_____________________________________________________ MS PATEL:   Thank you Honourable Chairperson. The first matter on the roll for today is that of Sikulu Patrick Hlengwa, Application number 3418/96.

MR SAMUEL:   Honourable Chairperson, I act for the applicant, surname is Samuel, the first name is Sivin.

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you. You are calling the applicant?

MR SAMUEL:   I do.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Hlengwa, please stand. Are you prepared to take the oath in this matter?

MR HLENGWA:   That’s correct.

SIKULU PATRICK HLENGWA:   (sworn, states).

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you, you may be seated.

MR SAMUEL:   Yes, thank you. Mr Hlengwa when were you born?

MR HLENGWA:   1960.

MR SAMUEL:   And where did you live prior to you being incarcerated?

MR HLENGWA:   At Umgababa.

MR SAMUEL:   Are you applying for amnesty in respect of the murder of Mr Mbambo, which took place ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA:   Not Mbambo, but Mbeko.

MR SAMUEL:   Was it Mr Hlakepani John Mbeko who was murdered on the 25th of January 1991?

MR HLENGWA:   That’s correct.

ADV DE JAGER:   How do you spell Mbeko?

MR SAMUEL:   M B E K O.

CHAIRPERSON:   M B E K O, and his first name?

MR SAMUEL:   H L A K E P A N I, Hlakepani John. I’m reading from the judgment of Judge ...(indistinct) I think his name is spelt there.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, what is the first name again? H L ?

MR SAMUEL:   H L A K E P A N I.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mbeko, M B E K O?

MR SAMUEL:   That is correct, sir.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, do carry on.

EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL:   Do you belong to any political organisation?

MR HLENGWA:   That’s correct.

MR SAMUEL:   What organisation?

MR HLENGWA:   ANC.

MR SAMUEL:   When did you join the ANC?

MR HLENGWA:   Even though I cannot remember very well, but I think in the 1980's.

MR SAMUEL:   And did you join any specific organisation aligned to the ANC, during that time?

MR HLENGWA:   UDF.

MR SAMUEL:   Now the deceased, was he also a member of the ANC or the UDF?

MR HLENGWA:   He was a member of the ANC as well.

MR SAMUEL:   Now prior to the murder in 1991, can you describe what was happening to the ANC members in the Umgababa area?

MR HLENGWA:   What do you mean when you say to describe?

MR SAMUEL:   Can you tell us, were there any attacks on them?

MR HLENGWA:   Before I murdered Mbeki, there were conflict between IFP and ANC. The area was predominantly IFP and we UDF members when we fought we didn’t want that area to be ruled by IFP. We fought for a long time. Eventually some of us were discriminated or they were no longer liked by ANC, they joined IFP. People like Stoffel Ngobo, they left ANC.

MR SAMUEL:   Can you hold on?

CHAIRPERSON:   Please interpreter, I’d like you tell us a little more clearly what the applicant is saying. I don’t make much sense of what has been said, from the time he said eventually, then he carried on. I’m sorry to tell you, but please, give that answer again.

MR HLENGWA:   In our area at Umgababa there were conflicts between the IFP and the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, we’ve got that.

MR HLENGWA:   There were fights between the two organisations. Some members of us, in other words, some members of ANC left ANC and joined IFP. We were continuously attacked. We used to camp..

MR SAMUEL:   Okay. You said, before we go onto something new about your members joining the IFP, let’s talk about the attacks on the ANC people. How many attacks were there prior to the murder of Mr Mbeko?

MR HLENGWA:   Many people were killed by IFP in the community, and those people who were killed were ANC members.

CHAIRPERSON:   Were there many IFP people killed by the ANC as well, or by the UDF?

MR HLENGWA:   No, there were not. They were not killed by ANC. IFP was the one who was attacking ANC.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, so my question was that no IFP people were killed by the ANC people at that time?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, that’s correct, there were no IFP people who were killed by ANC.

MR SAMUEL:   Which party was, had a stronghold in the area where you lived?

MR HLENGWA:   IFP.

MR SAMUEL:   Were the IFP in a majority in that area?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, they were the majority.

MR SAMUEL:   And did, at any stage, you as the ANC take any decisions to attack the IFP?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, we took that decision that we should attack them because they were attacking us.

MR SAMUEL:   Were there any IFP people killed in these attacks?

MR HLENGWA:   We were not lucky as to killing them.

CHAIRPERSON:   You see they say, "...we decided". I would like to know when they decided. Where they decided.

MR HLENGWA:   Even though I cannot remember when the decision was taken because it has been a long time, but we were usually holding meetings to take actions against the IFP, but we were not so lucky to get hold of them.

CHAIRPERSON:   And what year are we talking about now?

MR HLENGWA:   In 1991.

ADV DE JAGER:   You said, "...We took the decisions". What was your role, were you a leader in the ANC? If not, who was the leader, and who took the decisions?

MR HLENGWA:   I was just a member. The person who was the leader was Joe Ngema.

MR SAMUEL:   Who started the attacks in the area? Was it the IFP or the ANC?

MR HLENGWA:   IFP started.

CHAIRPERSON:   He’s already said that. It is because the IFP started, they took a decision to attack.

MR SAMUEL:   So just to reiterate for the record that the ANC then took the decision in response to attacks that were taking place on ANC members.

MR HLENGWA:   That’s correct.

MR SAMUEL:   Now you speak of these, this decision, being taken, this decision having been taken in 1991. When were the majority of the ANC members killed in that area?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, it was in 1991. I cannot remember very well but I think prior to 1991 there were attacks as well.

MR SAMUEL:   Now a gentleman by the name of Stoffel, was he an ANC member?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, I’ll say so, because he used to come to us, but later he joined IFP.

MR SAMUEL:   Okay, before we get to that, when you say he used to come to us, did he attend any meetings of the ANC?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, I used to see him when we were having meetings, he will be present.

MR SAMUEL:   At that meetings were there, was there anything secret, any secrets of the ANC in that area discussed?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, that’s correct.

MR SAMUEL:   Where were these meetings held? Were they held at a particular place, or were they held at different places?

MR HLENGWA:   Usually in a school.

MR SAMUEL:   Did Stoffel remain an ANC member, or did he join another party?

MR HLENGWA:   He didn’t stay that long in the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON:   Sorry, this witness doesn’t say that Stoffel was an ANC member. He merely says he thinks that Stoffel was a member because he attended some of our meetings. Now that’s as far as he goes.

MR SAMUEL:   Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON:   There was a time when he stopped attending their meetings. Is that what you’re trying to say?

MR SAMUEL:   Just, during those days, one didn’t really have membership of the organisation as such, but one’s membership stemmed from attending these secret meetings. To that extent he may have been a member. But I take the Honourable Chairperson’s point.

CHAIRPERSON:   Because he says he doesn’t, he thinks that he was a member simply because he saw him attending meetings. Then there was a time when he stopped attending meetings. Is that the position, really? There was a time when he stopped attending ANC meetings.

MR SAMUEL:   Mr Hlengwa you say Stoffel used to attend the ANC meetings.

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, he used to come.

MR SAMUEL:   Did he stop attending ANC meetings?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes he did.

MR SAMUEL:   When was this?

MR HLENGWA:   The last time we saw each other it was in a meeting. The meeting was Nkotoyo School, in 1991.

MR SAMUEL:   So is your answer the last time you saw him at a meeting was in 1991?

MR HLENGWA:   That’s correct.

MR SAMUEL:   Now after Stoffel stopped coming to ANC meetings, what happened?

MR HLENGWA:   After he stopped, we experienced problems when we were attacked in numbers. We were attacked in various places, even our hiding places were known or were revealed. It was like someone had revealed to the enemies that we were hiding wherever.

MR SAMUEL:   Whose hiding places? When you say our hiding places, whose hiding places are you referring to?

MR HLENGWA:   We ANC members.

MR SAMUEL:   And what did you, to whom did you attribute this increase in the attacks against ANC members?

MR HLENGWA:   It became clear to us that the person who was revealing this was Stoffel, because he knew our hiding places and our secrets.

MR SAMUEL:   As an organisation, did the ANC discuss any strategies in regard to dealing with Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, we did.

ADV DE JAGER:   Was Stoffel’s name Stoffel Ngcobo?

MR HLENGWA:   No, Ngcobo. N G C O B O.

MR SAMUEL:   What did the ANC decide to do with Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA:   We met, it was in the morning, at a certain area in Umgababa, it’s called Ukalo. We discussed as members of the ANC ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   Just, sorry, how do you spell the name of that place? You met at Ukalo, how do you spell that?

MR HLENGWA:   It was in the open space, the wilderness.

CHAIRPERSON:   How do you spell that name Ukhalo?

INTERPRETER:   U K H A L O.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, what happened at Ukhalo?

MR HLENGWA:   We discussed and we came to a decision that we should look for Stoffel and we knew where his house was. I volunteered alone. I told the group, the ANC group, that I alone, I was going, my name, I was referred to as Malumi, and I told the group that I was going to approach him and I was going to hide somewhere because I knew his route, his usual route which he usually used, so I decided that I was going to hide and wait for him and attack him.

MR SAMUEL:   What was the thinking behind sending you alone to approach Stoffel, and not the whole ANC group?

MR HLENGWA:   The reason I took such a decision was I wanted to protect other members of ANC, so that we are not arrested, all of us, and also we didn’t want that IFP should see us as a group, because if they so did they were going to attack us. Therefore I took the decision that I would be the only one.

MR SAMUEL:   Did you manage to get hold of Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, I did.

MR SAMUEL:   When? When?

MR HLENGWA:   At that time I went to the area where I told them I was going to wait next to his, closer to his house ...(intervention)

MR SAMUEL:   I’m sorry Mr Hlengwa, the question was when, and to help you with this question ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA:   It was on a Saturday.

MR SAMUEL:   Yes, how many weeks before the death of Mr Mbeko, did you manage to get hold of Mr Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA:   I got hold of Stoffel first.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, but can you tell us what month it was that you’re talking about?

MR HLENGWA:   It was in 1991. I don’t remember which month or week, or the date. I’ve been in prison for a long time, I don’t remember.

MR SAMUEL:   If you listen to the question, perhaps you will be able to answer it. How many weeks before Mr Mbeko was killed, did you get hold of Mr Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA:   Refresh his memory. Tell him when Mbeko was killed, according to the papers.

ADV DE JAGER:   On the 20th of January 1991, Mbeko was killed.

MR HLENGWA:   I don’t remember how many weeks, but it wasn’t that long. I think it was after two weeks.

CHAIRPERSON:   You mean it was two weeks before the killing of the deceased?

MR HLENGWA:   I mean I killed Stoffel two weeks and then two weeks later I killed Mbeko.

MR SAMUEL:   I don’t think he said that interpreter, can you find out really whether he said that he killed Stoffel, because that’s not my instructions.

MR HLENGWA:   Let me just clarify this, because I’m also confused. I’m also confused, the question is confusing me. Stoffel didn’t die, but Mr Mbeko was killed.

CHAIRPERSON:   Alright, just let’s stop there. For the time being we are concerned with approximately when it was that you went to Mr Stoffel’s place, and you’ve told us that it was about two weeks before the deceased died.

MR HLENGWA:   I think I understand now. We held a meeting in the morning, and then I went the same day, that afternoon I went and attacked Stoffel.

CHAIRPERSON:   Now just tell us what happened when you went to Stoffel’s place, or you went to a place close to Stoffel’s house. What happened then?

MR HLENGWA:   Stoffel then appeared. I went there. I waited for him, and then took him to the ANC members where I left them on the open space.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did you not talk to Stoffel before you took him away? Did you say anything to him?

MR HLENGWA:   I just pointed the road on him. I just told him that "...We must just proceed, we’re going on".

CHAIRPERSON:   You told him to accompany you. Where were you taking him to?

MR HLENGWA:   We were off to the ANC members, taking him there to let him know that here is the men.

CHAIRPERSON:   And what happened when you reached the place where the ANC members were?

MR HLENGWA:   We then left with him, the other remained. We took him to another place called Ziko.

CHAIRPERSON:   Please, my question was, when you took him to where the ANC people were, you and Stoffel arrived there, what happened?

MR HLENGWA:   I told them that here is the man, and they asked him: "We do not find you here amongst the ANC members", and he agreed and said that the IFP people actually came and took him by force.

CHAIRPERSON:   What did the ANC members ask Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA:   They asked him on which side is he, as he was initially amongst the ANC members, and now where is he. And he answered, he said he was taken by IFP people by force.

CHAIRPERSON:   What happened next?

MR HLENGWA:   We took him to another place called Ziko to interrogate him.

CHAIRPERSON:   Just spell the name of this place.

INTERPRETER:   Ziko, it’s Z I K O.

CHAIRPERSON:   So who went to Ziko?

MR HLENGWA:   A lot of us went there. I cannot count how many were we.

CHAIRPERSON:   And what happened at Ziko?

MR HLENGWA:   On our arrival there, Mr Mahlangi Mbeko arrived, and asked that we should bring him, bring him to, as they were in-laws.

CHAIRPERSON:   That doesn’t make sense at all. You arrived there, then the deceased arrived there, yes? And what did the deceased say?

MR HLENGWA:   He asked him that we would like to have a word with him, and then he took him. They went ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   Are you not having any difficulty with this?

INTERPRETER:   I am.

CHAIRPERSON:   I think we are having considerable difficulty. He used the words he, them and so on, and one doesn’t know who he is talking about. So let’s just be - it might take a little time but it’s important for us to know, you see, so I might have to stop you every time unless I understand what you are saying. What did Mbeko, the deceased, what did he say when he arrived there. Tell them.

MR HLENGWA:   He took Stoffel and then he said he would like to speak to Stoffel.

CHAIRPERSON:   Just hold it. Where did he take Stoffel to? When you said he took Stoffel.

MR HLENGWA:   We did not exactly know because their departure, both of them did not return.

CHAIRPERSON:   He didn’t say where he was taking him?

MR HLENGWA:   No, he didn’t.

CHAIRPERSON:   So the deceased and Stoffel left?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   What happened next?

MR HLENGWA:   Thereafter we dispersed. Our final word was that we will meet in the afternoon,

CHAIRPERSON:   What happened next?

MR HLENGWA:   Thereafter, while I was at home, I heard the kids crying, saying that there is an attack, people are actually approaching from the school.

CHAIRPERSON:   Was it the same day?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   So later that day, whilst you were at home, you heard the kids crying.

MR HLENGWA:   They were actually shouting, saying, "...uncle, here’s the war, the attack, coming from the school". The name of the school is Ngamwayeke.

CHAIRPERSON:   So what was it that the kids were shouting?

MR HLENGWA:   They said, "...Here is the war".

CHAIRPERSON:   What is meant by here is the war?

MR HLENGWA:   I’m not sure how to explain, but that I say they saw the people in a big crowd. That’s what is referring to the war. People attacking. They attack us.

CHAIRPERSON:   Do you understand all this?

ADV DE JAGER:   While he was at home that afternoon he was called by children coming from the school that there was a group coming to attack them.

ADV DE JAGER:   Yes, now the children have warned you that there is a group approaching you, and they want to attack you. Is that correct?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, that’s the truth.

CHAIRPERSON:   Were they coming towards your house, this group?

MR HLENGWA:   That is actually the place or the space which the attackers usually use whenever they attack us, so that is the place they use, or the area they use to enter when they attack us.

CHAIRPERSON:   And how can they attack you when you are not in the area?

MR HLENGWA:   What I am saying is that, it’s just like when I’m saying that here are people attacking, that’s what I’m saying.

CHAIRPERSON:   Just wait. There was nobody attacking at that time. The children said, "...Here are the attackers coming from the school." My question to you was, where were they? Were they coming? Were they coming to your house?

MR HLENGWA:   These people were actually going to attack the entire area and particularly my house or my area.

MR SAMUEL:   Just to clear something up. You say these children warned you of a group of people coming from the school towards your, towards a particular area. You also told us that this the route that the attackers normally use when they attack the area.

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   What happened then?

MR HLENGWA:   I went up to the upper area and the others had actually realised that, and then we were actually willing to face them. Unfortunately they were in larger numbers as compared to us and we ran away.

ADV SIGODI:   Just to clear this. This area in which you stayed, was it a predominantly ANC area, or was it full of both IFP and ANC people?

MR HLENGWA:   What I can say is that people were in larger numbers. IFP was no longer there. It was now ANC only, and they were attacking. IFP was attacking. The people who were residing there were now ANC.

CHAIRPERSON:   Alright, you’ve told us that you ran away. You and the other decided to run away. What was the next thing that happened?

MR HLENGWA:   We ran away and thereafter, after they’ve shot and actually injured other people, we came back because

CHAIRPERSON:   Please, did they attack, did they shoot, did they kill anybody, when you ran away?

MR HLENGWA:   Some died, some got injured.

CHAIRPERSON:   You only learned that when you got back, because you had fled?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   What was the next thing that happened?

MR HLENGWA:   Thereafter,

MR SAMUEL:   Sorry, are you going on to the next day? I need to ask you some questions about the same day. Are you still dealing with the same day?

MR HLENGWA:   Still the same day.

MR SAMUEL:   Okay, go ahead.

MR HLENGWA:   When we came back others had already told the police that were already attacked there at Umgababa, and people got injured, and the police from Umkomaas came and took the corpse.

MR SAMUEL:   Now, the people that died, who were they and which party did they belong to?

MR HLENGWA:   ANC people. I wouldn’t know their names, their surnames.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, just carry on.

MR SAMUEL:   Who were the attackers?

MR HLENGWA:   IFP members.

MR SAMUEL:   Did you recognise any IFP member in particular there?

MR HLENGWA:   In that attack what I marked was wearing a navy-blue overall. It was tied on the stomach. It was Stoffel. He’s the one that was actually clear to me because I knew him very well.

MR SAMUEL:   Now, did the ANC meet to discuss the attack on you on that particular day?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, we met, as members of ANC, discussing that attack. It was apparent to us that it is the departure or disappearance of those two people that we were attacked, because it wasn’t that long after they left us that we were attacked, so it was apparent to us that the problem is with these two people, because they are the ones who actually fetched the other to come and attack us.

MR SAMUEL:   Did the meeting take any decision regarding these people?

MR HLENGWA:   At that particular point in time the decision was taken, but it was never taken on that day.

MR SAMUEL:   We’re talking about that meeting.

CHAIRPERSON:   So there was a meeting?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   And at that meeting people felt that the attack came about as a result of the work of Stoffel and the deceased?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   What happened next?

MR HLENGWA:   Thereafter, I met, we, I myself met with another ANC member. We discussed.

ADV DE JAGER:   Who was this member?

MR HLENGWA:   It was our leader, John Ngema.

ADV DE JAGER:   What did you discuss, and did you receive any orders from him?

MR HLENGWA:   We discussed that the way we were attacked, it is not due to the fact that, it was evident or apparent to us that they were told how they will actually find us, because these people were from amongst us. Because this actually happened the same day.

ADV DE JAGER:   So you discussed it, and you concluded that Stoffel and Mbeko was responsible for the attack, or did play a part in the attack?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

ADV DE JAGER:   Now what did you decide what should you do about them, if anything?

MR HLENGWA:   We took a decision that one of them must be killed.

ADV DE JAGER:   Why not both of them?

ADV SIGODI:   Did you say must be killed or ...?

CHAIRPERSON:   What was decided specifically? Say it again.

MR HLENGWA:   We took a decision that Mr Mhlanga Mbeko must be killed.

CHAIRPERSON:   Although nobody saw Mr Mbeko as being part of the people that did the actual attacking?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes. It wasn’t easy after, finding Stoffel. Mbeko was the person that we can actually find, and that’s the man I killed.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, I want to get it absolutely clear as to why was it decided that Mr Mbeko should be killed? Nobody saw him as part of the group that attacked your area.

MR HLENGWA:   That decision was taken. It’s because when he took this one it was apparent to us that he, they are working together. They are actually hiding it from us that they know each other, they are working together.

MR SAMUEL:   Did the possibility enter your mind that Mr Mbeko may have just, merely tried to save Mr Stoffel’s life, and that he may not actually be involved in this, involved with the IFP?

MR HLENGWA:   By being with the ANC members, they were actually, in actual fact they were IFP members from their own sect, when all these things occurred. It was not easy for them to leave the area so they pretended to be the member who have joined us, whereas that wasn’t the case, they were the people who were really IFP members.

MR SAMUEL:   After Stoffel escaped and the attack took place, did Mr Mbeko come to any other ANC meetings thereafter?

MR HLENGWA:   No, he didn’t come to any of the meetings, and we actually sent messages that we would like to see him regarding the attack, but he did not come.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did you not go and see Mr, the deceased, you and others, to question him about this suspicion you had?

MR HLENGWA:   We tried to find him, but we couldn’t because we sent the messages for him so that he may come to the meetings several time, but in vain.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did you not take the trouble of going to him to see him?

MR HLENGWA:   I, in particular, went. However, I did not enter. I was standing on the road. I sent three boys to enter and come with him, so that we can discuss. They did not find him. The find the mother, that is the wife, and explain to the boys that he’s not around, he’s not in the house.

MR SAMUEL:   This incident you speak of took place on the day of the killing?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

MR SAMUEL:   The Honourable Chairperson was talking about before the decision to kill him was taken, did you not make any other efforts to discuss with this person who was a member of the organisation why he did what he did?

MR HLENGWA:   We did not get that chance to find him, because he was nowhere to be found in the area. We couldn’t locate him.

MR SAMUEL:   And when he went missing in the area, what conclusions did you draw regarding his affiliations, political affiliations?

CHAIRPERSON:   Are you talking about he, himself, or his group at a meeting or what?

MR SAMUEL:   What conclusions did you draw yourself, and did the group meet and draw any conclusions regarding the disappearance of Mr Mbeko, the deceased?

MR HLENGWA:   What I thought is that he’s actually, he was hiding in the IFP area.

MR SAMUEL:   That’s what you thought. What did the ANC as a group think, when Mr Mbeko was not to be seen?

MR HLENGWA:   Even the group itself took it, took him as a person who is on the IFP side because whenever we sent messages for him he doesn’t come to see us.

CHAIRPERSON:   Whenever you sent messages to him the messages did not reach him.

MR HLENGWA:   I wouldn’t know whether it would reach him or not, but the people who were sending it to him as members, all of us sending those members to look for him, they wouldn’t locate him.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, they couldn’t find him.

MR HLENGWA:   They did not find him.

CHAIRPERSON:   Carry on, now what happened after that?

MR HLENGWA:   (TRANSLATION Indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON:   We can’t hear a word.

ADV DE JAGER:   We couldn’t hear the translation.

MR HLENGWA:   We then left. We left the area to another house. We went to the Umtjale residence.

MR SAMUEL:   Are you now talking about the day of the killing.

MR HLENGWA:   I’m talking about that day.

MR SAMUEL:   Okay, you told us that you sent three men to the house of the deceased, and his wife told them that he was not around?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, the boys said that.

MR SAMUEL:   The boys reported that to you?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

MR SAMUEL:   You now tell us that you then went to the Umtjale house?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

MR SAMUEL:   Why did you go there?

MR HLENGWA:   Our going there was due to the fact that some people would meet there at Umtjale.

MR SAMUEL:   Was this house a shebeen?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

MR SAMUEL:   Did you meet the deceased at the Umtjale house?

MR HLENGWA:   We arrived there first, and then he came in later, but not that much later.

MR SAMUEL:   What happened when the deceased arrive?

MR HLENGWA:   He entered the house and requested what he needed, and thereafter I went straight to him, asked him to go with me outside.

MR SAMUEL:   Go on.

MR HLENGWA:   And thereafter he did not go back to the house. We then left with the other three, the ones that I had sent, we left.

CHAIRPERSON:   This makes no sense. Does it make any sense to you? When you say, when he arrived that at the shebeen of Umtjale, you told him to come outside with you. Did he come outside with you?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes he did.

CHAIRPERSON:   Who else was with you, when the deceased came out?

MR HLENGWA:   I was with Manci, Tuli and Boy Khoza.

CHAIRPERSON:   How do you spell the name of this first person?

INTERPRETER:   M A N C I.

MR SAMUEL:   For the record, are these the three other people that appeared in the criminal ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   Leave it at that, it doesn’t matter, for the time being.

CHAIRPERSON:   You were there, you asked him to accompany you, and you were with these three people?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   What happened outside?

MR HLENGWA:   I said to him, "...I’m the one whose calling you, Malumi". And then I said to him so that, I said to him that the reason at the meeting or camp that we supposed to had to right away we should go there.

CHAIRPERSON:   Stop there, I didn’t understand what you said to him.

MR HLENGWA:   And then I said to him, we should go to a camp where we are camping on that particular day.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, carry on. What happened next?

MR HLENGWA:   And thereafter we left. Then I said we can leave. We proceeded. I was carrying a gun.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did he accompany you?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did he agree to accompany you?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did he ask you why you had to go to the camp?

MR HLENGWA:   No he didn’t ask.

ADV SIGODI:   Just to clarify something. If you were taking him to the camp, did he come with you willingly?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes. The way we robbed him we actually told him that there was a camp that we are off to, so everything that was to be done, that he had to do, he can do it later, that’s the way we robbed him, because we wanted to do things fast or quickly.

MR SAMUEL:   For the record, is it robbed or tricked?

INTERPRETER:   Tricked. In other words we tricked him into coming with you.

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   So then, you, your three colleagues and the deceased, left Umtjale’s place and went ...(intervention).

MR HLENGWA:   We went to the road. We proceeded not for a long distance, but we did walk. It was myself and him in front, the other three were behind us. I was carrying a gun, 303 gun. I was carrying it right in the middle. We were talking.

CHAIRPERSON:   Just hold on. When you say you were carrying the gun, where were you carrying it? In your hand?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, in my right hand.

CHAIRPERSON:   And he could see it?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, he could see it.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did he ask you why you were carrying a gun?

MR HLENGWA:   No, he didn’t.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, now then what happened next?

MR HLENGWA:   We proceeded and then I shot him. I didn’t shoot him, but I hit him with the gun. I was holding the gun with my right hand. The gun with the long pipe. I turned ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER:   Please ask him to talk one sentence and allow you to interpret it, so that we can follow and write down everything he’s saying. We can’t write down while he’s talking and talking and talking, without stop.

CHAIRPERSON:   While you were walking ahead of him, you had a gun in your hand, you then hit him with the gun? Right?

MR HLENGWA:   And then he fell.

ADV DE JAGER:   You didn’t interpret that he said ...(ZULU WORD).

INTERPRETER:   He hit him with the gun, and then he fell. He hit him deliberately.

CHAIRPERSON:   Listen to her.

INTERPRETER:   He hit him deliberately with the gun and then he fell.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did you tell him why you hit him?

MR HLENGWA:   When we were walking I’ve already talked to him and I told him that the reason I’m calling him was because of the people who were killed after Stoffie was taken by him, the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON:   You see all this ought to have been brought out in its sequence.

MR SAMUEL:   Sorry, Honourable Chairperson, I didn’t have a chance to question him on it. I think the questions were coming from Honourable Members so I didn’t have an opportunity of leading that.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes.

We didn’t have the time to write down what you said to the deceased before you hit him. Do you understand? Carefully tell us what you said to him.

MR HLENGWA:   Before I hit him, I told him that the truth was, the reason we’re taking him was, we needed him as a person who was taking Stoffel from the meeting, and left with him. After that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   Slowly. So you told him that he had taken Stoffel away from the meeting. Now proceed. And then?

MR HLENGWA:   I told him the truth as to why I was taking him. There was no camp which I was taking him to. The truth was we needed to discuss with him, and there and then I hit him.

CHAIRPERSON:   What was it that you said to us, that you told him that he had taken Stoffel away from the meeting? You remember saying that to us?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   Carry on from there. So you said to him, "...We are going to kill you because you took Stoffel away from the meeting."?

MR HLENGWA:   I’m trying to explain it. At that time there wasn’t much which we’ve discussed with him, because we were in a hurry. We wanted to do what we intended to do.

CHAIRPERSON:   We’ve reached a stage ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA:   ...(not interpreted)

CHAIRPERSON:   We’ve reached a stage where I asked you whether you said anything to him before you hit him. Now you say you had told him while you were walking with him the reason why you were taking him. You said, "...Because he took Stoffel away from the meeting."

Mr HLENGWA:   And then people were killed after Stoffel was taken from the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON:   Carry on.

MR HLENGWA:   We proceeded with him. I told him that I didn’t like what happened to our members, ANC members, and I told him that today it was his day, he was supposed to suffer the same pain we’ve suffered, and then I hit him.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did you not ask him to explain, if you suspected that he had done something wrong, was he not given a chance to explain? He may have had a good explanation.

MR HLENGWA:   There was just no time for me to ask him because I’ve already reached a decision.

CHAIRPERSON:   So you killed a man without even affording him a chance to say what might be the truth?

MR HLENGWA:   ...(not interpreted).

CHAIRPERSON:   You killed a man without giving him a chance to tell you what might be the truth?

MR HLENGWA:   We didn’t think that he was going to tell the truth. We didn’t trust him.

CHAIRPERSON:   No, that’s not the question you see. You take a man’s life because you believe he had done something, and you don’t give him a chance to explain to you. Is that what you did?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   Be careful.

MR SAMUEL:   Did you tell him that you suspected him of being a spy for the IFP?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, we told him. I told him that he was a traitor.

CHAIRPERSON:   When was that?

MR HLENGWA:   These were my last words. I told him that he was a traitor.

CHAIRPERSON:   And without giving him a chance to answer your allegation you just struck him down?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   And after he fell down, what happened next?

MR HLENGWA:   After he fell down my colleagues started stabbing him. They had knives and tomahawk and spears. Spears.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did you join in, in stabbing him?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, I helped them.

CHAIRPERSON:   You seemed to have great hesitation in answering.

MR HLENGWA:   No, I’m not hesitating. I thought you told me that I mustn’t talk loud, I must talk softly.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did you shoot him with a gun as well, besides stabbing him?

MR HLENGWA:   No, I didn’t shoot him. I only hit him with the gun.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, and what happened after you all stabbed him. Did you leave him lying there?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, we left him lying there.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, Mr Samuel, sometimes it’s a bit painful to extract a story in sequential order. Do carry on.

MR SAMUEL:   Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Now, was there anyone else who witnessed this killing of Mr Mbeko?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, I will say yes, that there was someone else who witnessed this, but I personally didn’t see the person and if I think about it, or if I have to think about it, I think it was someone who saw this and she was passing and it was a female who happened to be my girlfriend.

MR SAMUEL:   Now the three people with you, were they also ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA:   ...(not interpreted)

MR SAMUEL:   The three men with you, were they charged in the criminal trial?

MR HLENGWA:   ...(not interpreted)

CHAIRPERSON:   When were you arrested?

MR HLENGWA: I don’t understand, I’ve been asked two questions.

CHAIRPERSON:   I’m sorry. Your lawyer asked you whether the other three were charged for the murder of the deceased. Is that right?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, they were charged, but the Court released them. They didn’t sentence them, or they were not found guilty.

MR SAMUEL:   Now of the three, that is Temba Manci, Tembano Lethuli, and Boy Raymond Khoza, which of the three participated in the attack on the deceased?

MR HLENGWA:   Manci participated, and Boy Khoza. Honestly I’ll be lying if I say Luthuli participated. He was there but he didn’t do anything.

ADV DE JAGER:   And he knew you were going to kill the man? You’ve planned it before, and he went with you?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, that’s correct.

MR SAMUEL:   You were convicted of this offence, what sentence did you receive?

MR HLENGWA:   Fifteen years.

MR SAMUEL:   On what date were you sentenced?

MR HLENGWA:   April 13, 1993.

CHAIRPERSON:   At about what time of day or night was the deceased killed?

MR HLENGWA:   I will just estimate, because I’m not sure, I think it was between seven and eight.

CHAIRPERSON:   How is it that your girlfriend happened to see this? Where did she suddenly appear from to see all this?

MR HLENGWA:   She was going to my place where I was staying.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes but what was she doing on the road where you were taking the deceased?

MR HLENGWA:   ...(not interpreted)

CHAIRPERSON:   What was she doing on the road that you were taking the deceased?

MR HLENGWA:   It is a road she was just passing, she was going to my place, but she didn’t pass. I found her in Court and she explained in Court as to what was happening on that day. That’s when it came apparent to me she was going to my place and when seeing this she stopped and watched.

CHAIRPERSON:   Was the deceased related to your girlfriend?

MR HLENGWA:   I am not sure whether he is her father or her brother, but they are from one family. It’s similar names, surnames.

CHAIRPERSON:   You puzzle me when you say that. You don’t even know whether this was your girlfriend’s father or brother. Are you telling us the truth?

MR HLENGWA:   I am saying the truth is they are from one family. I don’t know whether she is referring to him as a father or a brother.

MR SAMUEL:   So when you are saying father do you mean that he is her, he is married to her mother, or are you saying that she regards him as a father and not, as opposed to a brother?

MR HLENGWA:   The surnames are similar and they are in one area, that’s where they are staying. I think they are related, something like uncle and cousin, somewhere along the line.

CHAIRPERSON:   Well now, you say that he could be the father, he could be the brother, he could be the uncle, he could be the cousin. You didn’t know?

MR HLENGWA:   What I’m trying to explain is that I don’t know whether he was my girlfriend’s uncle. In Zulu when you say uncle you mean your father’s brother, therefore the names are similar, not that uncle on the other side. There’s a difference in Zulu and English. The surnames are similar.

CHAIRPERSON:   That night, after the killing of the deceased, you went home?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, we all went home.

CHAIRPERSON:   You saw your girlfriend there?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, I found her at my place.

CHAIRPERSON:   Did you tell her that you killed one of her relatives?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, I told her. I told her what happened, and then she said she saw what happened, but we didn’t see her.

CHAIRPERSON:   We’ll take the adjournment at this stage and resume in fifteen minutes.

SIKULU PATRICK HLENGWA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes Mr Samuel, please proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL:  (Continued) Thank you Mr Mhlango. Is there anything that you would like to say to the, Mr Mbeko’s family, for the act that you committed?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, there is.

MR SAMUEL:   You may take this opportunity of doing that.

MR HLENGWA:   I would like to say to the family and the relatives of Mbeko that I am here today to apologise to them for my actions, and I took the law in my hands, and I’m asking them to please forgive me. It was because of the situation at Umgababa. IFP and ANC were in conflict. Even our minds were not working very well. Therefore I would please like them to forgive me.

MR SAMUEL:   I have no further questions, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON:   Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL:   Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Mr Hlengwa, you stated at the start of your evidence this morning that, "the area was predominantly IFP, we fought for a long time," that you didn’t want the area to be IFP but eventually you said that, "some of us were no longer liked by the ANC and then joined the IFP." Could you clarify this? What do you mean when you say that, "some of us were no longer liked by the ANC."?

MR HLENGWA:   I would like you to repeat that question because it’s a long question. I can’t understand some of the fact you’ve asked.

MS PATEL:   Okay. You said in your evidence earlier that some of the ANC members had moved over to the IFP because they were no longer liked by the ANC. Do you remember saying that?

MR HLENGWA:   You say they were no longer liked?

MS PATEL:   Yes, that is what you said this morning.

MR HLENGWA:   I don’t remember using the word liked. What I remember saying is that I said Stoffel moved from ANC to IFP. Maybe you’ve made a mistake there.

MS PATEL:   No, your evidence was very specific. You said that some of us were no longer liked by the ANC.

MR HLENGWA:   No, I don’t remember that. I didn’t say that and I think you’ve made a mistake when you wrote this or maybe the interpreter interpreted wrongly. I don’t remember saying so.

CHAIRPERSON:   Let’s leave it on the basis that the last is a possibility.

MS PATEL:   Yes, certainly, Honourable Chairperson. Can I ask, you know at the first meeting where a decision was taken that you would defend yourselves because the IFP was attacking members of your party?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

MS PATEL:   You said that Joe Ngema was present at this meeting, that he was a leader. Can I ask whether the question ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

MS PATEL:   Was the question of specific targets discussed, or was it just a general mandate given to the members?

MR HLENGWA:   There were no specific names mentioned. It was generally IFP because they were the ones attacking us, not specific names.

MS PATEL:   Okay. Then you say that after Stoffel had stopped attending your meetings, you experienced problems with the IFP. Can I ask whether that, my question to you is, the problems that you experienced after he left, were they greater than the problems that you experienced before he left?

CHAIRPERSON:   Or were they different?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, that’s correct.

MS PATEL:   Can you elaborate please? Would you like to amplify on that?

MR HLENGWA:   After he left it was a usual thing that every morning there will be houses will be attacked the previous night.

MS PATEL:   Was Stoffel the only person who had stopped coming to the ANC meetings?

MR HLENGWA:   It was just Stoffel. He was the only one who stopped.

MS PATEL:   Okay. The decision to bring Stoffel to a meeting, you stated that you had gone to look for him because, you were sent out to look for him because you knew where he stayed, and you knew the route that he took.

MR HLENGWA:   I volunteered, that’s what I said. I wasn’t chosen by anyone. I volunteered from that group and I said I was going to go alone to fetch Stoffel, because I was scared that if we go as a group they were going to recognise us and attack us, therefore I volunteered to go alone to fetch him. Then also I wanted to protect other members. I didn’t want other members to get injured as well. I said if I was going to be injured let it be just me, not everyone from my group or organisation.

MS PATEL:   Alright, given that you knew where he stayed, and what his movements were, can you explain why you advanced as a reason that Mr Mbeko only was choses as a target at the subsequent meeting? The reason you advanced was because you didn’t know where to get hold of Stoffel. Can you explain?

MR HLENGWA:   I don’t understand your questioning. If you can please ask me one question at a time.

MS PATEL:   You stated, when you were questioned as to why only Mr Mbeko was chosen as a target, you said, and not Mr Stoffel as well, you said because you didn’t know where to find Mr Stoffel. Do you remember saying that?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, I do remember.

MS PATEL:   But the fact of the matter is that you knew where to find Stoffel because you found him on the previous occasion.

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, I knew where he was staying, but at the time, after he was taken from that meeting, in his place there was no-one, no single member of his family. Therefore he was no longer staying in that house.

MS PATEL:   How do you know that he was no longer staying at the house?

MR HLENGWA:   I’ve explained before that Stoffel’s’ place or house is in an area where it’s predominantly ANC. His house was among our houses. When I’m at my place I can see Stoffel’s house.

MS PATEL:   But the decision to kill Mr Mbeko, as I understand it, was taken on the same day that the attack from the IFP members who had come from the direction of the school, had taken place, not so?

MR HLENGWA:   That’s not true. It didn’t happen the same day.

MS PATEL:   So when exactly did it happen?

MR HLENGWA:   IFP members attached, and then after about two weeks, that’s when Mbeko was killed. It wasn’t the same day. It didn’t happen on the same day.

MS PATEL:   No, the question doesn’t relate to when he was killed, it relates to the date of the decision to kill him. That took place on the same day that the IFP supporters had attacked people in your area.

MR HLENGWA:   Now I understand. We met after we were attacked, and we took a decision that we were supposed to do something about what they were doing to us, and our decision was we were supposed to attack them.

MS PATEL:   So you met immediately after you were attacked, or during, close to that period, not so?

MR HLENGWA:   The very same day we met. The day of the attack, we met later.

MS PATEL:   So how did you know, at that stage, that Mr Stoffel was no longer at his place of residence? Because the decision not to kill him was taken on the same day?

CHAIRPERSON:   Was there a decision not to kill Stoffel?

MS PATEL:   Well, there was a decision to kill only Mr Mbeko.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, but no decision was taken not to kill Stoffel.

MS PATEL:   But with respect, Honourable Chairperson, when the applicant was questioned as to why the decision wasn’t taken to kill both of them, he explained that they didn’t know where to find them.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, but they didn’t take a decision that they will not kill Stoffel.

MS PATEL:   Alright.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, please proceed.

MS PATEL:   My question remains, that at the stage the decision was made to kill Mr Mbeko, you didn’t know that Mr Stoffel would not be at his place of residence, or that he could not be found?

CHAIRPERSON:   Didn’t he say that he could see Stoffel’s house from his house and came to the conclusion that Stoffel was not there?

MS PATEL:   But ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER:   I’ve got an idea that they had that meeting in the afternoon after the attack. The meeting took no decision on that day. "...Thereafter I and Joe Ngema met. We discussed that and we decided on of them, Mr Mbeko, should be killed." But it was very difficult to take ...(intervention)

MS PATEL:   Could I ask you, the meeting with Mr Ngema, where Mr Ngema and you decided that Mr Mbeko should be killed, when was that decision taken? Was it immediately after the meeting with the other ANC supporters or members, or was it some time after? Was it a few days after that you met alone with Mr Ngema?

MR HLENGWA:   I don’t understand the question very well. It is really confusing me. I don’t know when to answer the question because sometimes you are talking together and now I don’t know which meeting you are referring to. What are you referring to, the first one or the last one? If you can please clarify your question for me?

ADV DE JAGER:   Could I perhaps help? I don’t know whether you’ve been on the correct wavelength there. Because if you listen to one wavelength you will hear both the English and the Zulu coming through together, so I don’t know if he’s on wavelength 2 or 4 or which one.

MR HLENGWA:   I do understand what you’re saying. I do hear what you’re saying, it’s just that I don’t understand exactly what your question wants of me.

MS PATEL:   Let me put it in sequence for you. This meeting in the morning. Listen to me carefully please. There’s a meeting in the morning where Mr Stoffel is taken by your to the field, right?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

MS PATEL:   Mr Mbeko then comes and asks for, and takes Mr Stoffel away.

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

MS PATEL:   Later in the day there’s an attack by the IFP members, upon members of your community.

MR HLENGWA:   That’s correct.

MS PATEL:   Then after, the same day, later that afternoon, there is a meeting with you together with members of the ANC about the attack?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

MS PATEL:   After that you have a meeting with Mr Joe Ngema alone, where it is decided that Mr Mbeko will be killed.

MR HLENGWA:   ...(not interpreted).

MS PATEL:   Now that last meeting between yourself and Mr Ngema, how long, or when exactly did that meeting take place? Did it take place on the same day that all the other meetings took place that I have just spoken about, or was it some days after?

MR HLENGWA:   Now I do understand. We met with Mr Joe Ngema on the same day, the same day of the attack.

MS PATEL:   If that is so, how would you have known on that very same day that Mr Stoffel would not be found:

MR HLENGWA:   When I discussed this with Joe Ngema the decision wasn’t going to be carried on the same day. On that day it was just vocal, we were talking about it, or we were planning it. I was the one who told our leader that we were supposed to take actions because these people were attacking us. It wasn’t, we didn’t decide there and there that the attack should be carried on that day.

MS PATEL:   Are you saying now also that Mr Ngema didn’t decide on that day that Mr Mbeko should be killed? Or are you saying that the attack shouldn’t be carried out? What are you saying? I don’t understand.

CHAIRPERSON:   I think his evidence was that they decided that the deceased should be killed.

MS PATEL:   Is he not retracting that now, Honourable Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON:   Well my ...(indistinct) is that they decided, they didn’t say when.

MR HLENGWA:   We didn’t say then. What we said was we came to the decision that he was supposed to be killed.

MS PATEL:   And can you explain, I think I’m getting a bit confused, can you explain again why Mr Stoffel, why you didn’t take a decision about Mr Stoffel as well, on that same day? Because he was clearly identified as one of the attackers in the group that morning that had attacked the community.

MR HLENGWA:   It is like this, when we found Stoffel, we were going to kill Stoffel because of what he had already done to us, but he wasn’t our big problem cause we knew as to how to find him if we were serious as members, but this one, Mr Mbeko, he was still with us, therefore that’s why we decided that we were going to kill him.

ADV SIGODI:   Sorry, I still don’t understand why you were making a distinction between Stoffel and the deceased. What difference was there in your minds?

MR HLENGWA:   Sorry?

ADV SIGODI:   What difference was there in your mind about the position of Stoffel and the deceased. Didn’t you say that ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA:   Let me explain this. Between Stoffel and myself Mbeko took Stoffel and then later we were attacked. It wasn’t easy for us to go where Stoffel was because he was already been taken by Mbeko to the IFP supporters, therefore it was going to be difficult for us to go to the IFP and take Stoffel, but it was going to be easy for us to take Mbeko, or to attack Mbeko.

ADV SIGODI:   So just to clarify that, you are saying that Mbeko was a bigger problem than Stoffel because he was still part of the organisation and is one who was taking people from the organisation and taking them over to the IFP. Just wait until I am finished.

MR HLENGWA:   If you can please listen to me very carefully, what I’m trying to say is that among the ANC members there was no-one who was pushing members to go and join IFP. We didn’t even know what a person has decided, but we would see this being later, that they have already betrayed us. They were already members of the IFP.

ADV DE JAGER:   Did you kill Mr Mbeko because he intervened and saved Mr Stoffel’s life?

MR HLENGWA:   That’s correct.

ADV DE JAGER:   Now, Mrs Mbeko, the wife of Mr Mbeko was killed, have made a statement saying that she and Mr Mbeko was supporters of the UDF. That they even could not sleep at their house, because they feared that the IFP would kill them. Would you say that could be true?

MR HLENGWA:   I wouldn’t say it’s true. Because I don’t know this.

CHAIRPERSON:   May I now ask a question? At the meeting where Stoffel was present, you’ve told us that the deceased arrived and asked whether he could take Stoffel away.

MR HLENGWA:   I would like you to repeat this.

CHAIRPERSON:   I’m talking about the time when the deceased came to the meeting and took Stoffel away from there, whilst Stoffel was being questioned. I’m talking about that time, you understand?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes I do.

CHAIRPERSON:   So the meeting agreed, and allowed the deceased to take Stoffel away?

MR HLENGWA:   That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON:   They had no objection to the deceased taking Stoffel away?

MR HLENGWA:   There was no objection, cause we thought that he was going to bring him back.

CHAIRPERSON:   You may have thought that. He didn’t say that he would bring him back?

MR HLENGWA:   That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON:   So the meeting trusted the deceased when he was allowed to take Stoffel away?

MR HLENGWA:   The way he took him, we thought that since he was an older person to us he was going to bring him back. We didn’t think that he was taking him forever.

CHAIRPERSON:   Up to that stage there was no reason to suspect that the deceased was a secret member of another organisation?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, at that time we didn’t suspect anything.

CHAIRPERSON:   So what evidence is there for believing that he, the deceased, was an informer or a member of the IFP, for you to want to kill him:

MR HLENGWA:   As members of ANC the only evidence we had it was because the deceased didn’t bring back Stoffel and same time we were attacked before the next day, and they disappeared. We didn’t see them and we were attacked on the very same day. And they disappeared. They were no longer like members of the community. That’s when we realised that he was also with Stoffel or IFP. This is what we thought.

CHAIRPERSON:   So a man was killed because he did not bring Stoffel back to the meeting? That’s it, isn’t it?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, it’s like that, that’s correct. We killed him, or we came to that decision because we were angry that he didn’t bring back Stoffel and also we were attacked on the same day. We didn’t understand really, we took this as his actions or he was behind this whole thing.

CHAIRPERSON:   Now you admit all that happened was that day Stoffel was seen by you to be among the attackers, isn’t that so?

MR HLENGWA:   That is so.

CHAIRPERSON:   So Stoffel left no doubt in your mind that he was on the other side when he attacked?

MR HLENGWA:   That’s correct. His action was saying so.

CHAIRPERSON:   Quite right. And yet you murdered a man without asking him why he didn’t bring Stoffel back. Isn’t that so?

MR HLENGWA:   That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON:   Listen carefully because I want to write that down. Yes

MS PATEL:   Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. M Hlengwa, do you recall having written a letter to the Amnesty Committee, setting out the circumstances ...?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

MS PATEL:   Alright. Let me read to you an extract from the letter that you sent us. For the record, Honourable Chairperson, page 8 of the bundle. This is what you said to us happened at the camp. You said:

Now him, you are referring to Stoffel, right? You’re saying:

Right? Then:

So it’s not, do you remember saying that?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

MS PATEL:   Why have you told us now, then ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   Ask him if what he agrees with what he said.

INTERPRETER:   The speaker’s mike was not on. What’s the question?

MS PATEL:   Do you agree that that is what you had said, in your letter?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

MS PATEL:   Do you agree that that is different to what you are telling us now?

MR HLENGWA:   Actually that, the statements that I made here in the TRC, I think I made three of them, were wrote to Bloemfontein and then we were sent ...(intervention)

MS PATEL:   Will you please ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA:   We first wrote to Bloemfontein if I am not mistaken, and then we were told ...(intervention)

MS PATEL:   Mr Hlengwa would you please ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON:   Please don’t answer, don’t make a wrong answer. You were asked a special question. What is said on Page 8 differs from what you have said here, and you are asked to explain why that difference.

MR HLENGWA:   That I have said now is not the same as the one I actually, I initially made, is that what you’re saying?

MS PATEL:   Yes.

MR HLENGWA:   Where is the difference?

MS PATEL:   You’ve told us here in your evidence today that Mr Mbeko came there and he took Mr Stoffel away, and the reason that Mr Mbeko was killed subsequently was because he had taken Mr Mbeko away without there having been a discussion.

MR HLENGWA:   Taken Mbeko or Stoffel?

MS PATEL:   Sorry, Stoffel away.

MR HLENGWA:   I think I indicated that even in the first statement that, in order that Mbeko was killed it was because he took Stoffel and he said it’s because he’s the brother-in-law, and I think I’ve said that even now. Maybe you did not write that down.

MS PATEL:   Now let me say to you what you’ve stated in your letter to us. In your letter to us you say that the reason you let Mr Stoffel go was because Mr Mbeko had come there and that, you know, it’s the first time that Stoffel had made a mistake and so he should be given some leniency and that is why you had agreed to let him go. Now there’s a difference, Mr Hlengwa, between, wait let me finish please, there’s a difference between you all agreeing to let Stoffel go, and what you have said to us, that is, that Mr Mbeko came and took Stoffel away.

MR HLENGWA:   I put it like this. If I think well what is said today about this crime, it’s been years and I’ve been in gaol. Perhaps what I’m saying even now, and some of the things that I’ve left out, it would be that I’m forgetful, so that I don’t explain in a sequence, because this was done, this happened long ago, long time ago. Since 1991. As a result I cannot cram a lot of things and put them in my mind at the same time.

So by highlighting what the main points, what the highlights, it’s been a long time to explain the sequence as it is. Because it might happen that as we’re talking now and it might happen that I remember something, that I’ve left out something, and perhaps we have already passed that place we are now ahead.

ADV DE JAGER:   But six months ago you made this statement, that you’ve been referred to. October 1998, you made this statement which you’ve been referred to, that you agreed to release Stoffel because it was his first mistake, and Mr Mbeko pleaded with you to give him a chance.

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, I’m saying that. However, I said that, The way Mr Mbeko took Stoffel it was like that, he did take him, and he was speaking as a, indicated that its’ his first mistake.

ADV DE JAGER:   So the meeting agreed to give him a chance. To give Stoffel a chance, and they allowed him to go.

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, he left with him.

CHAIRPERSON:   No, the point is not he left with him. The meeting agreed to let him go, that’s the point. Is that not so?

MR HLENGWA:   What you are trying to say is that the entire membership of ANC agreed to that, is that what you’re saying?

CHAIRPERSON:   I’m reading from your statement that at that meeting when the deceased said that this was Stoffel’s first mistake, he should be given a chance. The meeting then agreed and allowed Stoffel to go. That’s how it is written here.

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, we did agree in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON:   So now if that is so, why did you get angry with the deceased because he didn’t bring Stoffel back? According to your ...(indistinct) today.

MR HLENGWA:   What made me angry, to be more angry, is that at their departure they did not come back and tell us what they have discussed and what has happened, and then we discovered that we are now being attacked.

ADV DE JAGER:   So in fact you were really angry because Stoffel betrayed you and he attacked you that same afternoon? He didn’t use his chances given him.

MR HLENGWA:   He didn’t use it.

ADV DE JAGER:   Now our problem is, we can understand that you were cross with Stoffel, but why didn’t ou then go and kill Stoffel? Why did you decide to kill Mbeko?

MR HLENGWA:   At that time that we can kill Stoffel after he had already left, it wasn’t easy for us to kill him, because even at his home he wasn’t staying there. We wouldn’t actually find him there at his home because he was already on the other side, on the IFP side at that particular point in time.

ADV DE JAGER:   So you couldn’t find Stoffel so you decided to kill Mbeko because Mbeko was still nearby?

MR HLENGWA:   We took that decision.

ADV DE JAGER:   I follow that. That afternoon you went to the shebeen and you had drinks there?

MR HLENGWA:   In actual fact myself, I did not drink liquor, but the people that I was with, they did get liquor in the shebeen.

ADV DE JAGER:   So your three companions got liquor but you didn’t have liquor.

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, and even amongst them, if my memory serves me well, it was about one or two beers, because Khoza doesn’t drink the liquor. It was Manci and Nontumbi.

ADV DE JAGER:   Why did you go to the shebeen? What do you want to find out, or do, there?

MR HLENGWA:   Our aim at the shebeen was that, because it was a Friday and mostly the guys normally go there and we would meet there, and in that he also came.

ADV DE JAGER:   Was that an ANC frequented shebeen, or an IFP, or members of both parties came to this place?

MR HLENGWA:   I’ll explain it like this, in that shebeen it was an area you would actually see a lot of things that were happening from that area, but it was the area that was on top and we could see everything. Now most people used to go there, and because even selling there, the owner of the shebeen was not really selling in actual fact. It was actually the area because there are people who normally arrive at that place.

ADV DE JAGER:   I understand you can’t answer the question.

CHAIRPERSON:   Alright, so far as I’m concerned, I come to your assistance, as far as, when you went there you regarded that as a social visit to the shebeen. That was the purpose of your visit?

MR HLENGWA:   I didn’t even have money to go and socialise, so it’s not the truth that I went to socialise. I was going there to find this person.

CHAIRPERSON:   That’s the answer. You went there to find the person, which person?

MR HLENGWA:   The deceased.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, do carry on.

MS PATEL:   Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

You made a statement shortly after you were arrested, in which you set out the circumstances of this incident, and you stated that you hit the deceased with a stick, and you go further and you say I remember this although I was drunk. Do you remember saying that? Do you still maintain ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA:   ... (not interpreted)

CHAIRPERSON:   Where is this statement?

MS PATEL:   If you refer to page 39, Honourable Chairperson, of the bundle, it’s referred to in the judgment. Do you still maintain sir that you weren’t drunk, that you had nothing to drink?

MR HLENGWA:   I still maintain that at that particular point in time I wasn’t drunk.

MS PATEL:   And you didn’t buy any beers, there was no argument between you and the owner of the shebeen? ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA:   ..(no English interpretation)

MS PATEL:   Let me finish please. Can I finish first please. There was no argument between yourself and the owner of the shebeen regarding payment for beers? You wanted three beers and you only had money for two. You don’t recall that?

MR HLENGWA:   No. In that statement I did not enter into any argument with the shebeen owner.

MS PATEL:   And you had absolutely nothing to drink?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes. I agreed to that to the police because of the way they were questioning me, the police, what I put forward to them was not the truth.

MS PATEL:   But why lie about being drunk? What difference does that make to anything? How did that make it easier for you? I don’t understand.

MR HLENGWA:   By talking about being drunk it was the first time that I have done. I’ve heard initial, previously, that if you are drunk you wouldn’t get that much difficulty in Court if you said that you were drunk.

MS PATEL:   But you’ve admitted hitting the deceased. You admit that the deceased was stabbed, so how did it make it easier for you? You’d already admitted ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   I think there’s an extenuating circumstances in some cases where evidence of drinking assists as a mitigating factor. I think that is what he’s trying to explain. I think we should move on.

MS PATEL:   Alright, Honourable Chairperson. You stated that, I’m sorry can you just confirm did you stab the deceased as well? Or did you just hit him on the head with the firearm that you had?

MR HLENGWA:   I hit at him with the gun and I took a tomahawk and then hit at him while he was lying down.

MS PATEL:   And you say the rest of the people there assisted in you assaulting the deceased?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

MS PATEL:   Except Luthuli?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes.

MS PATEL:   Okay, did Manci also stab the deceased?

MR HLENGWA: Yes indeed.

MS PATEL:   He denied that at the trial.

CHAIRPERSON:   That wouldn’t be too surprising.

MS PATEL:   His evidence was also accepted, Honourable Chairperson. He was in fact found not guilty.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, but I don’t think that his applicant can be burdened with anything which another accused may have said about himself.

MS PATEL:   Alright I’ll move on Honourable Chairperson. Just one final thing that I want to clear up with you, and that is that you’ve stated that Mr Ngema gave you instructions, or authorised this murder.

CHAIRPERSON:   No, I think he and Ngema decided. Isn’t that what he said. Ngema was the leader of the organisation.

MS PATEL:   In his further particulars to us, Honourable Chairperson, he stated, let me just, he says on page 8, Honourable Chairperson, paragraph 4:

Is that used or kill?

MR HLENGWA:   It’s used. It’s:

MS PATEL:   My apologies, Honourable Chairperson, I misread that.

ADV DE JAGER:   Did Mr Ngema give you the gun to kill Mr Mbeko?

MR HLENGWA:   That gun was usually carried by me, yes it was given by him. It was always been with me. It has always been with me, that gun.

ADV DE JAGER:   So he didn’t give you the gun only for the purpose of going to kill Mr Mbeko?

MR HLENGWA:   No, he gave me it to protect the members of ANC.

MS PATEL:   Just to clarify what I perceive to be an inconsistency. You stated to us that you and Joe Ngema made the decision alone together. Yet in your statement to us you’ve stated that:

That’s page 8 as well, your Honourable Chairperson, paragraph 5. So what is the correct position?

MR SAMUEL:   Sorry your Honourable Chairperson, I don’t mean to intervene here, but there seems to be two things he told us about the meeting with Mr Ngema. When he was questioned by the Honourable Member he said he met with Mr Ngema. When he was questioned by my learned colleague, Ms Patel, he indicated that,"...met with Mr Ngema" so I’m not sure whether ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON:   I think he said the two of them met.

MR SAMUEL:   No that was when the Honourable Member questioned him. When Ms Patel questioned him, he said: "we met with Mr Ngema after we were attacked on the same day."

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes well the word we can clear it up because sometimes these words are used loosely. Put your question Ms Patel.

MS PATEL:   Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. You’ve stated to us here, let me just take you back again. You’ve stated to us here that the Self Defence Unit together with the commander took the decision. Yet you’ve told us in your evidence today that it was only you and Joe Ngema who took the decision.

MR HLENGWA:   I will explain. I think I was, it is the same Joe that I am referring to. It is the same Joe that I am referring to.

ADV DE JAGER:   Aren’t we sort of taking time out with something that may be common cause? In paragraph 15 of the widow’s affidavit, she states, the second-last sentence:

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(indistinct) that their will may have become accepted by others, but the decision, whether the decision was take by the Self Defence Unit, or by him and Ngema. It met with the approval after the act was done yes. Now the question that was being put to you was, you see we get too versions. I took a note that you and Ngema met and you took a decision to kill the deceased. Then in this paragraph to which ...(intervention)

MR HLENGWA:   ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(indistinct) to which Ms Patel refers you, she says that the Self Defence Unit together with our commander took the decision to kill the deceased. Now which of that is correct?

MR HLENGWA:   What do you really mean? Are you still explaining? Do you want me to explain about Joe, comrade Ngema, or what? I don’t quite get your question.

CHAIRPERSON:   We’re not talking about ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER:   The speaker’s mike.

CHAIRPERSON:   We are talking about whether you met Mr Ngema and decided this with him, or whether the Self Defence Unit met Mr Ngema and decided to kill the deceased.

MR HLENGWA:   It’s myself and Mr Ngema.

CHAIRPERSON:   Alright.

INTERPRETER:   Sir, he says Itina, as if we say it’s a plural. Can you just clarify it with him if it was just him and Mr Ngema, the two of them, or if there were other people, that is the Self Defence Unit and Mr Ngema who took that decision to kill.

MR HLENGWA:   The two of us, myself and Mr Ngema.

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you very much. Is that all?

MS PATEL:   There’s just one final thing, Honourable Chairperson. I refer you to the statement of the wife of the deceased, Honourable Chairperson, paragraph 14 to 16. If you say that Mr Ngema authorised, or Mr Ngema was in agreement that Mr Mbeko be killed, perhaps you can explain this to me. The wife of the deceased stated, said in a statement, that they hadn’t slept at home that Friday evening because they were afraid of IFP attacks.

The next morning Mr Ngema comes to the house where she is staying, and he looks for the, she says that on his arrival he asked as to where were Mr Mbeko’s sons.

INTERPRETER:   Sorry, where, what?

MS PATEL:   Mr Mbeko’s sons, his children. The wife then goes on to explain to Mr Ngema about the incident that had taken place at the house on the Friday night where you had sent the other men in to look for Mr Mbeko.

CHAIRPERSON:   I think that you’re very convoluted. What is the point that you wish to draw from that paragraph?

MS PATEL:   The point is, Honourable Chairperson, that it is improbable that the person who was in agreement with the killing of the deceased would in fact, in the morning then go and look for the wife and then take her to point out to the place where the body was. If he was party to the decision to kill he wouldn’t have gone near the family. And that is my point, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON:   That Ngema wasn’t a party to take the decision to kill the deceased.

MS PATEL:   Yes, exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, a statement has been made by the widow the deceased. Among other things, it would appear from that statement that Ngema, who you say took the decision with you to kill the deceased, goes to the house of the deceased, and talks to the widow of the deceased, about the deceased. Now if he was responsible for killing the deceased, why would he go to her house?

MR HLENGWA:   I wouldn’t know, because he went there alone, he wasn’t with me.

MS PATEL:   Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.

ADV SIGODI:   Do you know where Mr Ngema is today?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, I do.

ADV SIGODI:   Where is he?

MR HLENGWA:   In prison.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Samuel, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SAMUEL:   Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

The lady, the widow of the deceased, also says in this statement, that Mr Ngema said to her that the people that came to the house, that means you and the other three, carried out their will. That means Mr Ngema’s will or the ...(intervention)

MS PATEL:   With respect, Honourable Chairperson, if I may intervene, the their may refer not to Mr Ngema’s will but the will of the person who had visited the home of the deceased the night before.

CHAIRPERSON:   There would be room for argument, you know, it depends on how this statement was taken down, and by whom, and so on, but you may put the question in the form in which this thing is worded.

MR SAMUEL:   She says that Mr Ngema said that they had carried out their will. Do you know who Mr Ngema was referred to?

CHAIRPERSON:   He doesn’t know because he wasn’t there with Ngema. When Ngema went to the house of the deceased he went alone.

MR SAMUEL:   I withdraw that question, Honourable Chairperson. Now, I just want to take you back to two aspects of your evidence. Firstly, when Stoffel returned with the IFP members and attacked you, after the meeting at which he left with the deceased, was the deceased with you defending yourselves? Was he to be seen at the time of the attack?

MR HLENGWA:   I don’t understand, are you asking me?

MR SAMUEL:   That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON:   The deceased was not there among the attackers. No mention is made about the deceased being there among the attackers.

MR SAMUEL:   No, Honourable Chairperson, I want to know was he there as one of the people being attacked? Let me put this in a sequence that you will find easier to understand. After Mr Mbeko, the deceased, and Mr Stoffel left, the meeting dispersed, and you came back into your area. Amongst the attackers you saw Mr Stoffel and other IFP members. Where was the deceased at that time?

MR HLENGWA:   I didn’t see the deceased.

MR SAMUEL:   Was his house close to your house?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, it’s close.

MR SAMUEL:   If he had been at home, would he have come out of his house in response to the attack?

CHAIRPERSON:   If it is conjecture. He may have been very well. I don’t know, you can talk about what would have happened if he had been at home. I don’t think that that is material.

MR SAMUEL:   Honourable Chairperson I’m going to argue later that the suspicions against Mr Mbeko stemmed from the entire incident.

ADV DE JAGER:   Then you’ll have to convince us that all the other ANC members were there, yes, and we don’t know whether each and every ANC members joined the group that was fighting, or defending, against the IFP, we’ve got no evidence of that.

CHAIRPERSON:   Lots of others may not have been there at the time of the attack. The attack may have been a surprise.

MR SAMUEL:   The point, Honourable Chairperson, that I make, is that other members didn’t take Mr Stoffel away on that day, so.

CHAIRPERSON:   Other members agreed to Stoffel being taken away.

MR SAMUEL:   May I have your consent to explore this?

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes.

MR SAMUEL:   Thank you. Did you see Mr Mbeko during the attack or after the attack by the IFP members.

MR HLENGWA:   No, I didn’t. The last time I saw him was when he took Stoffel.

MR SAMUEL:   Now when there’s an attack in the area, what do the men generally do in that area when you’re being attacked.

MR HLENGWA:   We used to try to defend ourselves, but they were quite in numbers compared to us. They used to overpower us. We usually ran away. They used to say they were going to chase us to the seas.

MR SAMUEL:   Was there anyone from Mr Mbeko’s household that was attacked on the day Mr Stoffel went away from the meeting:

MR HLENGWA:   Which day you are referring?

MR SAMUEL:   The day that Mr Stoffel was taken away from the meeting by Mr Mbeko. On that day, the attack that followed, did those attackers attack any member of Mr Mbeko’s family?

MR HLENGWA:   No, I don’t remember, I don’t think there was one member who was attacked.

ADV DE JAGER:   Did they attack your family?

MR HLENGWA:   In my family, the rest of the members had ran away. They’ve ran away for shelter like in Umlazi, so I don’t ...(intervention).

ADV DE JAGER:   And you don’t know whether Mr Mbeko’s family also fled on that day?

MR HLENGWA:   I wouldn’t know, because his neighbours’ houses were burnt down and some of his neighbours, the women, were injured.

CHAIRPERSON:   I think that’s as far as you can take this point really.

MR SAMUEL:   That’s correct, Honourable Chairperson, I’ll move to the next point. I want to take you back to that meeting that you had, where you brought Mr Stoffel to this meeting. What was your purpose in bringing Mr Stoffel there? What did you want to do with Mr Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA:   When I took Stoffel to the meeting we wanted to interrogate him. We wanted to ascertain from him why was it so that he was with us sometimes, before he was with us many times, and then he disappeared from our meetings or disappeared from us, and the reasons were that if we ascertained that he was a member of IFP we were going to kill him

MR SAMUEL:   Now, did you get a chance to interrogate him?

MR HLENGWA:   We didn’t get much time to interrogate him because we were disturbed by the deceased, cause the deceased appeared and took him and he said that he was his in-law, he wanted to talk to him. They disappeared. They never came back, and then later we attacked.

MR SAMUEL:   Now the confusion that may arise here, and you must perhaps explain this, is you were asked did the meeting agree to let Mr Stoffel go? Now, when you said that, were you’re saying that the meeting agreed to release him and no deal with him any further, or did you agree that the meeting agreed to let him go with Mr Mbeko to have the talk?

MR HLENGWA:   The reason was that Mr Mbeko was going to talk to him and he was going to bring him back and we were going to continue and interrogate him.

ADV DE JAGER:   So you said the meeting agreed to give him a chance because this was his first mistake. That’s what you answered to us, to me, when I asked you. Now you’re coming with a different thing again.

CHAIRPERSON:   I don’t think any amount of questioning, ever, will get that right.

MR SAMUEL:   Sorry Honourable Chairperson, I think a lot is being lost here in the translation, to the extent that when, I was listening intently to his answers, the words that were being used ‘let him go’ and I didn’t want to intervene at that stage because my learned colleague was cross-examining. It was, it could be, the meeting agreed to let him go out of the meeting, or release him. At that stage the word release was not used, and therefore I’m seeking this opportunity of clearing that up.

CHAIRPERSON:   He said in page 8, in his own handwriting, the second paragraph, in the middle of the second paragraph:

In the middle of that paragraph on page 8, the second paragraph. You see that, yes? Those are his words.

MR SAMUEL:   Yes I do understand that, Honourable Chairperson, but we’re dealing with a person here whose first language is not, unfortunately, English, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON:   We might be able to then question the entire statement ...(indistinct).

INTERPRETER:   The speaker’s mike is not on.

MR SAMUEL:   The difficulty I have is that my instructions are somewhat different ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   Put your instructions to him.

MR SAMUEL:   Now, is it not your instructions to me that he, Mr Mbeko, asked to speak to Mr Stoffel?

MR HLENGWA:   I don’t think we’ll reach anything. That’s a leading question. Whatever he says on such a question. We understand the position, but I don’t think it says, if you really want to pursue it then you can’t clear the thing up by asking leading questions, then you’ll have to put it in such a manner that he could answer out of his own will.

CHAIRPERSON:   You see in 1998, October, he makes a statement in which he used the word release. Whatever he told you was told you now. His evidence today differs from what he said in that statement. You’ve got two versions. Sometimes you can’t take it any further.

MR SAMUEL:   Thank you Honourable Chairperson, but may I just have one final attempt at clearing this up, thank you.

MR HLENGWA:   You misunderstand me Mr Hlengwa. The difficulty that the Committee is having is the decision that was taken by the meeting. Did it take a decision to say to Mr Stoffel, ‘You can now leave, but don’t do this again.’ Or did it say to Mr Stoffel, ‘You may go with and talk to Mr Mbeko.’?

MR HLENGWA:   I will put it this way. When the deceased took him we trusted that they were not going anywhere. We didn’t take any major decisions because we didn’t think that they were going too far, or that they were not going to return. We thought they were going to be around.

MR SAMUEL:   So what were they going to do? Why was it necessary for Mr Mbeko to take Mr Stoffel away from the meeting? What were they going to do outside the earshot of the meeting?

CHAIRPERSON:   He wouldn’t know this. Mbeko tells them that, ‘look here, this man, this is his first mistake, give him a chance.’ And his words were, "...We decided to release him." Isn’t that his words?

MR SAMUEL:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   Well that’s the end of the matter isn’t it? How does he know what was going to happen between Mbeko and the deceased?

MR SAMUEL:   These people have been told that they have made a mistake

CHAIRPERSON:   They were told he had made a mistake and this was his first mistake, and so they decided to release him.

MR SAMUEL:   But, Honourable Chairperson it doesn’t make ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON:   Nothing ....(indistinct) happened if Stoffel hadn’t been involved in that attack that afternoon, the story might have been entirely different.

MR SAMUEL:   But with respect, Honourable Chairperson, I’m saying that cannot be on the probabilities.

CHAIRPERSON:   You can argue the probabilities.

MR SAMUEL:   Let me say why I’m saying that, because they brought this person to interrogate him. They had not had an opportunity of interrogating him.

CHAIRPERSON:   No, no. He didn’t say that they hadn’t had an opportunity of interrogating him, he said they didn’t have too much of an opportunity. In other words they were asking him, according to him, "...On which side are you. Are you with us or are you with the others?" Now I don’t know how long the interrogation could take place, but these were the questions that were put. But he said they didn’t have too much time because the deceased said: "he’s made a mistake, it’s his first mistake, give him a chance." So the meeting decides to release him.

Now, I don’t know what interpretation you can place on that. As to what happened between the deceased and Stoffel outside, I can’t imagine that this witness would know anything about it.

MR SAMUEL:   I’m still saying that there’s two interpretations to his evidence, and if one goes through his evidence carefully one will see that there is two interpretations.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(indistinct).

MR SAMUEL:   Thank you, I’m just trying to get certain other corroboratory features, sir, too. Now how long, for how long had you questioned Mr Stoffel before Mr Mbeko took him away from you, from all of you?

MR HLENGWA:   It wasn’t too long.

ADV DE JAGER:   Was it an hour, two hours, six hours, half a day, how long?

MR HLENGWA:   I think it was about thirty minutes we arrived in that meeting and then Mr Mbeko came.

MR SAMUEL:   What did you establish from Mr Stoffel, that was pertinent to your questions that you asked him?

MR HLENGWA:   We were questioning him and I’ve already ascertained from him that the IFP people came and they took him, or they forced him to become a member of an IFP and this is why he was no longer ANC member.

MR SAMUEL:   Were you happy with that answer that he gave?

MR HLENGWA:   No, I wasn’t happy, because his explanation made us realise that he was an enemy to us.

MR SAMUEL:   Why do you say that?

MR HLENGWA:   I’m saying so because you just asked me a question if I was happy when he said so.

MR SAMUEL:   Okay just one final question now Mr Hlengwa. If you knew that Mr Mbeko was going to take Mr Stoffel away from that meeting and not return, would you have allowed Mr Stoffel to go with Mr Mbeko?

MR HLENGWA:   We were not going to allow him, if only we know that he wasn’t going to return him.

MR SAMUEL:   I have no further questions, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON:   Where is Stoffel now?

MR HLENGWA:   After he joined IFP the IFP didn’t trust him and then they killed him. This is what we’ve discovered later, that he was referred to as a traitor so IFP could no longer trust him after they’d used him.

ADV SIGODI:   What political objective did you think you are going to achieve by killing Mr Mbeko?

MR HLENGWA:   The decision of killing Mr Mbeko came because we could no longer trust him after what he’s done. He was going to bring Stoffel back and he didn’t. We as ANC people, we were fighting that our area should be ruled by ANC not IFP.

ADV SIGODI:   And this distrust came only after he had taken Stoffel with him, and then there was this attack by the ANC? Otherwise before that you had trusted him completely?

MR HLENGWA:   The situation was bad.

ADV SIGODI:   Just answer yes or no.

MR HLENGWA:   Had you trusted Mr Mbeko completely before he took Mr Stoffel with him? Answer just yes or no.

MR HLENGWA:   No. I didn’t trust him at all.

ADV SIGODI:   Why didn’t you trust him?

MR HLENGWA:   We didn’t get time to sit down and talk before. I didn’t have much trust on him because I didn’t have time to speak to him.

ADV SIGODI:   He had not done anything to betray the organisation before he took Stoffel with him?

MR HLENGWA:   That’s correct.

ADV SIGODI:   And now on this day he decides to take Stoffel with him, and then he disappears with him, and then there’s an attack by the IFP on the ANC, and suddenly there is this idea that he is also a betrayer of the ANC?

MR HLENGWA:   Yes, that’s correct.

ADV SIGODI:   You did not see him talking to IFP people at all, or liaising with them?

MR HLENGWA:   I wouldn’t say I saw him with my eyes, because I wasn’t behind him, I wasn’t checking his movements. I wasn’t checking whether he was talking to IFP members or not.

ADV SIGODI:   We’re trying to understand your justification for suspecting him to have betrayed the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON:   That is his reason.

ADV SIGODI:   And, one final answer. Didn’t you think or consider expelling him from the organisation, if at all he was part of the organisation, and you were scared that he was going to take information from the ANC to the IFP? Didn’t you consider that as an option that was expel him then it will deprive him of the information?

MR HLENGWA:   No, we didn’t consider that because of the situation and the incidents which had already occurred in the ANC members. The IFP were killing them merciless.

ADV SIGODI:   Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you very much, you may stand down. Are you calling any other witnesses?

MR SAMUEL:   No Honourable Chairperson.

MS PATEL:   No thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...(indistinct)

MR SAMUEL ADDRESSES COMMITTEE:   The applicant applies for amnesty in respect of the death of a certain Mr Mbeko who was killed on the 25th of January 1991. Although both were members of the UDF, which is affiliated to the ANC, the applicant has stated that there was a suspicion that the deceased was a spy for the IFP who, during that period, had conducted a reign of terror against the ANC members in the area. He has indicated that a number of members were killed, that he belonged to a Self Defence Unit which, whose function is well known to the Committee, for the purpose of the record, to defend themselves against the attacks by IFP members. He indicated that a decision was taken to kill IFP members but they were not lucky in doing that.

At some stage a former member, Stoffel, had stopped attending the ANC meetings, and coincidental, or perhaps not so coincidental with that occurrence, the raids on the ANC members in the area increased, and the hiding places of the ANC people became known to IFP people. The ANC then took a decision to interrogate and kill Stoffel if it was established that he was the spy for the IFP.

Stoffel was then brought to a meeting by the applicant and at that meeting he was in the process of being interrogated. And this is perhaps where there is two interpretations of what transpired. I will argue that the following is a more probable version, that whilst this meeting was being conducted the deceased arrived and made a plea on behalf of Stoffel, that this was his first mistake.

However, in the light of the circumstances, even if he had made one mistake in which ANC or UDF people were killed, the meeting was unlikely to forgive him for that, because life was already lost, lives were already lost, so no matter how much the deceased would have pleaded for the life of Stoffel, people who had lost their fellow comrades were not going to release him so willingly.

However, because they trusted the deceased, they allowed him, and perhaps the reason for that is maybe the deceased would have got more information from Stoffel than they could possibly get at that date. He left the meeting never to return.

ADV DE JAGER:   But he asked to speak to this man. He’s leaving the meeting. They’re in a camp at Ziko, so they brought him there. They don’t want to release him so their eyes would be on him. Would they allow him to walk three kilometres or how far, in order to get away?

MR SAMUEL:   What is clear is that they trusted the deceased.

ADV DE JAGER:   There’s the deceased taking him now and they’re walking away. They’re not standing a hundred yards away and talk to each other. They’re, in fact, they’re leaving the meeting now.

MR SAMUEL:   Well we don’t know the terrain of this meeting, whether it was in a house where they went outside and ran away.

ADV DE JAGER:   It’s at Ziko, they say a camp.

MR SAMUEL:   It could well be that he went behind a few bushes and trees and had a chat and disappeared. We don’t know the actual terrain whether they could see three kilometres. What we do know is that the meeting trusted the deceased because he was an ANC member, and therefore they trusted him to have taken Stoffel and returned with him. And perhaps that is why they gave him so much opportunity before they went looking for him. Because that’s the amount of faith they had in the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON:   It’s quite clear that up to that stage they had no reason to doubt the loyalty of the deceased.

MR SAMUEL:   I fully agree with this. Up to that stage there’s not an iota of evidence to suggest that the deceased was in way but a loyal UDF supporter. In fact, it may well be that the deceased was always a loyal UDF supporter but he stepped in to save a relative, or stepped in to save a life, but the circumstances that presented itself thereafter, that they go back to the household and they’re attacked by, amongst others, Stoffel, and other IFP people, and the deceased doesn’t show himself on that day, neither does he show himself for the next two weeks. They have meetings which he should have attended as an ANC member, he’s not there. He doesn’t come up to them and give them an explanation as to what transpired. Surely, having taken him away, he should have returned to them and gave them an explanation as to why he didn’t return.

ADV SIGODI:   But, there was an attack on ANC people on that day, wasn’t it? Can it not also be argued that he may have also ran away. We don’t know. The applicant himself didn’t know.

MR SAMUEL:   Sure, it may well be that he ran away, but thereafter as a member of the ANC who has taken away this person who returned to attack and kill ANC people, he should have presented himself at their meetings.

ADV SIGODI:   Why should he?

CHAIRPERSON:   Are you talking about the deceased?

MR SAMUEL:   That is correct.