Pretoria. We represent the following persons: Mr Adriaan Vlok, General J V van der Merwe, General P J Coetzee, General Erasmus, General Steyn, General Burger and Brigadier Laas.
MR GROBLER: Mr Chairman, my name is Grobler, instructed by the firm, Meltz, Le Roux and Motseka, appearing on behalf of Major-General Joubert.
MR OLIVIER: Mr Chairman, my name is Kobus Olivier from the firm Badenhorst and Olivier in Pietermaritzburg. I'm appearing on behalf of General Jac Buchner and Captain Jerry Brooks.
MR VAN WILLIGH: Mr Chairman, I am Willem van Willigh. I am instructed by the firm, Dawsons Attorneys, in Pietermaritzburg, and I act on behalf of Captain Barber.
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, my name is Marius van Zyl and I am appearing on the instructions of Adolf Malan, Vermeulen, Attorneys, in Pretoria. My colleague is
1A Mr Cilliers, who will be appearing with me and we are appearing for the following persons: Brigadier C J van Niekerk, Brigadier J R More, Colonel D Griessel, Colonel J Jacobs, Colonel Viktor, Colonel J H Greyling, General R Badenhorst, Colonel C J C Prinsloo and Mr Kobus du Toit Bosman.
MR TOWEEL: Mr Chairman, I am Cedwin Toweel and I am acting on the instructions of Geyser Attorneys of Pretoria and we are acting on behalf of Colonel M H van den Berg.
MS KRUGER: Miss H Kruger. I appear on behalf of General S J J Smit.
MR MARITZ: Mr Chairman, my name is Japie Maritz. I am instructed by Alex Bosman, Attorneys, Pretoria, and I represent Mr P T C du Plessis, former Minister of Manpower and Security - or State Security Council member.
MR LASICH: Mr Chairman, my name is Michael Lasich. I am instructed by Patrick Falconer of the firm Friedman and Falconer and we represent the Inkatha Freedom Party and the members who have been implicated in these proceedings.
MR DE JAGER: Mr Chairman, my name is Piet de Jager and I am appearing for former State President, P W Botha.
MR PENZHORN: Mr Chairman, my name is Penzhorn. We are appearing for General Malan, Lieutenant-General P W van der Westhuizen, Major-General van Tonder, Major-General van Graan and Colonel J H van der Merwe, and Advocate Sam Maritz, SC, is appearing with us.
MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, for record purposes, I am Etienne Coetzee. I appear with De Vos SC for, inter alia, General Liebenberg. At this stage I have been instructed or we've both been instructed by General Liebenberg to ask for the recusal of Dr Boraine as Chairman of these
1A proceedings. The basis for this application is to be found in various public statements made by Dr Boraine in his capacity as Acting Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I intend referring to these public statements. Dr Boraine, after General Liebenberg's acquittal in the case of S v P Msane and Others, expressed various points of view relating to General Liebenberg and the other co-accused's acquittal. An example in this regard is the statement of Dr Boraine published in, "Die Burger" on the 22nd October 1996, which reads as follows:
"The outcome of the Malan case has possibly reassured and falsely reassured many highly-placed people in the Defence Force and it is now necessary that one of them ask for amnesty, so that the dam wall can break."
This statement by Dr Boraine presupposes that many senior officers in the Defence Force were involved in acts for which amnesty is required.
Furthermore, in a book titled, "Dealing with the Past. Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa", the second edition published by Edasa, 1997, edited by Dr Boraine, Janet Levy and Ronel Schaffer, the following point of view has been put forward on page 7 thereof.
"But in another key trial former Defence Force Minister, Magnus Malan, and his fifteen co-accused were acquitted of all charges related to the 1987 KwaMakutha massacre. The bitter recriminations that followed the judgment serve to
1A highlight the immense difficulties of proving culpability in court during an era of transitional justice. This insinuates that during the period in which the justice system is in transition immense difficulties are experienced to prove a person's guilt. The Court's finding of not guilty seems to be rejected and the result, namely General Liebenberg's innocence, is blamed on the transitional phase of the justice system."
In relation to the Steyn Report, Dr Boraine has expressed certain viewpoints and made known certain alleged information relating to potential criminal activity on the part of General Liebenberg before the facts had been properly investigated and tested. In this regard I would like to refer to a news broadcast on SABC Television on the 8 o'clock news on the 16th January 1997. It first starts with the news broadcast of Jane Hicks.
"The Truth Commission has accused former State President F W de Klerk of ignoring recommendations to investigate the actions of top military officials. It alleges that Mr de Klerk failed to disclose that a written report was made available in 1992 about the alleged activities of the officers and that Mr de Klerk allegedly ordered the compulsory retirement and dismissal of a number of top military men mentioned
/in the report,
1A in the report, without launching an investigation into the alleged unlawful actions. The report was written in 1992 by the now Secretary of Defence, P F Steyn."
Then the interview starts with Dr Boraine. Veronica Strydom said the following,
"In 1992 General Steyn was appointed by Mr de Klerk to investigate alleged unlawful activities by members of the SADF's intelligence wing. He discovered that several other departments in the Defence Force were also involved in various criminal acts."
Dr Boraine's comment on the newscast was as follows,
"Assassinations, trained violence, chemical and biological warfare, drug, ivory and arms smuggling, to mention only a few and some of these were clearly criminal activities, and others were way out of the scope of the normal security arm of the State."
Then Veronica Strydom continues.
"At the time, General Strydom recommended that a criminal investigation be conducted, but this never happened. Instead, Mr de Klerk dismissed or forced compulsory retirement on about 23 Generals."
Dr Boraine then continues.
"Three Generals that Mr de Klerk gave
1A authority to draw up a list of people who should be retired or be dismissed were Generals Kat Liebenberg, George Meiring and Joffel van der Westhuizen, but I think for us the most worrying feature of that is that General Steyn, in his notes which he handed to Mr de Klerk, actually mentions these three are those who ought to be amongst the ones who should be investigated. So you get the ones who should be investigated doing the investigating and I don't think that this is satisfactory at all."
On the 17th January 1997 General Steyn issued a press release, stating that no specific recommendations were made to Mr de Klerk. Also on the same date in a SAPA press release it appeared that Defence Secretary, P Steyn, denied that Joffel van der Westhuizen, Liebenberg and Meiring were allegedly implicated or involved in unlawful or unauthorised activities. In the SAPA press release of the same date Dr Boraine is quoted as, inter alia, saying the following,
"If true, this emphasises our concern that the allegations of dirty tricks by SADF personnel may not have been adequately investigated."
The same press release goes on as follows,
"Since last Thursday, when the Commission released excerpts of the report and claimed it implicated three Defence Force Generals in illegal activities
/there has been
1A there has been mounting confusion as to the exact contents of the report. The author, Pierre Steyn, now Defence Secretary, denied at the week-end he had recommended action be taken against Generals Meiring, Joffel van der Westhuizen and Liebenberg. This contradicted last Thursday's statement by the Truth Commission which was, according to the Commission, based on Steyn's report to De Klerk in 1992 and on subsequent interviews with Steyn. According to the statement, Steyn's report recommended that action must start gainst the Generals, as they were among the names of 60 individuals listed in the report as being involved or implicated in unauthorised and unlawful activities. The Commission said De Klerk had ignored Steyn's recommendations for a full investigation into the activities of the 60 and had instead asked Meiring and his two colleagues to provide the names of the individuals against whom action should be taken."
General Liebenberg's attorney requested a transcript or notes taken of the interview with General Steyn. To date these have not been provided. No recording was made of these proceedings. It also appears that no written notes of this conversation were taken as none have been
/made available by
1A made available by the Commission. In terms of section 14(1)(a)(v), the Committee on Human Rights Violations is compelled to record allegations and complaints of gross violations of human rights. It appears that this provision has not been complied with. From the press reports it appears that Dr Boraine was present when the interview with Steyn took place.
From the above, it is clear that Dr Boraine accepted the alleged untested allegations of General Steyn that General Liebenberg was involved in unlawful criminal activities during his tenure as Chief of the South African Defence Force, and he accepted these as correct. These allegations were later denied by General Steyn.
It is submitted that it is unheard of that a Commissioner accepts untested allegations and propagates them on public media on the basis that it has been in relation to the Steyn Report. This is not what one would expect from a Commissioner who is unbiased and objective. It appears that Dr Boraine has also come to certain fixed conclusions relating to the South African Defence Force and has made known his attitude in this regard. There are numerous statements in the public media. In, "The Star" of the 22nd October 1996, it was reported,
"TRC Deputy Chairman, Dr Alex Boraine, has slammed the bland and soulless submissions by the former SADF members in Cape Town yesterday. 'My overall impression is that the submission is breath-taking in its one-sidedness', Boraine said. 'I find it almost unbelievable that in 80 pages there is
1A no acknowledgment or acceptance of responsibility for a single death during the apartheid era'."
In, "Die Burger" of the 22nd October 1996, the following was reported as being said by Dr Boraine.
"The Truth and Reconciliation Commission rejected the proposal of the previous Defence Force - rejected this because it was factual. The Truth and Reconciliation rejected the submission of the previous Defence Force because it was too factual and had too little content or too little soul. This submission was one-sided and astonishing and it was audacious. No liability was accepted for any occurrence. The Defence Force acts as a knight in shining armour. According to Dr Boraine this is against the facts as presented to the Truth Commission - presented by various witnesses over the past few months."
This attitude presupposes that he has all the facts at this stage. Clearly the Vice-Chairperson's or Acting Chairperson's attitude towards the South African Defence Force impacts on General Liebenberg as the former head of the South African Defence Force.
Dr Boraine has also made certain remarks relating to the previous Government and its functionaries, as well as the Defence Force as part of the security arm of the Government, as well as certain remarks in general, which
1A impact on his objectivity. The following statement has been attributed to Dr Boraine in the press.
"National Party leader F W de Klerk could have made a helpful contribution to national reconciliation if he had sought amnesty for the ill-treatment which millions of South Africans suffered under apartheid."
This is in a SAPA press release on the 14th May 1997.
"We said we weren't sure how much the politicians would include in their submissions, and that was just as well, because, as you know, Mr de Klerk made this disingenuous suggestion that the National Party was just a political arm and that the others in Government were quite separate. This was rubbish I tried to say gently to him at the hearing."
In, "The Citizen" of the 17th May 1996, the following has been reported,
"'It was astonishing that KwaZulu/Natal Attorney-General should act so quickly to subpoena Magoo's Bar bomber, Robert McBride', Deputy Chairman of the Truth Commission, Dr Alex Boraine, said yesterday. He told the media briefing that he was astounded by Attorney-General Tim McNally's decision because no one seemed terribly keen to act against other people, such as former
1A security policeman, Joe Mamasela."
In the Cape Times of the 13th December 1996, the following has been reported,
"Boraine warned P W Botha and other apartheid era officials if they do not seek amnesty they leave themselves open to be charged in a court of law, both civilly and criminally. The choice is theirs."
It is respectfully submitted that Dr Boraine has also not been as critical towards the ANC regarding their submissions to the Commission, which seems to be indicative of a possible bias. There is presently a matter pending under case No 8034/1997, The National Party of South Africa v Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dr Boraine and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the President of the Republic of South Africa and the Minister of Justice. This matter is to be heard on the 26th August 1997. Inter alia, the following relief is sought against Dr Boraine, namely an order declaring him to be in breach of the provisions of section 36(1) and/or 36(5)(a) and/or 36(6)(a) and/or 39(a) and/or 39(b) of the Act. Furthermore, an order is sought to disqualify him serving as a member and as Vice-Chairperson of the Commission.
It is respectfully submitted that this aspect alone makes it inadvisable that Dr Boraine sits as a Commissioner in these proceedings. In this application he has filed an affidavit and the facts are obviously in dispute. There is a risk that if the relief sought against Dr Boraine is granted that all these proceedings, in effect, would then be a nullity.
1A The above-mentioned actions and/or attitude of Dr Boraine is wholly irreconcilable with the requirements set out by the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, Act 34 of 1995. The Act, in broad terms, requires the following from the Commission and/or its members.
1. To gather and hear evidence. To be and appear to be at all times strictly impartial.
2. After gathering and hearing all the evidence, consider such evidence and come to a conclusion, which conclusions are to be submitted to the Minister of Justice by way of a report.
Section 44 of the Act provides that upon the completion of such report the Minister of Justice must bring it to the notice of the nation by, inter alia, laying it upon the table in Parliament within two months after having received it. Certain guidelines are laid down in the Act pertaining to the appointment of Commissioners and the manner in which they have to perform their functions. Section 7(2)(b) of the Act provides that the Commissioners have to be fit and proper persons, impartial and may not have a high political profile.
"The Commission and its members and staff must function without political or other bias or interference and must, unless the Act especially provides otherwise be independent and separate from any party, Government administration or any other functioning or body directly or indirectly representing the interests of
1A such entity."
That's in section 36(1) of the Act. In terms of section 36(5) of the Act, every Commissioner and member of the committee must, withstanding any personal opinion, preference or party affiliation, serve impartially and independently and perform his or her duties in good faith and without fear of favour, bias or prejudice.
"A Commissioner or member of a committee may not, by his or her membership of the Commission, association, statement, conduct or in any other manner jeopardise his or her independence or in any other manner harm the credibility, impartiality or integrity of the Commission."
I'm referring to section 36(6) of the Act.
"A Commissioner or member of a committee may not divulge any confidential information gained as a result of his or her membership of the Commission or a committee, except in the course of the performance of his or her functions as such as a Commissioner or a member of a committee."
In this regard I'm referring to section 36(6)(c) of the Act.
"A person who anticipates any finding of the Commission regarding an investigation in a manner calculated to influence its proceedings or such findings, does anything calculated
1A improperly to influence the Commission in respect of any matter being or to be considered by the Commission in connection with an investigation or does anything in relation to the Commission which, if done in relation to a court of law, would constitute contempt of court, is guilty of an offence in terms of sections 39(a), (b) and (c) of the Act."
It is respectfully submitted that Dr Boraine, in his capacity as Acting Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Commission, is not complying with the above provisions and that his conduct is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. From the above, it is submitted that it appears that Dr Boraine is not impartial. His various comments, as quoted, were furthermore inappropriately timed and premature, in the light of the fact that the TRC proceedings have not yet been finalised. It is respectfully submitted that the findings of fact should only be made once all evidence has been heard and tested. Findings should only then be made and should be contained in the TRC file report to the Minister of Justice. Clearly, it is not the purpose of the Act to have a trial by media on untested allegations.
I would shortly like to refer to certain legal principles applicable to recusal. In Liebenberg v Brakpan Liquor Licensing Board, 1944 WLD 52 on page 54 to 55, SOLOMON J stated the following,
"Every person who undertakes to administer justice, whether he is a legal official or is only for the
1A occasion engaged in the work of deciding the rights of others, is disqualified if he has a bias which interferes with his impartiality or if there are circumstances affecting him that might reasonably create a suspicion that he is not impartial. The impartiality of which of the Court is trained may often in practice be unrealised without detection but the ideal cannot be abandoned without irreparable injury to the standards hitherto applied in the administration of justice."
In Mag v Natal Nedtravel (Pty) Ltd, 1996, (3), it's an Appellate Division case, Judge Hefer commented as follows,
"A Judge must ensure that justice is done. It is equally important, I think, that he should also ensure that justice is seen to be done. After all, that is a fundamental principle of our law and public policy. He should therefore so conduct a trial that his open-mindedness, his impartiality and his fairness are manifest to all those who are concerned in the trial and its outcome, especially the accused."
Judge Jones said the following in Dumba and Others v the Commissioner of Prisons and Others, 1992 (1) SA 58 on page 63.
"It cannot be seen to be a fair hearing if reasonable people think that a Judge
1A might be biased. The rule against bias is, of course, one of the cornerstones of natural justice. I can see no reason why it should not be applied in the same as the other cornerstone, the audi alteram partem rule, which takes effect with all its vigour in all situations, unless it is especially or impliedly excluded or curtailed by statute."
Reference is made to The Attorney-General, Eastern Cape v Blom and Others decision of 1988 (4) SA 645 (AD).
"In other words, the proper approach is to apply the wider test of a reasonable suspicion to its full extent in every case where bias or self-interest is an issue."
In BTR Industries (Pty) Ltd v Metal and Allied Workers Union, 1992 (3) SA 673 on pages 693 and 194, the Appellate Division once again stated that the test to be applied in circumstances such as these is that of the existence of a reasonable of bias.
The rules of natural justice are clearly applicable to these proceedings, as decided recently in the Appellate Division case of Du Preez Boshoff v the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where it was found that these rules apply and that at all stages the proceedings should be reasonable and fair.
1B It is our respectful submission that due to the media and other statements made by Dr Boraine there is a reasonable apprehension of bias. According to the precepts of natural justice, justice must seen to be done.
1B the interests of justice will be best served if Dr Boraine recuses himself. The public remarks made by Dr Boraine while the Commission proceedings are still in progress would, in our submission, at least give an impression that some issues have been prejudged and that, as a result of these remarks, the Commission is not proceeding in an objective and impartial manner.
It was brought under my attention this morning that notice was given to the State Attorney - the Commission's attorneys - that the National Party, in paragraph 3 of this letter, states as follows - the letter dated the 4th August.
"Kindly inform Dr Boraine that our client will regard any participation by him in the work of the committee as quite inappropriate and objectionable. He is accordingly hereby requested, through your good office, to refrain from participating in the work of the committee, if such was his intention."
I am just bringing this to the Commission's attention. I don't know if the Commission has a copy of this letter. I beg leave to hand a copy of this letter up.
I would finally like to submit that it is clear that certain allegations were accepted in relation to the Steyn Report that were not tested. Certain facts have been accepted or the result has been presupposed. Dr Boraine is an interested party in an application with the National Party at this stage and objectively there is a reasonable apprehension of bias and that it is in the interests of justice that Dr Boraine recuses as a Commissioner in these
1B proceedings. And, in light of the fact that if any relief is granted in the matter of The National Party against Dr Boraine, in all likelihood these proceedings, if Dr Boraine were to remain, would be a nullity.
MR LYSTER: Thank you, Mr Coetzee.
MR NTSEBEZA: Thank you, Chair. Advocate Coetzee, I just want to clarify in my own mind whether I heard you correctly. Is your objection predicated upon Dr Boraine being Chairperson of these proceedings or doesn't it matter whether he is just a panellist?
MR COETZEE: The application only relates to these proceedings and it is requested Dr Boraine recuses himself from these proceedings - from this proceeding.
MR NTSEBEZA: I am just asking because earlier on you were saying you were objecting to him being Chairperson of these proceedings. I just wanted to clarify that. And are you saying it doesn't matter whether he is a panellist or not?
MR COETZEE: That is correct.
MR LYSTER: Thank you, Mr Coetzee. We will adjourn briefly to consider our position. Thank you very much. In fact, it's now just after 1 o'clock and we will take the lunch adjournment now, during which time you will be given the documents which were photocopied earlier on. Until 2 o'clock. Thank you. We adjourn until 2 o'clock.
1B ON RESUMPTION:
MR LYSTER: Please take your seats. We are going to start now. We have, during the interval, had an opportunity to discuss the application for the recusal of Dr Boraine and it is the unanimous view of the panel that we cannot accede to the application. As was stated clearly in my opening remarks, the Commission does not seek to establish the guilt or otherwise of any person and no findings of whatever nature will be made at this hearing. This hearing, which is inquisitorial in nature, is in the process of receiving or gathering evidence. Findings will be made at a much later stage, when the totality of all evidence relating to this matter is considered.
In the circumstances, we do not believe that there can be any possible prejudice to General Liebenberg or any other person by Dr Boraine's participation on this panel. If we receive an application in writing for full reasons for our decision, these reasons will be made available in due course.
In the meantime, we have a full schedule to cover and we intend now to proceed with the first submission.
MR COETZEE (?): The question that my learned friend wants to put to the committee is eventually findings will be made relating to the evidence that will be led during this hearing. Is that correct?
MR LYSTER: That's right.
MR DE VOS (?): Mr Chairman, from our point of view, the clarity that we wish to obtain is whether it is not so that this Commission, as it sits today, will make a recommendation to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission,
1B which may or may not be included in the report. Because, if that is so, then obviously it will entail a factual finding. That's what we find a little incomprehensible.
MR MACADAM (?): If I could just respond briefly. There are two issues. The first is that you will be familiar with section 30(2)(b) of the Act, that the point at which this Commission wishes to make a finding which may be detrimental to any of the parties represented here, full substance of those allegations intended to be found, so to speak, will then be sent to each of the individuals so implicated, if one can use that terminology as the Act uses it, and at that stage the parties will again have a further opportunity to make further representations.
The second aspect is that this panel will not make the decision or recommendation. In fact, not all the people present here today may remain in attendance for the duration of this inquiry. So different people will join at different stages. Some may leave, and so on. The totality of evidence, as Mr Lyster has said, will be weighed up at a much later stage, that will include the whole range of evidence, including submissions received here and submissions received through all the other information-gathering processes. Once that has been collated and the Commission is in a position to make a finding, at that stage all the parties who may be implicated at that point in time will receive a further notice in terms of section 30 and then a further audi opportunity, so to speak, will then happen. So it's on that basis really that we are dealing with the matter.
MR DE VOS (?): Mr Chairman, speaking for ourselves, we are very thankful for that elucidation, because we were
/not under the
1B not under the impression that that was what was going to happen here. Please stop me if I'm wrong, but, as I understand it now, the position to be, that this is basically in the form of a preparatory examination, where ideas are kicked around and you will go away and decide, together with all the other evidence which you may have collected elsewhere, whether there is, "A case" and, if so, then a hearing will be held in due course, in terms of section 32, and evidence will then be presented and presented for cross-examination as well, at that stage. Am I understanding this correctly, Mr Chairman?
MR MACADAM: You are partly correct and partly not correct. To the extent that you are correct, all the evidence will be weighed up at that stage. It may not be feasible or possible at that stage to lead viva voce evidence, but that is a matter of exigencies that the Commission will have to weigh up at that point in time.
MR DE VOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Therefore, we assume then that if there's anything which we wish to place in dispute with any witness, now is the time to do it or forever hold your peace. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR LYSTER: It will be permitted for each interested person to make a submission in rebuttal or to cross-examine briefly on very specific issues. Thereafter, at the end of the hearing or just before the end of the hearing, after the totality of the evidence has been heard a further opportunity will be made to each interested party to make a further oral or written submission. So if there are other issues of clarification, please feel free to raise them with a member of the panel during a break. We would like to now try and get on with the substance of
1B the hearing.
MR COETZEE (?): Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. I think we have an appreciation of what you are trying to tell us. We will attempt to assist you in your investigations as far as we possibly can, but as we understand it there is going to be no factual findings and there's going to be no recommendations, so we have to deal with the matter on that basis. We understand that. Thank you.
MR LYSTER: Thank you. Mr Macadam.
MR MACADAM: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'd like to commence the evidence ... [break in recording].
MR COETZEE: At this stage now, now that the finding has been made relating to the application, obviously we would like to get instructions from General Liebenberg where to go from here and, furthermore, we are going to request written reasons from the committee in writing, well, immediately. At this stage I am requesting a postponement till tomorrow morning to get instructions from General Liebenberg an to debate the application and possible remedies from here on, and to get reasons from the committee.
MR LYSTER: Thank you, Mr Coetzee, we do not intend to give written reasons immediately. We are not obliged to do so and we cannot accede to a request that we stand the matter down, and we will proceed at this stage. Mr Macadam. If this is a matter of clarification, please ask a question briefly, but we honestly cannot drag this matter out any further. I've made the point clearly. We will not stand the matter down now and we cannot give reasons in writing now and we are not obliged to do so.
MR COETZEE: If I may put the following on record. The
1B time now is half past two. These proceedings only started at 12 o'clock through no delay of any of the other people involved in the proceedings. The time now is half past two. I am requesting the matter to stand down till tomorrow to take instructions from General Liebenberg, to decide whether we are going to exercise any other remedies or not. In light of the time period left over for the rest of the afternoon, I feel that the request is reasonable and if this hearing continues at this stage it is highly prejudicial to my client. If it just stands over till tomorrow morning it is not going to delay the proceedings any more than they have already and at this stage I beg leave to hand up a written request for reasons from the committee.
MR LYSTER: Please feel free to hand up that written request for reasons. Reasons will be made available in due course. We have made a ruling that we cannot accede to a request that the matter be stood down and we will now proceed. We believe that there can be no possible prejudice to your client. This is an information-gathering or receiving exercise and there can be no prejudice to your client, and I would now insist that we continue. But we will gladly receive the written request for reasons now. We will not respond to it now. Mr Macadam, please.
MR MACADAM: Mr Chairperson, I wish to commence the evidential matters which form the basis of this hearing first by not calling a witness. I would like to commence by way of a submission from an interested party, Mr Howard Varney, a qualified attorney and duly admitted in the Supreme Court, a person who has experience in the
1B political unrest that has plagued the Province of KwaZulu/Natal. He will be making a submission from the Bar. I will ask not that he be called as a witness, that he take the stand and give evidence under oath. Had the time constraints been different I would have been constrained to request that the submission be heard from him at the end of the evidence, together with the submissions which may be made by all the legal representatives of persons who are affected by the evidence, but I propose to do so at this stage, firstly because Mr Varney is due very shortly to return to America, to commence full-time studies. If he is not available when he has to register, those studies will not be permitted to take place. Secondly, his submission will, of necessity, merely highlight and bring together the enormous amount of documentary evidence which forms the basis of this hearing and it will be convenient for those members of the community, who wish to follow these proceedings, simply to gain the issues in a nutshell, and this could be most adequately expressed by Mr Varney in the course of his submission. I stress ... [break in recording] ... to give evidence on any aspect.
MR DE VOS: Mr Chairman, before my learned colleague calls Mr Varney to testify, we only received this document a couple of minutes before the lunch break. We object hearing this evidence in public before we had time to study this. In terms of the Act, we should be given a reasonable opportunity to obtain documents. This is, in fact, the third document supplied by Mr Varney. In fact, it's actually the fourth, and our clients are sitting up in Pretoria and other places. We beg leave to have time
/to study this
1B to study this document before Mr Varney starts giving evidence. We don't know what's in it. We don't know whether there's any false allegations in it, whether we should ask for an interdict, interdicting him from giving this type of evidence, because we've got more than enough evidence already placed on record in the KwaMakutha trial that apparently, we think, differs from the contents of this document. Therefore we ask for an adjournment until at least tomorrow morning to study this document, to get instructions from our clients, in order to prepare ourselves. Thank you.
MR LYSTER: Mr de Vos, the document that you have in front of you contains no further allegations than those which your client already has. The only reason why we - please let me finish - the only reason why we allowed Mr Varney to make this document, because it was a convenient way for him to draw facts together in order to make his submission. I can assure you it does not contain any new allegations. Your client or yourself will not be taken by surprise on any issues. You will be given a full opportunity to make a submission in rebuttal or otherwise in relation to this document and you cannot or your client cannot be in any way prejudiced by Mr Varney making his submission today. I stress he is not giving evidence. He is making a submission and the document can be studied overnight and you will be given an opportunity tomorrow and at the end of the hearing to make a response to that submission.
MR MARITZ: Mr Chairman, I am afraid I have to join the fray. I don't really understand what's going on here. It places us in an invidious position and we are being
1B prejudiced. The fact of the matter is that Mr Varney is not going to testify, ergo he's not a witness, ergo he cannot be cross-examined and his opinions, which are obviously subjective opinions, cannot be tested. Now, we don't know what his expertise is to be able to render these opinions, No 1. No 2, we do not know who he represents, other than that he is a member of the public, as I am, for all intents and purposes, but which is a bit upsetting is the intimation that Mr Varney will set the stage. Now, to set the stage one needs an objective person to do so and, by definition, Mr Varney is subjectively involved in the matter and he has his subjective opinions, which may be very detrimental to my clients, those that I represent, and I will have no opportunity of testing those opinions in any way whatsoever. Furthermore, they can be of no value whatsoever and if you wish to take his submission as a submission on paper, you are free to do so. We cannot stop you from doing so at all, but to introduce any sort of subjective element into the whole inquiry, I'm afraid won't do.
MR LYSTER: We intend to receive a whole range of submissions relating to the matter which is under focus here and you will be given an opportunity - every interested person here will be given an opportunity to make a submission which will contain perceptions and views different, I have no doubt, to those that Mr Varney will present. This is a submission based on examination of documents and, as Mr Macadam said, it would have been perhaps more ideal if he had been able to make his submission at the end of or towards the end of this
1B hearing, when no doubt you will be making submissions - you, as counsel, will be making submissions as to the interpretation to be placed on these documents, but he cannot do so because he is required to be elsewhere and we are giving him this opportunity to make this submission now.
MR MACADAM: If I could just add one other aspect. We will give Mr Varney's submission the appropriate weight and evidenciary value or probative value, as we would give any other submission and as we would give any other evidence tested or untested as may come before us. So the issue - we can't take it much further than that at this stage, but it's a question of giving it it's probative value in due course that it will deserve. We will weigh up all the evidence and all the submissions and all the other factors.
MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, may I just say something here. It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding. What my learned friend, Mr Maritz, was saying was clearly not understood, because we are not talking about evidenciary or probative value here. We are talking about a submission and he quite rightly, and properly, in our submission, suggested to you that if Mr Varney or anybody else wants to make a submission he should do so at the proper time. He doesn't have to be here to read his submission. We can read. He can hand it up to you and we will all read it and we will make our comments, if necessary, either in writing or verbally. Now, Mr Chairman, with great respect, I join with my learned friend, Mr Maritz, in saying that there is clear prejudice - there is clear potential prejudice and that's all that's
1B necessary. The Chair said that there is nothing new in that document. Well, I don't know, Mr Chairman, but I know one thing and that's that I've got the right to go and study it to make sure for myself whether that is so or not. Before this is given as a stage-setting ceremony, to call it that for want of a better phrase, by which or in the light of which the evidence is going to be - obviously is going to be presented to you, we have to object to that, Mr Chairman, with great respect.
[Break in recording]
MR LYSTER: We have requested that - it's not within our power - this is a sub-contractor that supplies these things. We are in the process of trying to put a couple more of these microphones together and that will happen during the course of the afternoon. Well, it would appear that everything has been recorded so far, except your last remarks, Mr van Willigh. But we certainly will attempt to get enough microphones to go round. Please bear with us for a minute.
MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, I feel obliged at this stage to oppose any further postponement, in the interests of the parties that I represent. The parties that I represent are in gaol. It's in their interests that this proceeding runs as quickly as possible. Also, in regard to the financial constraints placed upon me and my clients in these circumstances, I submit that we proceed as soon as possible. I cannot see any prejudice by leading Mr Varney's evidence at this stage or his submission at this stage because it is simply a submission and not evidence. Thank you.
MR STEWART: Mr Chairman, I stand by Mr Wills'
MR LYSTER: In view of the submissions raised, although we do not believe that people would be prejudiced if Mr Varney did continue but, in view of the objections raised, we will stand his submission down until tomorrow morning and we will proceed with the next witness.
MR MACADAM: Mr Chairperson, I will proceed to call Brian Gcina Mkhize. He is available. He must merely take the witness stand.
MR LYSTER: Sorry, Mr Varney, you are excused until tomorrow morning.
MR VARNEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR MACADAM: Mr Chairperson, may I mention at this stage his evidence will be in Zulu, if that can be borne in mind for interpreting purposes.
MR WILLS: Mr Chairperson, if I could just make a request at this stage. In view of the lack of electronic equipment at this stage, I am unable to communicate with my witness at this stage. I would like the opportunity to sit next to him as he testifies if that's at all possible.
MR MACADAM: Yes, Mr Wills, okay, that's fair enough.
MR LYSTER: For those people using earphones, channel 3 you can hear Zulu, 2 English and 1 Afrikaans.
/BRIAN GCINA MKHIZE
1B BRIAN GCINA MKHIZE (Sworn states) (Through Interpreter)
MR MACADAM: Mr Mkhize, at this stage how old are you? --- I am 31 years old.
Is it correct that at a certain stage you were a constable in the South Africa - in the KwaZulu Police, and you were arrested, put on trial, convicted and sentenced for several politically-motivated crimes committed in the Esikhaweni district? --- That's correct.
Now, if you can inform the Commission how - in which area you grew up and attended school. --- ... In Polweni in the New Hanover district, Hammarsdale and Mpumalanga district, Nelspruit and Empangeni.
Now, while you were attending school, did you become actively involved in any of the political parties which existed at the time in KwaZulu/Natal? --- Yes, that's correct.
Which party did you become involved with? --- At that time it was Inkatha, Freedom for the People.
And did you, as a result of that association, become involved with any of the political leaders of that party? This is while you were still attending school. --- Yes, that's correct.
And were you at any stage approached or considered pursuing a career in the KwaZulu Police?
MR WILLS: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, members of the Committee, there seems to be a problem just understanding the way the translation works. I must note that the communications that I've had with the witness in my position here have all related to the translation. If I could just have a minute to explain to him how it works. He's only - he's responding to the questions in English,
1B whilst the Zulu translation is coming through. If the committee will just bear with me for a minute. Sorry, Mr Chairperson, it seems that this translator isn't working. He is not hearing any Zulu at this stage. (Pause) Thank you, Mr Chairperson and members of the committee. We are ready to proceed.
MR MACADAM: If we could possibly repeat that last question. Were you at any stage either approached or of your own initiative, did you yourself consider a career in the KwaZulu Police? --- Yes, I was contacted ... (inaudible). Yes, I was contacted.
Could you just clarify for the Commission. Was the word that you used, "Contacted" or was it, "Persuaded". I have asked this merely because it appears that there might be an error with translation, if that could be clarified. I just understood the Zulu to mean persuade and not contact, but if you could just clarify that for the Commission, which word you intended specifically to use. --- I would like to ask the committee to decide whether I was persuaded or I was contacted to come and join.
... [break in recording] ... then to proceed to explain what the circumstances were briefly, which led up to you becoming involved with the KwaZulu Police. --- One of my cousins, who was a member of Mkwamanda (?) in the Inkatha asked me what am I preparing myself to do, since I have already completed my standard 10. As a person who was waiting for a reply from colleges of education, to which institutions I made applications, I was desperate, looking for work. This cousin of mine, was Zakhele Crucius Nketle. He passed away. He said as a
1B member of Mkwamanda, the central committee of Inkatha Freedom Party, he had been asked by the leader of the IFP, Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi to go and find out or recruit young members - trusted members of the IFP, who wish to be members of the Police Force in KwaZulu/Natal. As I have said before that I had been waiting for replies of applications that I made and I wanted to be a teacher, I took the opportunity to become a policeman. I accepted the offer from my cousin to become a policeman. Even if it wasn't the kind of work that I aimed to continue with, it was better to join the police than to sit down and not do any work, because I was going to get some financial help and also to further my studies or to continue with the field of work that I wanted to do.
What sort of steps did you take yourself to become a member of the KwaZulu Police? --- Zakhele Nketle talked to one of his brothers who was supposed to take me to Ulundi. This brother was known as Bruford Nketle. He was one of the senior Government officials in KwaZulu, but most of these people were from Hammarsdale, Mpumalanga. Bruford Nketle took me to Comrade Mtwe Mafule from Ulundi. Comrade Mafule took me to a camp known by the name of Nhlumgwane. He was a national organizer of the youth of the Inkatha.
This place, Nhlumgwane, which you have mentioned, firstly, can you inform the Commission where exactly that area is located or situated, where the closest town is? --- The town near to this place, it's Ulundi. When proceeding towards the north, where the war between the Zulus and the English people took place is the very same place where the roads have to pass through. That's where
/we were recruited.
1B we were recruited.
Now, the place which you have described as Nhlumgwane, was that a private residence, a Government building or some form of institution? What exactly was it? --- Even if I am not in a position to explain exactly what kind of place it was at the time, however, I would like to say that it was used by the KwaZulu Government and Inkatha because after it was used for the purpose of recruiting us. It was used by community developers.
2A ... [break in recording] ... at that stage. --- It was used as a recruitment base. At the time when we were getting recruited people came. One of them I remember, it was Mr Zazi Sibanda, who was a prominent member - ANC leader - IFP leader, I'm sorry. Mr M Z Khumalo - at the time he was a personal assistant to the President of Inkatha. I also remember people like Sergeant Gcsibe. He was a sergeant at the KwaZulu Police at the time. And others whom I didn't know very well.
Apart from Sergeant Gcsibe, were there any other members of the KwaZulu Police which you encountered when you arrived at this place? --- Yes, there was Captain Langeni and another one known as Lieutenant Mbatha. Others I don't know their names, but I can point them out.
And if you can set out briefly what transpired in that place after you arrived there. --- I arrived at the base and I also found people who were also looking for work, who were of my age. Some were younger, some were older. We were examined by the doctor who was called to examine us. We were also introduced to the military training. There were so many things which had to be
2A considered, as to whether you qualify to continue the training or not. This was something that was their own secret. All that we knew is that we were being trained to become part of the KwaZulu Police. There are certain types of questions which we used to be asked, to determine our success. Questions like, "What is the Mkwamanda of Inkatha?", by Mkwamanda means the central committee of Inkatha. We would be asked, "What is a Pathfinder?" and also, "What are the policies of Inkatha?", and other things which - kind of question will determine about your awareness in politics, and also questions which will show about how trustworthy you are within the Inkatha organization. And questions relating to your term within the Inkatha, both body fitness and all those questions will make a person qualify. Therefore you will be registered and be told that you will continue the training.
Who was the person who was asking these questions and laying down this training? Can you remember? You mentioned earlier in your evidence various people that were there whom you named and identified as holding various positions. I just want to establish, you know, who precisely it was who told you these things which you said were told to you and also who gave this form of training which you are in the process of telling us. --- People who were in front of this were two people. It was Themba Gcsibe, who we knew as a sergeant in the KwaZulu Police, and also Mr Zazi Sibanda, who was also a prominent leader within the Inkatha.
And were you and the other persons there requested to complete an application form to become enrolled as
2A members of the KwaZulu Police? --- No, since I ended up as a member at one time, these made me aware of the kinds of form which I have to complete if I were to become a policeman. Therefore at the time at Nhlumgwane we were not given forms which will make us qualify as the police.
Were your fingerprints taken at any stage? --- No, they were not taken.
Were any questions put to you and to the other persons in your presence to establish whether you had a criminal record or were wanted by the police? --- No, it wasn't done.
Now, you have said that questions were asked about the Inkatha Freedom Party. Were questions asked about any other political parties? --- No. They didn't concentrate much regards to other parties. However, you were asked whether you knew other political parties which were not aligned to Inkatha.
And was any action taken concerning the responses given to these questions about this particular political party? --- If you seemed to be aligned to any other organization which was not working closely with the Inkatha you were not going to qualify. I'm saying this because they selected up to 200 of us at the end. However, if I remember, there were people who came looking for work. There were about 400 or above that number. One of the reasons why some didn't qualify it's because they look as though they were aligned to particular organizations which were enemies to Inkatha. Some of them were refused because they were not physically fit. Some were refused because they didn't look aligned or could be trusted by Inkatha.
/For how long
2A For how long did you remain in that place? --- Even if I can't remember the exact dates, I would say it would be just more than two weeks, up to three weeks, because I remember we arrived it was March. After then - and then we have to leave where we had to be trained at somewhere during April - at the beginning of April.
It was in the year 1986. Is that correct? --- That's correct.
Now, you said you came to leave that camp in April. What were the circumstances that led up to that? --- I didn't get your question very well. Can you please rephrase it, so that I can get it clear.
According to you, you came to leave that place after a period of two to three weeks, if I understood your evidence. What was it that led up to you leaving the place? --- It was clear that the kind of training that I was going to get, it wasn't a kind of training that will serve the community. It's because the Nhlumgwane area was not capable of practice like the kind of explosions, the kind of guns - the type of guns that were going to be used. Under such conditions it was impossible to get that specific training that I got, because the place was inside - it was surrounded by families, but mainly because the whole training was a secret. Therefore a place which is right within the community couldn't be used because of the secret.
Now, if you could explain in more detail, why do you say the training was secret? What makes you express that opinion? --- It is because when we went to the place where we were trained, we were not told as to where we were going. There had been some attempts to make sure
/that we don't
2A that we don't see even the road signs on the road, to see exactly the location of the place. It didn't end there. The seniors or the leaders of the IFP and the leaders in the KwaZulu Police always insisted that our training was very important and even our instructors, every day they would always repeat that how secret it is, referring to the training. These are the reasons why I am saying it was a secret.
Can you tell us how you actually came to leave this camp - Nhlumgwane camp at Ulundi? --- We were taken in the evening, after 4 o'clock. We were taken by a car - a car which looks like a furniture removal car. It's a very big car which doesn't have windows. I would say it's constructed specifically for furniture removal and not people - transporting people. We were taken by these cars from Hlongwane camp up - till to the airport in Durban. It was driven by white people. They were dressed in private clothes. We arrived at the Durban International Airport. We were marched and taken into a place which looked like an Army place. It wasn't a good-looking place, as expensive. This was done in a rush. We were all rushing now, because we didn't even get the time to say goodbye to people whom we know or people that we loved, and you could see the way we were treated. They didn't show some ... (inaudible) ... on us. They had their own purpose. We got into this plane and we were instructed to fasten our seatbelts. It took off with us.
... [break in recording] ... Aeroplane at an airport one goes to a terminal where one gets issues with a ticket and then goes into a lounge and then you wait in the lounge until the flight is called and then you go from the
/lounge to the
2A lounge to the aeroplane. Was that followed in this case? --- No, we were not respected people or dignitaries. I know very well when it comes to the lawful boarding of aeroplanes. We went through the passages which are used to transport goods into the planes. There wasn't anything good to enjoy in our transportation. What was serious is that we should do it as quickly as possible. We didn't even go to the terminal's check-in points. If I have to brief, we entered through the back door. The plane was parked just closer to the truck which we were travelling in, the furniture removal truck. We didn't even get a chance to look up in the sky or look sideways. You have to grab your bags and jump and get into the plane as quickly as possible. There wasn't even time to be searched to find out what you have in your possession and the plane took off with us.
For how long was that plane in the air, if you can remember? --- We left Durban at 9 o'clock in the evening. The next stop it was 12 o'clock at night. I would say it was three hours.
Do you remember the spot where the plane landed? --- As I have explained before, our ... (inaudible) ... was a top secret. It wasn't clear to know exactly which airport we are going to land in.
Was it an airport similar to the one from which you had taken off? --- It's not easy for me to explain that, because when we were given the final confirmation as whether we have fastened our seat belts, we were told that we were going to alight. When the lights were switched on, it was the time when we were about to land. However, soon the lights were switched off. After switching off
2A the lights, the plane landed. Suddenly there were cars just next to us by the names of Unimogs. I later discovered that these were cars which were normally used by soldiers. Even if they don't look like armoured vehicles which are closed on top, they have colours and these hard sides which look like soldiers' vehicles. They are open at the back. These are the cars which we had to get into as soon as we got out of the plane. There were three cars. We were able to fit into the car because not all of us from the Nhlumgwane camp were in that plane. This was the first group which was selected. The others were left behind. These were supposed to follow.
Where were you taken to? --- I have said before that our training was a secret, because even us, the trainees, didn't know exactly where we were to be trained and we never knew up to today. Even today I cannot stand before the committee and say - and take off and say I knew exactly where I was trained. I just heard later, since things are coming to light. We don't know exactly where we were.
Were you taken from the airport to another point later that same night or so? --- That's correct. We had to travel for about three hours in these three cars, the Unimogs that I have already explained. We were travelling on roads, there were trees on both sides of the roads. However, it was a tarred road. Even if we tried to peep through to look at road signs as to where we were going, we found that the road signs were covered by sacks. Some were covered in black plastics - those ones that are used for collecting rubbish. We travelled from 12 o'clock until 3 o'clock in the morning, going to a place which we
2A didn't know.
When you eventually arrived at this place, what did you find there, when you arrived at the end of this journey? --- It was very cold. This was a very sandy place. There was big and small trees. It was just an open area. You couldn't even see just a single house. I mean even the river which was running through over the desert, we discovered it later. The only thing that we heard when we arrived there, it was the different kinds of birds singing. We were taken off the cars and one of the white men said to us that we can make some fire. However, we must be careful that we should never leave the place where we were finally put in, because there were carnivores in that area, which might be dangerous to us. And he said they will come back in the morning to us and we should just make fire and warm ourselves and wait for them till the next morning. They left us and went away.
Did he tell you who he was and what position he held? --- No, he didn't tell us who he was or what position he occupies. However, he gave us the name of Kloppies. He said he was Kloppies.
Did you notice anything unusual about the way he was dressed or not? --- At that time he was dressed in private clothes. However, the way, the modus operandi of his treatment was so different. He was a quick person in all the things that he was doing and he looked like a very dangerous person. He looked so intelligent and cautious.
The following day after you had arrived, what commenced then? --- I remember that the following morning white people came towards us. There were about six or seven. They came to us. Among them there was one
/whom we ended
2A whom we ended up knowing as JJ. I remember him very well because I later heard about him. I heard about him during the General Magnus Malan's trial, and I also heard - that was the second time I heard about him. He is the person who addressed us in the morning.
And these other persons you claim were with you, were they wearing any unusual or out of the ordinary clothing at all? --- They were nice, heavy-built gentlemen. They had flat stomachs and you can see that they're tough guys, who can stand against anything, and they were healthy and they were showing this inspiration in whatever thing that they were doing, and they were always quick and abrupt in whatever they were doing.
Was there anything unusual - civilian clothing or a form of uniform or are you in a position to tell us? --- Yes. At the time they were wearing camouflage clothes - camouflage shirts with brown and green colours and also their trousers, they looked like the shirts, and with these hard boots, leather boots, and they all were wearing caps, although they were not wearing them, they were just hanging them over their shoulders, because these are the kind of caps which you can fold and just trap it or button it on top of the shoulder.
... [Break in recording] ... Became a member of the KwaZulu Police, are you familiar with the uniforms worn by the South African Defence Force? --- If I were to say the truth, the SADF was using brown uniform, which didn't have colours, different colours, and I also know the camouflage which is usually used in South Africa, because after leaving this place and ending up as a policeman I can say I can differentiate between the camouflage uniform
2A in South Africa and the one that was worn by those gentlemen. It was a kind of uniform which, if I were to be asked to compare it with any other uniform. I will say it's the same as the uniform that is normally worn by the MK soldiers nowadays. I don't know how it so happened that it looked similar to the one that is worn by the MK soldiers. However, it wasn't the South African uniform.
Did these persons explain to you what was going to be done with you now that you had arrived at this place? --- On the first day JJ told us that he is going to distinguish between a man and a boy, and he asked us to pull up our socks, because we are going to work.
Was anything specifically told to you what the nature of your work would be at all? --- He told us that what's important is if we do allow that this country of ours be taken by communists we should know that we have stabbed ourself with our own spear, and he said we have to answer to our grandchildren as to how we allow the country to be taken to be also inflicted by bad things - poverty. I can't forget these words, because these words created change in my life. They made me to ask myself or to reassess who am I. On that particular day when he said these words I didn't have the knowledge as to what have I done to arrive at these things that he mentioned - the poverty. However, these words made me to sit down and think as to whether I could take part to avoid that our country be derailed into poverty, and also that our grandchildren should blame us, saying that we didn't defend our country - we left it on the hands of communists and that will be the cause - that was the cause of the poverty.
/... [Break in
2A ... [Break in recording] ... speaking persons who were present at that place, was there anyone who was holding a position of authority? --- I would like to go back a bit. I'm referring to the first day on the place, this particular place which I didn't know. There wasn't any black leader at that time. We had a leader when the second group arrived, which came after us.
Do you remember when that was? --- Even if I don't remember whether it's about after a few days, I won't say it's more than a week - six days.
And who was that person who arrived, as you say, approximately a week later? --- It was Daluxolo Luthuli. He was known as Madlanduna. He was introduced to us as a political commissar, and it was explained as to his involvement in wars. We were also told that he is a former ANC member, and we were told about the importance of his presence to us. That's the first time we had a black leader.
And who explained who he was to you? --- Yes, he did explain himself, because we used to spend time with him. At night, after the training, after 6 o'clock we used to sit down and relax and talk to him. We were not discussing the training matters. We would sit down and ask as to who he was. Fortunately I was from Hammarsdale, Mpumalanga. Madlanduna's home was at Georgedale, which is next to Mpumalanga, Hammarsdale. He was the son of Reverend Jafta. We knew him while we were growing up as young men. Even if we knew that one of his sons skipped the country, we didn't know that son. When Madlanduna arrived at the camp, when I tried to trace his beginnings or his history and I discovered that this is the very son
/of the Reverend
2A of the Reverend that we heard about, and they used to say he was related to Chief Albert Luthuli, who was the last ANC leader before ANC was banned in the country.
The man whom you've named JJ, did he tell you anything about Mr Luthuli, what position he held or whether he had any powers to perform or not? --- Yes, he did tell us that Luthuli is a political commissar. This was a position which endowed him with power to instruct us when it comes to politics, and also to look after us ... [break in recording] ... and also ... (inaudible) ... our problems and our behaviour, and also to give us inspiration and hope and he was also known as a person who was very well-trained. Therefore his presence amongst us was very inspiring.
At a certain stage were you and the other persons who had been in the Nhlumgwane camp given any training by JJ and these other persons? --- Yes, as time continued we started to be build the camp in which we were supposed to be trained. As I have mentioned, when we arrived, there was nothing in that desert. It was only the trees and the soil and also a river running by. We had to start from scratch to build the tents where we were supposed to sleep. We had to build showers where we have to take showers. We have to connect water pipes to the showers. We had to build toilets.
... [Break in recording] ... completed, did you then go on to do anything else? --- May you please repeat the question?
... [Break in recording] ... telling us that you were in the process of constructing a camp at this spot. What I want you to do is not so much to give us
2B descriptions of the buildings and the work you did at that stage, I want you to tell us what happened once that had been completed - once all this building was finalised - what happened then, after that point? --- Others - the second group - arrived. Those who came - Sergeant Themba Gcsibe, the one I referred to as a sergeant at the KwaZulu Police. We were combined, the old group and the new group, and we were divided into four platoons. That's where I ended up as a commander of platoon 1, and there we started to train and were taught how to march, which was used as a way of enforcing discipline to us. While they were teaching us how to march - maybe I don't remember well, but we ended up discovering that during those few days above - on the other side of the river, there are houses built with mud bricks and they have the thatched roofs. These were the houses which were occupied by our instructors. They were not yet fully complete - the construction was not yet fully complete. Some of us were taken from us to continue building these houses on the other side of the river. After we were divided, they taught us how to march and we were also given the basic training.
... [Break in recording] ... to us what the main features of the basic training was. --- I will explain basic training as a step forward to military set-up. It shows you the way of life within the military. You are taught - maybe I should start about marching. You are taught how to turn. If they say to you, "Move to the right three times", and you turn right, you must know how to do it and if they say, "About turn", you must know exactly what it means. When they say, "On your stomach
/down", it means
2B down", it means you have to lie down on the ground on your stomach quickly. When they say, "Stand on your foot", it means you must be up. That is the march. And also you are taught about firearms. You should know that there is an AK-47 and you should know this falls under this particular category, for example like machine guns, and also that this belongs to pistols - the pistol category and the mortar - the mortar category you have to know. And the other different types of explosives. Category of hand grenades. However you should know they might be different. You should know this is a hand grenade. This is the basic I'm referring to. It gives you the limited information about the life in the military and above that it helps you to be conscious to know that a slight mistake that you make does not only injure you, however, it could injure the whole group, and it also teaches you to be quick in whatever you're doing and teaches you to be alert, to think positively and to be vigilant and be very observant. And also to know that the lives of all the people who work with you depends on your intelligence and your actions. That's the kind of basic training that we got.
During that ... [break in recording] ... were you and the other trainees issued with any weapons that you would yourself carry? --- That's correct.
What were you issued with at this basic stage? --- If I remember well, during the basic we were given firearms like AK-47, a Tokarev pistol and that's all. We continued to learn more about the others, but these were the ones that we kept in our tents where we were sleeping. They were not kept in the other armaments - in the
2B armaments store rooms. Therefore we had these two with us.
Were they loaded with live ammunition or not? --- Yes, we were given the magazines aside. I will say we were already trained how to load the firearms and also how to strip it - to take out the base of the magazine, the spring and the filling plate, and how to clean them and assemble the rifle. Also to load it and to know the position of ammunition, we were taught during the basic training. Therefore they were given to us and we kept them.
Were you shown how to shoot them - to actually fire them yourselves? --- Even if we didn't see that during our experience in the training we learnt more about that on second things, which was called, "Advanced course". That's where we were deep into the practicalities and we went to the shooting range, where you were showed as to how to use a firearm.
Can you proceed to tell us then more details of this advanced stage which, it appears, followed your basic training. What happened at that stage? --- That's where the training started to intensify. There are so many things that were taught during the advance phase. However, all the trainings were differentiated by names which were named in relation to what we were doing. For example, if I remember well, there was a phase called, "Fire and movements", where you have to be taught as to how you work with a partner. It is called the, "Buddy/buddy system". You are taught that in the military you are not supposed to work alone. You work with a partner at all times. You have to jump over tyres which
2B were built. When you get out of them you fall into a cell, into a pit, which was dug. When you roll into the pit a live bullet will be fired over your head and a small grenade, which is different colours, will be thrown at you. While you are still under the smoke, whether the green or orange smoke, you will find a barbed wire which stops you or barricades the way. You must find a way to cross that barbed wire. After crossing the barbed wire they will throw thunderflashes, which will explode and cause a lot of commotion, and also throw dummy hand grenades. If you manage to survive those in front of you there will be another obstacle which you will have to overcome. After managing through you will find a target on the other side which you have to shoot. You will use one of the methods which you were taught - method like two quick kill, method like deliberate fire, method like snap fire. And there are so many different kinds of shooting methods, which were taught, and also the positions of shooting. There is lying position - those are the positions of shooting. There is kneeling position, there is standing position. There are so many to mention.
Did they explain to you what the purpose of teaching you all this shooting was aimed at? Whether there was a specific goal that had to be achieved? --- Yes, that's correct. From the beginning of the training, it was always insisted that we should - that we would protect the Government of the time, that we be a hindrance to the liberation movement, that no one should succeed to take over our country. We were also given examples of countries where communists managed to fight and take over such countries. The countries which were referred to us
2B by our instructors, they mentioned numerous countries like Ethiopia, Uganda, Mozambique and many, many other countries. They didn't only mention those names or countries, they also showed us videos, which portrayed the poverty in such countries, and we really discovered or saw that these countries were living under poverty. We saw the children in those countries with big heads, with ribs which you can count, with flat stomachs, with small thighs and legs. We could see a lot of ... (inaudible) ... lying down on the ground. We would see churches destroyed into rubble, big cities which were all brought down to rubble, and they were telling us that all these things that we are seeing those are the countries where communists have succeeded in furthering their views. They also gave us a briefing about Karl Marx, about Lenin, about Stalin during the German wars, I would say. All that gave us the impression that if we allow that particular situation the communists want to happen to our country really we have to answer questions to our grandchildren as to how we allowed communists to take over the country. There was only one purpose, it was that as soon as we came out of the training to go back and fight and eliminate the ANC, to protect our country from falling into the same train as the other countries which were shown in the videos, that such things mustn't happen in our country. Because we were told that the ANC have signed contracts with the communist countries, that as soon as they succeed in their struggle the communist countries will have a share - a communal share in our country. This is the kind of situation that we were trying to prevent from prevailing. Even if we knew that we were oppressed by the whites,
2B however, that makes us feel that it's better to live with the oppression by the white people, however, prevent the situation of communism not to prevail or happen to our country.
... [Break in recording] ... that you had to protect or defend your Government from this taking place. Can you tell us specifically how - what form that defence would take? --- I would like to ask your leave and state even if we have limited information we knew very well that the ANC, we as the IFP are perceived as a stumbling block or as a barrier, and we also had information that the ANC doesn't regard us as freedom fighters. However, it regards us as those people who are used by the white people, as puppets used by the whites to eliminate the ANC, seeing as we knew that the ANC was fighting for black people's liberation in South Africa. However, we were aware that the ANC regarded us as people working in collaboration with the whites, because, as Inkatha people, we regarded the KwaZulu Government, which was called during that time as a, "Bantustan". We knew that this Bantustan or homeland was working within a system. Therefore, in the eyes of the ANC we were stupid. We were people who were working in collaboration to achieve the white aims - bad aims, to oppress the black people. That hurt us a lot. However, we were taught in most cases by our instructors, together with Daluxolo Luthuli, that the white oppression is something that can be solved by peaceful agreements and through negotiation, through speeches and writing. However, since the ANC have started attacking us, we, the Inkatha people - they were attacking us through the UDF, which was an underground structure,
/they used to
2B they used to preach in black schools that liberation first, education later. They were preaching that other people are banned if they don't want them to follow what they follow. Preaching that councillors working for the KwaZulu Government should be killed. We saw all those things happen before our eyes. We saw tribal authorities being killed or eliminated and also the offices of the tribal chiefs. Elderly people were to ... (inaudible) ... naked in front of communities. We saw elderly people drinking cooking oil - the UDF members who made the person drink cooking oil, because that particular person happened to differ their views by going to buy where they decided to be caught. All those things which shows like - these are the things that made us decide that we should fight against the ANC. We knew that UDF was an ANC wing and we also knew that it was furthering the aims of the ANC inside the country as the ANC was banned in the country and it skipped to other countries outside. These were the kind of lessons that we got and this added to what we knew personally. The burning of councillors was something that we knew and so the killing of teachers was done before us, the burning and destroying of schools included. Our leader, Mr Buthelezi, believed and he used to preach during Inkatha meetings that it's better to get a half a bread than not to get - than to get the whole bread itself. And we knew that Bantu Education wasn't good. However, it was better because we considered that as half a loaf, other than getting nothing. This is what we were told and taught in that camp, and this is what we believed, because some of them were reinforced by what we knew.
2B You've already told us that at a much later stage you became a proper and fully-fledged member of the KwaZulu Police. Once that phase had been completed did you understand and were you taught the difference between attack and self-defence? --- That's correct, because I knew very well about the different kinds of arms. I also knew about tactics - different kinds of tactics. There were things which were used on a defensive and there were things which are on the offensive. I'm trying to explain that as the training continued one was able to differentiate or distinguish as to, when you do this you do this to protect yourself, when you do that you are attacking or defensive - offensive, I'm sorry. Our instructors also used to tell us that attacking is also one of the ways to defend yourself. However, I will put it in this way, I know the difference between attacking and defending.
And in this training you received in this strange place which you even today have difficulty in telling us where it is, was there emphasis placed on both these categories or only one or what was the position? --- May you please repeat the question? I don't get the question very well.
The training that you received in this strange place, you've said you know the difference between attacking and defensive. How would you categorise the training that you received when you told us in detail about all these drills with the firearm and the buddy system? How do you put that into which category? --- Under offensive. I will say it's under offensive because we were taught a lot about attacking. We did things like
2B house penetration, like infiltration, camouflage and concealment, tracking, survival, and we were also taught more about the dangerous arms like RPG, RPK, AK-47, arms which involves mortars, limpet mines, explosives like Cortex, safety fuses, PE4. I don't think these are arms which you can use to defend yourself. Rocket launchers, RPG7, anti-personnel and anti-tanks included. Beehive arms, which were used to demolish bridges. I don't think these are arms which you normally use to protect or defend yourself. These are dangerous arms which are normally used to create danger. That's the reason why I say we were concentrating much on the offensive side in our course in the advanced course, which was the second course. We were still going to go through the third course, called, "Specialised course".
Could we deal in more detail with these aspects that you've sketched to us. With the RPG7 you've mentioned, what were you actually taught about it or trained in connection with the RPG7? --- Do you want me to mention the particulars relating to RPG7?
I want you to explain what actually was done with this weapon. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but there are many possibilities. You might just have been shown the weapon and said that, "This is an RPG7". You might have been told how the firearm works and it's demonstrated to you to show the effect thereof, or, thirdly, you might have been taught to use it for a specific purpose. Can you indicate to us what the position was with the RPG7? --- They didn't just show us or identify it as an RPG7. They taught us that this RPG7 can fire anti-tanks, meaning to shoot down planes or
2B metal objects or buildings, and the anti-personnel, which can be used to shoot at things like people. They told us that when you shoot with an RPG7 50% of the power goes back as when you look at it, it has a pipe at the back. 50% of the power goes forward towards the target. At your back we were told that in the vicinity of about 100 metres there shouldn't be an object because the power which pushes back can be very destructive at anything which might be behind you. We were told as to how to lodge a rocket in front of the RPG7 and we were told that it's not operated by one person and cannot be operated by one person. We were told that it's to be handled by No 1 and No 2, the people, and we were told as a No 1 person that you have to take it and put it on your shoulder and kneel and No 2 - person No 2 will load it and hold it in the conventional manner and set it, because it has some optical sights. When it's ready to shoot person No 1 will hold the trigger in the trigger guard. You are doing that in order to squeeze the trigger. You are the one who is doing the aiming and you have to control your breathing (?) and you have to set it correctly - make sure that its sights should be in line with your target. Then person No 2 after finishing the loading will hit you on your shoulder, because the ... (inaudible) ... should be quiet and person No 2 shall make sure that he wouldn't go behind you, as I have explained about the danger of the power which goes backwards, and he has to stand aside and when he pats you on the shoulder, in other words that a sign to say it is ready to shoot. Therefore it's up to you as to when you should squeeze the trigger and also how to control your breathing and how you aim it at the
2B target. That's the RPG7.
More or less how much time, can you remember, was devoted to showing you how to fire this weapon? --- It took a very long time, because each of us have to shoot these. It didn't end up there where we have to learn about the weapon, where we just have to be told how it works and look at it. However, we had to go through each of the weapons, test it and feel as to whether the theory does apply in practice. Each weapon you have to learn all the characteristics. By characteristics I mean things like it's length, it's features, advantages, disadvantages and parts of each of them, to know that this is a barrel, this is a butt, this is a bolt, a bolt carrier, that this arm is a recoil spring and why do you say it's a recoil spring. You know, this is a gas operation firearm and the reason why we call it a gas operation arm - firearm. You have to know its speed, its calibre, the danger, its mechanism, that the breech block can be pushed forward and also how to extract it out and how to eject it, and therefore they will say you know the firearm. You are not just shown a firearm and you say, "I know the firearm". You are shown the firearm, told the name of the firearm, its characteristics, it's advantages and disadvantages and you also then go deep into knowing its parts - something called IA drill - immediate action drill, and also to repair the stoppage if the firearm doesn't work, and you also go the shooting range, where you are taught how to shoot, in order to be perfect in your shooting. When they say to you, "Shoot the eye", you mustn't shoot the mouth. You were taught about tactics of shooting and thereafter, after qualifying, they would say, "You know this
2B particular firearm. So all the arms that we learned about I would say that's how we learned them.
Now, specifically with the RPG, was any time given to showing you how to be on the look-out for a person who has got an RPG7 concealed on his person, or a person who is lying on the side of the road in ambush with an RPG7, so that you would be able to take defensive measures against that person? --- May you please repeat your question?
In the sort of training you received with the RPG7 specifically was any time devoted to training you how, if there was a person who had an RPG7 concealed on his person you would be able to recognise that person and be able to take steps to defend yourself from him? --- Yes, they also taught us about that. They also showed us how to take cover and also what kind of objects can be used as covers. For example, I can't use this table as a cover, because a bullet can penetrate on such table, depending on the magnitude, the power of such gun, and if we are talking about firearms like RPG7 I can't say this table itself. However, things like walls, steel and such things. This is the kind of things where you can hide, you will use as a cover. There are other things like tactics which were taught to us, in order to protect us from being attacked or injured. There is a phase which was called, Five S's and M". It refers to silhouette, shape, shadow. M for movement. Those are all the cover issues where you have to protect yourself, which you have to be careful about, in order to be sure that your enemy doesn't locate you. Also to make it difficult for your enemy to identify your position, when you have taken cover
/or to know
2B or to know that there is a particular strange thing in the vegetation where you might be. Those were defensive mechanisms.
Mr Chairperson, I want to go on to another aspect in the same phase, which I anticipate will take some length, whether this would be the appropriate time to take the adjournment until tomorrow.
MR LYSTER: Yes, thank you, Mr Macadam ... (inaudible). Mr Wills and Mr Mkhize, we are going to adjourn now until tomorrow morning. Mr Mkhize will remain under oath and we will adjourn until 9am tomorrow. Thank you very much.
PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO 1997/08/05