NAME: SOLOMON COLLEN MTAMBO

______________________________________________________ F I N D I N G

CHAIRPERSON: Today is the 4th of February and we are ready to pronounce our decision in respect of an amnesty application of Mr Solomon Collen Mtambo which was heard yesterday.

Mr Mtambo applied in terms of section 18 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995. He applied in respect of his conviction, which was on the 13th of June 1995 at Secunda for the murder of Mshewu Phumalo at Kwadela Darville on the 29th of May 1993.

For this offence he was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment which he is currently serving at Barberton Prison.

Notices in terms of section 94 of the Act had been served on the deceased's family and Mr Trevor Phumalo, a cousin of the deceased, testified on their behalf.

The applicant was represented by Mr D Claassen and he testified in support of his application. He confirmed his applications and the affidavit which forms part of the papers. We do not intend to traverse the evidence of the applicant in detail. Suffice it to say he was not an impressive witness. His testimony was fraught with numerous inconsistencies and contradictions. It also differed in material respects with the allegations or versions contained in his applications and the affidavit referred to above. When asked to explain these numerous inconsistencies, he conceded that he had lied in his applications, in his indemnity application and in the affidavit to the TRC's investigation unit, in court during his trial, in a statement which he made to the police during the investigation of the crime for which he was later convicted.

One such instance of this kind of a problem with his evidence is that in his application, he refers to the incident in which he shot the deceased and the reasons why he did so. At page 3 of the papers, paragraph 10(b) he says, and we quote him:-

At page 5 of the papers, paragraph 11, he says, we quote him:-

At page 8 of the papers, he however says, at paragraph 9(a)(4), we quote him:-

At page 10 of the papers, paragraph 10(b), he however says:-

At page 28 and 29 of the papers, at paragraph 3 therein, he describes a different version of the incident, and in paragraph 5 implies that the reason he killed the deceased was his refusal to end the fight between the IFP and the ANC.

However, in his viva voce evidence before us, he stated that he wanted to kill the deceased inter alia so as to intimidate ANC people into joining the IFP, because the deceased was brave and led assaults and attacks on IFP supporters, and also because the deceased had told him he had made a vow to kill him, him being the applicant, and he was scared of him.

The applicant testified that he had taken the decision to kill the deceased on his own and that he wanted to hide his own participation in the commission of the crime so as not to bring the IFP into disrepute. How then would he be able to achieve his stated purpose of intimidating ANC supporters to joining the IFP and thereby increasing the IFP's membership if that is so?

It is clear to us that this and other instances of non-disclosure are aimed inter alia at establishing a political context to support the applicant's assertion that his acts were associated with a political objective.

In the result, we as a committee, are not satisfied that the applicant has complied with section 20.2 of the Act and his application is accordingly REFUSED. That is our decision.

NAME: VOICE SAMBO

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, where are we today, which matter is going to be heard first?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, we are going to proceed with the matter of Voice Sambo. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Will the legal representatives kindly place their names on the record?

MR BLACK: Thank you, Madam Chair, my name is Black, Advocate Black, from the Johannesburg bar, I'm duly instructed by Attorney Nkosi from Ermelo, and I'll be representing the applicant in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Black.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: My name is Ms Thabile Thabete, I'm appearing for the TRC and I'm representing the interests of Mr O'Farrell who is the victim. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, are we in a position to commence with your client's application?

MR BLACK: Yes, Madam Chair. If I, at the outset, with your permission, may I simply, may I refer to certain aspects of the papers, so that we get that in order, so that there's no confusion during the proceedings, and may I also state, and with the permission of the applicant, that he cannot read, and so should any questions be directed to any paragraph there, he would require the assistance of my attorney to actually read matters.

CHAIRPERSON: And probably, to facilitate the matters, whatever is being read and whatever he's going to refer to in the papers, can be read and the translators are here to come to our assistance and they'll be in a position to quickly translate.

MR BLACK: Yes, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean that would be much faster than having to rely on your attorney to do the translating... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Thank you, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: ...I mean - before you can proceed, Mr Black, if you are now ready to proceed, can we make inquiries from Ms Thabete about whether section 19.4 notices were served on the families of the deceased, Mr Van der Spuy, and if so they were so served, who is representing their interests?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, notices were served on Mrs Snyman for the deceased, but she said she wouldn't come, she's in Namibia right now, and I was not given any instructions, but I will be looking after her interests as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Thabete. Mr Black, you may commence with your evidence?

MR BLACK: Thank you, Madam Chair. The offences in respect of which the applicant is seeking amnesty appear, first of all, in his amnesty application form on page 8 of the record. Thereafter they are referred to on page 27 of the record, which is the judgment which was delivered by Judge Curlewis, where it's more clearly set out.

The first charge is one of murder, the second I presume is preventing two constables in carrying out their duties, the third charge is being in possession of a 9mm pistol, the fourth charge is being in possession of ammunition for that pistol, the fifth charge, for which he was arraigned in the High Court, was escaping from lawful custody. On page 46 of the record it appears that - no, I beg your - no, no, chair, I beg your pardon - it's on page 42 of the record, it appears that the applicant was found guilty on counts 1, 2, 3 and 4, and not guilty on count 5. So it's in respect of 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the counts for which he was found guilty.

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you enumerate those counts, and may I find out, Mr Black, why this application was not amended? We know that Mr Mthuli appeared on behalf of Mr Sambo.

MR BLACK: Yes. With respect, the counts are effectively, as appears on page 8 of the original form, that of murder and possession of a firearm and ammunition. So the only count which wasn't elaborated was preventing two constables from carrying out their duty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but those acts were not stated as were supposed to have been under paragraph 9(a)(1) of the application form, and one would really want to see lawyers doing what they are supposed to be doing, properly representing their clients' interests, by making sure that, where possible, papers coming before this committee have been properly prepared, particularly where they have had time to do so. The reason why I'm raising this in respect of Mr Mthuli's representation of Mr Sambo is that I was involved in the previous matter, the previous hearing, wherein this matter was postponed to a date to be arranged then, and that was some time in October of 1998. I would have imagined that between that time and now the firm of attorneys would have had time to go through the papers and supplement them where appropriate, particularly where they lack the information as this application did in the application form.

MR BLACK: Yes. I may also highlight another issue which I raised also with the attorney and with the applicant, and it was explained to me the circumstances under which the original application was filled in. There is - and I must draw the committee's attention to this, and at the end of the evidence of the applicant, he will give an explanation -as I've indicated, the applicant himself is not literate and he - but I take the committee's point that he was represented and it could have been cleared up.

I draw the committee's attention also to - and I, because I don't want the applicant to dwell on it and I will lead evidence of the explanation - to page 5 of the original application, paragraph 10(a), which appears to give some difficulty prima facie when he's asked about his political motive. That can be cleared up and I will do so in due course and I'll allow the applicant please to clear it up, apparently there's a language misinterpretation that could have taken place there.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed, Mr Black, can you just enumerate the offences in respect of which amnesty is being sought?

MR BLACK: It is one of murder, one count of murder, then as, in terms of which he was found guilty, on page 42. The second count is preventing two constables from carrying out their duties. And the third count is being in possession of a 9mm pistol, I imagine that's unlawful possession. And the fourth count is being in unlawful possession of ammunition for that pistol.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BLACK: Thank you. There's a further - to clear up the papers - the committee will notice that from page 10 to 16 of the bundle, that is the applicant's typed out statement. Then from page 17 to 20 of the bundle, that is a typed supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant, it is not signed, but there is a handwritten signed - that's a typescript of the handwritten affidavit which appears from page 21 to 26, so... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: We are fully aware of that.

MR BLACK: Okay. And that hand..., I may just point out that that handwritten supplementary affidavit, 21 to 26, was prepared by my instructing attorney, it's his handwriting, and there is a date error, an obvious date error, which appears in there. He refers to, on page 19, paragraph 10.1, that the incident refers to an incident on the 29th of October 1998, that should be 1992. Furthermore, there are annexures referred to in that paragraph 10, there's an Annexure B and an Annexure C, and these affidavits are really affidavits of persons which were, or evidence led at the inquest. They haven't been, for some reason or other, my attorney says that they were sent through to the office in Cape Town, but they haven't been attached, and they may be of relevance if Mr O'Farrell is going to give evidence. So perhaps could I, with the permission of the committee, hand up copies at this stage, or perhaps one should wait until - to see if O'Farrell is in fact going to testify or not.

CHAIRPERSON: You may, I think, for the sake of completing the documents before us... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: ...hand over that, because there was an omission.

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We are sitting with an affidavit wherein Annexure C was attached in part of that affidavit, and we don't have Annexure C.

MR BLACK: There's Annexure B and Annexure C. Then there is a further Annexure A that is referred to on page 18. I've requested a copy of this annexure from my attorney. He says he's unable to locate that annexure, but it simply relates to a fairly important incident of harassment relating to the planting, alleged planting of an AK47, on the premises of the applicant. My attorney says that the information contained in there was personally conveyed to him and he is prepared under oath to confirm it, if necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, will that part of evidence take us anywhere in enabling us to come to a just and equitable decision in respect of the offences for which Mr Sambo is seeking amnesty?

MR BLACK: It simply relates to a series of incidents of harassment, which eventually motivated Mr Sambo into committing this shooting, and which influenced his motive and thinking at the time, but the facts themselves Mr Sambo himself can just testify about, as to what he discovered and that particular incident, as to who planted the AK47, what political other parties were involved, I don't think would really be relevant at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think anything that will be within Mr Sambo's province we'd prefer to hear it from him, and not from an attorney because that wouldn't be direct evidence.

MR BLACK: That is so. I just wanted to draw the committee's attention to the fact that that annexure wasn't admitted, and it's simply a confirmatory affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BLACK: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I must warn you at this stage that we would not like to hear evidence in any greater detail, if any at all, which relates to his harassment. We have read his affidavit and it deals quite extensively with his harassment. So any evidence that would probably add more to what we have already read in his papers, we would welcome, but anything that would be repeating what is contained in the papers before us, we would be reluctant to grant you any indulgence in adducing that kind of evidence. We must warn you at this stage. You are, however, free to address us when an appropriate time comes in order to persuade us to view the matter differently. You may proceed now, Mr Black.

MR BLACK: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I may just add that there are one two incidents which may be referred to not in the papers which came to light during the course of consultation. Then, without further ado, may the applicant be sworn in and then we may proceed.

VOICE SAMBO: (sworn states)

MR BLACK: May I just also place on record that the applicant is and will be testifying in Seswati(?). Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Mr Sambo, I'll refer you, unfortunately, in an affidavit typed... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Switch off your microphone, Advocate Black, if you are talking to your instructing attorneys lest what you say privately becomes incorporated into our record.

MR BLACK: Or it may be offensive in some ways.

CHAIRPERSON: ...had a copy that they would be able to read. You do have? Thank you very much.

INTERPRETER: I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Black?

MR BLACK: Thank you. Madam Chair, with the indulgence, as I've indicated, there may well be, it may come across as a bit of leading evidence, but should there be any objection, please let me know, because of the difficulty that we have with the reading aspect ability.

CHAIRPERSON: What, I mean don't you simply want to find out if he doesn't - if there is anything that he doesn't agree with in his statement, wouldn't that (indistinct) these proceedings instead of having to go through the evidence... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes, as the Court - as... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...that is before us by way of an affidavit?

MR BLACK: Yes. As it pleases Madam Chair. Mr Sambo, you've signed an affidavit, you first of all signed an application form which you submitted to the TRC?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Right. Now, we'll come back to that application form, because there's one aspect of that which I want you to explain to the Court. Now, after that, a further typed out statement was prepared for you with the assistance of an attorney and you signed that before a commissioner of oaths, is that correct?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Now the contents of that affidavit have been read to you and do you confirm that what is contained in that affidavit is true and correct?

MR SAMBO: It is true.

MR BLACK: Then, subsequent to that affidavit typed being prepared, a further supplementary affidavit was prepared, giving information found out by your attorney and relating to further investigation of this matter, and a handwritten copy of that affidavit was also signed by yourself, after it had been read to you and the contents explained to you, is that correct?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Now, Mr Sambo, what is contained in these affidavits, is there anything in addition that you want to place before the committee, do you want to, I understand there are certain issues that you want to raise before the committee which were not contained in this affidavit?

CHAIRPERSON: You may be lead him by indicating which aspect... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes, okay.

CHAIRPERSON: ...you want him to address us on... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: ...or to testify about... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...otherwise he will probably just go on rambling, Mr Black... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes, all right.

CHAIRPERSON: ...take charge of the proceedings.

MR BLACK: Thank you. Mr Sambo, we've already established on your affidavits that you are and were trained, military trained, as a member of the African National Congress and that you entered the country and were arrested in 1991, is that correct?

MR SAMBO: I don't understand you, what about 1991?

MR BLACK: You were arrested by the security police in Khanya Mazane?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: You were then released, by way of indemnity proceedings, is that correct?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Then you attempted to live a normal life?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: You allege here now that you were approached and offered a bribe to work for the police, or a front organisation of the security forces, and to give them information?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: I just want you to tell the committee, what was your position, both within the ANC and in the community of which you lived in Komatipoort, what status did you have there?

MR SAMBO: I was an MK commander as from 1987. In my community in Komatipoort, Nkomaze area, east of Nkomaze area, I was working as a co-ordinator and commanders used to contact me and give me messages and I will take various messages to relevant guerillas, and I would recruit people for MK and also help them to escape through Swaziland. When they are in Swaziland, I will organise for them to get to the refugee camps. I will help them to go up until they are and get their training. I was also responsible for the mobilisation of ANC members.

MR BLACK: Okay, right, Mr Sambo, your prominent position in the ANC, a key role in that area, was that known to the security police, after you had been released?

MR SAMBO: I do suspect that they knew that, but there was no confirmation, they knew this from informers.

MR BLACK: So after they had attempted to recruit you and you refused their bribe, what did you experience then from the security police, how did they react to it?

MR SAMBO: There was one white policeman who was from Nelspruit who used to visit my house, I don't know his name, I've forgotten that, and another guy who was from Matzulu Township, an African guy, they used to come to my place to recruit me. At first they said there was a company from America which wanted to open companies at Nkomaze area, they wanted me to collect information for them about the situation in that area, so that when these people or the investors who were about to come from America would be assured that their companies will be safe in that area.

MR BLACK: Okay, Mr Sambo... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, what is the relevance of this evidence? It is contained... (intervention).

MR BLACK: I was just... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...in your papers... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: ...it appears on paragraph 9.

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Even when reading the papers, I couldn't see the relevance of that piece of evidence... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Well, with respect... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...even to show the political context in which the offence ultimately was committed.

MR BLACK: Yes. Well it transpires that they were a front for the security police, he was offered, that's the bribe that he was offered to be recruited and he refused. That's why he's trying to explain that he found out that they were incorrect. But if I may just lead the witness then please?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do so, Mr Black.

MR BLACK: Mr Sambo, we've already put this in your affidavit. As far as this company that you claim, you say that two policemen came to recruit you, is that correct?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: So the money that they were offering to you was offered to you by policemen not by company representatives?

MR SAMBO: Yes, that's correct.

MR BLACK: So that was an attempt to recruit you to work for the security police?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Right. Now you refused that, and that is the point that we're getting at, after you refused to co-operate with the security police, and after they'd attempted to recruit you, what then happened to you and your family, and I don't want you to go into every detail that is not already on the papers. We have gone there, the two, Ngwenya and Venter security forces came to your house and they started harassing you, demanding that they search for ANC weapons?

MR SAMBO: What I would like to ask from the chairperson, so that whatever I have to say will be straight, I'll need the chairperson to give me time to explain exactly what happened, because what happened happened to me, I know every little detail about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I respond to your request, Mr Sambo? We are here to hear your application for amnesty for the murder of Mr Van der Spuy, the deceased, and attempted murder of Mr O'Farrell and of preventing them from carrying out their duties on the 29th of October 1992, and also of being found to be in unlawful possession of a firearm, one 9mm pistol and the ammunition in respect of that firearm. We understand the harassment that you were subject to prior to the commission of the offences for which you are seeking amnesty. You have attempted to explain that harassment to us by way of an affidavit. We already have that information before us. What is important for us, in order to decide whether you must be granted amnesty or not, is for you to explain the circumstances surrounding the offences for which you are seeking amnesty. We are not trying to prevent you from taking this committee into your confidence by explaining the facts around which the offences were committed, we want to hear you on those facts, that is the evidence that we would like to hear. We, however, are reluctant to allow you to elaborate on what happened about your military training, because it does not impinge on the offences for which amnesty is being sought. I hope I have made myself well understood. We are not being insensitive to your needs, it is because of our sensitivity that we would like to confine you to what is relevant for us to decide. You may then proceed to give your evidence in relation to the offences for which you are seeking amnesty. Anything that your advocate deems it relevant will obviously, as it is his job to do, bring that to your attention and will lead you in your evidence in chief in respect of that evidence. Don't be intimidated by our intimation of not wanting to hear anything irrelevant. It is just to make our jobs easier. You are aware that this is a committee which has a very short lifespan and we are trying to make sure that we do not waste any time unduly. We hope you will appreciate our difficulties.

MR BLACK: Okay, Mr Sambo, let me go further. You have set out in your affidavit in some detail certain paragraphs. You've dealt with the harassment that you've had, the incidents, this was done by the security police, do you confirm that, it was as a direct consequence of your refusal to work with the police?

CHAIRPERSON: That has been confirmed, Mr Black... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Right.

CHAIRPERSON: ...why do you want him to repeat himself?

MR BLACK: Because I just want to put it in context. Apart from the references that you've made in this affidavit, could you tell the committee, just prior to this shooting that took place in October 1992, what happened to Sweetie Sambo, what are the circumstances and who was he?

INTERPRETER: Would you please repeat the last part, Mr Black?

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood it, you wanted him to explain the circumstances which happened... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...surrounding one Sweetie Sambo prior to the commission of this offence... (intervention).

MR BLACK: That's so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...and you wanted him further to explain who was Sweetie Sambo?

MR BLACK: Right.

MR SAMBO: Sweetie Sambo, Johannes, is my brother. From my house where I'm staying to his place, I think it's 700 metres approximately, or between 700 and 800 metres. His house was on the left-hand side of the road when you're facing to that direction. He was a member of the African National Congress. I recruited him. Because I had a car, most of the time I will be with him in my car. Sweetie Sambo also had a problem. His house was also searched. One day, since the police were usually coming to his house and raiding his house, the security branch especially, Sweetie was stolen in front of his children and wife, abducted, and we still don't know where he is today.

MR BLACK: Now, did they take any photographs of this man, did the security police ever have any photographs of Sweetie, and where did they get them?

MR SAMBO: Yes, as I've already explained that police used to come to my house either twice a week or once a week, white policemen will come to my house and they've stolen Sweetie's photograph, this photograph it was me and Sweetie. I was wearing soldier's clothes or uniform in those photographs and security branch stole these photographs, that's when we lost Sweetie Sambo, or when he was abducted, after they've stolen the photographs.

CHAIRPERSON: When did he disappear?

MR SAMBO: Late 1991, if not early 1992, I'm not certain of the month.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it late 1991 or early 1992, you are saying it's both late 1991 and 1992?

MR SAMBO: I'm not certain, I didn't write this thing down, but I have, in my memory I have this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's why we are going to rely on you to give us the testimony that we can rely on, and I will repeat my question again, did this happen in late 1991 or late 1992, or early 1992?

MR SAMBO: I think it was in 1991, 1992, late 1991. Now I remember, it's late '91.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Proceed, Mr Black.

MR BLACK: Thank you. And what did you think had happened to - what do you think the security police - what has happened to Mr Sambo, Sweetie Sambo, at the time what did you think had happened when he'd been abducted and disappeared and never heard of again?

MR SAMBO: I wasn't the only one, I used to report various incidents. We searched for him, we heard that the last place where he was seen was Nkamdamiya, at Nkamdamiya Base. As I've already explained that we searched for him. The last person who saw him was a security guy who was working at the gate. He's the one who gave us this information that he saw Sweetie Sambo, and he also explained that he saw policemen and one of the policemen was from Mangwene Township and he was working at Komatipoort Police Station. After that, we lost track and we didn't know what happened to him after he was seen at Nkamdamiya.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sambo... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: ...I am going to plead with you, and I hope I'm doing this for the last time, I want you to confine your responses to questions put to you by your counsel. Please, we want to complete our work timeously. The reason why you are being represented by counsel, counsel understands the law and he knows what information we have to rely upon in reaching a decision in respect of the offences for which you seek amnesty. The question that was put to you is, "What do you think happened to Sweetie?" You have come with evidence that has no bearing to the question that has been put before you. Listen to the question. If you do not understand the question, tell your counsel through us that you do not understand the question. Do not attempt to answer a question that you do not understand, and do not respond to questions that have not been put to you.

MR BLACK: Thank you. So, in other words, did you think that the security police, let's get to the point, did you think that the last time Sweetie was seen in the hands of the security police, since then he's never been seen, do you believe that the security police, or someone in the security forces, killed Mr Sambo?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Did you ever believe, after all this harassment and disappearance of your brother, that the security police would be prepared to kill you because of your non co-operation and your activities?

CHAIRPERSON: That's very leading, Mr Black.

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: And let's - there's another incident, which I don't want you to into great detail, but you did say that, in consultations, that at one stage Askaris were sent to your house to search for you?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: And they attempted to trap you into selling them guns?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Can't we just ask questions that will elicit the correct answers without leading your client? You've been asking seriously leading questions on things that are not that innocuous.

MR BLACK: Well I'm trying to avoid a situation that - if I had to ask what happened when the Askaris came there, we would end up with a detailed story.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm sure you've consulted with Mr Sambo... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...and we have warned Mr Sambo that we wouldn't want to have any information that is not intended to be ascertained by any question you ask. Try him and see whether he has not really got short of what we'd stated to him just now.

MR BLACK: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't lead him, otherwise there's no reason for us to sit here when you're going to ask leading questions. That's not the evidence that we'd like to have on our records.

MR BLACK: Now, Mr Sambo, these various and regular harassments by the security police and the incidents which you referred to in your affidavit, where they attempted to, or somebody attempted to plant AK47's on your property, and attempted to elicit the purchase of arms, and the regular visits which you say you were receiving from the security police, did you report this to your ANC command structure at all?

MR SAMBO: Yes, I used to report, especially the Nelspruit Branch, the people I used to work with them.

MR BLACK: And what did they say you must do about it, or what were they going to do about it?

MR SAMBO: Chris Hani came here in Nelspruit and I was told that I must come to Nelspruit. I've spoken to Mr Chris Hani and he told me that, because I've already decided that I wanted to go and join Holomisa, and Chris Hani said no, I mustn't, I must stay at home and defend myself when there was a need for me to defend myself, because I was doing a job there in Komatipoort.

MR BLACK: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: When was this meeting with Mr Hani?

MR SAMBO: In 1991.

CHAIRPERSON: And when were attempts made to plant weapons on you by Askaris?

MR SAMBO: In 1991.

CHAIRPERSON: And when did you report all these incidents to the ANC in Nelspruit? When, when did you report them?

MR SAMBO: Usually, if anything happened today, I would go the next day to Nelspruit and report.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Black, you may proceed.

MR BLACK: Thank you. So let us now arrive at October 1992. By this stage, after all your experiences and your instructions given by the ANC, what did you think that the intention of the security police were?

MR SAMBO: Security Branch wanted to kill me, they wanted to assassinate me. I gathered this from their actions or their behaviour.

MR BLACK: Now, in October of 1992... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you let him explain... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...Mr Black, what he means by saying that the Security Branch wanted to kill him by assassinating him and he concluded that they still wanted to kill him through an assassination from their behaviour... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...what was the behaviour that made him to conclude that the intention was to assassinate him?

MR BLACK: Yes. Do you understand what, Mr Sambo, why did you believe that they were going to assassinate you, or send somebody to kill you?

MR SAMBO: I'm not thinking this, it's something that I know. This is what happened, one day I left my place, I went to see my girlfriend. Her mother and herself, my girlfriend, told me that seven men came at night. The house was a two roomed house made of steel, iron steel, and they told me there were four African policemen and three white policemen. Two of the African men, I knew them, and they knocked hard and forcefully, they searched the house and they asked them as to where I was, and they told them that I was at my place in Block B. My girlfriend knew at that time that the police wanted to kill me. She knew this because I told her so. So I told my boyfriend (sic) that whenever policemen will come and her, she must tell them where to find me in Block B at my place, and they told my girlfriend that they were going to kill me.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying, in short, police came to your girlfriend's house one night, searched and advised your girlfriend that they wanted to kill you, and then left?

MR SAMBO: Yebo.

CHAIRPERSON: I wish you could be as short as that, Mr Sambo.

MR SAMBO: Yes.

MR BLACK: Now, okay, in October 1992 when this shooting took place between you and the two policemen, I just want you to tell the committee what happened in the morning of that day? You state in your affidavit, on page 13 of the papers, that there were soldiers came to search and sweep your premises and your house, that's in the morning, is that correct?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Now, did they cause any damage to your property?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that relevant, Mr Black?

MR SAMBO: Yes, they caused damage to my property. I have evidence of that, I think I have it here with me.

MR BLACK: Madam Chair, I do have photographs of fences that have been broken down, etcetera, in their actions in the morning, but I won't hand them up if the committee feels it's not relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: But how would it impinge on what he did later on?

MR BLACK: Well it's his experience what took place that very morning. The evidence will come out that the soldiers swept the premises and after they were satisfied, they alleged that there were hidden arms and ammunition there, as appears in the affidavit, so I'm not... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BLACK: ...pressing. And... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: I think we have read that evidence.

MR BLACK: Yes, the... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: And would like to - we would like you to lead him on anything that you wanted highlighted further than... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes. No, I think... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...how it has been presented in his affidavit.

MR BLACK: Yes. Well, he's able to present it better. What his idea was, after they'd found no evidence and then later on two men arrived.

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you proceed from that?

MR BLACK: Thank you. Now, after the soldiers had damaged your property and swept your premises, what was their purpose, did they tell you, as you've said in your affidavit, they were searching for arms?

MR SAMBO: Yes, they told me.

MR BLACK: Did they find anything?

MR SAMBO: At my place, there was no ammunition or firearm which was found which belonged to me, except for the gun which was brought at my place by the security branch at night while I was sleeping, I didn't even see them, it was raining like it's raining today.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, Mr Black... (intervention).

MR BLACK: No, but Mr Sambo - may I please clarify?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The kind of evidence that Mr Sambo is adducing is going to play havoc with our record.

MR BLACK: No, I want to clear it up, he's misunderstood. Mr Sambo, I'm talking upon the day, not the previous occasion, we've already got that in affidavit, where they found a gun that was planted and it was dry and it had been raining, so clearly nothing happened to you after that, I'm talking about the day, we've got now past all that, the committee don't want to hear that because it's on affidavit, okay, so we're now getting to - they want to get to the day of when the actual shooting took place, when the policeman was shot by yourself. Now on that day, on that morning... (intervention). What did he say?

MR LAX: He said they found nothing.

MR BLACK: Thank you. Now on that day, we want to get the sequence of events now, the soldiers arrived, they damaged your property, they found nothing, they had extensive search and there were no weapons found, then they left, is that correct?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Now, what - how did you - what did you think they were doing, were they genuinely looking for weapons, were they preparing the terrain, or what was going on?

MR SAMBO: Before I answer this question, are we talking about the very same day of the incident, on the 29th?

MR BLACK: Yes, that's where we've got to now.

MR SAMBO: Every time when they came to my place, I used to ask them why they were there. On that day, they said to me they were looking for guns and they had sniffing dogs which - that were telling them that there were ammunition at my place, or guns.

MR BLACK: Yes, okay, but they found nothing on that day?

MR SAMBO: Yes, they found nothing.

MR BLACK: Right. Now later on on that very day... (intervention).

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Black, he hasn't answered your question. Your question to him was, what did he think they were doing by coming there and searching, did they have some other purpose or were they just searching, that was your question, he still hasn't answered it.

MR BLACK: What I put to you, Mr Sambo, let's put it this way, let's start the sequence of events as they set out, the soldiers come to your house, they search the house, they look for ammunition and arms, they found nothing. Later on that day two white men come to your house, okay, and that's when the shooting incident took place. Now the question that I'm asking you is, why do you think the soldiers first came to your house and then later on you saw two white men coming there?

MR SAMBO: When the soldiers left and these two men arrived, I thought these were the people who were coming to assassinate me, I don't know if I'm answering correct your question, if I heard it correctly.

MR BLACK: Ja. The question that I'm putting to you that, it's not really that important, but the question that I'm putting to you is, soldiers come, they confirm that there's no weapons there, later on you see two white men come there, what do you think the purpose of the soldiers was?

CHAIRPERSON: Can I take it from here, Mr Black? Mr Sambo, soldiers kept on coming to your house, allegedly to search your house for firearms. As we have read your papers, in some instances and pertinently on the 22nd of October, they came, searched your house, they even harassed your wife, threatened her with death as well, they kept on coming quite frequently to do one thing, that is to search for weapons, and at every time of that search, no weapons were found by them, yet they continued to come. You obviously regarded their action as intended to harass you, is it not so?

MR SAMBO: I, as a trained comrade... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sambo, respond to the question that I've put to you, did you or did you not regard the actions of the police as nothing but harassment?

MR SAMBO: Harassment in that they will kill me as well.

CHAIRPERSON: I want you to confine yourself to questions being put to you.

MR BLACK: Right, Mr Sambo, now did the soldiers confirm that the place is clean, as it were? Later on that day, after the soldiers had left and confirmed that the place was clean and had swept the place, no weapons were there, you see two white men arrive?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Right. Now in what type of vehicle did they arrive in?

MR SAMBO: A white 4 x 4, I've forgotten the model, they had a Moby Jack(?), they were towing a Moby Jack, and there was a Colt Gallant on top.

MR BLACK: Did the vehicle have any, the 4 x 4 have any police identification emblems or any other form of emblem on it?

MR SAMBO: There was nothing to identify that car as a police vehicle. The only thing that I saw on that car is this emblem on the doors, these stickers were on the doors, a Shell emblem.

MR BLACK: Right. Now, when they arrived in this vehicle with the Shell emblem, I don't want you, for the purposes of this hearing, to have to go into each minute detail as to the factual occurrences during the course of the shooting, unless the committee so require, but as far as the two white men are concerned, what did they do?

MR SAMBO: I was in one of my cars and I was resting on my back, I was lying on my back, I was resting there, I saw this car coming and I ignored it, I thought it was a car belonging to a filling station. After ten minutes, the car came and stopped at a small gate and two men came out from the car. One of them was a massive guy, like the camera man here in front. They entered my place and there was a yard where my cars were parked, a big yard, I think four of my cars were parked there, but these were not cars in good condition, I was buying them from a garage in Benoni, from a scrapyard... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Mr Sambo, don't go into all that detail.

CHAIRPERSON: We would need the details in respect of this incident, Mr... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Well, as - if you do... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...Black... (intervention).

MR BLACK: ...require that... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...you can traverse whatever detail, minute detail.

MR BLACK: Yes. Okay, carry on and tell what happened?

MR SAMBO: These cars are parked under a net so that they are not burnt by the sun. They are facing in one direction. One white man...

MR BLACK: Okay, those cars you're referring to, were they drivable? Okay. So they weren't stolen cars?

CHAIRPERSON: What was that, Mr Black, because they were not drivable they therefore were not stolen cars?

MR BLACK: Well he can answer perhaps.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that a terrible way of putting it to your client? I mean you are putting it as a conclusion of fact... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: ...the fact that if cars are not drivable, they therefore have not been stolen.

MR BLACK: All right. Well, were those cars in any way stolen vehicles?

MR SAMBO: I bought those cars.

MR BLACK: Okay, just continue, Mr Sambo, about... (intervention).

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Black, just because he bought them doesn't mean they weren't stolen. I mean, really, but anyway, that's...

MR BLACK: All right, continue, Mr Sambo.

MR SAMBO: Where I was sitting inside my car, I would see everything, because it was an open space, or there was no building structure. I left there, or I got out of the car, and I went towards the cars, where the cars were parked. I realised that one of those white men had parked next to one of those cars, or behind one of those cars, and when I looked around, I saw that the other one was parked next to the Nissan Sentra, and then in the middle there were two cars and then at the end there was a BMW. This other white man had opened the doors of the BMW. I went straight to the one who opened the doors of the BMW.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sambo, just to make our life a little easier, you already are aware who of the two persons are, you were present during the criminal trial, you are aware that the deceased was Mr Van der Spuy and the person who is here is Mr O'Farrell. Now won't you, when you give your evidence, just give an indication of which white man you are referring to? Are you able to say who actually opened the doors of the BMW?

MR SAMBO: I won't be able to do so, but the huge one, the massive one, the one who died, whose his name?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van der Spuy. Yes, Mr Sambo, thank you.

MR SAMBO: I went straight to Van der Spuy. When I arrived there, I asked him, because I've realised that he had already opened my property and he gave himself permission to do so.

MR BLACK: Did Mr Van der Spuy identify who he was?

MR SAMBO: No.

MR BLACK: Did he say he's from the police?

MR SAMBO: No, he didn't say. Before the shooting, he didn't even tell me as to who he was.

MR BLACK: Okay. Who did you think these people were now?

MR SAMBO: Honestly, in my mind I thought they were security branch, just a little bit, but I also thought that they were from a filling station, because they were driving a car with a filling station emblem or Shell emblem, therefore I thought they were from a filling station.

MR BLACK: Okay, just carry on and say what happened then.

MR SAMBO: When I asked him, because I can understand English a little bit, I asked him in English why he was opening my cars' doors and he didn't even ask for my permission to do so. Since we were on this side and the car was facing to that direction, and I came from this angle, he moved backwards a little bit, he started saying something to me, but he was too fast, I couldn't even understand what he was saying, and then he pull out his gun.

MR BLACK: When he pulled out his gun, who did you think these people were now?

MR SAMBO: It was too quick, I didn't even have to think of anything, because immediately after he pulled out his gun, he shot at me.

MR BLACK: Well where did you think they came from, were they just ordinary people, or what?

MR LAX: He said he didn't have time to think about that, that's his evidence.

MR BLACK: Well okay, carry on, Mr Sambo.

MR SAMBO: I went towards him and I grabbed the hand which had the gun. We fought just for a little while, because at the time this other white guy wasn't there. This happened during a short period of time, I can't even estimate the time, it was too quick. Fortunately, I grabbed the gun from his hand and I shot at him, as he shot at me, I also shot him. After I shot him, he ran behind the BMW. I didn't look at him at that time and then I started looking for this other one, I don't know his name, this other white man, and then I realised that he was now in front of the BMW. When I saw him, he already had a gun, like I've already mentioned that there's a net where I put the cars under, it's sort of a garage which is made out net, at that time that's when I realised that these people may be police, and I told him to drop the gun, and at that time I was shooting.

MR BLACK: Mr Sambo, when you started to realise that these people might be police, what do you think their purpose was there to do, what was their reason for being there, when you realised that they were police, what did you think their reason was?

MR SAMBO: That's when I realised that these were the ones who were going to come and kill me one day, even though I didn't know.

MR BLACK: Earlier on you used the word "assassinate", is that what - encapsulated in one word, did you think that these people were there to assassinate you?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Okay, would you just continue please, Mr Sambo?

MR SAMBO: When I was shooting down, when I told this other white man that he must drop his gun down, he did so and then he ran away into the field.

CHAIRPERSON: You shot down before saying he must drop his gun?

MR SAMBO: Yes, that's correct. I took his gun. There was sand there. Now I had his gun, the other one, since he saw me as he was turning behind the BMW, at the time I was hurting because I could feel the pain where the other guy shot me... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Just - you were asked, Mr Sambo, to try and, for the case of record, when you talk about "the other guy", who shot you, Mr Van der Spuy or O'Farrell?

MR SAMBO: Van der Spuy.

MR BLACK: Okay. And what happened to Mr O'Farrell?

MR SAMBO: The last time I saw him he ran towards the field, and then when I turned back looking for the other one, because when standing next to the Nissan Sentra, you will see the wall of the house towards the pathway to the gate. I went up straight. There was a flower next to - or a plant next to the Sentra. Approximately five metres, this flower pot was there next to this Sentra, and then I realised that he was lying there. As soon as he saw me, he started screaming.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't his evidence that as he was lying there, he was screaming, and not that he was screaming when he saw somebody, mis-translated?

MR SAMBO: When he saw me, he started screaming, because I was coming towards him having the gun, or pointing the gun at him, that's when he told me that "I am a policeman and please don't shoot me", that's what he told me, he told me this in English.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you mean when you say he was screaming?

MR SAMBO: When I was, or when I arrived at that corner, that's when I saw him and he saw me. Where I was, it's a pathway going towards where he was lying, that's when he started shouting, saying that he's a policeman and I mustn't shoot at him, he said I mustn't kill him.

CHAIRPERSON: There was a translation about that?

MR SAMBO: I walked past him.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Sambo, with your evidence.

MR SAMBO: I saw my wife in front of him. As I was walking towards my wife, my wife told me that I have blood all over my body and I have been shot at, even though I knew that, but she told me so. We went towards the gate, we were walking going outside my yard where the cars were parked. Outside there, I went inside that car, I opened the left door and I searched the car, but I didn't search under the seat, I just checked for guns so that - because I was scared that this other one will go and pick up one gun and try to shoot me. When I realised that there was no guns, if I can remember very well, I was dizzy and then I sat down. As I was sitting down there, my wife was next to me. Just before five minutes was over, I think it was approximately five to seven minutes at most, I may say five minutes, the ambulance arrived. I still have a problem about the arrival of the ambulance, or the story surrounding the ambulance, because ambulances is very scarce in that area, or it is rare to see an ambulance, but when I looked at this ambulance, I saw this white man, the one who ran away. When the ambulance stopped, they opened the door, they said to me I must get inside the ambulance. I refused. This white guy came closer and I told him he must stop there, if he come closer, I was going to shoot him.

MR BLACK: Mr Sambo, why did you say this to this man, if he comes closer he's going to shoot you (sic), what did you think he was going to do to you?

MR SAMBO: I knew that if he comes closer to me and grab the gun, he was going to shoot me, he wasn't going to do anything except to shoot me.

MR BLACK: So are you saying that you didn't believe that they were there to help you?

MR SAMBO: No, I didn't.

MR BLACK: And how did you believe and think at that - still - who was he working for, that man that was in the ambulance, that's Mr O'Farrell, I assume?

MR SAMBO: I realised there and there that this was planned, and I realised that they were going to shoot me and then the ambulance was going to be there quick so that no-one will explain anything after I'm dead.

MR BLACK: So did you think that the whole operation had been planned?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: And had been planned by security police with two assassins?

MR SAMBO: Even today, I still maintain that it was planned by security police, no-one can turn me from this belief.

MR BLACK: So did you go with the ambulance?

MR SAMBO: No, I didn't, I didn't want to take that ambulance.

MR BLACK: Then, could you just then say what happened after that?

MR SAMBO: After I refused getting inside that ambulance, we took one of my cars. My wife drove me. I told her, because I think I was at my senses at that time, I wasn't feeling any dizziness. We went to Dongwe Police Station. When we arrived there, we stopped at the gate, I just don't remember very well whether there were three or two African policemen. I am well-known at that place. We told them to come closer because we had a problem. They came to me. I told them that there were two people who came to my place, and I told them that I didn't know these people, and I told them that they came and they shot, and I told them that I also shot them, I don't know as to whether they are still alive or what happened to them. I gave them both guns.

MR BLACK: Which guns did you give them?

MR SAMBO: These two men's guns, I gave the policemen both guns, the one which I grabbed from the policeman and then I shot the policeman, and then the other one is Mr O'Farrell's gun, so I gave them both.

MR BLACK: Okay.

MR SAMBO: And then I said to them I needed assistance, and I asked them to take me to hospital. I've almost forgotten one thing, I also asked them to write down the numbers of the guns for me, and then they did so. And these policemen said to me they didn't have a car to take me to hospital, they said I must go to a clinic in Mangwene Township, and they said to me they will come afterwards to check on me in the clinic. It was clear to me that this was just another story or something that I cannot rely on. I didn't go to clinic, I told my wife to drive towards Msindi, it is near, it's a distance like from here in (Indistinct) to Nelspruit, there's just a river crossing, so after you've crossed the river you are in that area.

CHAIRPERSON: To what hospital did your wife drive you, Msindi?

MR SAMBO: We went to Shongwe Hospital, we hired a kombi there, we hired a kombi at Msindi to go to Shongwe Hospital. We left my car in another house and then we went to Shongwe Hospital by the kombi.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Shongwe Hospital the same as Kwamakalede Hospital?

MR SAMBO: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Sambo.

MR SAMBO: When we arrived at Kwamakalede Hospital, we started registering and I sent my wife that - or I told my wife that she must go and contact Nelspruit people. It was late at this time... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Mr Sambo, when you say "Nelspruit people", who are you referring to, she must contact the Nelspruit people, what do you mean by that?

MR SAMBO: ANC offices in Nelspruit, I gave her two telephone numbers. The people who were responsible here was Joe Nkona and Dombi, Joe Shibanga. Ntombi Shope was working in Nelspruit ANC offices, she was working with Joe. I gave my wife two telephone numbers, one was a home telephone number and the other was a office telephone number, and I asked her to report the matter to them. She left.

MR BLACK: Why do you want her to report it to the ANC? Why did you want her to report to the ANC?

MR SAMBO: So that they see to it that I'm protected while I'm in hospital. What I said to my wife, if they were going to be able to come, they must come at the very same time after she reported the matter to them. When I was sleeping there in hospital on that stretcher, I saw policemen, five of them. Among the five, one was a black policeman from Dongwe Police Station, and one was a soldier, a white soldier, and one policeman from Komatipoort Police Station.

CHAIRPERSON: He thinks he is from Komatipoort.

MR SAMBO: I only know one from Dongwe out of the five.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what I'm saying is that you thought one soldier was from Komatipoort, you didn't know him? You didn't know as a fact that he came from Komatipoort, your evidence was that you thought?

MR SAMBO: These policemen were five who came to hospital. One was from Dongwe Police Station, I know him. The two were wearing soldier's uniform, and then the others were wearing their private clothes, because before the police uniform never used to be the same, so in this period they were wearing different uniforms, one from Dongwe and Komatipoort the uniform was different.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the reason why you thought he came from Komatipoort and not from Dongwe, because of the type of uniform he had?

MR SAMBO: That's correct, that's what I thought. These two were from Komatipoort. When I realised that there were police there, immediately I was taken by the hospital staff to theatre. When I gained consciousness, I realised that my foot was cuffed. I didn't say anything. Later, at about eight o'clock, I'm not sure of the time, I think it was about eight, nine o'clock, the superintendent came, he told me he was the hospital superintendent and he told me that there were police outside and he told me that they were there to take me to Nelspruit. I refused. I think we had a conversation with the superintendent for about an hour, but what I've realised is that whatever I was discussing with him, he was going outside and tell the policemen that I was refusing to go with the police to Nelspruit. There was another guy who was a male nurse, and there were also two sisters. I told them, whilst the superintendent had gone outside, that I wasn't going to go to Nelspruit and they supported me, they said yes, I mustn't go to Nelspruit, and they said to me I must refused from the superintendent to be taken to Nelspruit. And then I said to them if eventually I'll be taken forcefully, they must report to ANC that I've been taken by the police and the superintendent from the hospital, because I may disappear and not be found ever again.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Black? Is there anything that turns around this portion of Mr Sambo's evidence?

MR BLACK: No, I don't think so at all.

CHAIRPERSON: If there is, please come to our assistance, because we do not want any evidence that's not relevant to the offences for which he has applied for amnesty.

MR BLACK: Right. Mr Sambo... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Come to our rescue.

MR BLACK: Ja. Mr Sambo, this is what happened afterwards. The committee is only concerned about what you thought and your suspicions and your fears at the time of the commission of the offence. What took place in the hospital, nothing happened to you there, except that you suspected that the superintendent was reporting to the police, is that all?

MR SAMBO: Nothing else, except for what happened at home, and I've already explained what happened at home.

MR BLACK: Right. You've also gone further in your affidavit, on page 14 of the record, you relate an incident that took place, in paragraph 17 of that, and we don't need to go into detail there. This is that in 1993 at one stage you were taken by Tonga police who had been sent to Weitz, and they didn't take you to the Tonga Police Station, but they took you to Nelspruit office and there they sent your brother and your father back with them, although you were prepared to go along voluntarily in your own car, they said, "Come in our kombi". Do you remember that, without going into - do you confirm that?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, I don't want that evidence to be led before this committee.

MR BLACK: No, I'm just trying to conclude the aftermath. And that's where you were accused of shooting Ben in Ermelo, etcetera, okay? Do you remember that?

MR SAMBO: Yebo.

MR BLACK: Okay. Now we won't go into that detail. You then carry on, we're coming to a conclusion, on page 15, that you were sent to Graskop at one stage and you were there, you didn't realise that you were going to stand trial, but you had to stand trial and you were given pro Deo counsel by the Court, you didn't have a chance to contact your lawyers?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Yes. And at all times when you were asked to come along and co-operate, either at the police station or to go to the court, you did so on your own accord and voluntarily?

MR SAMBO: Would you please repeat that?

MR BLACK: After the incident relating to the shooting at your home and the killing of Mr Van der Spuy, on occasions you were asked to come to Tonga, and at Tonga, on the last occasion, you were told to go to Graskop, not to stand trial but to sort out something about the inquest report, and at all times did you co-operate and act voluntarily?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Because, if I may just read out, and I think it was agreed, I just want to read the statement here that you've put in your typed statement, and it reads as follows:-

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Then it goes on to say that:-

CHAIRPERSON: How would he know how many security policemen have applied for the disappearance of how many AK soldiers?

MR BLACK: Mr Sambo, without going into the numbers of people who've disappeared and the number of security police who were involved, how is it that you are aware of the fact that certain security forces members had applied for amnesty in respect of the disappearance of MK cadres, how do you know that they've applied for amnesty?

MR SAMBO: Since the TRC had started, I've been following it through the radios and newspapers, and the ANC as well, they've been telling me, that's how I came to know that there are policemen who are applying for amnesty. I don't know if I understand your question very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, basically what I'm saying is that this is sheer speculation on your behalf, because not everyone is aware of how many policemen have applied for the disappearances of how many MK soldiers. We ourselves working for the amnesty committee are unaware of that. Until the process has been concluded, nobody can speculate whether people have applied for as many as the disappearance of MK soldiers from the security forces, and that information is not relevant to this application in any event.

MR BLACK: Right. Okay, if I could continue, you add there in this paragraph, I'm just reading the words that were stated in your affidavit, it states there:-

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: And then do you stand by your evidence that at the time of the incident in question, and that is that the shooting of Mr Van der Spuy, you were on the firm belief that this was a political assassination plot to kill you?

MR SAMBO: I still believe so.

MR BLACK: And that these men had been sent there after the soldiers had cleared the place of ammunition for the purposes of carrying out an assassination on you because of your political beliefs?

MR SAMBO: That's true.

MR BLACK: Now, in conclusion, do you say that - and if I may just elaborate a little bit on that - and this belief, did it come about because of all the evidence we've now heard and which is on paper relating to the harassment by security police and the activities, political activities, in which you took part in?

MR SAMBO: I know a lot about security branch, and also I was told by people or members of the police that they wanted to kill me. The person who explained to me made it clear to me he was a policeman and he was working for security branch, he came to my house.

MR BLACK: Is that after the incident?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: And he confirmed that this was an attempt to kill you?

MR SAMBO: Yes, he told me so, but he said to me exactly - if I can explain exactly what he said to me, this person from security branch, I didn't force him to tell me this, I went to his house and I requested to see him, because I knew that he was one of the people who used to come to my place who was with the security branch, at the time I didn't know him, but then later I knew him. I don't know whether I should tell the committee his name, because I don't have a problem with that, if the committee will allow me to say his name, I will.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may do so, Mr Black, I mean... (intervention).

MR SAMBO: Malopi. He was working for the security branch, but he was working at the gate. I wanted to get information from Malopi, I went to his house and then he said to me he really wanted to speak to me, but not at his house, he will come to my place. At that time he was no longer working at Komatipoort.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was he working?

MR SAMBO: He had resigned, this is what he told me, he resigned because he wanted to go back to school.

CHAIRPERSON: And when was this information disclosed to you?

MR SAMBO: After the incident of shooting, after the shooting incident with the police.

CHAIRPERSON: And when had he resigned from the police force? By "him", I mean Mr Malopi.

MR SAMBO: After the incident. It's just that I don't know for certain, but it was after the incident when he resigned.

CHAIRPERSON: But he told you when he was no longer with the police force?

MR SAMBO: Yes, he told me.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask a question here? You said that he worked at the gate, was it like sort of a watchman at the gate or what was his function, or do you mean at the border gate, it's not clear to me.

MR SAMBO: Let me just clarify this. In Komatipoort, in town, policemen are working in different departments. The ones who were responsible for killing people, they are placed or their offices are at the border of Mozambique and South Africa, next to Nkomaze River, that's where he was working. When I say the gate, I mean the border gate.

ADV BOSMAN: And do you know what his rank was, what was his rank?

MR SAMBO: I'm not sure, but I don't think he was someone who's high on the hierarchy, I think he was a little bit lower. This is just my suspicion.

ADV BOSMAN: Ja, this is what I am trying to establish is what sort of knowledge he could have had, but do you have any idea of what his age was, you said he was going back to school, was he a very young policeman?

MR SAMBO: Older than me, he may be two years older than me or three years older than me.

ADV BOSMAN: I don't know how old you are, but could you just try and translate that into his age at that time?

MR SAMBO: I think he was 33 years, and I think at that time I was 28.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue, Mr Black.

MR BLACK: Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, just to conclude this evidence, Mr Sambo, you say in paragraph 21 of your affidavit, I'll just read it out to you and you'll just confirm. You say:-

You go on to say that:-

that's not your words, but:-

You say:-

MR SAMBO: It is true.

MR BLACK: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Black, that should conclude Mr Sambo's evidence.

MR BLACK: Yes. May I just ask, is there anything further that you wish to add to what you've already said?

CHAIRPERSON: Which is relevant, Mr Black... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Which is relevant, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...to the offences for which he seeks amnesty, that must be cardinally clear to Mr Sambo. I am sure you would like to say far much more in respect of his harassment and the difficult circumstances around which his family members lived as it can be gleaned from the papers before us, but we'd want him to confine himself to facts which would only support the acts for which he seeks amnesty.

MR BLACK: Do you understand, Mr Sambo? Now just simply, we've concluded the evidence, you've given evidence even on paper, although you might not have said everything about your harassment, about the surrounding circumstances under which you believed that at the time of the killing, you were being, this was an assassination plot on your life?

MR SAMBO: Yes, there is something I would like to add on top of what I've said already.

MR BLACK: In connection with what?

CHAIRPERSON: Is this relevant, Mr Sambo, is that... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Okay, what do you want to say?

MR SAMBO: I want to explain something to the committee, that I didn't list out every little thing which the whites have done to me, or the policemen have done to me, because I didn't know that I was supposed to... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sambo, I'm going to interrupt you. Mr Black, let us not be disappointed in how you are conducting your evidence in chief.

MR BLACK: No.

CHAIRPERSON: We want facts around the offences for which Mr Sambo is seeking amnesty.

MR BLACK: Okay, Mr Sambo, let me put it this way then, can we, would you be satisfied, tell the committee that what is contained here relating to all the harassment, what suffering your family has undergone, both physically, mentally and otherwise, the committee has already expressed that they understand that, but you are saying, okay, you haven't told everything to them, but there are other facts, but we don't, at this stage, need to know what those other facts are and incidents of harassment, there is sufficient before the committee to understand, in my submission, that you were harassed. What they were concerned about is what you believe at the time of the shooting.

MR SAMBO: Nothing.

MR BLACK: Okay, there's nothing further, thank you.

MR BLACK: Madam Chair, that would, at this stage conclude the evidence of the applicant. We were going to call another witness, but it was simply going to be of a confirmatory nature and the committee has already their, if not their acceptance, but their understanding of what is contained in the papers before it under oath.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't want to dictate to you, Mr Black, on how to run your client's application, it is your duty to do so... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...as best as you can. If, in your best judgment, you feel that you still have to lead further evidence to support Mr Sambo's application, we will not prevent you from doing so.

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: However, if that evidence will be the evidence only to show how Mr Sambo was harassed prior to the commission of the offences for which amnesty is being sought, we will remain again in our view that I think that information has sufficiently been conveyed in his application and pertinently in his two affidavits.

MR BLACK: Yes. Madam Chair, that's why I say it was really confirmation about events leading up to the incident, and the belief held by both Mr Sambo and members of his family as to what these people had been doing on his property. Whether the belief is justified or not, I've explained that to Mr Sambo.

CHAIRPERSON: Having regard to what I've just said... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...you will then obviously exercise your mind whether there really is a need to call such further testimony to support the main application.

MR BLACK: Yes. No, in my discretion, I don't think it would be necessary at this stage. Thank you. Ms Thabete, I'm sure you have questions to put to Mr Sambo.

MS THABETE: Yes, Madam Chair, I do, but before I do, can I please have five minutes to consult?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We'll take a five minute adjournment and we'll return at ten to twelve. If you do need more time Ms Thabete, will you please just give us an indication well ahead of the time that we have now set down to reconvene, ten to twelve.

MS THABETE: Thank you, I'll do so, Madam Chair.

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: It's been drawn to my attention that I didn't apprise you of the fact that if you so wanted to take off your jacket, you may do so.

MR BLACK: I'll be indebted to the committee for that. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, you may proceed to put questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETE: Mr Sambo, you spoke about the army coming into your house on that day in question. Did they see the cars that were parked - the four cars that were parked in your house - at your house, sorry?

MR SAMBO: Yes, they saw them.

MS THABETE: Did they search them?

MR SAMBO: Yes, they searched them.

MS THABETE: Did they find anything?

MR SAMBO: Nothing.

MS THABETE: And then, later on that day, when Mr Van der Spuy and Mr O'Farrell came, you were asked a question as to what you thought they would be doing there, or you were asked a question who you thought they were, and you said well, because you as a Shell emblem you thought they were from the garage, do you remember that?

MR SAMBO: Yes.

MS THABETE: And later on you said you thought they were there to kill you. In your application at page 5 of the bundle, No 10(a), you've written that you thought they were thieves. Can you just clarify who you thought Mr Van der Spuy and Mr O'Farrell were, when you saw them that day, in the light of the answers that I've given you, or that you gave to us?

MR BLACK: Sorry to interrupt my learned friend here for the -I did indicate to the Court and it slipped my mind, that I would be leading evidence to clarify that issue, in my opening address, but I must - I'm afraid it did slip my mind and, with all due respect, I could be given the opportunity, although I've no objection to my learned friend explaining now, as I've tried to indicate the difficulty in leading this evidence, if she refers to paragraph 5, it means nothing to the applicant, he doesn't read, but if she had to say in... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: It's page 5, not paragraph... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Ja, page 5, but if... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...paragraph 10(a).

MR BLACK: But if she had to say what is written in paragraph 10(a), that being the document which was filled in at the prison at the time of his making - in other words explain to him what the nature of the document... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BLACK: ...otherwise I could do it, I could clarify that if the Court, if the committee gives me that opportunity, but I forgot to do it at the end of the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you did indicate at the commencement of your evidence, Mr Black, that you intended, you identified certain paragraphs that you intended to clarify to the committee, I just took it for granted that the further questioning also addressed this particular issue, because I made a note that you referred to paragraph 10(a) on page 5.

MR BLACK: Yes. What I wanted to do was, just explain to the committee the circumstances under which this was completed, this form, and how it's come about that this wording is there, and I did indicate that it was a language problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BLACK: Would the committee give me that opportunity just to clear it up, otherwise we could end up having questions and questions about it the whole time?

CHAIRPERSON: Let's give Ms Thabete an opportunity to respond to that.

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall Mr Black making that request, that he wanted to have certain paragraphs contained in the application form... (intervention).

MS THABETE: Yes, I recall that.

CHAIRPERSON: ...clarified?

MS THABETE: I recall that, Madam Chair, and I have no objections to him doing that, more especially why I'm asking this question is that it was also raised at the trial that at some stage the applicant thought these people were thieves, so I would gladly like him to clarify it please.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, in view of the nature of the inquiry that we are conducting and the fact that you had indeed, right when you started with your evidence in chief, raised these concerns with the committee, we will grant you an opportunity to clarify that issue by leading this aspect of evidence with Mr Sambo.

MR BLACK: Thank you, I'm indebted to you, Madam Chair, and I'm certain, I'll be sure that it's brief.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Mr Sambo, you were asked a question, now you will recall that... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Clarify on the basis of what you could have gone ahead, had... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...that opportunity not slipped you.

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Not on the basis of the question asked by Ms Thabete

MR BLACK: No. Mr Sambo, you will recall that when you applied for amnesty the first time, when you were in prison, a form had to be completed?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MR BLACK: Right. Now who completed that form?

MR SAMBO: Another prisoner.

MR BLACK: Now when you spoke to this prisoner, in what language did you speak to him?

MR SAMBO: In Swazi.

MR BLACK: Now it appears, apart from all the spelling and the difficulties here, but without going through this form one by one question, the one question that is asked, and this is what is relevant now, is it says, there's a question or a request that you must state what political objective you wanted to achieve by your actions, okay? Now in reply to that question, what is written here, although very bad English, it says, what's written here:-

presume it must be:-

MR SAMBO: I think the person who was helping me didn't understand what I was saying to him, but what I know is that the reason I said they were thieves, I meant security branch, they were people who were working for the government, the old government, who were thieves and who used to steal.

MR BLACK: Ja, but Mr Sambo, let's not get into long detail, what words did you use, what word did you use to describe these people in Seswati?

MR SAMBO: Thieves, criminals.

MR BLACK: So that could... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: He means it's more criminals than thieves.

MR BLACK: Ja. So you mean you considered them to be criminals?

MR SAMBO: Yes. I meant security branch, they were criminals.

MR BLACK: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, I don't want to, need to go into...

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Black, now that you've been afforded the opportunity that you had earlier on indicated that you would want to be afforded, we'll go back to Ms Thabete.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETE: (cont)

Mr Sambo, in the light of the clarification that you've given, maybe you can explain, you see on page 39 of the bundle, in the judgment, there is a suggestion, or the judge said, in your evidence you say that you thought that these two whites were going to perhaps steal from the car, or look to see if they could steal from the car. Did you give such evidence in court, or do you remember giving such evidence in court?

MR SAMBO: I don't remember saying so.

MS THABETE: So are you saying that when the judge said you did say this, he was not telling the truth?

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you read to him the relevant portion of the evidence to which you are alluding?

MS THABETE: Mr Sambo, in court the judge says you said... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: What page, Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: It's page 39 of the bundle, page 13 of the judgment... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETE: Line... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Which paragraph?

MS THABETE: ...20, or line 19.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS THABETE: The judge says you said you thought that these two whites were going to perhaps steal from your car or look to see if they could steal from your car and then come back at night. So what I want to know is, did you say that or didn't you say that, in the light of what you've explained?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sambo, do you understand the ambit of Ms Thabete's question?

MR SAMBO: I don't truly understand.

CHAIRPERSON: When you gave testimony at your criminal trial, did you tell the truth about how Mr Van der Spuy was killed and how Mr O'Farrell came to be disarmed, and the surrounding facts around that incident, did you tell the truth?

MR SAMBO: I didn't tell the whole truth in court.

CHAIRPERSON: Now according to the judgment before us, it is stated that during that trial you said you thought that the two policemen, whom you described as two whites, were coming to your place to steal from your car, or to look to see if they could steal from your car and then come back that night and steal. Did you say that?

MR SAMBO: No, I didn't say so.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure you did not give that evidence during your criminal trial?

MR SAMBO: I am not sure, I've forgotten as to what exactly I've said in court, but I didn't tell the whole truth, even though there was partial truth and somewhere I was lying in court.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying you do not recall what untruths you said in court in respect of the offences for which you were standing?

MR SAMBO: I do remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the simple question is, the judge stated that this is what you said during your testimony when your criminal trial was being conducted, you said two whites came and you thought those two whites were coming to steal from your car, or to look if they could come back later at night to steal from the car. Is that what you told the judge, is that the lie you told the judge during your criminal trial?

MR SAMBO: That's true.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed, Ms Thabete.

MS THABETE: Mr Sambo, I find that interesting because that same stealing, or that same factor is raised by you in your application. Do you want to respond to that?

MR SAMBO: In my application I only referred to criminal, not stealing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, suppose, you spoke about criminal activity and you didn't specify what kind of criminal activity. Why did you say so, because what you are saying in your application seemed to coincide the evidence you gave during your criminal trial. Even during your criminal trial, you referred to criminal activity, you regarded these people as criminals, or as potential criminals, who would come and steal from your car. You didn't say, during your criminal trial, that the police in question were possible assassins because of the threats that you had been receiving from the security force, your suspicion that you would be killed by the security force, you did not allude to any political motive, the motive you alluded to was purely criminal.

MR SAMBO: In court I wasn't given a chance to explain like here today. Even my lawyer didn't give me a chance to listen to me, I only had 30 minutes consultation with my lawyer, and I even told him that I'm seeing him for the first time and he's not giving me enough time to explain, and he told me that he knows exactly what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Now let me just get clarity on one issue and one issue only, is it your evidence today that you deliberately lied in court in your criminal trial, is it your evidence? And let me tell you why I'm asking that, we have had countless applications wherein applicants have said to us, "We lied during our criminal trials", then they give us the reason why they lied, and they say, "We are now coming with the truth before this commission, because we believe that we can trust them in the truth that we would like to unburden to them". Now what are you saying? Are you saying you also lied during your criminal trial, and if you did, why did you lie?

MR SAMBO: I didn't want to be sentenced.

CHAIRPERSON: And is it not true then that you would have maintained that lie whether you had consulted with you lawyer for 100 hours or for ten minutes?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the lie did not result because you had not been afforded a proper and sufficient opportunity to consult with your lawyer?

MR SAMBO: If you can please repeat your question?

CHAIRPERSON: You have today suggested that the reason why you lied during your criminal trial was because you had not been afforded sufficient opportunity to consult with your lawyer, that you had very little time to consult with your lawyer, that's what you have suggested to us today. My question is, would the time of consultation with your lawyer have mattered at all to change your decision to lie, in the light of the fact that the reason why you lied was because you thought that lie would enable you to escape being convicted, you lied to escape a conviction, is it not so?

MR SAMBO: That's correct, but I was going to tell my lawyer, even if it was a lie, I was going to tell him, because I didn't want to be sentenced, I was going to tell my lawyer so that I escape from being sent to prison.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm getting more confused, Mr Sambo. Did you say what is contained in this judgment or did you not say so? No, you ask me, I have asked the question. You can ask me to simplify my question if you think it's that complex, and I will endeavour to do so. I am here to assist you, you are here to assist me. I will simplify my question. You have been referred to a version you gave during your criminal trial which is encapsulated in the judgment of Judge Curlewis, as appearing on page 13 thereof, and I quote what the judge said you had said during your criminal trial. He says you said the follwoing, now listen carefully, you thought that these two whites, and by these two whites Judge Curlewis was referring to the deceased, Mr Van der Spuy, and the person who's still living, Mr O'Farrell, you thought that the two whites were going to perhaps steal from your car, or look to see if they could steal from your car, and then come back that night, and this was in broad daylight in front of your brother. I think there is a typing error there, it should have read as this was in broad daylight in front of your brother, that they couldn't have stolen during the day, but you thought they would come back and steal from your car at night, and that's why they came to see what is it that they could back and steal at night. I am not saying that, it is Judge Curlewis saying, summarising your evidence. Now you would want to have us believe that Judge Curlewis was summarising the evidence that never came from you, which would be highly improbable.

MR SAMBO: I do remember. I said so in court as it's written down, but it was because I had to explain this thing, or the incident which occurred on that week. This BMW had no wheels... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: You know, Mr Sambo, you will make our job much more easier if you only respond to questions put to you, without having to come with elaborations, which tend to even distort what could be very good explanations by you. What I want to know is, did you say what is contained in this judgment, as summarised by Judge Curlewis, did you say so?

MR SAMBO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And was that a lie, you were not telling the truth?

MR SAMBO: I was telling the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: You were telling the truth about the fact that you thought the two whites you saw were coming to steal from your car? You must be careful now of what you are saying.

MR SAMBO: I wasn't telling the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why... (intervention).

MR SAMBO: What I don't understand clearly, because if I understand you well, is that you're saying that I said that those white men came there so that they would steal and/or to check if they can come later at night and steal, and now you want me to confirm if I said so or not.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: I will try to speak to you in Swazi, because I don't know whether these people who are interpreting are not interpreting this very well. It looks very simple. Do you understand Zulu?

MR SAMBO: Yes I do.

CHAIRPERSON: What we are trying to get from you is that what's written by Judge Curlewis who wrote or was the presiding judge when you were arrested for murder of Constable Van der Spuy and the case which you were facing of not allowing them to do their job, together with Constable O'Farrell, and also for the possession of a firearm which was unlicensed, in that case the judge is saying that your testimony was, these two white men were injured because when they came to your place and went to your cars, you thought that these two white men were there to steal inside your car, or you thought they were going to come back and steal at night. The reason they came when it was still daylight, they wanted to see as to what was inside those cars or that car, so that when they come at night they steal. This is the evidence which Judge Curlewis said you had gave. Is this the evidence you've told the Court?

MR SAMBO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you telling the truth when you gave this evidence in court?

MR SAMBO: You mean which evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: We're talking about this very evidence.

MR SAMBO: This was a lie.

CHAIRPERSON: If this was a lie, can you give us the reason why you told this lie in court?

MR SAMBO: Yes, I can give you. What made me say so, I didn't tell the Court that I knew these people, therefore I wanted the Court to believe that these people came to steal there, that's why I said so.

CHAIRPERSON: You thought you were going to be released by saying this lie?

MR SAMBO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand each other now. The question from Ms Thabete now is that she understands that you lied in court at that time, because you were trying to escape conviction, but now what is troubling her is that this lie which you've told the Court, that these two men, or white men, who came to your house and opened your car, because they wanted to steal from your car, this lie, it's almost exactly or similar to your statement, the one which you've written for the commission as they've already read it to you from page 5, paragraph 10(a). Now you were applying for your amnesty, because here in this application for your amnesty, you did again write that you thought that these people were thieves, you used thieves - I'm not finished - now I know, as a chairperson, that you've already tried to explain that you didn't write this application on your own, you were being helped by someone else. If you've written this personally, your aim was to write and refer to these people as criminals, not as thieves. Do we understand each other?

MR SAMBO: Yes, we do.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete now, she has a problem, even though you've now explained. Her problem is that there is no evidence here that these people were there to kill you, or to assassin you. Even though you used a word like criminals, to her it's still the same, that criminals and thieves are almost the same, it's almost the same like the evidence you've told the Court. Now you can answer and explain so that we go further. Do we understand each other?

MR SAMBO: Can I answer?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SAMBO: When I was writing my application for amnesty, and when I said these people were criminals, I was meaning criminals from the security branch, criminals who are doing secret things if they want to further their aims, because they wanted to kill me politically, but no-one would have found out who they were.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, you may proceed.

MS THABETE: Very well, Mr Sambo, still on the same point but I'm proceeding, you gave evidence that when you approached the two, Mr Van der Spuy and Mr O'Farrell, they did not inform you that they were policemen, is that

correct?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

MS THABETE: It is my instruction, Mr Sambo, that when you approached them, they did explain that they were policemen and they wanted to search your vehicles. What is your comment?

MR SAMBO: What I've said is the truth, they didn't tell me they were police. On our first encounter, when I went and approached the one who died, Mr... (intervention).

MS THABETE: Mr Sambo, if they had told you that they were police... (intervention).

MR LAX: Just hang on, we're waiting for the translation to finish, please. Please continue, Ms Translator, you were saying when you first approached Van der Spuy... (intervention).

INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR LAX: ...something, and then you stopped.

MR SAMBO: When I first approached Van der Spuy, he didn't say that he was a policeman.

MS THABETE: Mr Sambo, if they had introduced themselves as policemen, would it have changed your response to them, would it have made any difference to the way things happened that day?

MR SAMBO: I think the reason for them not identifying themselves as policemen, it's because they were there to kill me.

MS THABETE: No, my question... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: No, the question is, had they identified themselves as policemen, would this, I quote Ms Thabete, have changed the way things happened that day?

MR SAMBO: I don't know. They should know that.

MS THABETE: I'm talking about yourself, would you have shot Mr Van der Spuy?

MR LAX: Perhaps put it another way, if I may assist, what would you have done if they had told you that they were policemen at that point in time?

MR SAMBO: You mean before shooting me? You mean them identifying themselves before they shoot me or after they've shot me?

MR LAX: I'm saying that at the time you approached Van der Spuy, what would you have done if he had said, "I'm a policeman, I'm here to check these cars out", what would you have done?

MR SAMBO: I was going to let him search my car.

MS THABETE: When you approached Mr Van der Spuy and Mr O'Farrell, were they next to the cars?

MR SAMBO: Yes, they were.

MS THABETE: In your evidence you said they had started opening the doors of the cars, isn't it?

CHAIRPERSON: Only one had, Ms Thabete, that's his... (intervention).

MS THABETE: Mr Van der Spuy.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van der Spuy only.

MS THABETE: Yes.

MR SAMBO: Yes.

MS THABETE: Now my question to you, Mr Sambo, I hope it's the last question on this aspect, it's that in your evidence you've told us that in your mind you thought these were security branch policemen. You saw... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Sorry, may I just interrupt there? There are different stages, as... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Just allow her, Mr Black, to complete her question because it will probably address your problem. Proceed, Ms Thabete.

MS THABETE: Thank you, Madam Chair. You say when you saw Mr - according to your earlier evidence, when you saw Mr O'Farrell and Mr Van der Spuy, you thought they were security branch policemen. When you approached them, you say they didn't tell you that they were policemen, but you thought they were policemen, they were busy searching your car.

MR LAX: To be fair, Ms Thabete, he said he thought a little bit that they were policemen, but he saw the sign on the side of their vehicle... (intervention).

MS THABETE: Yes, the emblem.

MR LAX: ...and he thought they were from a garage, he thought they were from a Shell garage, that was actually the full text of his testimony at that point in time.

MS THABETE: But I thought we had addressed that question, because my first question was, he said they came from a garage, and then he said he thought they were going to kill him, and then he said he thought they were police.

CHAIRPERSON: There were various stages at which he said different things... (intervention).

MS THABETE: Oh, okay.

CHAIRPERSON: ...I think that's why Mr Black in fact was intervening to object to your line of questioning, because it didn't contextualise the situation as already testified to by Mr Sambo. Rephrase your question.

MS THABETE: Fair enough, maybe I should rephrase my question. At the stage when you approached Mr Van der Spuy and Mr O'Farrell, would it be correct for me to say you thought they were security branch policemen?

MR SAMBO: I only realised that when he took the gun from his pocket or wherever he took his gun, that's when I realised that they were police, because I knew that police or security branch were the people who wanted me dead.

MS THABETE: So all along who did you think they were, before you saw them taking out the guns, who did you think they were?

MR SAMBO: I thought that they were from the garage, Shell garage.

MS THABETE: Okay, I'll move on. It is my instruction - I have already said that it's my instruction that they actually introduced themselves to you as policemen and you responded and you said that's not true, they did not. It's also my instruction that you, when they, after they had told you that they were policemen, you actually caused a scene and you prevented them from further searching your car, is that correct?

MR SAMBO: That's not correct.

MS THABETE: Is it also not correct that after you had prevented them from further searching your cars, Mr Van der Spuy warned you that he will place you under arrest?

MR SAMBO: That's not true.

MS THABETE: Is it also not true that after he had warned you, he grabbed you by the arm, saying that he's placing you under arrest, whereupon you grabbed him around the waist and attempted to remove his firearm, isn't that correct?

MR SAMBO: That's not true.

MS THABETE: Further, is it not correct that when you attempted to remove Mr Van der Spuy's firearm, he pushed you and he drew his weapon and fired one warning shot in the ground?

MR SAMBO: That's a lie.

MS THABETE: Further, Mr Sambo, is it not true that after he had fired one shot on the ground, you came back, you grabbed him around the waist, whereupon Mr Van der Spuy bit you, or I'm sorry, bit your hand?

MR CHAIRPERSON: Who bit whose hand?

MS THABETE: The applicant bit Mr Van der Spuy's hand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETE: Isn't that correct?

MR SAMBO: That's not true.

MS THABETE: So, Mr Sambo, are you saying the evidence from the photographs that were taken on the scene showing a bite, were not from you, you did not bite Mr Van der Spuy's hand?

MR BLACK: May I just - I certainly don't have any such evidence, and I haven't see any such photograph.

CHAIRPERSON: Which one, I just lost that because my colleague was telling me about something, what evidence is that, Mr Black?

MR BLACK: Madam Chair, my learned friend is attempting to create or refer to a court record which we don't have, and... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you have a copy of the court record?

MR BLACK: I've got a copy of the judgment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I mean that is referred to in the judgment.

MR BLACK: Yes, but we haven't seen any photographs of any such... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I agree, we also don't have any such copies, but these have been referred to in the judgment. To the extent that I think Ms Thabete wants to delve deeper into those photographs and details surrounding the evidence impinging on the photographs, you might have to have the photographs in front of you, but I don't think that's what she's attempting to do.

MR BLACK: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: I hope, Ms Thabete, you are aware of the difficulty that might present the committee if you were to go deeper into the nature of the photographs and the details surrounding the evidence contained in the photographs themselves?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, I understand that, but I also have instructions, and I just wanted the applicant to verify, in the light of the fact that, besides the instructions I have, it's there in the judgement, page 6, page 32 of the bundle, where it refers to the bite mark on Mr Van der Spuy's wrist, I just wanted to find out whether... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, I think it's for Mr Sambo to admit or deny that evidence, but I think that can't take the matter any further, you can't object to that question simply because you don't have copies of the photographs. As I understand Mr Sambo's evidence in that regard, it's a denial.

MR BLACK: Yes, okay. May I... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: It can't be taken any further.

MR BLACK: Yes. No, I just wanted that to be placed on record, because I just have some difficulties in, you know, that matter being put to him without seeing the photographs.

MS THABETE: Page 32 of the bundle, page 6 of the judgment, line 20.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, for your peace of mind, we do not think as a committee that anything can turn around that piece of evidence.

MR BLACK: No.

CHAIRPERSON: If that will really come to be uneasiness... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...with which you are taking this line of cross-examination.

MR BLACK: Yes. No, no, I appreciate that the committee is fully cognisant and aware of the laws of evidence in this regard and my learned friend may continue.

ADV BOSMAN: Madam Chair, may I just address Mr Black on this point? Mr Black, I would just like sort of clarity in my own mind, are you saying that the court record would not be admissible evidence, because it's a public document? If Ms Thabete were in a position to produce extracts or anything from the court record, would you accept that that is admissible evidence?

MR BLACK: Yes, most certainly, but we just don't have - to put to a person the bite mark on the right hand without having it before you, is a bit unfair.

ADV BOSMAN: No, I just wanted to make sure that I understand your objection correctly. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Ms Thabete. Thank you, Ms Bosman.

MS THABETE: So, Mr Sambo, you're saying you did not bite Mr Van der Spuy's hand, is that your evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: That's his evidence, Ms Thabete... (intervention).

MS THABETE: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: ...let's move on.

MS THABETE: Okay.

MR LAX: Sorry, it wasn't his hand, it's his wrist, is it not correct?

MS THABETE: Yes... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: It's his right wrist.

MS THABETE: ...it's his right wrist, yes.

MR LAX: He might say, "Yes, I didn't bite his hand".

MS THABETE: I stand to be corrected, thank you member of the committee. Did you bite his right wrist, Mr Sambo?

MR SAMBO: The hand which had a gun, I think that's the hand which I bite when I took the gun.

MS THABETE: So you're admitting to the fact that you actually bit Mr Van der Spuy's right-hand wrist?

MR SAMBO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why have you just denied that part of Ms Thabete's question? I know in Seswate it really doesn't make any difference whether it's a wrist or it's a hand, there is no material distinction between the two, why did you say, "No, I didn't bite his hand", but you can say, "Yes, I bit his wrist"?

MR SAMBO: After he shot me, Mr Van der Spuy, I grabbed his hand, the one, the hand which had a gun. We fought, because I wanted to take his gun from him, because I was scared that he was going to kill me.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that evidence - no, I think the question was not that you assaulted him, the question was you bit his wrist, and you said no. Was that not translated properly to you?

MR SAMBO: It means it wasn't translated properly to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You may proceed, Ms Thabete.

MS THABETE: According to my instructions, Mr Sambo, after biting Mr Van der Spuy's right-hand wrist, as you've admitted that you did bite it, you disarmed the deceased, is that correct?

MR SAMBO: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you please repeat yourself, Ms Thabete, for my notes?

MS THABETE: Mr Sambo, isn't it correct that you after you had bitten the right-hand wrist of Mr Van der Spuy, you disarmed him?

MR SAMBO: It happened same time, when I grabbed his hand, I was trying to take his gun, because I grabbed his hand in a way that the gun wasn't facing towards me, because the gun was already on. I didn't want the gun to shoot me, and then I took the gun from him.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you bite him?

MR SAMBO: As I was taking the gun.

CHAIRPERSON: When you bite him, it didn't happen that when your teeth were in his flesh, you took the gun from him?

MR SAMBO: Yes, that's how it happened.

MS THABETE: After taking - after disarming the deceased, is it correct that you took two steps backwards, you cocked the weapon and you swung the weapon around their faces, their faces, that is Mr O'Farrell and Mr Van der Spuy's faces, is that correct?

MR SAMBO: If you can please repeat? No, I didn't. Maybe I don't understand your question, you said after I disarmed him... (intervention).

MS THABETE: It's my instructions, Mr Sambo, that after disarming the deceased, you took two steps backwards, you cocked the weapon, and then you swung the weapon around onto their faces, the faces of Mr... (intervention).

MR SAMBO: That's not true.

MS THABETE: It's also my instructions that you turned around and then you started walking away, and as you were at the gate, Mr Van der Spuy shouted at Mr O'Farrell that "Shoot him, because he has my gun", that's what he said, and upon you hearing that... (intervention).

MR LAX: Just let him answer.

MS THABETE: It's one sentence.

MR LAX: Part of the problem, Ms Thabete, is that when you put three or four different facts into one question and he says no, he may be saying no to just one of them, or he may be saying no to all of them, and you leave the door wide open to all sorts of problems later.

MS THABETE: I'm indebted to you. It's my instruction, Mr Sambo, that after you had swung the weapon around their faces, you turned and you started walking a