TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY HEARINGDATE: 09-07-1997
NAME: BASSIE MKHUMBUZI THOBELA MLAMBISA GCINIKHAYA MAKOMA
DAY 1_________________________________________________________________
CHAIRMAN: Mr Brink, are we ready to commence? MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, there seems to be some confusion. On your papers, the front cover, the index, there is reference to the first applicant as Makoma, the second one Mkhumbuzi who is here. Those two are here. The third one who is here is a gentleman known as Thobela Mlambisa. Mr Letlapa Mphlalele who had brought an application, is I understand not attending. He will not be attending. That is Letlapa Mphlalele, he made an application, he was notified but I gather he will not be appearing. I can't hear you sir. CHAIRMAN: Has he communicated that? MR BRINK: I am advised by those who represent the PAC in this matter. CHAIRMAN: Yes. So now, is there somebody else in the application by Mr Mphlalele? MR BRINK: Yes, and that is this gentleman Mr Thobela Mlambisa.JUDGE WILSON: And we doesn't have an application for him? MR BRINK: I will arrange to get it out, I don't know how this happened, how these things have gone like this. I understand however, there was application lodged and it is very much in the same terms as the application form, form 1's which you have in respect of Mkhumbuzi and Makoma and I understand further that affidavits had been prepared by those representing these three on the same form as in the Amy Biehl matter. CHAIRMAN: May we have the name of the third applicant Mr Arendse, please. MR BRINK: The third applicant today is Thobela Mlambisa. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, Mr Arendse. ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, learned members of the Committee. Myself and my colleague, Ms Goza appear here for these applicants in this matter. Mr Chairman, it is correct that Mr Mphlalele, has not given us any instructions. We actually don't know where he is at the moment, so we are not here to represent him and he is not before the Committee. In any case it will become apparent soon, that he was not actively involved in the St James incident, it would appear from his application for amnesty relating to the St James incident, that at the time, he is the time who gave the orders, the instructions, he was the Director of Operations of APLA, so he is not here before you today unfortunately. CHAIRMAN: Yes. ADV ARENDSE: Mr Mlambisa is in fact an accused in the trial pending against him and Bassie Mkhumbuzi in the St James matter and we were always under the impression that his application is before you, so just last week, during the course of last week, we submitted an affidavit on behalf of Mr Mlambisa stating that he did in fact apply. Since then, we have been told that his application had been found and that the matter is enroled to be heard today together with the other two. I am not sure what arrangements internally, why Mr Brink was not advised of this. CHAIRMAN: Mr Brink you will sort that out in due course? MR BRINK: I will most certainly do so. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr Bembridge? ADV BEMBRIDGE: Honourable Committee, we appear, myself and Mr O'Dowd, who is from the firm Hofmeyr Herbsteins, today I appear on his instruction to represent the victims in this matter, Mr Dawie Ackerman and Mr Lorenzo Smith. I understand that there are a number of victims of the massacre present at the hearing today, although they have not all specifically and formally opposed the matter, they are in fact present at the hearing today. We however only represent Mr Smith and Mr Ackerman at this stage. CHAIRMAN: Yes, good, thank you. We will record that. MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, may I also ask you to make a note I did receive by way of correspondence a formal objection to the applications for amnesty by Mr Dimitri Makogon. This gentleman is away from Cape Town at this time, but indicated that he strongly oppose the application. He was in the church when this incident happened and he lost two legs and one arm. He was a Russian citizen. Whether he is still ... CHAIRMAN: What is the date of that letter? MR BRINK: That came, and I haven't got the letter with me immediately, but it came about three weeks ago. It was fairly recent. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR BRINK: As far as all the next of kin and victims are concerned, notification was given to all those who had an available address. I may say that Bishop Frank Retief, the Bishop of the Church of England South Africa, and who is apparently connected to St James Church, was very helpful and cooperative and he sent me a list of all those whose whereabouts he was aware of and notices accordingly, were given to those people. In addition notice of these proceedings were published in the church magazine, so that, and I believe announced in church itself, so that all those who were involved, apart from those who have left Cape Town and left the country, are aware of the matter. CHAIRMAN: Mr Arendse? ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Just for the record, the applicants are sitting from left to right in the order in which we intend to, or we propose to deal with the applications. Bassie Mkhumbuzi and in the middle Thobela Mlambisa and on his left Gcinikhaya Makoma. Mr Chairman, as far as objections to the amnesty applications are concerned, my colleague and I, we only know about that through the press. We haven't been given or we don't know, we can only assume on what basis the applications are being opposed. Now, I suppose that Mr Ackerman and Mr Smith will be giving evidence before this Committee. We haven't had the benefit of seeing any statements which they have perhaps submitted or handed in to the Committee or to the TRC, so we haven't had the benefit of discussing them with the applicants. CHAIRMAN: Yes, in the past the practise has just been that notification, rather notice of these applications are sent to interested parties and they turn up on the morning of the trial to say they are opposing the application and that is the notification we received. In terms of the Act, they are not required to furnish the grounds for opposition. In other words, the Act doesn't say that they mustn't furnish, but there is no provision in the Act requiring them to furnish their grounds for opposition. So we just have to do the best we can as we go along. ADV ARENDSE: I agree, I just mentioned that just in case we need to ask for an adjournment or whatever to take instructions. CHAIRMAN: Yes. ADV ARENDSE: Then also just for the record, Mr Chairman, Mr Mlambisa's application number is AM7596/97. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR BRINK: When was it submitted? Do you know when it was submitted, what date it was received by the Committee? CHAIRMAN: Mr Brink, did I understand earlier that you may be handing in documents at some stage? If your documents are ready it might be convenient if you made them available as soon as you can. MR BRINK: Judge, I believe we are at the present in the process of preparing some extra copies. Perhaps in also in response to my learned friend's comments, we were as I previously advised, briefed in this matter on very short notice, we have only had some two days to prepare for the matter and that is the reason for no proper previous discussion between us as to the opposition of the matter and we, as I also mentioned, may also require some indulgence from the Committee in that regard. As I understand there are copies of the documents which people propose to use, being prepared at the moment. We do however, have a number of copies presently available. I am not just quite sure as to on what basis we should at this stage distribute them among the various interested persons until the required number have in fact been prepared. CHAIRMAN: Did Mr Arendse and Ms Goza have adequate notice of what is contained in your papers? The sooner they know about it, the better it would be for us? MR BRINK: Certainly we are in a position to provide them with copies right away and we have also a certain number of copies which we could provide to the Committee right now. CHAIRMAN: You may do so as soon as you can. ADV ARENDSE ADDRESSES: Mr Chairman and learned members of the Committee, then just by way of an opening statement, can we just put the following on record. Unfortunately developments before this Committee have caught up with us and we haven't managed to put this together in writing this time, so I am afraid I am just going to have to read this back to you. Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, on the 3rd of March 1995 Gcinikhaya Makoma was found guilty of eleven counts of murder of the attempted murder of at least 58 people and of the unlawful possession of arms and ammunition. This incident took place at the St James Church in Kenilworth on Sunday, the 25th of July 1993. It is notoriously known as the St James Church massacre. Makoma was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment and he is currently doing his sentence. In the judgement the court, the trial court found that "it was plainly a joint enterprise". Makoma was the only accused in the trial. That is at page 69 of the record. The applicants Mkhumbuzi and Mlambisa were part of that joint enterprise. They currently face the same charges relating to the St James incident and they are out on bail at the moment. We will be submitting Mr Chairman, that the applicants Makoma, Mlambisa and Mkhumbuzi be granted amnesty for the following reasons: Firstly, at the time they were all members of APLA. Secondly they carried out the orders of APLA Commanders, more particularly Sichumiso Nonxuba. Nonxuba is now deceased. He died in a motor car accident in November last year, while he was out on bail in connection with this matter and he was accused 1 in the subsequent matter, not the one that Makoma was in. He was the Commander of the operation and he was one of the persons who was in church, who came into the church, threw a handgrenade and fired the shots which caused the deaths of 11 people and injured many others. Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, if it is of any value, myself and Ms Goza also represent the accused in the second St James trial, if you can put it that way, and we know this as fact. Those instructions were given to us. Just in case, we are not saying this because the man is now deceased and we can take the liberty of using his name. The other person I was saying Mr Chairman, who gave an order was Letlapa Mphlalele, and that will also appear from his application form which one finds at pages 15 to 21 of the bundle. He was the Director of Operations of APLA at the time. The third reason which we advance for submitting that they should be granted amnesty, is that APLA is the armed wing of the PAC, was a political liberation movement as defined in the Act and at the time APLA was waging a struggle against the State, private property and private individuals in pursuance of their objectives. We will also submit Mr Chairman, that the acts were associated with a political objective, that of APLA, namely to free the country for the Africans so that they can get their land back. The applicants acted or orders, on instructions. The acts took place in a political context when this country was being ruled by a White minority, regarded as illegitimate by the Black majority. The St James churchgoers were regarded as part of that White minority. Now Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, we must just pause there because it is clear that a number of so-called Coloured people and I think Mr Smith, whom I happen to know personally, was also in church at the time. And we will submit that the applicants assumed that because St James was in a White group area, as it was defined then, that all the churchgoers were White. They were obviously wrong in assuming that. We will also submit that the acts were performed in the execution of an APLA High Command order, that having regard to the political context at the time, that the offences were directly proportionate to the political objectives sought to be achieved by APLA and lastly Mr Chairman, that the offences were not committed for personal gain and were not done out of personal malice, ill-will or spite against any of the deceased or the victims concerned. Thank you Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: Mr Arendse, as far as Mr Mphlalele is concerned, were you originally instructed to appear on his behalf, what is his position? Was he given notice through your Attorneys or Mr Brink perhaps could assist us there? Is he in default today or how should we treat his application? ADV ARENDSE: Mr De Jager, Mr Chairman, Mr Mphlalele has always given us instructions. Mr Mphlalele, it is well-known for what it is worth, to the staff here at the TRC, that he actively, he in fact brought in boxes full of applications for amnesty being made on behalf of APLA members. He had been involved with us as legal counsel in this matter since last year already. We were in fact present during the course of last year, when the applications were made the first time. I think they were only confirmed though, in May this year. That appears from the application. So, we can't understand and we don't have any reason why he is not here. And we just hope that for his sake, that nothing happened to him. He has got every reason to be here. So we want to ask that as far as his application is concerned, that that be withdrawn at this stage and be re-enroled at a subsequent stage. CHAIRMAN: Very well, we will do that. ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Brink, you will make note of that. JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, let me just interrupt you on that. I notice that in your opening address, you made reference to Mr Mphlalele's application. I don't know what you had in mind in that regard. Are we going to be at large to use the contents of his application, for example in cross-examining the applicants? ADV ARENDSE: I would submit yes, that regard can be had. I think these applications are made before a Commission of votes, so it is in the form of an affidavit and certainly, we want to rely on what he says in his application. JUDGE NGOEPE: You might have to give it a more careful thought, because it could have the kind of consequences that may cause problems to the applicants, may prejudice the applicants. And I think you should as the Chairman has asked, you said you are withdrawing his application, you want it to be removed from the role as it were. You are not withdrawing his application, because if you withdraw his application, you may not make it later, you will be out of time to make another application. You are just asking us to remove it from the roll? ADV ARENDSE: That is correct, Judge Ngoepe. JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, well the only point that remains is what I have asked you, whether you are saying that we should use his affidavit to cross-examine your clients for example. Maybe you should give it some careful thought. ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, it is part of the record. The contents of his application have been discussed with the applicants and we certainly note Judge Ngoepe's concerns and we will cross that bridge when we come to it. MR BRINK: The problem I have Mr Chairman in that regard, although it would have been difficult, but I understood from Mr Arendse neither he nor Ms Goza were actually representing Mr Mphlalele. If they had not instructions from him, I don't see how they can ask for the matter to be removed from the role and maybe set down for another day, that is the problem I have. Without direct instructions, but I am not making difficulties, it is just ... CHAIRMAN: All we can say at this stage, Mr Mphlalele's application stands down until we hear further. ADV ARENDSE: Very well. MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, may I just mention one aspect on that point. It seems to me that the application on behalf of the applicants who are presently before the Committee, is somewhat premised on what will be said by Mr Mphlalele and that they presume to state that he was the person who gave them orders, it appears to me that they intend to rely for support in their applications, on what will be said by that person. To the extent that these proceedings are also premised on a full disclosure, I have some difficulty as to how the Committee is expected or will be able rather, to make findings as to whether full disclosure has been made, whether a truthful disclosure has been made, whether there is any foundation in what is being said by the other applicants, without being able to test what the person who they rely on, would in fact say. CHAIRMAN: We will wrestle as we get along. How we would propose to deal with the evidence that is going to be adduced before us, the Committee will decide. But we can't postpone these proceedings just because Mr Mphlalele is not here and we are going to proceed and cross-examination invariably can be directed at applicants at any kind of information that may be at your disposal, it need not be evidence in anybody else's document or affidavit. So, to what extent reliance is placed on their evidence and they acted on the orders of so and so, when so and so is not here to confirm it, these are matters which we will have to decide when the time comes. MR BRINK: I understand. CHAIRMAN: For the time being, we will just proceed with the evidence. MR BRINK: I understand that. ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps Mr Arendse, could I add, you should perhaps have a look at Section 19(8) whether this application of Mr Mphlalele is a public document now and whether it can be used. Was the hearing in connection with himself, I don't know whether we've started that? ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, I did say earlier that we always had instructions from Mr Mphlalele to represent him. When I say we don't have instructions, we don't have instructions today to make representations on his behalf for example. So we certainly don't have any objections to reference being made to his application and that the contents of the application being disclosed publicly. JUDGE WILSON: Did he instruct you to appear at these hearings? ADV ARENDSE: Yes, Judge. JUDGE NGOEPE: ... properly understood, Mr Bembridge's argument is that you want to take an affidavit of Mr Mphlalele, you want to base your case on it and yet, he is not here for him to cross-examine him in that regard? I think actually that is what he is saying. In other words, you understand what I mean, he is saying that Mr Mphlalele is not here, you ask us to stand down his application, but at the same time, you want to retain his affidavit, which is very fundamental apparently to your clients' case. You want to rely on it, but he is not going to be able to cross-examine Mr Mphlalele because he is not here. ADV ARENDSE: The evidence will reveal that the reliance is more apparent than real. There is no reliance on Mr Mphlalele's application. And I would go along with the suggestion of the Chairman that we proceed and that we deal with that aspect if and when it becomes necessary. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Arendse, you may proceed. ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, then just along the same lines and the previous application, we want to hand up affidavits. Copies have been made available to my colleagues. The original if we could mark that Exhibit A.
CHAIRMAN: This is the affidavit of whom? ADV ARENDSE: Sorry Mr Chairman, we intend to start in that order I said, Mkhumbuzi, Mlambisa and Makoma. CHAIRMAN: The affidavit of Mr Mkhumbuzi will go in as Exhibit A.
ADV ARENDSE: Thank you. Mr Chairman, thank you. The affidavit of Bassie Nzikizi Mkhumbuzi. Copies have also been made available to the interpreters, Mr Chairman. "I, the undersigned, Bassie Nzikizi Mkhumbuzi, do hereby make oath and say that I am aged 21 years and I reside at 2023 Unathi, Old Crossroads. I am unmarried and I am the father of three children aged four, one and eleven months. The facts to which I depose, are true and correct and within my personal knowledge, unless the context otherwise indicates. I grew up in Cape Town and went to school in Cape Town and reached standard 8, at Vuyiseka High School in Woodstock. I am currently facing eleven charges of murder, charges of attempted murder and three of unlawful possession of arms and ammunition. I am out on bail at the moment and I am currently stationed at 3 SYI Infantry Battalion in Kimberley doing my basic military training. I will shortly be transferred to the Northern Cape Command on a permanent basis. The charges which I face, relate to the events at the St James Church in 3rd Avenue, Kenilworth in the District of Wynberg, on Sunday, the 25th of July, 1993. At the time, I was 17 years old. I have submitted an application for amnesty in terms of Section 18 of the Act in respect of the charges which I face. I have been a member of the Pan African Congress since 1989 and a member of the African People's Liberation Army since November 1992. Before that, as an organiser of the PAC Youth League, AZANYO, I had actively supported members of APLA by providing assistance when called upon to do so. I was a member of an APLA Unit of which Makoma was a trainer, that is one of the other applicants. We held regular weekly meetings where we allocated each other various tasks. We would always report back at the weekly meetings whether or not the tasks we were given at the previous meeting, was carried out. As a member of APLA I was trained by APLA Operators and Commanders in various aspects of conducting guerilla warfare. The training I received included physical training, attending political classes and receiving instructions on how to use and operate weapons, ammunition, arms and handgrenades. I was also taught how to make petrol bombs referred to as Molatov Cocktails. Approximately a week before the St James incident took place, Makoma told me that an operation was going to take place and that we were to prepare ourselves. He did not tell me when or where or what operation would take place or what the target or targets would be. He instructed me to prepare myself by getting into top physical condition and more importantly, I was instructed to get weapons and ammunition in Umtata, Transkei from comrades at the APLA High Command. I cannot recall the names of these persons, I was given their code names and I cannot remember them any longer. I went to the Transkei on the Monday before the incident and returned on the Thursday. I went alone on a bus, I went to the address I was instructed to go to and there met some APLA comrades and they gave me two R4 rifles, 365 rounds of R4 ammunition, 3 M26 handgrenades plus the sum of R200-00 rand. At this point I was not told why I had to collect the arms and ammunition, or for what purpose it would be used. I knew, however, from my training, that it would be used for some or other operation. On my return to Cape Town, on the Thursday, I took the bag containing these arms and ammunition to a house in Khayelitsha. After I left the arms and ammunition at the house, I was instructed to inform Sichomiso Nonxuba, now deceased where the house was where I stored the arms and ammunition. I did as I was told and took Nonxuba to the house, left him there and I don't know what happened to the arms and ammunition after that. I did however, see the same bag on the Sunday when the operation took place and while we were at the Langa taxi rank. I assumed that the same military hardware was in the bag. On that Thursday when I left Nonxuba at the house in Khayelitsha he told me that we would meet again on the Saturday, the 24th of July, 1993 at approximately three o'clock at the Iona shopping centre in Guguletu. When I arrived there the Saturday afternoon I saw Nonxuba and Mlambisa there for the first time. Nonxuba introduced Mlambisa to me as Aubrey and he told me that Aubrey was going to work with us. Nonxuba instructed me to prepare four petrol bombs on the Saturday and that I had to have it ready for the operation on the Sunday. At this point, all that Nonxuba told me and Aubrey, that there would be an operation the following day, the Sunday. On that Saturday I prepared the petrol bombs. On Sunday, 25 July 1993, we met at the Uluntu community centre in Guguletu. This time Makoma was also with us. We met between eleven and twelve noon. At this point Nonxuba told me that I was going to be part of the operation. He still had not told me what the nature of the operation was, what the target would be or what time it would take place. We were told to meet again at 6 pm at the Langa taxi rank. I was ordered to bring along the petrol bombs. When I got to the Langa taxi rank before 6pm Nonxuba was already there and I noticed that he had brought the bag which I had brought from the Transkei. A little later Mlambisa and Makoma arrived in a Datsun motor vehicle. When I got into the car, the Commander of the operation, Nonxuba, said that we were going to the target. He still did not reveal any details of what the target was going to be. I was told that I would be the security, Mlambisa the driver. I was sitting in front with Mlambisa. Nonxuba and Makoma were going inside. After they came out of the building I was to use the petrol bombs to throw them inside. As Mlambisa drove, Nonxuba was giving him directions as to how to drive and where to drive. It is only when we got to the place which was identified by Nonxuba as the target did I realise that it was the St James church. We had circled the church about three times. There were many cars and it appeared as if there were many people inside the church. Mlambisa drove into the parking area at the church and parked approximately 10 metres from the entrance to the church. Mlambisa reversed the car so that the back was facing the entrance. Nonxuba and Makoma got out, each one armed with a rifle and a grenade. They then entered the church. I heard a grenade and gunshots and then saw a red car stopping in front of us, apparently to block us. I got out of the car and threw a petrol bomb at the car and Mlambisa got out and shot at the car, causing the car to speed away. Then Nonxuba and Makoma came out of the church, jumped into the car and we immediately sped away. I did not do what I was supposed to do, that is to throw the petrol bombs inside the church. I do not know what happened inside the church, but I am fully aware that with the arms and ammunition carried by Makoma and Nonxuba, that people would be killed or injured. When we were in the car and making our getaway, Makoma said that someone had shot at him inside the church and that he was bleeding, but neither Makoma, nor Nonxuba said what happened inside the church. Nonxuba did, however, ask why I did not throw the petrol bomb and then I explained to him why I did not do so. We then drove to a place under the direction of Nonxuba. I later learned that this place is called Ottery. Mlambisa and I left Nonxuba and Makoma there at a house in Ottery with the weapons. Mlambisa and I took the car to a scrap yard in Ottery, left it there and returned to this house on foot. We slept at the house that night. That same night, we watched the news on CNN and I saw for the first time what happened inside the church. On the Monday morning Nonxuba and I took a bus to Wynberg and from there a taxi to Guguletu. Nonxuba got out in Guguletu and I went home to Old Crossroads with a taxi. I stayed at home for a while and I left to go to New Crossroads to my cousin's place. There I laid low for a short while, but then after a week or two, when I heard that Makoma had been arrested, I left for the Transkei by bus. I stayed in Umtata in a safe house. I was arrested in February 1996 in connection with the St James case, but I was already in custody after being arrested on 1 November 1995 in connection with an armed robbery which allegedly took place in Crossroads. This case against me has now been withdrawn. I deeply regret the loss of life which occurred as a result of the operation of which I was a part on Sunday the 25th of July 1993. At the time I was 17 years old and I followed the orders that I was given without questioning it. I was very impressionable then and regarded the older APLA operators such as Nonxuba as heroes. I wish to ask the family, relatives and friends of the deceased and other victims who were injured, for forgiveness. I respectfully submit that my application complies with the requirements of the Act, that the offences which I committed and associated myself with, were offences associated with the political objective, committed in the course of the conflicts of the past and that it accords with the provisions of Section 22 and 23 of the Act and that I have made full disclosure of all the relevant facts relating to the St James incident, which is within my personal knowledge. Accordingly, I respectfully request that I be granted amnesty in respect of those offences relating to the St James incident". And it is signed by Bassie Nzikizi Mkhumbuzi and it was signed on the 7th of July 1997. JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Mkhumbuzi, will you stand up please? CHAIRMAN: Swear him in, Sisi.
BASSIE NZIKIZI MKHUMBUZI: (sworn states) MS KHAMPEPE: You have been properly sworn in, you may sit down. CHAIRMAN: You have heard your counsel read your affidavit, did you understand it? Do you confirm the contents of that affidavit? MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I do confirm. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions Mr Arendse, you wish to put to the witness? ADV ARENDSE: No, Mr Chairman. CHAIRMAN: Mr Bembridge, do you wish to question this witness? ADV BEMBRIDGE: I do Judge. Mr Brink has suggested however, that I first get some guidance from the Committee on one aspect. We have in our possession certain statements which were made by Mr Makoma, confessions which were made to the police which were ruled inadmissible at the hearing, the criminal hearing in this matter. It would seem to me that in light of the fact that the applicants now intend to confess to their participation in these events, that the contents of these statements are no longer inadmissible on the basis that they were inadmissible at the trial, that they would appear to some extent, in any event, to be correct. Mr Brink, has however suggested that I put to the Committee or ask for the Committee's guidance as to what their admissibility would be particularly with a view to cross-examination in these proceedings. CHAIRMAN: It seems Mr Bembridge you will have to clear the groundwork with Mr Makoma first to establish whether this was his statement, whether it was made freely and voluntarily, whether any pressure or any violence was exerted on him at the time and matters of that kind. ADV BEMBRIDGE: That certainly may be the case, however, the difficulty now is that certain of the contents of that statement, may be relevant with respect to this applicant. ADV DE JAGER: On what grounds was it decided that it was not admissible? ADV BEMBRIDGE: It was decided, no it is not correct to say it was decided that he was assaulted, the court specifically found that the accused as he was in those proceedings, had not been assaulted, it was found however, that due to the length of the interrogations and perhaps the time of day and factors like that, although it cannot per se be said that he had been induced into making statements against his will, that the manner in which the interrogations were held, was not the best manner and there may have been some emotional stress on him at the time, which may have perhaps induced him to say things which he otherwise may not have said. But it was not found that the interrogations per se were improper or ... ADV DE JAGER: But wouldn't that be also the case here then, why should this differ if it was inadmissible on the grounds of long interrogations or legally inadmissible, why ... ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, I would submit that it could be relevant to the extent that it now appears that the applicants will admit largely that what they said in those statements, is correct, which was categorically denied in the criminal proceedings. Now it appears that they admit that what the nature of the confession was largely speaking, completely correct. CHAIRMAN: Well, in that case, you will have to deal with it like my brother is suggesting to you, in fact I initially misunderstood, I thought that it was his own statement, now you say it was Mr Makoma's statement. ADV BEMBRIDGE: That is right. CHAIRMAN: You can do no more than if you have that statement, which was made by Mr Makoma where he refers to this particular witness, the best for you, you can do no more than ask this gentleman and say to him, in a statement which Mr Makoma disowned, he said you did this and this, is it true? If he says it is true, then you have no problem, but if he says it is not true, then you can't take it any further. But you will have to deal with it, not with pertinent questions, you will have to single out statement by statement, you may not say to him so and so made a statement, is that statement not true, that is what I am referring to when I say not a pertinent questions. You will have to deal with the statement sentence by sentence to be on a proper footing. JUDGE NGOEPE: The evidential value of all that is something which we will have to decide at, at the appropriate stage.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BEMBRIDGE: I appreciate the Committee's guidance on that. Mr Mkhumbuzi, can you tell me when did you first become a member of APLA itself? MR MKHUMBUZI: In November 1992, but I am not sure about the date. ADV BEMBRIDGE: And how were you recruited to that organisation? MR MKHUMBUZI: As a member of the PAC, I knew that there was a military wing of the PAC, which is APLA. I was interested in joining or being a member of APLA. In the activities I have done, I was an organiser and I met these people, I then joined APLA. ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was in fact the procedure for joining APLA, was there any formal procedure or any formal steps that you had to take? MR MKHUMBUZI: No, there was no procedure in joining APLA except that if you wanted to be a member, and if you believed to what we believed in, if you wanted to be a member of APLA, you became a member of APLA, so there was no procedure to follow in order to join APLA. If you wanted to join, you would join. ADV BEMBRIDGE: But what did you join, did you have to tell someone I am now joining APLA or how did this transition from being an ordinary member of the PAC to becoming a member of APLA take place? MR MKHUMBUZI: What I did, I used to attend PAC meetings. I was AZANYO organiser and I always heard about APLA soldiers but I couldn't contact and meet them. They would come to PAC members and I found out about that after a long time, that they would attend PAC meetings and listen to the meeting and to the procedures. And they would pick up right persons, that is how they recruited people to join APLA. You would not just come and say you want to be a member of APLA. ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did your training with APLA begin? MR MKHUMBUZI: I can say that I was a member of the Task Force. I was working for the Task Force. From there there were known contacts who were known to the leaders of the Task Force. From there you would be a member of APLA. ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was the purpose of this Task Force? MR MKHUMBUZI: The purpose of the Task Force was to protect and to defend PAC members. Those who were working on the ground. ADV BEMBRIDGE: I just want to refer you to the plea of Mr Makoma which he made when, in the criminal trial in which he was prosecuted. It is at page 5 of the bundle for the purposes of the Committee. I don't know whether the applicant in fact requires a copy for him, otherwise I can just read to him the section to which I am going to refer. JUDGE NGOEPE: Is it a lengthy passage you want him to consider? ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is a passage of about four lines. JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, just put it to him. ADV BEMBRIDGE: Okay. In his statement to the court, Mr Makoma said that in and during 1993, PAC members were attacked by members of rival political organisations. He said this led to the formation of the Task Group under the leadership of Siphiwe Makweso and this group was specifically informed to protect PAC leaders and members, do you confirm that that is correct what he says?CHAIRMAN: I can't find that. ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is at page 5 of the bundle, Judge. CHAIRMAN: Your bundle? ADV BEMBRIDGE: Which we handed up to the court, I beg your pardon. ADV DE JAGER: Typed page 5. The 5, typed? ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is amongst the bundle of documents which we've handed up in the file. ADV DE JAGER: Ours are not numbered, as far as I can see. ADV BEMBRIDGE: There should be numbering on the top, right hand side of the page. MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Bembridge, is it not on page 4 of the plea examination, if some documents have not been paginated?ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is typed page 4, and marked page 5 on the top right hand corner. It is page 4 of the plea explanation, but page 5 of the total bundle which we've handed up.CHAIRMAN: Yes.JUDGE NGOEPE: Where on that page is this, Mr Bembridge?ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is at the paragraph marked 20.JUDGE NGOEPE: Line 20?ADV BEMBRIDGE: It begins slightly earlier than line 20, but...MS KHAMPEPE: Line 16.JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, at the middle of the page?ADV BEMBRIDGE: That is correct.JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, just give him another chance, read that to him.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mr Makoma stated in his plea to the court that in and during 1993, PAC members were attacked by members of rival political organisations. This led to the formation of a Task Group under the leadership of Siphiwe Makweso. This group was specifically formed to protect PAC leaders and members. Do you confirm that that is correct?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, that is correct.ADV BEMBRIDGE: So then is it correct to say also that the Task Group of which you were a member, was designed to protect the PAC from its opponents?MR MKHUMBUZI: The Task Force was to protect the PAC members.ADV BEMBRIDGE: It was not designed to go out and attack other people, it was designed as a defensive unit, is that correct?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, it was not to attack, but I can say that in defending or protecting members in the Task Force, there were different structures. Although some of the people were not aware of those structures, my information is that the Task Force was there to protect or defend members of the PAC.ADV BEMBRIDGE: And it was there to protect the members against as it states, attacks by members of rival political organisations? Is that correct?MR MKHUMBUZI: I said that what I knew about the Task Force is that it protected PAC members.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you consider the congregation at the St James church as a rival political organisation which posed some threat to your members and leaders?MR MKHUMBUZI: Please explain your question how?ADV BEMBRIDGE: I want to know did you see the congregation of the St James church as a rival political organisation which threatened your members or leaders and which it was therefore necessary for you to defend them against? INTERPRETER: If I may interject Mr Chairman, there isn't proper interpretation of the word "threat", I think the misunderstanding between the person who is asking the question and the applicant is as a result of a failure to interpret appropriately the word "threat".ADV BEMBRIDGE: Perhaps I can rephrase my question Committee. Did you see the congregation of the St James church as a rival political organisation which may attack your members and leaders?MR MKHUMBUZI: Will you please repeat the question, it is not clear to me?ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you see or did you consider the members of the congregation at the St James church as people who would, who were a rival political organisation to the PAC and who may attack the members or leaders of the PAC?MR MKHUMBUZI: My answer to that - people from Azania, when the land was taken from them by the Whites, they were using churches in all means. They were using the churches.ADV BEMBRIDGE: How were they using the churches to attack the PAC?MR MKHUMBUZI: I did not say they were using churches to attack PAC, I talked about when they took the land from the people. The land which we wanted - so they were using churches in all means.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you or do you not say that the church was being used to attack the PAC?MR MKHUMBUZI: The question is not clear when you ask about the church.CHAIRMAN: Sorry, did you hear him say that, I did not hear him say that. I never heard him say that the church was used to attack the PAC.ADV BEMBRIDGE: My question is whether he says it or whether he does not say it.CHAIRMAN: Well, he hasn't. On what basis do you ask that question if he hasn't said that. Is it a wrong interpretation or what? ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am asking him whether it is his opinion that the church was used to attack the PAC, he doesn't seem to understand my question, I am trying to put it in a slightly more basic form, to say to him, is it his opinion that the church attacked the PAC or is it not his opinion.MR MKHUMBUZI: Will you please repeat that question for me?ADV BEMBRIDGE: Is it or is it not your opinion that the church was used to attack the PAC?MR MKHUMBUZI: Again I am saying that I did not say that churches were used to attack PAC.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Then on what basis do you justify the Task Force from attacking the church?MR MKHUMBUZI: I don't remember mentioning a Task Force attacking a church.MS KHAMPEPE: May I interpose Mr Bembridge? I think what Mr Mkhumbuzi has said is that he was a member of the Task Force which was formed to protect and defend members of the PAC. The evidence that has been admitted through the affidavit indicates that the church was attacked by him whilst he was a member of APLA, shouldn't you by tying the two before you can put that question to him? Was a Task Force a unit of APLA?ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, I attempted to clarify that with him earlier when I asked him the manner in which he joined APLA, he explained he joined APLA by joining the Task Force as I understood him.JUDGE NGOEPE: That is how it started, but the actual attack may have taken place at a time when he was not merely a member of the Task Force, but as a member of APLA and according to his evidence as I understand it, it was APLA that attacked the church.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Then I think I am obliged to ask him again how he became a member of APLA.JUDGE NGOEPE: I don't think that is really necessary, you are taking up a lot of time, because the fact of the matter is that PAC - who is a member of PAC knows that APLA is a military wing of the PAC, he was recruited into APLA, I don't think we should take too much time over that. ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well he says he was recruited into APLA, it appears at this stage only that he was recruited into the Task Force.JUDGE NGOEPE: Quite right.ADV BEMBRIDGE: He did not have any of the functions which would justify the attack on the church.JUDGE NGOEPE: At the time when the attack took place, he may have been not only in the Task Force, but as a member of APLA, clear that up. Perhaps I should clear it up. You joined APLA as a member of the Task Force.MR MKHUMBUZI: I joined APLA while I was a member of the Task Force.JUDGE NGOEPE: While you were a member of the Task Force, is that how it is? Yes?MR MKHUMBUZI: I am sorry, come again?JUDGE NGOEPE: While you were a member of the Task Force, you joined APLA?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I joined APLA.JUDGE NGOEPE: So then the attack was not carried out by the Task Force, it was carried out by APLA?ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did you make this transition from being a mere Task Force member to being a member of APLA?MR MKHUMBUZI: As I've already said before, in our meetings, PAC meetings, AZANYO meetings and Task Force meetings, there would be APLA members, although we were not aware of that. It would happen that they will pick right people, those who they saw a right people. They will approach you in a certain way, but you would not be aware of that.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were the other people who went with you on attack, all members of APLA?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, everybody who was there.ADV BEMBRIDGE: How do you know that?MR MKHUMBUZI: I know because we would be in APLA meetings together.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Who was the person who gave you your orders regarding training?MR MKHUMBUZI: I was trained by a man who came here by the name of Vusi, that is the name I know.ADV BEMBRIDGE: And what role did Mr Makoma play as a trainer?MR MKHUMBUZI: We were training together, we were doing physical training together. Roadworks and all that training.ADV BEMBRIDGE: So Mr Makoma was not your trainer, he merely trained with you?MR MKHUMBUZI: We were training together.ADV BEMBRIDGE: So if I refer to paragraph 8 of your affidavit, then there is a mistake there in that it says Mr Makoma was a trainer of APLA, then that is not correct? MR MKHUMBUZI: How did you ask the question before?ADV DE JAGER: Couldn't a trainer be training together with you, running with you, training with you, although he is in charge of the operation, the training operation?ADV BEMBRIDGE: That is possible, I think however, it is an important distinction and we must ascertain which one it was.JUDGE NGOEPE: I don't understand whether you are challenging his membership of APLA, or whether you are challenging Makoma's membership of APLA, because if you are not ...JUDGE WILSON: No, Makoma was an trainer, now he says he wasn't. What you are challenging isn't it, is that in his affidavit he said I was a member of the APLA unit of which Makoma was a trainer, he has now said Makoma trained with me, I was trained by somebody else.ADV BEMBRIDGE: That is correct, that is what I am trying to clarify in any event.MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Bembridge, shouldn't you probably try and ascertain from the witness what kind of training was given by this man called Vusi?ADV BEMBRIDGE: That may be a relevant factor, but I think firstly it is important to establish what Mr Makoma's function was, was he a trainer in the sense of having some authority over this applicant or was he merely a co-trainee.JUDGE NGOEPE: Put it to him that in his affidavit it is said that Makoma was a trainer, ask him whether that is correct or incorrect.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Was Mr Makoma your trainer, did he have authority over you, or was he merely someone who trained with you?MR MKHUMBUZI: I would like to ask a question. Which training are you asking about, because we were training together with Makoma doing physical training.JUDGE WILSON: Did Makoma train you in any sphere? MR MKHUMBUZI: It is not clear to me, to train me how because he was a trainer in physical training.JUDGE WILSON: What do you mean by that, did he show you how to do things?MR MKHUMBUZI: We were training together, because in physical training we would come with different exercises.JUDGE WILSON: Who would show you the exercises? Who would tell you what to do?MR MKHUMBUZI: In physical training, each person would come with his or her exercise because nobody would know each and every physical exercises available, one would come with a different physical exercise and we would do it all together.JUDGE NGOEPE: You see, I want to read to you a sentence from your affidavit which says I was a member of an APLA unit of which Makoma was a trainer, is that correct?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, that is correct.JUDGE NGOEPE: Right, you may carry on from there.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you. Am I correct in saying that the person you knew as Vusi, was your superior, he was the one who was the most superior person responsible for your training?MR MKHUMBUZI: Which training?CHAIRMAN: Any training that you can think of. Why are we engaging in this kind of hair splitting exercise, any kind of training.MR MKHUMBUZI: I can say that Vusi was training us, he was the one training us, was the one giving us military training. JUDGE NGOEPE: Let's move a little faster than that.ADV BEMBRIDGE: And in that training you trained with Mr Makoma as well?MR MKHUMBUZI: In military training?ADV BEMBRIDGE: Yes.MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Is Vusi the same person known as Nonxuba?MR MKHUMBUZI: No.ADV BEMBRIDGE: You don't know? Did Vusi go on the attack with you to St James?MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Bembridge, I think the explanation was it is not Vusi.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Oh, yes.MS KHAMPEPE: Not, that he doesn't know. I hope you got the right translation.ADV BEMBRIDGE: I got the translation he doesn't know. MS KHAMPEPE: It is incorrect, what he said was "no, Vusi wasn't."ADV BEMBRIDGE: And Vusi, he did go on the attack with you though?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, he was not.ADV BEMBRIDGE: He was not on the attack.MR MKHUMBUZI: No.ADV BEMBRIDGE: When you were instructed about this operation you were to go to, which you say you were later told to go to the Transkei and collect weapons for, who told you about that operation?MR MKHUMBUZI: I was told by Vusi.ADV BEMBRIDGE: And you say he told you nothing about the operation?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, he did not.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you discuss this with Makoma at any time?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I didn't.ADV BEMBRIDGE: You were training together, but you didn't discuss anything about this proposed operation between each other? MR MKHUMBUZI: I don't remember.ADV BEMBRIDGE: So you may have discussed between each other, you just don't remember?MR MKHUMBUZI: We did not discuss anything apart from discussing within that week that there was going to be a certain mission, before that week, we did not discuss anything about St James.ADV BEMBRIDGE: In that week, did you discuss St James?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, we did not discuss anything about St James.JUDGE WILSON: I think you said during that week, we did discuss about a certain mission. Is that so, there was going to be a mission?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.ADV BEMBRIDGE: And what did you discuss? Did you discuss what the type of mission was going to be?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, we did not discuss that.ADV BEMBRIDGE: What did you then discuss about the mission?MR MKHUMBUZI: We did not discuss anything about the mission, but we were told that there was going to be a mission.ADV BEMBRIDGE: As I understood you, you said in the week preceding the mission, you did discuss it. CHAIRMAN: I think the word "discuss", might have conveyed a wrong meaning, you know. They were told that there was going to be a mission. I think that is what he is trying to convey.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you talk to Makoma about the mission at all?MR MKHUMBUZI: No.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why not?MR MKHUMBUZI: I did not know anything about the mission, so there was nothing to say.JUDGE WILSON: Well, did Makoma talk to you about the mission?MR MKHUMBUZI: He said that there was going to be a mission.ADV BEMBRIDGE: And did you ask him anything about it?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, there was nothing I can ask.ADV BEMBRIDGE: What do you mean there is nothing you could ask, you could ask what the mission would be, surely you could ask where the mission would be? You could ask him all those questions? Were you not interested?JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, the fact of the matter is that he didn't ask. Isn't that enough?ADV BEMBRIDGE: I think not, with respect Judge, he says he didn't ask, but that is highly unlikely in the circumstances and I think he is not being truthful on that issue. JUDGE NGOEPE: Is there any evidence that you have, that contradicts that?ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, with respect, we can't present evidence on that behalf, we are appearing for the victims in this matter, it is however unlikely and I think this is a point on which it can be suggested that this person is not making a full disclosure of what he knew.CHAIRMAN: Well, you can argue that, although one view may be that it is likely that he would not have been, I mean for security reasons, those details they might not be disclosed to these guys beforehand, especially in operation of this nature.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Details may not have been disclosed, but I think it is highly unlikely that he would not at all have discussed this mission that he says he was aware of.MS KHAMPEPE: Maybe Mr Bembridge, that was part of his training, they were not trained to ask details about the operation, until when they were told.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can I put this to you Mr Mkhumbuzi, Mr Makoma in the statements which I earlier discussed with the Committee, which he disputes, which he says were made to the police under interrogation, he said that he was told by Vusi a long time, at least a week before the mission took place, that the mission was to be at a church in Kenilworth. Did he never tell you anything of that nature?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, he did not.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did he tell you whether he knew or did not know anything about the mission?MR MKHUMBUZI: Who ware you talking about?ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mr Makoma.MR MKHUMBUZI: Please repeat your question. ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did Mr Makoma say to you that he did not know any of the details of the mission, did he say to you that he did know any of the details of the mission?MR MKHUMBUZI: I did not ask him when he told me about the mission, so he could not tell me anything, what kind of a mission was it because I did not ask him.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why did you not ask, were you not interested?MR MKHUMBUZI: I could not ask him.CHAIRMAN: Why? The question is why?MR MKHUMBUZI: What I knew was that if you got an order, you had to follow that order, you don't have to ask question concerning that order. You just have to listen to the person who is giving you an order.JUDGE WILSON: You haven't suggested for one minute that Mr Makoma was giving you an order. I can understand you not questioning an order, but all you've told us is that Mr Makoma who is a friend of yours, who was training with you, told you that there was going to be a mission. Surely you would want to know from him, what sort of mission, what do we have to do?MR MKHUMBUZI: I did not want to know more, because I knew that we were trained for such operations. I did not want to know any more details when he told me.MS KHAMPEPE: What was Mr Makoma's function in your unit?MR MKHUMBUZI: I knew Mr Makoma, he would come at home and visit me, but I am not aware of his function, but I knew that he was a member like APLA, just like myself.ADV BEMBRIDGE: You did however do your training together, so you knew him? MR MKHUMBUZI: I knew him.ADV DE JAGER: Did you have ranks in APLA?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I did not have a rank.ADV DE JAGER: You didn't have a rank, did Mr Makoma have a rank?MR MKHUMBUZI: He did not tell me of having a rank, I don't think he had a rank in APLA.ADV DE JAGER: Was he on the same level, a soldier on the same level or was he on a higher level?MR MKHUMBUZI: We were in the same level according to my knowledge. He was not giving orders to me, we were just advising each other.MS KHAMPEPE: When Mr Mkhumbuzi, in your affidavit, that at paragraph 10, I think that is what Mr Bembridge is struggling with, when you say you were instructed by Mr Makoma to prepare yourself by getting yourself into physical position, what do you mean by that? If you were on par with Mr Makoma and he wasn't in a position to be able to give you instructions or orders in your unit?MR MKHUMBUZI: When I mentioned this in my statement, I meant that we could get a message maybe from Makoma, we could get a message through Makoma from the Commander or they can get a message through me from the Commander, maybe it happened this way that day.JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, do carry on.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you. Well, the question is how did it happen? Not maybe how it happened, you said in your statement specifically that it was Mr Makoma who came and told you to make preparations for the operation, however now in your testimony you say that you didn't discuss the matter at all with Mr Makoma, now which one of the two is it?MR MKHUMBUZI: Your question is not clear to me. ADV BEMBRIDGE: In paragraph 10 of your statement, you say that it was about a week before the attack that Mr Makoma came to you and told you that the operation was going to take place and to make preparations, you say he told you to prepare yourself by getting into top physical condition and that you were to go and get weapons from Umtata.JUDGE WILSON: He doesn't say that. He instructed me to prepare into top physical state, that is him, but he then goes on to say and more importantly ...ADV BEMBRIDGE: I beg your pardon, that is correct. I am sorry, I misread that. You do say however in your statement that Mr Makoma told you to prepare yourself for the operation and to get yourself into top physical condition. But in your evidence now, you say you didn't discuss the matter or talked to Mr Makoma about the operation at all.CHAIRMAN: That is not necessarily inconsistent you know. They did not talk about what they were going to do, he was just told that he must prepare himself for whatever they were going to do. Isn't that what it really means?ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, I asked him when he said that they didn't discuss the objectives, what they did then speak about regarding the operation. He said that they didn't really speak at all.CHAIRMAN: Quite right. He just told him you better get ready.MS KHAMPEPE: I have him saying Mr Bembridge that the details of the actual operation were not discussed, but Mr Makoma gave him instructions to do certain things, which included getting himself into a proper physical condition for the mission. But the details of the mission per se were not discussed by Makoma.ADV BEMBRIDGE: That is his suggestion certainly. I submit however, that that is not consistent with what he had been saying in his testimony.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Who is the person who actually gave you the order to go to Umtata and collect the weapons?MR MKHUMBUZI: I said it was Vusi. ADV BEMBRIDGE: It was Vusi, and what exactly did he say to you?MR MKHUMBUZI: He told me to go to Umtata, to a certain house in Umtata, he gave me the address. There I would meet a person and that person would know why I was there.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Again, you didn't ask him any reason for this?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I did not.ADV BEMBRIDGE: You arrived back in Cape Town after collecting the ammunition and you took them to a house you say. Thereafter you had certain meetings, one at the Uluntu community centre with a person called Nonxuba, who is that?MR MKHUMBUZI: Nonxuba was the person who was present in the church.ADV BEMBRIDGE: And what did he instruct you?MR MKHUMBUZI: When?ADV BEMBRIDGE: When you saw him at Uluntu community centre?MR MKHUMBUZI: I said that he told me to prepare petrol bombs, known as Molatov, we were then going to meet in the morning on Sunday.ADV BEMBRIDGE: He didn't give any reason as to why?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, he did not give me any reason. ADV BEMBRIDGE: And again you were not interested to ask?MR MKHUMBUZI: I could not ask.ADV BEMBRIDGE: When you got into the car to proceed to the actual operation itself, you still didn't ask him where you were going?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I did not ask. But what I knew was that we were going to an operation. That is what I was thinking.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why didn't you ask him what the operation was and where you were going?MR MKHUMBUZI: I could not ask.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why could you not ask?MR MKHUMBUZI: What I knew was that I had to follow orders as they came. I could not ask anything more. I was just following orders.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Who told you that, that you were not allowed to ask any questions?MR MKHUMBUZI: I was told by Vusi, the one who was training me.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did he tell Makoma that too?MR MKHUMBUZI: I don't know whether he told Makoma. ADV BEMBRIDGE: If he told you as part of your training, then I presume that Mr Makoma would have been told at the same time?JUDGE NGOEPE: Is that a question?ADV BEMBRIDGE: Perhaps I can rephrase it. If Vusi told you that as part of your training, was Mr Makoma told at the same time or was he not told at the same time?MR MKHUMBUZI: I would like to explain something.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Please go ahead.MR MKHUMBUZI: Mr Makoma was staying at his home, I was staying at home. We would meet in meetings, but what I am sure about is that Vusi told me that Makoma was together with us in the same training. If he told me not to ask, it is clear that he also told Makoma.JUDGE WILSON: Did he tell you privately or did he tell you when he had the people there that he was training?MR MKHUMBUZI: My training was private. CHAIRMAN: Was that part of your training that you mustn't ask questions?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, it was part of my training.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you know now, whether anyone had been to the St James church before the attack to plan the operation? Do you know that now? MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I don't know.ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was your training as to attacks, was it not part of your training that attacks should be carefully planned?CHAIRMAN: You mean planned by him?ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am saying was it part of his training that attacks in general should be carefully planned by whoever was to be in control of that operation?MR MKHUMBUZI: Please repeat your question.JUDGE NGOEPE: Do you know whether attacks are properly planned beforehand?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I do know that.ADV BEMBRIDGE: You don't know whether this specific attack was properly planned though?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I don't.ADV BEMBRIDGE: In all likelihood according to what you have been told in your training, it had been planned?CHAIRMAN: ... along with the question that the comment you are making, you know, the likelihood of him being told and so on, I mean that really hardly is a question.ADV BEMBRIDGE: I won't take it any further. Had you heard of the St James church before the attack took place? MR MKHUMBUZI: No.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Where did you live at the time?MR MKHUMBUZI: At home.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Where is that or where was that?MR MKHUMBUZI: Unathi, in Old Crossroads, number 2023.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were you aware of the St James' activities in Khayelitsha?MR MKHUMBUZI: No.ADV BEMBRIDGE: You were not aware that St James has a daughter church in Khayelitsha?MR MKHUMBUZI: No.ADV BEMBRIDGE: You were not aware that the congregation from St James, Kenilworth, on Sundays go to church in that church in Khayelitsha?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I did not know.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can I take it you knew nothing about the St James church before the attack? MR MKHUMBUZI: No.ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was then your objective in forming part of that attack?MR MKHUMBUZI: Please explain your question.ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was your intention in forming part of that attack? What did you expect the attack to achieve?MR MKHUMBUZI: I took part in the attack so that our land can come back to us and so that there can be democracy in this country.ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did you intend the attack to achieve that?MR MKHUMBUZI: According to me, this attack would bring down the spirit of the oppressors in order for us to think back what they have done to see that it was not a good thing to take the land from its people.ADV BEMBRIDGE: How would it bring down the oppressors?MR MKHUMBUZI: When there is violence in White areas, they would try and go to the government to lay there grievances so that the government can listen to our own grievances in order for us to live together in peace.ADV BEMBRIDGE: And that was your intention or your reason for taking part in the attack?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I can say so.ADV BEMBRIDGE: But Mr Mkhumbuzi, when you decided to take part in that attack, you just said you didn't know the attack was going to be in a White area. CHAIRMAN: No, you asked him questions, what did he hope to achieve and he gave you a general answer as to how he understood the position. You can't take it very much further than that, can you?ADV BEMBRIDGE: With respect, he said his motivation for taking part in the attack was to perform an attack on a White area, yet he said he didn't know that prior to him actually deciding to go on the attack.CHAIRMAN: Quite right. They attacked a White church and you asked him what were you hoping to achieve? He offers you an explanation as to what he thought, if there was violence in a White area, the government would pay attention to their grievances.ADV BEMBRIDGE: With respect, what I asked him was what was his motivation for going on the operation.CHAIRMAN: Well, maybe that is putting it differently, but I think the answer is the same, isn't it?ADV BEMBRIDGE: With respect, I would submit not. I submit his motivation for going on the operation is formed prior to going on the operation. He said that his motivation was to attack a White area.CHAIRMAN: His motivation was that he wasn't told, he was merely told he was to be part of an operation, that is all.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Specifically that is the point I am trying to make. I am saying he is not being truthful in saying that.CHAIRMAN: Well, suggest to him that you knew all along that there was going to be an attack on the church and despite that, you went, put that to him.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Certainly, Judge, if I put that to him, however, if I put that to him as bluntly as that, he is likely to deny it straight up.JUDGE NGOEPE: My problem is that you take that question out of context. Out of the context of PAC APLA operations, and you singled it out as a small little trip that has to be considered on its own. You ignore the whole context which he has given us that I was a member of this, I was a member of this military wing operating this way and that way and then you singled it out and you take it out of that general context and then you put it in isolation there. ADV BEMBRIDGE: I don't seem to put it in isolation, however, it is clear if what he says is true, he couldn't have been aware that that would be the effect of the attack, it may for all he knew, have been an attack on an ANC position which would not have had the effect which he says is would have had.JUDGE NGOEPE: What was the general objective of APLA, the military wing?ADV BEMBRIDGE: That I can't speak for on behalf of APLA, but certainly it would seem that their activities ...JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, hasn't the applicant told us what it was all about?ADV BEMBRIDGE: It also seems to be that he was also involved in organisations which carried out defensive duties.MS KHAMPEPE: But with due respect, Mr Bembridge, that is the point that you actually covered, I think you went back to that point repeatedly. The Task Force he referred to was indeed a defensive unit, but the APLA unit that he has given evidence to, was definitely something completely different to the Task Force, but he initially referred to he was recruited from the Task Force whose duty then was to defend the community. He was recruited from that Force into the APLA unit which had a completely different function from the Task Force, that is the evidence which is before us.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Perhaps I should ask him then what was the purpose of APLA at the time?MR MKHUMBUZI: The purpose of the APLA at the time was to fight until the land was brought back to its owners.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Who was that fight against?MR MKHUMBUZI: The land was taken by the White people, those who oppressed us at the time. It is clear that we were fighting against them.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did the PAC or APLA have any other enemies at the time? MR MKHUMBUZI: No. I don't think so.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did the PAC ever, or APLA ever launch attacks on other political parties?MR MKHUMBUZI: I did not hear even in the news about that.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were you aware of the nature of the weapons that were going to be used in this attack?MR MKHUMBUZI: I knew about the weapons that they would injure people, but I did not know that it would be people in church. But I knew that the weapons were there to injure people.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you know that handgrenades with nails glued to them, would be used in the attack?MR MKHUMBUZI: The handgrenades together with other weapons, I was told to take a suitcase and I was told what was inside the suitcase, but I did not open the suitcase to see whether there were handgrenades, but these were written down that in this suitcase, there are such and such weapons. I had to give them back to the person who sent me.ADV BEMBRIDGE: You didn't look inside and see for yourself?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I did not.ADV BEMBRIDGE: You say now you think it was wrong to attack the church if I understood you correctly?MR MKHUMBUZI: Now?ADV BEMBRIDGE: I thought you have said a moment ago that you think it was wrong to have attacked the church? You don't think that? MR MKHUMBUZI: I don't remember saying that.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Okay, what is your attitude now then to having attacked the church?MR MKHUMBUZI: I sympathise with the people who died in the church and I would like to ask for forgiveness to them. But we could not stop what was happening at that time, we could not stop it at that time. But now there is peace.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why could you not stop it at the time?MR MKHUMBUZI: As I've already said at that time we were fighting for our country and for democracy. It was very difficult at the time to stop such incidents because this country, we were oppressed in this country, South Africa, we could not at all.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you think the attack achieved anything?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I think so because today we are in this country South Africa, we are living together. We are not fighting with each other, we are here today to this Truth Commission to give or to explain what we have done before.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were you aware that there were negotiations going on about the new constitution at that time?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I would listen to the news and I would hear about the negotiations.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Was that not a better way of achieving peace and democracy? MR MKHUMBUZI: The PAC did not see it that way at that time. But it was an easy way because it did not tell APLA to stop fighting with the Whites at the time.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you have any knowledge of why APLA denied responsibility for the attack at the time?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I don't have that knowledge.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you think it was in accordance with the PAC policy at the time to carry out that attack?MR MKHUMBUZI: I think so.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Can you explain then why the PAC said it was not?MR MKHUMBUZI: It was not what?ADV BEMBRIDGE: That it was not in accordance with their policy?MR MKHUMBUZI: Would you like me to explain why the PAC ..ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am asking you if you know why the PAC said that that attack was not in accordance with their policy and why they condemned the attack?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I am sorry, I don't know why they condemned that, maybe they can explain why they deny it. I for one, I cannot explain.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Are you aware that the PAC was participating in the negotiations about the new constitution? MR MKHUMBUZI: Which one are you talking about, which negotiations are you talking about?ADV BEMBRIDGE: The negotiations that were taking place about the very same that that attack was carried out, over the new constitution?ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't it almost like the Prestasie advertisement - "strengthen our negotiating arm?"ADV BEMBRIDGE: That may be, I am asking if he is aware that there was negotiations going on. Negotiations in Kempton Park?MR MKHUMBUZI: I would listen to the news and see this in the news, but I did not get a report about what PAC said in the negotiations.ADV BEMBRIDGE: What did you do after the attack?MR MKHUMBUZI: After the attack, I went to stay with my cousin and then from there, I went to the Transkei.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you report back to anyone, any of your superiors as to what had happened?MR MKHUMBUZI: What do you mean, where in the Transkei?ADV BEMBRIDGE: Anywhere, in Cape Town or in the Transkei, did you report to anyone what had happened at the attack, anyone at APLA?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I told no one.ADV BEMBRIDGE: So therefore you spoke to no one about the attack before it took place, you spoke to no one about the attack after it took place? MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.ADV BEMBRIDGE: But you went as far as preparing petrol bombs, carrying weapons, all this for an attack which you knew nothing about?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.ADV BEMBRIDGE: I want to put it to you Mr Mkhumbuzi, that you are not telling the truth, that you were aware, well before this attack took place what the target was, that you were aware that it was a church.JUDGE WILSON: You are putting this to him, so I take it you have information to that effect?ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am going to suggest that ...JUDGE WILSON: Suggesting, you are putting it to him that he knew, that is a definite statement isn't it?ADV BEMBRIDGE: Well, I will put that to him, that is the basis on which I am putting it to him. Is that correct, you deny that?MR MKHUMBUZI: What are you talking about?ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am saying to you that I believe you knew before the time what the target of the attack was, and that it was a church?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I know nothing about that.ADV BEMBRIDGE: What is your attitude to the fact that it was not only White people in the church? MR MKHUMBUZI: The only thing that I can say is that I sympathise with those who were non-White in the church, I apologise to them, even to the Whites, but they could also understand how was the situation during that time and how quick things could happen, so we couldn't differentiate that these were White and these were Coloureds.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why was it necessary to attack a church?MR MKHUMBUZI: As I've said that I did not know that we were going to attack a church. I didn't know that the target was the church. But I felt as I've said before, the Whites were also using churches to oppress the Blacks. They took our country using churches and Bibles as we are reading the history. We as the oppressed ones.ADV DE JAGER: Do I understand you correct, even if you've known that it was a church, you would have attacked the people in the church?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.ADV DE JAGER: If it was a church for Black people and there were only Black people, would you have attacked the church then?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, we couldn't have done that.ADV DE JAGER: So you attacked the church and you would have attacked it even if you knew it was a church and there were White people in the church?MR MKHUMBUZI: Can you please come again with the question.ADV DE JAGER: You would have attacked in any event, if you had known it is a church and if you knew beforehand that there was White people in that church?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, we would have continued with the attack. ADV DE JAGER: Yes, now could you give us the reason why you would have continued with the attack, knowing it is a church and knowing there are White people, what was the motivation for your attack?MR MKHUMBUZI: Will you please rephrase your question, I don't understand clearly.ADV DE JAGER: Why did you want to attack the White people?MR MKHUMBUZI: By doing so, attacking the Whites, we knew and we read from the books that they are the ones who took the land from the Africans. That was the main reason for us to attack the Whites.CHAIRMAN: Any further questions?ADV BEMBRIDGE: May I just ask, do you ever go to church yourself, have you ever been to church yourself?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I do go to church.ADV BEMBRIDGE: So you know that people go there to pray and to pray for peace amongst other things?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I know that.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Don't you think that you could have found a better place to attack?MR MKHUMBUZI: As I've said before, I did not know that we were going to the church. Even anywhere the attack would have taken place, not just because it was a church, I mean anywhere the attack was going to take place. ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman.NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BEMBRIDGECHAIRMAN: Mr Brink?CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, following on the last aspect of my colleague's questioning to you, are your mother and father still alive?MR MKHUMBUZI: My mother is still alive.MR BRINK: And is she a churchgoer to your knowledge?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.MR BRINK: And while you were still at school, I take it you and your family would go to church on Sundays?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.MR BRINK: To what denomination do you belong?MR MKHUMBUZI: The African Gospel Church.MR BRINK: So you must be perfectly aware that a church is a place of sanctuary? MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, the ones I attended I knew that they were sanctuary but there were churches that were used to do the wrong things as I've said before. I've said most of the White churches were used to oppress the Blacks. So the one I attended I knew that people were praying for peace that was not around. Even under the circumstances that they were living, they were praying for peace. So some other churches I knew that they were just being used by our enemies to oppress the Black people.MR BRINK: You have told us that you used to read the newspapers and listen to the radio and presumably watch television, is that correct?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.MR BRINK: And you must have been aware of the fact that many, many leaders of the so-called White churches were fighting apartheid?MR MKHUMBUZI: Like whom maybe?MR BRINK: Well, like Beyers Naude of the Dutch Reformed Church. Like Archbishop Tutu of the Anglican Church.MR MKHUMBUZI: I can tell something about Bishop Desmond Tutu, about others I know nothing.MR BRINK: Did you know that he was one of the church leaders who were opposed to apartheid, the answer is yes or the answer is no?MR MKHUMBUZI: No.MR BRINK: You weren't aware of that fact? Are you telling the truth, are you telling the truth here Mr Mkhumbuzi? MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, it is true, I know nothing about that.MR BRINK: You know nothing about Bishop Tutu's activities?MR MKHUMBUZI: I do know about Bishop Desmond Tutu.MR BRINK: Did you know, having regard for the fact that you were a reader and a listener to the radio and a watcher of television, were you or were you not aware, this is the last time that I will ask this question about Bishop Tutu, that he was opposed to apartheid?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I do know that.MR BRINK: Yes. Have you heard of Dr Beyers Naude?MR MKHUMBUZI: No.MR BRINK: You haven't read very much then have you, in the last few years?CHAIRMAN: He is still young.MR BRINK: Anyway, you told us that the church is a place of sanctuary, you agree with that?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, those I used to attend.MR BRINK: All churches are places of sanctuary, aren't they and synagogues and mosques? Are they not? MR MKHUMBUZI: Now I do agree with that, because I can see the role of churches after what happened in this church and I can see that other Priests, when I am watching TV, they do not like violence.JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, I think when it was put to the applicant that many White leaders were opposing apartheid, in all fairness to him, it should have likewise been indicated to him that many White church leaders in fact justified apartheid and sought even to justify it on religious grounds.MR BRINK: Yes, that is perfectly true, in fairness to him. I thought that would be dealt with in re-examination. But I take your point, Judge. Yes, you've heard what Judge Ngoepe has said, it is perfectly true that there were some churches in this country who did support apartheid, that is so. But you were also aware of the fact, weren't you that churches provided missionary work to help underprivileged people such as yourself?MR MKHUMBUZI: Are you asking whether I had a knowledge of that?MR BRINK: Yes.MR MKHUMBUZI: Please repeat your question, I did not understand very well.MR BRINK: Were you aware of the fact that many, many churches did missionary work to assist underprivileged people, such as yourself?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I did not know about that and I did not read about that.MR BRINK: Never heard it talked about?MR MKHUMBUZI: No.MR BRINK: You only discovered as I understand your evidence, that the target that evening was to be the church at a time when you were approaching it? MR MKHUMBUZI: I did not find that when we were approaching the church, but I only see when we got there, when I saw a board written outside. That was when I noticed that it was a church.MR BRINK: Did you then know that the church was your target?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.MR BRINK: To your knowledge that church could have been half full of Black people, half full of White people?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, we did not know.MR BRINK: Exactly, you did not know. So you could have been causing injury and death to Black people, had there been Black people in that church that evening?MR MKHUMBUZI: Is that a question sir?MR BRINK: Yes.MR MKHUMBUZI: Please explain your question again sir.MR BRINK: When you realised that you were going to attack the church, more specifically the people in the church, there could have been many, many Black people at that service as far as you were aware?MR MKHUMBUZI: I did not think about that.MR BRINK: You did not think about that. MR MKHUMBUZI: No.MR BRINK: Do I understand then that the attack upon the church was a revenge attack because when the land you say was taken away from your people, they were using the churches, the Whites were using the churches, was this then a revenge attack?MR MKHUMBUZI: It was not a revenge, but we just wanted our land to be brought back to us. Not that we were revenging because churches were used to oppress our people, but we just wanted the land to be brought back to us.MR BRINK: Wasn't this just an act of mindless barbarity?MR MKHUMBUZI: No.MR BRINK: Notwithstanding eleven people were killed and a considerable number of people were seriously injured, defenceless people at prayer?MR MKHUMBUZI: Is that a question sir?MR BRINK: Do you want me to put the question again?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.MR BRINK: Was this not an act of mindless barbarity, perpetrated on people who were in a house of worship, a house of God at prayer on a Sunday evening, when many people were killed and many, many more seriously injured?MR MKHUMBUZI: At that time, we were fighting. According to my understanding every target would be attacked.MR BRINK: So you were fighting and you decided to fight unarmed, defenceless, peaceful people who were at prayer in the house of God? MR MKHUMBUZI: Can you please repeat your question because I don't clearly understand.MR BRINK: No, I don't want to put it again Mr Chairperson. I will read to you a copy of a letter I received from one of the victims in fairness, because the Committee has it and I indicate that this gentleman who is not present, apposes the application. I want to read his letter to you and you may comment on it if you wish. I, Dimitri Makogon, will be out of Cape Town on July the 9th and 10th, 1997 and do wish to make known my opinion regarding the amnesty application by those responsible for the St James massacre in which I lost both legs and my right arm. The aim of the TRC is to establish the truth, the truth is that on July the 25th, 1993, the three applicants killed 11 and injured more than 50 civilians, gathered in a church, unarmed and defenceless. Would you like to comment on that?MR MKHUMBUZI: The only thing I would like to say is I don't know when you say he is not in Cape Town, Dimitri ...?MR BRINK: Dimitri Makogon, I don't know whether the pronunciation is correct. He was in church that evening.MR MKHUMBUZI: I really don't know but I would like to meet him and apologise to him. Maybe he would understand because what we did was not right, we do regret that, but I wish we could meet with him, maybe he would like to listen when we try to apologise. But I don't know when you say he is not in Cape Town to show that we are sincerely apologising.NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK: Thank you.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mr Chairman, I have been asked by one of the victims behind me, I have just had a note passed to ask one further question of this applicant if I may be given leave to do that.CHAIRMAN: Yes.ADV BEMBRIDGE: It is actually two questions Mr Chairman. You said that when you went to church, or you say that you didn't go to church and you identified the Uluntu community centre as the place where you went to church, is that correct? MR MKHUMBUZI: No, not at Uluntu community centre, it is African Gospel Church, NY79 in Guguletu.ADV BEMBRIDGE: I beg your pardon, I misunderstood the question. You said you went to a meeting at the Uluntu community centre?MR MKHUMBUZI: When?ADV BEMBRIDGE: You said in your statement you went to a meeting there?MR MKHUMBUZI: When, in which meeting?ADV BEMBRIDGE: You said on the Sunday the 25th ...JUDGE WILSON: He didn't say they went to a meeting, he said they met at the Uluntu community centre.ADV BEMBRIDGE: You met Mr Nonxuba at the Uluntu community centre of the 25th of July 1993, is that correct?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, that is correct.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Was that the blue centre in Khayelitsha, in Site C, next to the railway line?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, the one I am talking about it is in Guguletu, at NY108.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Okay, thank you very much. The second question .... CHAIRMAN: It is not the second one, but I am allowing you. Do carry on.ADV BEMBRIDGE: You say that APLA assumed that St James was in a White group area? Do you yourself know whether that is in fact correct?MR MKHUMBUZI: I am not sure whether it is true or not.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Are you aware that on the time of your attack, Kenilworth was no longer a White group area and that there were people of other races living in Kenilworth?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I didn't know that.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman.JUDGE NGOEPE: But was it a traditionally so-called White area?ADV BEMBRIDGE: I must be honest, as I stated at the outset, it was a question passed to me by one of the victims, I cannot state categorically, but I assume that it was a traditionally White area.CHAIRMAN: Any re-examination?RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, just shortly. Firstly, I think I made the point in my opening statement, I don't think the applicant mentioned that in his affidavit or in his evidence, about St James being in a White area? Bassie, did you identify St James as a target? The church?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I don't know. I never heard anyone identifying St James as a target, what I knew is that we were going to an operation. ADV ARENDSE: In your opinion, would APLA identify a target which had mostly Black people in it, would you expect them to identify a target like that?MR MKHUMBUZI: No, I don't think so. Such a thing could not have happened. Let me explain. I don't think so because what I have learnt, before anything could happen, we would like to investigate first, so I don't think we will go to places where there is mostly Black people.ADV ARENDSE: Do did you assume that these investigations were done and that the target was as you would have expected it to be, namely White people?CHAIRMAN: He is just going to give you an opinion.ADV ARENDSE: I am asking for his opinion.CHAIRMAN: Yes, you are asking whether he assumed, he assumed that? I don't think it is worth very much.ADV ARENDSE: As you please Mr Chairman, I would withdraw it.CHAIRMAN: Yes.ADV ARENDSE: Bassie, were you trained to use R4 rifles and M26 handgrenades, on how to use it?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, I was trained to use R4 rifles and the handgrenades.ADV ARENDSE: I am just asking you this, because that is the arms and ammunition used during the attack. Now my question is, you were told on your evidence, on a very late stage that you are going to be part of the attack in the form of "security". Now my question is, were you instead of for example Makoma, asked to go inside the church armed with a rifle and a handgrenade? If you had been ordered to do so, would you have done so? MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, we were working under instructions. I was trained to use the R4 rifle and the handgrenade. If I was instructed to do so, I wouldn't oppose, I would just follow the instructions.ADV ARENDSE: As an APLA operative at the time, why were you not told, informed what the targets would be and who would the target be and so on?MR MKHUMBUZI: The only thing I can say is I was still a new APLA member, I was still in the premature stages under the training. Maybe I am just thinking, if they have told me, they would think I would go and tell the police like to become an informer, sort of, so that I can put my comrades in trouble, because things as such do happen. That is what I am thinking of.ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have got no further questions.NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSEJUDGE NGOEPE: You are aware, aren't you that there was in some churches, there was apartheid?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes.JUDGE NGOEPE: And in fact in some churches, they didn't even want Black people to come in to worship in there, isn't that so?MR MKHUMBUZI: Yes, it is so.CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you very much. Mr Brink, is there any suggestion on your part as to whether we should carry on now?MR BRINK: I don't know how long the, possibly if the next applicant could be led, it would probably take a quarter of an hour to read his statement, to get that out of the way, but I am in your hands. CHAIRMAN: Mr Arendse, get done with his statement. Ms Goza, can we proceed with the statement of the next witness?MS GOZA: Yes, Mr Chairman. For the purposes of the record, I shall now proceed to read the second applicant's statement. "I, the undersigned Thobela Mlambisa, do hereby make oath and say that ..."MS KHAMPEPE: We don't have copies Ms Goza of your affidavit.MS GOZA: We apologise Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, we are quickly trying to make a copy available as soon as possible. We do apologise.CHAIRMAN: You don't have copies there yet?ADV ARENDSE: Sorry Mr Chairman, it is my fault.CHAIRMAN: Yes, you may proceed.MS GOZA: We do apologise, the events of the day are catching up with us.CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand. It is having its effect elsewhere as well. This will be handed in as Exhibit B.MS GOZA: "I, the undersigned Thobela Mlambisa, do hereby make oath and say that I have already in connection with this application, I wish to make a further affidavit regarding my participation in the St James church incident". Mr Chairman, if at this stage I may indicate that the first portion of that sentence relates to an affidavit that the second applicant made relating to explaining that he had in fact forwarded his application in (indistinct), which at the present moment cannot be found. That is what that first portion of that sentence refers to.JUDGE WILSON: That is still not an application, you say it can't be found. Is there no application then in respect of this applicant?MS GOZA: I beg your pardon My Lord, my colleague is correcting me that it has been found. I do apologise, I was not aware.JUDGE WILSON: I trust that it is going to be made available to us some time.MS GOZA: "Paragraph 2 - The facts to which I depose are true and correct and within my personal knowledge, unless the context states otherwise. Paragraph 3 - I have been a member of the Pan African Congress, commonly known as the PAC since 1989 and I have been a member of the African People's Liberation Army, commonly known as APLA, since 1990 whilst I was still at school. I was recruited into APLA by Sichomiso Nonxuba, now deceased. Paragraph 4 - I grew up in the Kentani area and went to school there up to standard 10, where I attended the Maqibe High School. I matriculated in 1990. Paragraph 5 - I had been appointed as a unit Commissioner in the Transkei where I was operating from. Paragraph 6 - On the Tuesday before the incident took place, I got an order from the late Mandla, also known as Mazala or Powa, the APLA Chief of Logistics in the Eastern Cape Region to come to Cape Town. I had never before been to Cape Town. He gave me an address where to go to. I knew that I was coming to Cape Town on an APLA mission. At the time, I did not know it was going to be the St James church. I left Umtata on a Chilwan's bus, on the Wednesday and arrived in Cape Town on Thursday. I went to an address in Macassar and found Sichomiso Nonxuba and Makoma there. Nonxuba told me that my code name was Aubrey and introduced me to Makoma as Aubrey. I knew Nonxuba, but I was meeting Makoma for the first time. Nonxuba told me that I had been requested to come to Cape Town so that I could act as the driver during the operation. At that stage he gave no details. Nonxuba and Makoma left me at this house in Macassar and returned later that night. They still did not tell me what the operation was about. Paragraph 7 - On the Saturday before the Sunday when the incident took place, I met Nonxuba and Mkhumbuzi at the Iona shopping centre in Guguletu at approximately three o'clock. There I was introduced to Bassie. Nonxuba again told me that I would be driving during the operation the following day, but gave me no details. My task was to hijack a car. I then went back to the house in Macassar. The next day Makoma fetched me with a taxi and we went to the Uluntu community centre in Guguletu where we met Nonxuba and Bassie. Nonxuba spoke as the Commander and said that we would be involved in an operation that day but he never mentioned what the target was going to be and when it was going to take place. However, he told me and Makoma that we were to get a car. We had to meet him at the Langa taxi rank at 6 pm, that evening. Makoma and I then went to Guguletu where we saw a Datsun motor vehicle, idling in the road. The driver came out of the house and I approached him and asked him whether we could borrow the car and that we would return it. We told him that we were members of the PAC and APLA. He refused and I shot at him with my 9 mm pistol. I don't know whether I shot him because I only wanted to frighten him. He then surrendered the car and I drove it. Paragraph 8 - I then drove to the Langa taxi rank where we met Nonxuba and Mkhumbuzi. They got into the car. Nonxuba then directed me as I drove. When we got to the target and after we had circled the building a few times, I noticed that it was a church. Paragraph 9 - I pulled the car to the front of the church, with the back facing the entrance. While the car was idling, Makoma and Nonxuba got out and Bassie and I stayed inside the car. While we were waiting, a red car stopped, blocking our exit. Bassie then threw a molatov cocktail at the car and I shot one round at the car, causing the car to speed away. More-or-less at this time, Makoma and Nonxuba came out of the church. I had heard a grenade exploding and I heard firing inside the church. I knew that people were going to get killed or injured during the operation. Paragraph 10 - I drove off under instructions from Nonxuba who was the Commander of the operation. I dropped Nonxuba and Makoma at a house in Ottery and Bassie and I then went to a nearby scrapyard, to leave the car there. The scrapyard was about two kilometres away. We returned to the house on foot and stayed there until the next morning. Later that Sunday night, we saw on the CNN news what happened inside the church. The next morning I left the house with Makoma and went to Crossroads in a taxi. From Crossroads, I took the taxi to Macassar. This is the last time that I saw those guys. I went back to Old Crossroads from Macassar during the week, and stayed there for about a week until I heard that Makoma had been arrested. I then left Cape Town for the Transkei with a taxi. Paragraph 12 - I was arrested on the 25th of January 1996 in Tempe, Bloemfontein, while I was being integrated into the South African National Defence Force. At the time I was at the First Special Service Battalion. I am currently stationed at 97 Ammunition Depot in De Aar. Paragraph 13 - I deeply regret causing the loss of life on the 25th of July 1993 and further causing so many people to be injured and maimed. I wish to ask the relatives and friends of the deceased and those who were victims of the attack, to forgive me. At the time I was acting under instructions from APLA High Command and I was trained not to question these instructions. Paragraph 14 - I respectfully submit that my application complies with the requirements of the Act, that the offences in respect of which I am applying for amnesty are offences associated with a political objective, committed in the course of the conflicts of the past and which are in accordance with the provisions of Section 20, subsection 2 and subsection 3 of the Act and that I have made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts. Accordingly I respectfully request that the Committee grant me amnesty". Mr Chairman, those are the contents of the second applicant's sworn statement.CHAIRMAN: Mr Mlambisa, will you just stand please. Sisi, swear him in.THOBELA MLAMBISA: (sworn states)MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you, you have been properly sworn in.CHAIRMAN: Have you understood your affidavit which has been read out by your counsel?MR MLAMBISA: Yes, I did.CHAIRMAN: And do you agree that that is the truth? And do you confirm its contents?MR MLAMBISA: Yes, I do.CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you.ADV DE JAGER: Before we adjourn, I don't know what is contained in the other affidavit or in the application, because it is not before us, but in this affidavit as far as I could gather, it is not clear what the political objective was. I don't know whether it is, perhaps you could point out where it is mentioned.MS GOZA: If we could be granted a short time to ... Advocate De Jager, the paragraph 3 of the second applicant's affidavit states that the applicant was a member of APLA and the affidavit on paragraph 6 goes on to state out the instructions that were given to the applicant from APLA High Command. And on paragraph 13, it is specifically stated there, and if I may read from paragraph 13, "At the time I was acting under instructions for APLA High Command and I was trained not to question these instructions". We would respectfully submit that those paragraphs read together state the objectives as is required in Section 20 of the Act.ADV DE JAGER: I think it states that he received instructions from APLA and that he carried out instructions from APLA, but nowhere is it stated that the objective for the act associated with a political objective, that the objective might have been to gain political power or whatever it might be, but you could have a look at it tonight and see whether you are satisfied.CHAIRMAN: And you can adduce evidence to that effect?MS GOZA: We are indebted to the Chairperson and Mr De Jager, we will look into the option of actually then leading oral evidence in relation to that particular aspect.CHAIRMAN: Very well, we will now adjourn and resume at nine o'clock tomorrow morning.COMMISSION ADJOURNSON RESUMPTION CHAIRMAN: Mr Brink, are we ready to proceed?MR BRINK: I just want to - yes Mr Chairman, but before the matter proceeds, I understand the Committee now has copies of the application of Mr Thobela Mlambisa.CHAIRMAN: Yes.MR BRINK: The mystery of Mr Letlapa Mphlalele appears to have been cleared up. There was a news item in this morning's Cape Times on page 3 on the bottom left hand corner, and I will read it. "Former APLA Operations Director Letlapa Mphlalele was a guest of the PAC and could not be released to appear at the TRC's amnesty hearing in Cape Town yesterday in protest against the TRC's lack of objectivity, the PAC Transkei branch said last night. Mphlalele failed to appear as scheduled yesterday with Bassie Mkhumbuzi, Thobela Mlambisa and Gcinikhaya Makoma to apply for amnesty in connection with the St James church massacre in 1993. The Transkei branch said discussions should be held first with the PAC national leaders about the uneven-handedness in which political parties, previously involved in the political conflict, are being treated by the TRC functionaries." That was a South African Press Association release.CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you. In the light of that statement, it is after all only a press statement, it is not an official communication.MR BRINK: No.CHAIRMAN: Directed at the TRC or directed to the Amnesty Committee.MR BRINK: No, but I thought I would bring it to your attention Mr Chairman.CHAIRMAN: Yes. I would imagine that in due course there would be some official communication from the PAC at their leadership level directed, sent to us about their attitude.MR BRINK: Yes.CHAIRMAN: We will then know whether Mr Mphlalele is going to pursue his application or not. Is there any light you can throw on that?MR BRINK: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN: Ms Goza?MS GOZA: Not at all.CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr Arendse, no? Thank you very much.JUDGE WILSON: Should we re-number this B1 and number the new affidavit B2?CHAIRMAN: Yes. We will renumber the two affidavits. The affidavit of Mr Mlambisa, the first one should be B1 and the one that has just been handed in, should be B2.MS GOZA: Mr Chairperson and members of the Committee, before the proceedings proceed in the line of questions, could I be permitted to re-examine the second applicant, Mr Mlambisa in relation to the aspect that was raised by Adv De Jager concerning the political objective? It was raised yesterday Mr Chairperson.CHAIRMAN: Yes, you may do so.MS GOZA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Just remind him he is under oath.MS KHAMPEPE: May I just interject, Ms Goza, to remind Mr Mlambisa that he is still under oath.THOBELA MLAMBISA: (still under oath) EXAMINATION BY MS GOZA: Mr Mlambisa, you are a member of APLA, are you?MR MLAMBISA: Yes, that is correct.MS GOZA: What are the objectives of APLA? Mr Mlambisa, I am speaking to you in English, there is an interpretation for you. If you feel more comfortable, please feel free to talk in your vernacular. Can we start again. MR MLAMBISA: APLA was the armed wing of PAC. It was formed to overthrow the White government because the European Whites took our land from our people.MS GOZA: Do you associate yourself with the objectives of APLA?MR MLAMBISA: Yes, I do.MS GOZA: If you associate yourself with the objectives of APLA, how do you understand your involvement in the St James incident?MR MLAMBISA: APLA had its own Commanders. I am involved in the St James massacre because I took orders from my Commander. I felt happy in that operation, the St James operation.MS GOZA: Can you please explain what you mean when you say that you were happy?MR MLAMBISA: To explain that we were working under orders of our Commanders. It was an operation that will liberate Africans, so that we can be in democracy. MS GOZA: Now that you know that so many people were killed in that incident, how do you feel?MR MLAMBISA: Now I feel very bad and I would like the people who were in the church, today to forgive us because at the time we were fighting.MS GOZA: Thank you Mr Chairman.NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS GOZACROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mlambisa, when did you start training with APLA?MR MLAMBISA: In 1990.ADV BEMBRIDGE: And what form did your training take?MR MLAMBISA: Military training.ADV BEMBRIDGE: And what did you learn in that military training?MR MLAMBISA: How?ADV BEMBRIDGE: How to do what?MR MLAMBISA: There are many things done in the Army. ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were you trained in the use of weapons?MR MLAMBISA: Yes, that is correct.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were you trained in how to plan attacks?MR MLAMBISA: Yes, we were trained for that.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Were you trained that it was important to plan attacks and that all attacks should be well planned?MR MLAMBISA: Yes, that is correct.ADV BEMBRIDGE: I see in the attack on the St James church, you were instructed to be the driver of the vehicle that would be used? Was there any specific reason why you were chosen as the driver?MR MLAMBISA: Yes, there was a reason.ADV BEMBRIDGE: What was that reason?MR MLAMBISA: The unit on this attack had no driver, they decided to take me to be their driver.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Had you had special training in driving?MR MLAMBISA: No. ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did you know that the unit in Cape Town had no driver?MR MLAMBISA: I got this information when I met the Commander of the operation, the late Mr Commissioner.CHAIRMAN: I think part of the question really is why did they specifically have to go all the way, wasn't he in Umtata?ADV BEMBRIDGE: In Umtata.CHAIRMAN: Yes, why did they have to go all the way to Umtata from Cape Town specifically to come and take you as a driver?MR MLAMBISA: I wouldn't know that, because I was just following orders from my Commanders. The reason for that, I am not aware of it.JUDGE WILSON: Could you give us the name of the person again, I am afraid I didn't get it, from the late, who was it?MR MLAMBISA: Which one, because there are two people who are deceased?JUDGE WILSON: Well you said you got information that there was no driver from the late somebody.MR MLAMBISA: Please repeat your question sir.JUDGE WILSON: Did anybody make a note of it, can somebody else tell me what the name was?MS KHAMPEPE: Sichomiso Nonxuba. JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.ADV BEMBRIDGE: I take it that it was also part of your training that when an attack was to be planned, one should go and have a look at the place where the attack would take place and plan the attack properly as to how it would happen there?MR MLAMBISA: It is not so.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why is that not so? Is that not part of proper planning?MR MLAMBISA: I was not a Commander of APLA at the time.ADV BEMBRIDGE: I think you are misunderstanding my question, I am not saying did you go and plan the attack, what I am saying were you not trained during your training that if one is to command an attack, it is important to go and have a look first at the place where the attack will take place, so that you can plan how it will happen there?MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Bembridge, can I also understand your question. Are you saying if one has to command an attack or participate in an attack?CHAIRMAN: If one has to plan.ADV BEMBRIDGE: My question perhaps should be rephrased, that is an important part of planning an attack that the site of the attack would be visited to ascertain how the attack will take place there? In the ordinary course that that would be a normal part of the training?CHAIRMAN: Yes, carry on.MR MLAMBISA: I don't clearly understand the question.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Okay, what I am asking you is was it part of your training, did they teach you in training that when an attack is planned, it is an important part of that planning to go and look at the place where the attack will happen to plan how the attack will take place there? MR MLAMBISA: I was not trained in that.ADV BEMBRIDGE: You said you were told that it was important to plan attacks. How then was this planning going to take place, how did they tell you that you were to plan attacks?JUDGE WILSON: Were you taught at all how to plan attacks or were you merely taught how to carry out orders?MR MLAMBISA: The Commanders would come to the units on the ground and they would give us the sketch and they would give us instructions to follow. That is how we were trained.JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, what sketch are you talking about, would that be the sketch of the intended object of an attack?MR MLAMBISA: No, it was not about the sketch of the attack, it was the way of an operation. Even after the liberation, we were taught how to protect our country from another country, if the country is to attack South Africa again.JUDGE NGOEPE: It may be that you were not specifically trained or told in training that some planning must take place, but you are a trained soldier of APLA, wouldn't you expect some surveillance to take place first and some planning? Not necessarily by yourself, by somebody else given your military knowledge and training?MR MLAMBISA: Things like what?JUDGE NGOEPE: Wouldn't you expect that prior to an attack and as part of training, there will be some surveillance etc, planning, visiting the place and so on?CHAIRMAN: To identify that target, to see where it is situated, how best to approach it, matters of that kind? MR MLAMBISA: As far as I know, it was happening in the ranks of APLA, but I for one, I have never done that.CHAIRMAN: Yes, you can't take that any further.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now, are you aware whether any such planning took place regarding this particular attack on the St James church?MR MLAMBISA: Yes, I think so.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Do you know who did that planning?MR MLAMBISA: No, I don't know. I think it was my Commander.ADV BEMBRIDGE: That was Mr Nonxuba?MR MLAMBISA: Yes.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did he give you any instructions as to how to carry out this attack?MR MLAMBISA: No.ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did he then expect you to know what you were supposed to do?MR MLAMBISA: I won't know. ADV BEMBRIDGE: So are you saying that you would go to the attack with the Commander, but you wouldn't know what to do when you got there?MR MLAMBISA: We knew that on our way to St James, on that Sunday.ADV BEMBRIDGE: What did he tell you on the way to St James?MR MLAMBISA: He just directed me as a driver, he was just giving me directions how to drive and where to go up until we reached the St James church.ADV BEMBRIDGE: He didn't tell you what you were going to do when you got there? Do you know?MR MLAMBISA: Do you mean us?ADV BEMBRIDGE: Yes.MR MLAMBISA: He told me on Sunday when we met at Uluntu community centre that I will be helping them by driving the car during their operation.ADV BEMBRIDGE: What did he tell you was the nature of the operation?MR MLAMBISA: No.ADV BEMBRIDGE: He didn't tell you where you would be driving the car to?MR MLAMBISA: No. ADV BEMBRIDGE: He didn't tell you where you would be going afterwards?MR MLAMBISA: No.ADV BEMBRIDGE: He also didn't tell you what the target of the attack was?MR MLAMBISA: No.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Nobody else told you, none of your other comrades who were participating in the attack told you what the target of the attack was?MR MLAMBISA: No.ADV BEMBRIDGE: And you were the driver of the vehicle who would take the people to the attack and take them away from the attack, that is correct is it not?MR MLAMBISA: Yes.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Did you have any plans as to what you would do if anything went wrong?MR MLAMBISA: No, we had no plans.ADV BEMBRIDGE: So, if I am understanding you correctly then, you were the person responsible for making sure that the team got to the attack and away from the attack safely, but you had no idea of where you were going or how to get away from there thereafter?MR MLAMBISA: Can you please repeat what you have just said? ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am saying is it correct to say ...CHAIRMAN: Your question is really a repetition of what you have been asking, you know. All he knew is that he was going to drive this group to that place and drive them back.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Mr Mlambisa, what would have happened if something had gone wrong? You didn't know what the target was, what if it had been a military target and Nonxuba had been shot, how would you have escaped?MR MLAMBISA: If I can tell you correctly, I think the people who are sitting next to me, would have directed me.ADV BEMBRIDGE: But they also say they had no idea where the target was or what it was going to be.MR MLAMBISA: Yes, it is like that, they didn't know where we were going to attack, but they are residing in Cape Town, they know Kenilworth and they know Wynberg. They know Cape Town as a whole.ADV BEMBRIDGE: But you were chosen as the driver?MR MLAMBISA: Yes, I was chosen.JUDGE WILSON: Did you say in your evidence yesterday, that this was the first time you've been to Cape Town?MR MLAMBISA: Yes, sir.ADV BEMBRIDGE: I think that is in fact contained in the statement in hand. When you went to steal the car that you were going to use in the attack, once you had stolen it, what if any preparations did you make to actually use it in the attack? JUDGE NGOEPE: Such as?ADV BEMBRIDGE: For example, did you put petrol in the car?MR MLAMBISA: Yes, we did put petrol in the car.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Am I correct in saying that you put about R40-00 worth of petrol in the car?MR MLAMBISA: Are you telling me that?ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am asking you if that is about right or not?MR MLAMBISA: No, I can't remember, I think it was R50-00. I think it was R50-00.ADV BEMBRIDGE: How did you know that would be enough?MR MLAMBISA: I don't know whether there was no petrol in the car, but we thought it was not enough and we were just preparing for an emergency, so we had to put petrol in the car.ADV BEMBRIDGE: If you were preparing for an emergency, why didn't you ask your Commander what the possible escape route was or what plans he had in case something went wrong?MR MLAMBISA: I cannot know, only my Commander can know that because he was the one who gave us the petrol money, he was the one who knew how was the operation going to take place, otherwise I know nothing further than that.ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bembridge, isn't the crux of the matter the admitting they had done this, they admit this brutal shooting, that he drove the car, that he in fact robbed the car, that he shot somebody in robbing the car. Isn't the crux of the matter the question of proportionality? ADV BEMBRIDGE: With respect, Mr De Jager, I think there are two issues to this. The one is the issue of proportionality, the other one is the issue of full disclosure and we dispute that a full disclosure is being made here. I do not accept that these applicants are being honest in purporting to dissociate themselves with any responsibility for the choice of target or denying that they had any knowledge of the type of target that they were going to attack. I submit that is not in the spirit of the disclosure that is contemplated in the Act.CHAIRMAN: Well, full disclosure certainly of relevant facts, but whether R40-00 or R50-00 worth of petrol was put in the car, who put the petrol and matters of that kind, surely I don't think that we should go into detail of that kind, I don't think they impinge on the point that you are trying to make.ADV BEMBRIDGE: As you please Mr Chairman.JUDGE NGOEPE: I understand you to, in effect, it may be a question of how one does it, but I understand you to say that, listening to your previous five questions or so, I understand you to want to show that these applicants took part actually even in the planning of this operation and possibly they are just putting everything onto the late Nonxuba or something like that and that they must have taken part in the actual planning and sat down and discussed what we must do, which route to take if we are caught, something like that. I think that is what you are trying to do and you are saying that by trying to say that they did not take part in the planning and the like, they are withholding information?ADV BEMBRIDGE: That is my suggestion. I will submit it is essential in the nature of an operation such as this, that everyone would have had to have some input in as to how the attack was to take place. Specifically the driver, who would be responsible for the safety of the team to a large extent.JUDGE NGOEPE: And maybe agree or even disagree on certain aspects of the planning, something like that.JUDGE WILSON: Do you dispute that this was his first visit to Cape Town, you haven't asked a thing about that? If it was his first visit to Cape Town, is it at all likely that he would know what route to take, what to do, wouldn't he have to rely on the people who lived in Cape Town to tell him that?ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am unfortunately not in a position to dispute that was his first trip to Cape Town, but to the extent that he alleges that that is a significant factor in that it mitigates against the suggestion that there is any likelihood that this attack being carried out without him having been fully appraised as to how it would be done, where the attack was to take place, what the target was and how it was intended he would escape.JUDGE WILSON: Are you suggesting they drove him around Cape Town, showing him the roads in Cape Town? Which routes he could take, because I find that very hard to believe? ADV BEMBRIDGE: I am suggesting ...JUDGE WILSON: He was a common soldier, he was not an officer of APLA, he was brought in for one purpose and that was to drive the vehicle, so he says. There were three other people in the vehicle with him, all from Cape Town, surely they are the ones who would have known the route where to go?ADV BEMBRIDGE: I won't take that any further.CHAIRMAN: While you are looking at something else, can we take this further. You asked him what preparations they did in regard to the vehicle and then he mentioned only the petrol, but I am interested in other aspects as well. What further preparations did you make with regard to the vehicle, for example did you remove the original registration numbers of the vehicle, put false ones on or did you drive the vehicle without the registration number?MR MLAMBISA: We drove, we used the car as it was, we only just put in the petrol.ADV DE JAGER: At what time did you steal this car?MR MLAMBISA: It was in the afternoon, round about six o'clock, I am not exactly sure about the time. It was past six or before six o'clock.ADV DE JAGER: Because you had to meet your colleagues at six o'clock. So you had to get the car before six o'clock if possible?MR MLAMBISA: Yes. That is why I am saying I am not sure about the time. But what I am sure of, after six o'clock we were already in Langa from where we had taken the car.ADV DE JAGER: And before taking the car, you were armed already? MR MLAMBISA: Yes, we were already armed.ADV DE JAGER: And in fact you shot at the owner of the car?MR MLAMBISA: Yes, sir.ADV DE JAGER: Did you hit him?MR MLAMBISA: I am not sure whether I did hit him or not.ADV DE JAGER: Did you intend to hit him?MR MLAMBISA: No, no.ADV DE JAGER: But if it was only a shot fired, I am sure you would have been able to tell us no, I didn't intend to hit him and I didn't hit him because I didn't shoot at him, I only wanted to frighten him.MR MLAMBISA: I just wanted to frighten him so that he can give us the car keys and we take the car.ADV BEMBRIDGE: You say that the first time that you realised you were attacking the church, was when you had already circled the church a number of times. What did you think when you realised that it was a church that you were going to attack?MR MLAMBISA: There was nothing I could do, I was just following orders from my Commander. I had to obey orders.ADV BEMBRIDGE: Why do you have to obey orders, why is there a reason why you cannot say I do not want to participate in this attack? MR MLAMBISA: I would have been putting myself into trouble, we were not trained that way.CHAIRMAN: And in fact you wanted to obey orders, that is the position, isn't it? You wanted to be part of the process?MR MLAMBISA: Yes, sir.ADV BEMBRIDGE: When was the first time you met Mr Nonxuba?MR MLAMBISA