CHAIRPERSON: ...the death of Amy Biehl. Before commencing proceedings I should place on record that the original date by which applications for amnesty had to be lodged was the 14th of December 1996. It was announced that this date was to be extended to the 10th of May 1997. This decision has yet to be promulgated in the Gazette and it is anticipated that this is due to take place shortly.

Of the four applications before us three were lodged after the original closing date, one was lodged timeously. The date for today's hearing was finalised to meet the convenience of Mr and Mrs Biehl, the parents of the deceased Amy Biehl, they are here today, they have come from America to attend these proceedings. The Committee has therefore decided that notwithstanding the fact that the closing date has yet to be proclaimed, overall convenience to all parties, including the applicants, dictates that the hearing should proceed today. I trust that this meets with the agreement of counsel for the parties concerned.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, just for the record, Norman Arendse, I'm appearing together with my colleague Advocate Gozo. We are both from the Cape Town Bar, we have been provided with legal assistance by the TRC to represent the applicants in this matter. We don't have any objections with the proceedings going ahead on the basis as outlined by you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I think that it should be made known to people that we have channels of interpretation in three languages, namely English, Afrikaans and Xhosa. Simultaneous translation or interpretation is made available to all parties.

The order in which the applicants are sitting should be placed on record. Will you tell us in which order they are sitting Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, learned members of the Committee. On my far right is Ntombeko Ambrose Peni. Next to him Eazi Mzikhona Nofemela. Next to him Mongesi Christopher Manqina, and next to him Vusumzi Samuel Ntamo.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Brink is there anything else you wish to say before we commence?

MR BRINK: Yes Mr Chair. I would place on record that all the victims involved in this incident, in other words those who were assaulted in some way or another were timeously notified about the hearings today and I am informed that they have decided that they do not wish to attend.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse you may begin.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, learned members of the Committee. Subject to your further or any other directions, we wish to propose dealing with this matter in the following manner. We have prepared written sworn affidavits on behalf of the applicants, they have been prepared in English for everyone's conveniences. We propose, that's myself and my colleague Ms Gozo, propose reading their affidavits into the record. The applicants individually can then confirm the contents of these affidavits. They will then, after we have read their affidavits into the record and they've confirmed them, they are then available for questions from the Committee and from Mr Brink.

Before we do that, Mr Chairman we have prepared an opening statement which I would request my colleague Ms Gozo to also read into the record with your leave Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Gozo you may proceed.

ADV GOZO ADDRESSES: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair and members of the Committee, the names of the applicants have already been read into the record.

This is an incident in which the deceased, Amy Biehl, a Fullbright scholar and an American citizen was killed. This incident took place on the 25th of August 1993 at about 4:40pm at NY 1 road in Guguletu. Nofemela, Manqina and Ntamo were convicted and sentenced on the 24th of October 1994 in the High Court in Cape Town in Case No SS136 of '93. Peni was subsequently arrested, tried and convicted and then sentenced. They were all convicted of murder and they are presently serving their sentences.

Mr Chair I wish to put in front of the Committee today that this act constituted gross violations of human rights as contemplated by the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995, Act No 34 of 1995. The applicants submit their applications in terms of Section 18 of that Act. The applications are made on the grounds that these acts were associated with a political objective as defined in that Act. The applications appear from pages 1 to 33 of the record. It is submitted that it will appear from these applications and from the sworn statements that are presented and sworn to on behalf of the applicants, that the applications fully comply with the requirements of the Act.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No that is not correct, that is subject to the proviso that the closing date will be promulgated.

ADV GOZO: That is correct and I thank Justice Ngoepe for the correction.

JUDGE NGOEPE: At least with regard to the three.

ADV GOZO: That's correct yes.

Further it is submitted that the offences to which the applications relate were associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflict of the past. Also that the applicants make full disclosure of all relevant facts as contemplated by Section 20 of the Act.

It is furthermore submitted that the provisions of Section 22 and 23 of the Act have been complied with in that the applicants were members of the Pan African Students Organisation, a publicly known political organisation usually referred to as PASO which at the time waged a political struggle against the State.

It is submitted that they were members and supporters of the Pan African Congress, popularly known as the PAC, which is also a publicly known political organisation and liberation movement which waged a political struggle against the State at the time.

The applicants were active supporters of the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army, popularly known as APLA. This is also a publicly known political liberation movement and it also waged a political struggle against the State at the time. The applicants did associate themselves with APLA as is contemplated in Section 22G of the Act.

Furthermore it is submitted, Mr Chairman, that the particular offences in respect of which amnesty is sought by the applicants are offences associated with a political objective when one has regard to the following:

The motive of the applicants who committed the offences in question were clearly political in that at the time in question they were furthering the aims an objects of an operation called Operation Great Storm. This was an operation adopted by APLA and PASO. Just as much as there was at the time an operation adopted by the Congress of South African Students, popularly known as COSAS, which was a student organisation affiliated to the African National Congress, popularly known as the ANC. The main aim of both these operations was to make the townships ungovernable, more particularly by preventing government and company supplies and services from coming into the townships and also by killing, maiming and injuring what was popularly known as settlers and this was a term that was used to refer to White persons.

The context in which these offences were committed is that at the time a volatile political climate prevailed, particularly in the township of Guguletu, when both operations, and that is Operation Great Storm and Operation Barcelona were put into operation.

Underlying the further aims of Operation Barcelona was to secure the recognition of the South African Democratic Teachers Union, popularly known as SADTU by the State. Massive support was shown by students for teachers belonging to SADTU and to further these objectives, and that is to gain recognition for SADTU, PASO declared itself to be fully committed to that struggle, and to that end had adopted the slogan, One settler one bullet.

The objective of the offence in question was primarily directed at making townships ungovernable and was also aimed at destroying State and company property, State personnel and private property and individuals. State personnel was also targeted. Also targeted was private property and individuals who were seen as standing in the way of realisation of these objectives. The applicants acted on the instructions and with the approval of PASO and APLA.

It will be submitted that the offences committed by the applicants were directly proportional to the political objectives pursued by PASO and APLA.

In conclusion, Mr Chair, it is submitted that the offences committed by the applicants were not for personal gain, they were not committed for personal malice, ill-will or spite but that they were purely politically motivated actions which were committed under the bona fide impression that the political objectives of PASO and APLA were being pursued.

Thank you Mr Chair.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman may I just - you and the learned Committee members all have copies of these affidavits, just for the record, these are the originals if I could just hand them up.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we should identify them for the purposes of the record. Is there any special order in which you wish to hand them in?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes Mr Chairman the first, or let me just hand up the first on Ntombeko Ambrose Peni.

CHAIRPERSON: That will go in as Exhibit A.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you. Mr Chairman, learned members of the Committee, if I may just then proceed to read into the record what is stated by applicant Peni.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chairman can I just check for the record whether the applicants are comfortable and they can hear what is being said? Thank you.

ADV ARENDSE: Reads:

Can I just pause there Mr Chairman and learned members, to make an amendment which has been discussed with applicant Peni, just wishes to change the next sentence to read as I am going to read it into the record,

Thank you.

That is now subject to what Judge Ngoepe correctly pointed out, that formally it doesn't comply because of the cut-off date hasn't been promulgated.

Mr Chairman then there are just a few questions I would like to put to Mr Peni myself before the Committee does.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think Mr Peni ought to, on oath, confirm the contents of that affidavit.

NTOMBEKO AMBROSE PENI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Your counsel has read out your affidavit, I am going to ask you now whether you confirm the contents of that affidavit?

MR PENI: Yes I do confirm.

EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Ntombeko on the day in question you threw stones at Amy Biehl and you contributed to her death, can you tell this Committee why you threw stones at her and why you caused her death?

MR PENI: The aims of PASO was to bring back the African land to the African people.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman unfortunately I didn't hear the answer.

MR BRINK: Can I assist in that regard?

MR PENI: The aim was to bring back the African land to the African people.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Ntombeko Amy Biehl was a single White female, how were you going to achieve your stated political objectives by causing her death?

MR PENI: It is not the sex that we considered, we just considered that she was a White person because the African land was being ruled by a small minority of White people.

ADV ARENDSE: Ntombeko you hear evidence during the criminal trial that the three passengers who were in the car with Amy testifying that when they got out of the car they implored people in the crowd not to harm her or cause her further harm because she was what they called a "comrade", did you hear this?

MR PENI: I did not hear of this.

ADV ARENDSE: If you did hear from the passengers that she was also a comrade that day would you have acted any differently?

MR PENI: I don't think so.

ADV ARENDSE: Can you elaborate?

MR PENI: At the time we were in very high spirits and the White people were oppressive, we had no mercy on the White people. A White person was a White person to our eyes.

ADV ARENDSE: There was also evidence during the criminal trial that goods belonging to either Amy or to the passengers in the car, that they were taken from Amy or from the passengers, do you know anything about that?

MR PENI: I do not know of these goods.

ADV ARENDSE: Can you elaborate for this Committee on your understanding of the slogan "one Settler one bullet"? Is it not only confined to the use of firearms or does it mean anything else to you?

MR PENI: One Settler, one bullet was directed towards the White people. We just needed weapons to attack, it did not need to be a firearm, whatever you could use you utilised.

ADV ARENDSE: Now some people might say or allege that the killing of Amy Biehl that day was a senseless act of mob violence, I want you to comment on that.

MR PENI: There is no such because even where we were from we were from a re-launch of PASO, where PASO was given instructions to prepare the land for the APLA people, for the operations of APLA.

ADV ARENDSE: Ntombeko how do you feel today about what happened and what you specifically did that day?

MR PENI: I feel sorry and very down-hearted especially today realising the contribution Amy Biehl played in the struggle. When I look closely at what I did I realise that it was bad. I took part in killing someone that we could have used to achieve our own aims. Amy was one of the people who could have, in an international sense, worked for our country so that the world knows what's going on in South Africa, so that the government of the day would not get support, sanctions so-to-speak.

I ask Amy's parents, Amy's friends and relatives, I ask them to forgive me. Just to hear that they have forgiven me would mean a great deal to me. For me it would be starting a new life. I have led an abnormal life under the struggle in South Africa. I do not think I would commit such an act again because right now the situation in South Africa is different. I ask for forgiveness and I am sorry.

ADV ARENDSE: Should you be granted amnesty what are your plans?

MR PENI: To finish my matric because it's difficult to do so in prison. I would like to continue with my studies and be what I have always intended to be in life without politics.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink are there questions you wish to put to this applicant.

MR BRINK: Yes, yes thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Mr Peni, in August 1993 you must have been aware that constitutional negotiations between the various political parties were virtually at an end and peace was coming to the land.

MR PENI: Yes I was aware, however, the constitution of my party, the PAC, was not totally in line with that.

MR BRINK: In paragraph 5.1 of the opening statement made by your counsel you indicated, or he indicated, and presumably on your instructions, that the PAC affiliate organisations were working together with one or two of the ANC affiliate organisations, is that correct?

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman if I may just interject, perhaps if ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: I had not interpreted the question to the applicant yet.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes will you please interpret that to the applicant first.

MR PENI: It is so.

MR BRINK: In other words in your township, in your area, there was no specific rivalry between African National Congress affiliates and Pan Africanist organisation affiliates, is that correct?

MR PENI: Yes they worked together.

MR BRINK: And were aware of the fact that there were a number of White youths who were members of COSAS?

MR PENI: I was not aware of that.

MR BRINK: Were you aware that there might have been White members of the South African Democratic Teachers Union?

MR PENI: I only knew Black members.

MR BRINK: I am not asking whether you only knew Black members I am asking you whether you knew that White people might have been members?

MR PENI: I did not know.

MR BRINK: Did you know Mr Joe Slovo by sight or by reputation?

MR PENI: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know Mr Ronnie Kasrils by sight or by reputation?

MR PENI: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know that they were both prominent members of the African National Congress?

MR PENI: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know there were many other White people who were members of the African National Congress?

MR PENI: I do not know about that.

MR PENI: Well now you were a leading light in your organisation, I presume you kept abreast of politics in general?

MR PENI: Are you stating or are you asking a question?

MR BRINK: I am asking you a question. You, according to the information in front of me, you were a leading light in your organisation and you must have had a general awareness of political personalities and political organisations throughout the country.

MR PENI: Yes that is so.

MR BRINK: Yes. So you must have been aware that there were more than just two White people who were members of the African National Congress?

MR PENI: Yes but they are confined to their own areas.

MR BRINK: Yes, but the point is you knew there were White people who were members of organisations with whom you were then in alliance.

MR PENI: Yes.

MR BRINK: Had Mr Joe Slovo been in the township that afternoon would you have also stabbed and stoned and killed him?

MR PENI: No I would not have.

MR BRINK: Why not?

MR PENI: Everybody knew him.

MR BRINK: Yes, but you see I ask that because in answer to your counsel you said that had you known that Amy Biehl was a comrade you probably wouldn't have behaved any differently. In other words notwithstanding the fact that you were aware that she was a comrade you would have taken part in her killing.

MR PENI: Could you please repeat that Sir.

MR BRINK: In answer to your counsel at this inquiry you told the Committee that had you been aware of the fact that Amy Biehl had been a comrade you would nonetheless not have acted any differently. In other words you would have taken part in her murder.

MR PENI: Are you stating or are you asking a question?

MR BRINK: I am asking you a question.

MR PENI: Please repeat it.

MR BRINK: Very well. In answer, for the third time and listen carefully, I will go very slowly, this morning your counsel asked you whether if you had known that Amy Biehl had been a comrade you would have acted any differently, your answer to him was no, because a White person was a White person. Now what I want to know is why would you treat or would have treated Joe Slovo differently from Amy Biehl?

MR PENI: The reason is that we know about Joe Slovo, we have read about him even though we had not seen him face-to-face we know about him.

MR BRINK: Mr Peni, Joe Slovo was a White man. Now you have told us that a White person is a White person and you would kill merely because of that fact. Now I want to know from you, why, if Amy Biehl had been a comrade, and you knew that she had been a comrade, you would have killed her but not killed Joe Slovo? The question is quite simple.

MR PENI: Nobody knew about Amy Biehl first of all. At the time we were very angry as students as well. The reason why I said that it would not have made a difference if I had known she was a comrade it is because of the high spirits of the students at the time.

MR BRINK: Are you then saying that your reason for killing Amy Biehl was because of your high spirits at the time?

MR PENI: I am saying that the reason why I said it would not have made a difference it is because it was due to the aims of the organisation.

MR BRINK: You had absolutely no idea of what Amy Biehl's political views were, isn't that the situation?

MR PENI: I did not know.

MR BRINK: And your evidence here was that you participated in this murderous attack because the aims of your organisation was to bring back land to the African people, now what I want to know is, how would the killing of an unarmed, defenceless woman possibly help you to achieve that aim?

MR PENI: We believed that the minority White people ruling the country would realise that we wanted our land back. We also believed that they were going to give up this land back to the African people.

MR BRINK: Is it your evidence that by murdering, in the most brutal fashion, Amy Biehl, the African people would get their land back?

MR PENI: Yes it's my evidence.

MR BRINK: The killing of one, single, defenceless woman would effect that?

MR PENI: First of all I would like to rectify something, gender was not significant. Our aim was to attack each White person and go forward.

JUDGE WILSON: But it was not the aim of the PAC at that time to kill every White person they saw, was it?

MR PENI: Please repeat the question.

JUDGE WILSON: It was not the aim of the PAC at that time to kill every White person they saw, was it?

MR PENI: It is true, if it was necessary for the youth to do so it would happen.

JUDGE WILSON: You are not answering my question. Was it the policy of the PAC to kill every White person they saw?

MR PENI: It could not happen that every person be killed, but there was one slogan 'One Settler, one bullet'.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you agree it was not the policy of the PAC to kill White persons on sight, which is what you did on this afternoon, do you agree with that?

MR PENI: It is true that the PAC could not have killed everybody that they saw, however, the PAC was aware that killing each White person the land would come back to the African people.

JUDGE WILSON: And you say that was PAC policy, to kill every White person?

MR PENI: I did not say every White person.

JUDGE WILSON: You said if they killed every White person the land would come back.

MR PENI: Yes, I said that the land would come back to the African people through their killing.

MR BRINK: Mr Peni, isn't it the position that on that dreadful afternoon you were involved in a mindless, savage attack on this young woman, and that it was not politically motivated at all?

MR PENI: Our killing Amy Biehl had everything to do with politics.

CHAIRPERSON: In your mind what did you achieve by killing Amy Biehl?

MR PENI: Even though I am sorry that I contributed in the death of Amy Biehl, but I realised that the unrest at the time and the international recognition helped South Africa to be where it is today.

CHAIRPERSON: You are really saying that as far as you are concerned your taking part in the killing of Amy Biehl achieved the recognition that your organisation wanted, is that what you are saying?

MR PENI: Please repeat that.

CHAIRPERSON: I should perhaps put my question as I did, what did you achieve by killing Amy Biehl?

MR PENI: I said that having killed Amy Biehl I am not happy about that, however, it is such things that have helped South Africa to be where it is today.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Peni, you have been asked what did you achieve. I think it's relevant for me to know what you wanted to achieve? What was your motive? Not whether you in fact succeeded in your motive but what you in fact wanted to achieve.

MR PENI: It was for the land of the African people to go back to the African people.

ADV DE JAGER: Right. And you told us that you were inspired by the slogan of "One Settler, one bullet", is that correct?

MR PENI: It is so.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Brink then asked you whether you would have killed Mr Slovo because he was also White. You said no, because you knew him. But in the slogan " One Settler, one bulett", did they differentiate between settlers and say you should only kill particular settlers, or did they say kill settlers?

MR PENI: I cannot hear the interpretation well, there is a technical problem.

ADV DE JAGER: Could somebody kindly assist him. Could you kindly repeat, interpret the question to him.

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Could I re-frame it then. The slogan One Settler, one bullet did it differentiate between settlers, it said kill all settlers, or it said at least kill the settlers?

MR PENI: In our understanding of the slogan our land was taken by British settlers.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you understand settlers to be White people?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And although you might not have achieved what you politically wanted to achieve by killing one person, one White, but the fact is that if you have killed hundreds of Whites or thousands of them you would have had your land back, or all of them, if you've killed all the Whites?

MR PENI: The land is in the hands of the African people, it is not that the PAC was totally against the White people, all they wanted was their land back.

ADV DE JAGER: And the struggle, as you understood it, was directed against the Whites, is that correct?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And I am correct in saying that it was because the Whites had the political power in hands?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So if we want to come to the truth, as we try to do, we can't say that it wasn't a racial war that's been fought in this country, it was based on race, isn't that so?

MR PENI: Please repeat your question.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't it in fact a racial war that's been fought in this country and the reason for that was because the Whites had the political power and the Blacks strived to get that power?

MR PENI: Yes it is so.

ADV DE JAGER: And wasn't that the reason why you would have killed any White you see?

MR PENI: Yes it is so because we wanted our land.

JUDGE NGOEPE: At the time of the incident in what standard were you at school?

MR PENI: I was in standard eight.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And before then how much experience in politics did you have?

MR PENI: I had not had much experience.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Before belonging to PASO or joining PASO then did you belong to any other political organisation?

MR PENI: No but I was supporting the struggle.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you ever schooled in the politics of the PAC, in particular?

MR PENI: I was arrested whilst in the process of being educated about that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So the policy of the PAC as you are articulating to us was the way you understood it at the time of the incident?

MR PENI: Please repeat the question.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The politics of the PAC as you articulated, as you have just articulated to us today, was the way you personally, you as an individual Mr Peni, understood it to be at the time of the incident?

MR PENI: It is how we were taught.

ADV GOZO: Mr Chair could I interject at this stage, I think the interpretation is not coming out clearly. I can pick this up because I can understand both languages. I think there is a bit of a problem with the interpretation into Xhosa in terms of the sense in which Justice Ngoepe is asking his questions.

CHAIRPERSON: What seems to be the difficulty? Let's try again.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The politics of the PAC as you explained to us this morning, was the way you understood it on that fateful day?

MR PENI: It is how I was taught.

JUDGE WILSON: So were you a member of the PAC on that day?

MR PENI: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And PASO was an affiliate of the PAC, am I right?

MR PENI: It is so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But didn't the PAC have a constitution which allowed White people to be members?

MR PENI: In the way I was taught there was no such.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Peni, when did you become a member of the PAC?

MR PENI: In 1990.

MS KHAMPEPE: And when were you elected as the Chairperson of PASO?

MR PENI: In 1993 on the 25th of August.

MS KHAMPEPE: And prior to the 25th of August 1993 did you hold any executive position with PASO?

MR PENI: No, I was just helping.

MS KHAMPEPE: So meaning you were just an ordinary member of PASO?

MR PENI: Yes it is so.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now in your evidence you stated that you were inspired to a great extent by the speeches delivered by Mr Mfengu and Mr Mathebula which encouraged you to make the country ungovernable?

MR PENI: Yes, it is so.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now did the speakers on the day in question, that is the 25th of August 1993, explain to you how you were to make the country ungovernable? Were you given any ideas on how you would achieve the state of ungovernability of the country?

MR PENI: No.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did you think that by killing a person that you met on that day would actually assist you in achieving that state of ungovernability?

MR PENI: That's what we believed.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know the difference between a political slogan and the policy of a political party?

MR PENI: Yes I do know.

CHAIRPERSON: Am I correct in saying that the PAC is on record as having said that One Settler, one bullet was not part of the policy of the PAC but merely a slogan that was used by some members?

MR PENI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I would like you to go back because I think that this might have some relevance to your conduct on that day when you said that "you were in high spirits" at that time, do you recall saying that?

MR PENI: Yes I do recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely what do you mean by that?

MR PENI: When I say what Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: When you were in "high spirits" at that time, that is the 25th of August.

MR PENI: What I am saying is that we were very eager to obey the instructions of PASO that we make South Africa ungovernable.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that being in "high spirits" is something that happened or lasts for a time, for a short period of time, that afternoon was not just something that just happened that afternoon that you were in "high spirits"?

MR PENI: Yes there are times when the spirits would be high, sometimes they would be down, but on that day we were sent to do a job, to work.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, with the Chairman's permission may I interrupt here and find out from the Interpreter whether, well I don't know the language that the applicant is speaking, but would it not be correct to say that what he says is that they were excited by saying high spirits, isn't that what he's been saying?

INTERPRETER: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

INTERPRETER: That's what I interpreted.

JUDGE NGOEPE: We really wanted to hear the word "excited", that's what we are looking for.

INTERPRETER: Oh alright.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand that if you had not been as "excited" as you were that afternoon, shortly after being elected to this official position, you may not have done what you did by participating in this attack?

MR PENI: Well I do agree that if we were not sent out to act I would not have done it.

CHAIRPERSON: My question really boils down to whether you had given this matter thought in your mind before you actually took part in the attack or whether you did it instinctively?

MR PENI: (Answer not interpreted)

ADV GOZO: Mr Chair may I interject, the Interpreter has just used an English word and if she can please translate that word because the applicant is indicating that he does not understand that word.

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question.

ADV GOZO: The word is "instinctively". The Interpreter when interpreting into Xhosa used the word "instinctively" as it is, if she could please interpret that word.

INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: My question was, on that afternoon did you consider the implications of what you were going to do before you did it, or did you merely act instinctively?

MR PENI: I could say that on that day we obeyed orders from our leaders.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Peni I am going to ask you, I will try to speak Xhosa, he wants to know if at the time you attacked Miss Biehl did you do it thoughtfully or had you planned it prior to the act after having been excited by speeches by Mr Mfengu and Mathebula?

MR PENI: It did not just happen.

MS KHAMPEPE: Therefore are you saying that you planned it?

MR PENI: At the time we were told to act and help APLA to fight and burn down government vehicles so that South Africa would be ungovernable. We obeyed the orders.

MS KHAMPEPE: You did not think it, you understood the order to be as you acted?

MR PENI: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Who gave you these orders?

MR PENI: I said it was Simpiwe Mfengu and Wanda Mathebula.

JUDGE WILSON: And where are they now?

MR PENI: They are around.

JUDGE WILSON: So they are both available to come and give evidence that they ordered you to behave like this on the day in question, is that so?

MR PENI: I don't there would be a problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the order that was given to you, "go out from this meeting and kill White people", was that the order that was given to you?

MR PENI: The order was that we should make South Africa ungovernable, burn down government vehicles and every White person that we come across was an enemy.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Peni was the speech delivered by the two speakers you've alluded to, to the effect that every White person was an enemy?

MR PENI: The speakers said the White man is an enemy.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now what did you understand by The Year of the Great Storm?

MR PENI: What I understood is that this is the Year of the Great Storm.

MS KHAMPEPE: But what did that mean if you were to explain to a person like me who did not understand what that slogan stood for?

MR PENI: It was an APLA slogan helped by PASO, the APLA meant that that year, that particular year especially, they were going to attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Did that "Storm" take place?

MR PENI: I would say so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Peni, earlier on my brother asked you whether you knew the difference between a slogan and a policy, and your answer was that you did know the difference, which I personally am not sure I know. Can you tell us what the difference is between a slogan and a policy?

MR PENI: A policy is a constitution set so that the whole organisation can see what way the organisation is going to take.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR PENI: A slogan contributes to the policy of the organisation. A slogan is aligned to the policy of the organisation. The policy was the African land was left through struggles and it will come back through struggles. The slogans were supporting the policy.

JUDGE NGOEPE: In that context you would then say that - where would you put One Settler, one bullet?

MR PENI: The PAC policy is that they would bring back the land through the struggle.

JUDGE NGOEPE: My question was whether this was policy or slogan?

MR PENI: The policy gives birth to the slogan, therefore the slogan is aligned to the policy.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No I wanted to know whether, "One Settler, one bullet", is policy or slogan?

MR PENI: It is a slogan.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chair. Ntombeko you were a member of the PAC and you were a member of PASO. PASO is part of the PAC, is that correct?

MR PENI: That's correct.

ADV ARENDSE: Do the PAC and PASO have the same policy? Do they sometimes differ on matters of policy?

MR PENI: The policies of PASO are taken from that of the PAC, there are just minor differences because we were students.

ADV ARENDSE: The slogan One Settler, one bullet was that an APLA slogan or was it the PAC slogan?

MR PENI: It was a PAC slogan.

ADV ARENDSE: Your alliance with COSAS was that alliance following a meeting that you had with COSAS or did you as an organisation, PASO, decide to support COSAS and to put into operation Operation Barcelona?

MR PENI: We gave support because we had a problem and COSAS had adopted a programme of Operation Barcelona.

ADV ARENDSE: The question was did you have a meeting, physical meeting with COSAS, or did you as an organisation decide on your own to support COSAS in what they were going to do?

MR PENI: We decided on our own because it was our own problem anyway.

ADV ARENDSE: It was put to you without any, if I may say so, without any facts being put to you, but it was put to you nevertheless that COSAS had White members and of course so had the ANC, did you actually see or know any White persons who were members of COSAS or the ANC?

MR PENI: Personally I did not know of anybody.

ADV ARENDSE: Now your evidence is that you were on a bakkie and you jumped off the bakkie and you pursued Amy and you then described what you did. Now it was put to you hypothetically that if this were Joe Slovo what would you have done then. Now I want to ask you, in the highly unlikely event that the late Mr Slovo would have gone there without any bodyguards and without - and he would have been in the car with the three passengers as Amy was, would you have known that it was him, someone stumbling across the road, blood streaming from the head or the face, would you have known it was Joe Slovo?

MR PENI: I would not have known that it was Joe Slovo.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Arendse his evidence was that he didn't know Joe Slovo by sight, that's his evidence.

ADV ARENDSE: Ms Khampepe I understood that they knew him from his standing and photographs presumably.

MS KHAMPEPE: That is not how I understood his evidence. I thought he said he didn't know him by sight. He knew about him but not that he knew him by sight. He had not seen him face-to-face, that's how I recollect his evidence.

ADV ARENDSE: I accept the bit about not seeing him face-to-face, but I understood - but perhaps if we can clear this up, can I ask Mr Peni?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes certainly.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Ntombeko if you had seen - had you seen Joe Slovo before the 25th of August 1993?

MR PENI: I said I read about him in the newspapers before I saw him with my own eyes.

ADV ARENDSE: Had you seen a photograph of him?

MR PENI: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: So if he appeared in front of you you would have known that it was Joe Slovo?

MR PENI: It would depend what angle I would be seeing him at.

ADV ARENDSE: Now just to go back to what I was asking of you, you had jumped off the bakkie and had seen a White woman who turned out to be Amy Biehl, you had seen this White woman run across the street, now if it had been Joe Slovo running across the street with blood streaming from his head or down his face would you have taken the trouble to see whether it was Joe Slovo or whether it was some other White male?

MR PENI: I would not have taken part.

ADV ARENDSE: I don't understand your answer. You would not have taken part if you had seen it was Joe Slovo, or you would not have taken part if you had seen it was some other White male?

MR PENI: Please repeat the question.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry can I interrupt if you do not mind and just put the question to the witness. The question is, suppose that particular afternoon and under those specific circumstances where somebody had - where you had jumped out of the bakkie and you saw somebody running in the manner in which the deceased was doing with blood in the face, suppose that person had been Joe Slovo would you have recognised him as Joe Slovo?

MR PENI: It would depend, but if I had recognised him....

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well we are asking you, I don't know what you mean you when you depend, I don't know on what it would depend but I have put you back to the 25th of August 19 whatever, and I am asking you, I am putting hypothetically Mr, the late Mr Slovo in precisely the position in which the deceased in the matter was, the question is, would you have been able to recognise him if it had been Joe Slovo?

MR PENI: If he was running in the same way that Amy had been running I would not have recognised him. I would not have seen that it was Mr Slovo.

ADV ARENDSE: I am indebted to Justice Ngoepe for clearing that up.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Brink if I may ask you, did any of the applicants give evidence in mitigation and is it possible for us to have a copy thereof?

MR BRINK: I will endeavour to get that. All I do have is the judgment on the merits. You see Mr Peni was tried separately from the other three applicants and in your papers, in your bundle you've got a judgment relating to the three applicants, excluding the first applicant Peni.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But we are singularly missing the record relating to, if there was any evidence, in mitigation, but maybe you can take it up with your colleagues, we would dearly like to have copies of the record relating to the evidence if there was any, which was given in mitigation.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse do you know anything about it, or Ms Gozo?

ADV GOZO: I was representing the accused in the trial and the accused put on aspects relating to their ages and their personal circumstances in mitigation.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all that was led?

ADV GOZO: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman if I might just add that obviously at the trial, or maybe it's not so obvious, but their defence was that they had alibis and they were not - they didn't place themselves on the scene, so if the Committee is looking for anything that they may have said about what happened and so on, and about the policy and slogans etc I am afraid we did ask about that and it's not available.

CHAIRPERSON: So I understand that the situation at that stage in the trial was consistent with the attitude that they had adopted as far as their defence was concerned?

ADV ARENDSE: That would be correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So no evidence, extraneous evidence about their frame of mind or what led them to do what they did, that evidence was not placed before the court as part of extenuating circumstances?

ADV ARENDSE: That would be correct Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Arendse the Operation Storm or even Barcelona, you are not in possession of any official documents of the party stating what Operation Storm in fact was about?

ADV GOZO: No documentation relating to Operation Great Storm in particular, but what I can put before the Committee is that around the date of the commission of the offence there was a lot written about Operation Barcelona in the media. I don't know if that would be of assistance to the Committee, but I know that there would be that kind of documentation. And in relation as well to the whole situation about SADTU, the Teacher's Union.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes but as far as the evidence of this applicant is concerned he merely mentioned Barcelona in passing and it doesn't seem to have played a role in his motivation for the killing of Miss Biehl.

ADV ARENDSE: Advocate de Jager the short answer is that we had requested whether there is any documentation which can help us to understand ourselves what this meant. The applicants were unable to provide us with any documentation simply because it was adopted by APLA, it was carried across to them inter alia at this meeting and whatever their understanding was of what it meant came out of what they heard at the meeting and those are our instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you spoken to the people they said addressed the meeting? Do you know how to make contact with them, whether they are available?

ADV ARENDSE: Justice Wilson the answer is no.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink this might be a convenient stage to take the adjournment.

MR BRINK: Yes. May I suggest we resume at two o'clock?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. The Committee will now adjourn and we will resume at two o'clock.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, learned members of the Committee, if there are no further questions of Mr Peni, if we could move on to Mr Nofemela.

Similarly can I hand up the original affidavit of Eazi Mzikhona Nofemela, and can that be marked Exhibit B or Annexure B. Exhibit B, thank you.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman Ms Gozo will deal with this part of the evidence of Mr Nofemela.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you be reading his affidavit first?

ADV GOZO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do proceed.

ADV GOZO ADDRESSES COMMITTEE: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee may I now proceed to read Easy Mzikhona Nofemela's affidavit into the record.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman may I just interject. Over lunch time one of the journalists asked me about disclosing the contents of the further affidavits which we intend to put before the Committee. I said, look in my view they shouldn't do so because they haven't been disclosed to this Committee yet officially, and perhaps Mr Chairman if you could just give some clarity on that.

CHAIRPERSON: You have been approached?

ADV ARENDSE: Well it would appear that at least that particular journalist was keen to put that on the wire even before these details were made known to this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think journalists ought to be advised that unless an affidavit has been affirmed by this witness they ought not to make use of the contents of that document. I am not too sure whether they are entitled to access to that document before that stage either. Your clients, and I think you should ensure, that their affidavits are not made available until the appropriate time.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman we have certainly done - we were under the impression it's part of the standard procedure that we've been requested a copy of each affidavit that we intend to hand up and that's what we've done, so if I did so mistakenly then I apologise, but as you could have seen just now I passed on an affidavit and apparently that was for the Press.

CHAIRPERSON: That's unfortunate that that has happened. It seems that you can't undo what has been done, and there would be no point in my making any statements at this stage in that regard because these documents are in their hands. One can only appeal to them to hold back making any comments on those documents or publishing them until the contents of those affidavits have been confirmed on oath.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV GOZO: Mr Chairman may I then proceed?

Mr Chairman I don't know if this is being interpreted for the applicant.

on the proviso that was mentioned by Justice Ngoepe being met and satisfied.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EAZI MZIKHONA NOFEMELA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions you wish to put to him in addition to what you have read in the statement?

ADV GOZO: There are no questions I am going to put to this particular applicant, and this may be the appropriate stage for Mr Brink and the members of the Committee to put their questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nofemela your counsel has read your affidavit into the record, do you confirm the correctness of what is stated in your affidavit?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Brink any questions to put to this witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nofemela you have heard the questions which I put to Mr Peni and the answers which he gave to those questions, is that correct?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Please talk into the microphone.

MR BRINK: You can sit back if you wish to as long as it's close to your mouth. If you want to be comfortable be comfortable but just have it close to you.

And do you agree that you were working in association with COSAS, which is an affiliate of the ANC?

MR NOFEMELA: Would you please clarify that.

MR BRINK: At the time in the townships you were working in association with COSAS, you were a member of PASO which was a PAC affiliate, but you were working together with COSAS to bring about your objectives and COSAS was an affiliate of the ANC, is that correct?

MR NOFEMELA: COSAS was the only, was separate from PASO, but we were together with the fights.

MR BRINK: Yes. So that all political rivalry which might have existed between COSAS and PASO were set aside at that time?

MR NOFEMELA: They were not alike.

MR BRINK: No but the point is, isn't it, that your rivalry, you as a member of PASO, that organisation had set aside your rivalry with the members of COSAS at that time?

MR NOFEMELA: What we were fighting for or rivalry for?

MR BRINK: Well that's what I want to know what you were fighting for.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Brink I think ...(intervention)

MR BRINK: Did I mis-hear him?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, I am being confused by what you are saying. The witness says what were we fighting for? He's referring to PASO and COSAS. Now you say yes, we want to know what you are fighting for, but that is not in the spirit of your principal question. Your principal question is that there was no conflict between you and COSAS.

MR BRINK: Well that is correct, that's what I wanted to get from him, that's what I wanted to get from him that there was no conflict between those two organisations at that time.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Then you can't say what were you fighting for if he says there was no fighting between them.

MR BRINK: I understood him to ask me the question what were they fighting for, maybe I misheard him.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You tried to know - you must first understand what he means thereby before taking it further.

MR BRINK: Well I understood that I wasn't, it wasn't a situation where I answered his questions, it was the other way round Judge.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well let's try again.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you can ask him at that time was there common cause between your organisation and COSAS?

MR BRINK: You've heard what Judge Mall has just put, can you answer that please.

MR NOFEMELA: Will you please ask the question.

CHAIRPERSON: At that time was there common cause between your organisation and COSAS?

MR NOFEMELA: As I have said the only thing that we were combined with PASO is the struggle that we were fighting for.

MR BRINK: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: And what was that, what was the struggle that you were fighting for?

MR NOFEMELA: The only thing that caused us to fight or to be in struggle not to pay the school fees, the SADTU teachers to be recognised and that PASO wanted the land to go to the Black people.

MR BRINK: And what did you think the killing of Amy Biehl, what effect would the killing of Amy Biehl have had in regard to that struggle relating to land coming back to the people?

MR NOFEMELA: What's the question exactly?

MR BRINK: You have told the Committee that your struggle, amongst other things, was to get land back to the people, is that correct?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes it's correct.

MR BRINK: What effect would the killing of Amy Biehl have had in regard to that aspect of your struggle?

MR NOFEMELA: Is it the question that what's the killing of Amy Biehl is it made an effect to the killing, to the bringing back to the land?

MR BRINK: Yes.

MR NOFEMELA: I do understand that even today we are also talking about changes, changes that happened.

MS KHAMPEPE: Will you try and speak a little louder, I can't hear you from here, and I don't know if you have a problem with the translation, and if you do have a problem will you please just alert us to that. Do you understand what is being translated to you properly?

MR NOFEMELA: No I don't get the question clearly and the Interpreters are very soft.

MS KHAMPEPE: Yes. Now if you do experience such problems will you please just raise them up with your counsel and advise that you do not understand the translation. Also will you also turn up the volume on your head phones.

MR NOFEMELA: It's okay now.

MR BRINK: Can you hear me clearly?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Miss Gozo, sorry, because you understand both languages, English and Afrikaans, we will assume, unless you indicate otherwise, we will assume that you are satisfied with the quality of the interpretation which, with all due respect as far as I am concerned, on some areas I am not.

ADV GOZO: Yes Justice Ngoepe I was still looking, my view was that that question needed to be broken down. There was a question of understanding what the exact question would be.

MR BRINK: I will put it again. The aims of PASO, you told us, were,

am I correct in thinking that was the policy of PASO?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think in addition to that he said that non-payment of exam fees and the fact of the recognition of teachers were issues as well.

MR BRINK: Yes. How did you think the killing of Amy Biehl would bring about PASO's objectives in the two respects I have mentioned?

MR NOFEMELA: That's what we believed in, that the country will go back to the Africans.

MR BRINK: But what was your objective in murdering Amy Biehl?

MR NOFEMELA: I've already mentioned my objective and I was one of PASO's members. What PASO was involved in I was also involved.

MR BRINK: Do you accept that the ANC and COSAS had White members?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes but only one member.

MR BRINK: Well, there were more than one member, there was more than one member of the ANC certainly, wouldn't you agree?

MR NOFEMELA: No I am sorry I don't know that. I only said there was only one member I knew.

MR BRINK: I am asking you whether you as a, if I may put it this way, a junior politician, were aware of the fact that the ANC had a fairly substantial membership consisting of White people?

ADV GOZO OBJECTS: Mr Chair may I interject to that question, I think that question has been answered, he knew only of one.

CHAIRPERSON: It's being put to him that he ought to have known more, he's a junior politician.

MR BRINK: Can you answer that please Mr Nofemela.

MR NOFEMELA: There was only one member I knew from the ANC which was White.

MR BRINK: You went to a school named after the late Joe Slovo.

MR NOFEMELA: I went there whilst it was Mvusi Mvusi, it was changed to Joe Slovo after I was there.

MR BRINK: Oh I see. Did you know about Joe Slovo?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know about Ronnie Kasrils?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Did you know about Karl Niehaus?

MR NOFEMELA: No.

MR BRINK: Never heard of him?

MR NOFEMELA: No.

MR BRINK: Alright. Did you know what Mr Kasrils looked like?

MR NOFEMELA: I can't remember.

MR BRINK: Did you know what Mr Joe Slovo looked like?

MR NOFEMELA: I can't clearly remember.

MR BRINK: So it's not possible for you to say if either Mr Kasrils or Mr Slovo, the late Mr Slovo had been in Guguletu that afternoon you would have killed them?

MR NOFEMELA: What's your question exactly?

MR BRINK: Well perhaps I won't press this, I don't think he understands. What I really want to know is that had you known that the late Amy Biehl was a comrade or a supporter of the comrades would you have killed her?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes.

MR BRINK: Why would you have killed her if you had known that she was an ally of yours, a friend of your movement?

MR NOFEMELA: It's because during that time my spirit just says I must kill the White.

MR BRINK: So you would have killed any White, even if such White had been a member of the ANC, the South African Communist Party, AZAPO or even the PAC?

MR NOFEMELA: If I know that person I wouldn't have killed.

MR BRINK: But such person was White.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I know.

MR BRINK: So why wouldn't you have killed that person?

MR NOFEMELA: During the apartheid era it's because what we were doing or what we were involved in it's because we were in high spirits and violent.

MR BRINK: Well was it your own view then that you had to go out and kill White people or a White person merely because of the colour of their skin and regardless of what their political views might have been even if such political views were the same as yours?

MR NOFEMELA: During those days we were told to assist APLA. What I knew and what I believed in is that if you are killing a White person it's how we are going to get our land back to the Africans.

MR BRINK: So you tell the Committee as Mr Peni did as I understood his evidence, that the killing of a young, unarmed woman would help to bring back the land?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes it's like that.

MR BRINK: And is it correct that at your trial evidence was led that those who accompanied Miss Biehl in the motor car had said to you, and those who attacked her, that you were to desist because she was a comrade? I will give you the reference in a minute.

MR NOFEMELA: No I have never heard that.

MR BRINK: Very well. I refer to the judgment, page 42 of the bundle at line 30.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Brink could you kindly repeat the page number?

MR BRINK: It's page 42 of the bundle which is page 3337 of the judgment and it appears at the bottom near line 30.

Now I want to read to you what the Judge said when giving judgment at your trial. I beg your pardon it's line 24.

Do you remember that evidence having been given at your trial?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I do remember.

MR BRINK: And the people who tried to dissuade you from killing Amy Biehl were Black people were they not?

MR NOFEMELA: I don't even know that there were people who asked us not to do that.

MR BRINK: Well then I won't burden the record but I refer the Committee to page 45 line 2, page 46 line 28 where much the same sort of evidence was given.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you please just give us the reference again because my papers have not been paginated.

MR BRINK: Have they not Judge?

CHAIRPERSON: If you'll just give me the typed page number.

MR BRINK: The typed page number is 3340.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BRINK: Line 2 to line 10.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And Mr Brink you must just bear in mind please that the applicant, according to his affidavit, arrived at the scene only after the deceased was already out of the vehicle, and not at the time when these people were pleading with the crowd before that stage. Well this is what the applicant is saying in paragraph 4 or 5 of his affidavit.

MR BRINK: Yes, yes. But if I could just clarify this aspect in the light of the judgment Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: You may do so.

MR BRINK: Starting at the bottom, the last paragraph at the bottom of page 3339 of the typed judgment and page 44 of the bundle.

Were you there at that stage?

MR NOFEMELA: When I arrived there I was in a bakkie with Peni. While they were pleading I know nothing about that.

MR BRINK: So is it your evidence here that you know absolutely nothing about any people asking Amy Biehl's attackers to desist?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I have heard that in court that there were people asking for Amy Biehl not to be killed, but when I arrived there while the scene was still in motion I didn't hear such a thing.

MR BRINK: How long have you been a member of PASO?

MR NOFEMELA: As from June 1990.

MR BRINK: How old were you at that stage, that is when you joined PASO?

MR NOFEMELA: I was 18 years old.

MR BRINK: You see what I am going to suggest to you Mr Nofemela that the attack and brutal murder of Amy Biehl could not have been done with a political objective, it was wanton brutality, like a pack of sharks smelling blood, isn't that the truth?

MR NOFEMELA: No that's not true, that's not true, we are not such things.

MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember how long after this incident that you were arrested?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes I do remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell us when you were arrested.

MR NOFEMELA: I was arrested on the 26th of August.

CHAIRPERSON: You have also said that on that day, that's the 25th of August, you two were in "high spirits" as a result of hearing the speeches.

MR NOFEMELA: I can't hear your question clearly, can you repeat the date for me.

CHAIRPERSON: No I wasn't mentioning the date, I said that on your evidence you were in "high spirits" on that day, presumably as a result of hearing the speeches.

MR NOFEMELA: Yes, it's like that.

CHAIRPERSON: And the fact that you were in "high spirits" was responsible for your conduct that day, is that it?

MR NOFEMELA: Yes it's like that, even what we were told it's to ungovern the country.

CHAIRPERSON: Had you not been in similar "high spirits" on previous occasions?

MR NOFEMELA: I am sorry I can't hear the question clearly.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you not been in similar "high spirits" on previous occasions?

MR NOFEMELA: Are you saying before that day?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NOFEMELA: We were used to be that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you kill many people on those occasion?

MR NOFEMELA: No we never did such a thing.