22 C7.40 - 112 - NTLOKOA

violence.

What forms of violence did you previously accept you

could use to achieve political change? — As I stated before

every form of violence.

The ultimate, any form of violence you were prepared

to use? — That will bring about change, at the point in

time I'd agree with that entirely.

And that changed when? — That changed when I started,

I was banned and I started consulting with Sister Bernard

who showed me the way that violence can contaminate people(lO)

and actually after you had gained what you wanted to gain

you are actually already a violent person. There is no way

tna>. Lhe change that you have achieved is going to change

you, you still remain a violent person, and the possibility

that you continue as a violent person is always there.

So all this violence, which I will later' put to you in

detail which we read about in newspapers, preventing people

s hopping at certain places, physically, stoning, creating

contusion, burning beer halls, burning buses, burning shops,

killing Councillors, do you all include that? — In (20)

violence?

In your concept? — Yes I include all those as violence.

Now what did Sister Bernard say to you which made you change your mind? — Well this happened over a long period of time, it didn’t happen overnight. While we were actually always at loggerheads because I had my particular position that I was pushing and she was pushing this non-violent and peaceable position, that at the time I did not agree with, but I think what really impressed me then was this question of being contaminated by violence because I was (30)

saying/ 23 C7.41 - 113 - NTLOKOA

saying that in order to bring about the better society you

must do everything possible to achieve that, and then she

say yes, but if you are going to do the wrong thing, like

for instance to use violence to bring about that better

society, then that is in itself a violent society against

your people. The possibility is there that after you

have gained what you want, you are going to remain a

violent person and you are going to use this violence over

the very same people you are trying to fight for.

Why? — Because you have become a violent person. (10)

But your violence is not related to that which you

achieve? — It is obviously...

You get violent to achieve something, once you've

achieved it why do you then have to still be violent? —

Because violence is not something that you acquire and can

discard.

Why not, you did?--No I didn't acquire violence, I said

I believed and maybe I used it once, but if you’ use it over

a long period of time, particularly bloodshed..

You used it over a long period of time, you used it (20)

from 1978 to 1980? -- Bloodshed?

Yes? -- No I've never killed anybody.

You caused violence, you caused damage? — I only stoned

a bus, I didn't kill anybody, but if you start killing

people then you become a murderer and it starts, I mean the blood that drops would also affect your mind.

Before 19 ... When did you forsake violence? — Forsake violence, I think almost round about 1982, 1981, that's when

I realised that there are better methods.

But when did you come into the influence of Sister (30)

Bernard/ 24 C7.43 - 114 - NTLOKOA

Bernard? — I said she taught me in Standard 1 and then

I went to other classes and I started working for the

Church. I really started in a sense coming into contact

with her where we had discussions after I was banned.

I understood from your evidence in chief that that was

round about 1980 some time? — Yes, that was when I was

banned.

Yes and was it round about 1980 that you..? — I was

banned at the end of 1979.

Yes and when did you ocme out? -- I was released (10)

and banned/ under house arrest in 1971 November, 1979, so

the rest of the year I was involved in a different case in Bethal,

I was involved in another case.

The case in Bethal, when was that? — This was 1979

November, and..

Not 1978? -- No not 1978, I only appeared in Court in

1979.

Now when did you then come into the influence of Sister

Bernard? — 1979, 1980, 1981 and so on.

Yes how long did this process last, when did you (20) more or less say now you've had this metamorphosis, you're now forsaking violence? It still continues because we al­ ways review, we always talk about what we are doing and we always reflect on what is happening.

But Mr Ntlokoa at some stage there must be a couple- point, at some stage there must be the period where you now agree that you have forsaken violence, when did that happen?

-- I said 1983.

How do you know that? -- I think that was when I started studying, being active in community organisation, (30)

and/ 25 C7.46 - 115 - NTLOKOA

and this became quite clear to me that one can use non­

violent and peaceful means to effect change, that's when I

realised that it does work.

Can you give us some kind of a month during 1983? --

No I'm not sure, I can't say a month, but I say this type

of thing doesn't have an overnight as if it's a revelation.

It was a process that I had come to eventually accept.

Now I want to put it to you that in fact it is such

a remarkable thing that it does in fact have a period, have

a date when you can now say to yourself, I've now changed (10)

my view on something, violence, and now I do not advocate

it any more? — Okay I do not remember the specific day or

date, I didn't write it anywhere or note it anywhere so

it happened sometime but I don't remember when.

Early in 1983, middle of 1983, late in 1983? — Round

about middle of 1983.

So from 1979 until 1983 you had contact, this kind of konctact you are referring to? — Yes.

With Sister Bernard, but the revelation only came in

1983? -- Yes. (20)

Now I want to come back to your statement about violence permeates you. I take it that did not happen with you, because you were violent, you believed in violence, you for­ sake it and you are now not permeated with the violence? -

— Yes, that is correct.

I put it to you earlier, why can't that happen to anybody?

-- I said the possibility is there, that was my original statement, the possibility is there that after you have achieved what you had, you would still remain violent, I never said you were going to be permeated by violence (30)

irrespective/ 26 C7.49 - 116 - NTLOKOA

irrespective of what, there is a possibility that other people

can change.

So the reason why you forsook violence was this possi­

bility of being permeated by it? — Yes, exactly.

But hopefully and thankfully that hasn't happened to

you? — Yes.

Do you now today believe in no forms of violence to

achieve political change? -- Yes I do.

Excuse me? -- I do believe in that there, in no forms,

I believe in no forms of violence. (10)

Yes, what I'm putting to you is you believe today that

one mustn't apply any form of violence to get political

change? -- That is correct.

And is that Sister Bernard’s view? -- Yes.

And how long has she held that view? — Always. As far

as I've known her.

Now up till about 1983 when you had this change did you

achieve anything by using the violence which you advocated?

— I stated before I only used violence once, that is when

I stoned a bus in 1976 when the uprisings were at their (20)

height, that is the only time that I used biolence. To say

that to believe that violence can bring about change does

not mean automatically you are going to be involved in

violence. Myself personally I only was involved in a

violent situation once, and from there I still believed that

it could be used but I was not involved in further acts of

violence against anything, against any property or against

anybody.

The guestion to you was not how many acts of violence you were involved in, my guestion to you was up to 1983 (30)

the/ 27 C7.50 - 117 - NTLOKOA

the violence that you advocated, that you spoke about..? -

-- That I believed, not advocated.

Yes that you believed in, that you sprouted, that you

told people that you believed in? — No I never said..(Mr

Browde intervenes)

MR BROWDE: My Lord he never said he advocated..(Court in­

tervenes )

COURT: I think Mr Ntlokoa answered the question.

MR BURMAN: Up to 1983 did you advocate the use of violence? J — No I didn’t advocate the use of violence. (10)

You didn't write in documents that you needed violence

to get political change? — I answered to allegations that were made in a letter to me about violence, and because it was written to me I had to respond to the very same thing, so I replied to letters that actually challenged me oh the question of violence where, but I didn't for instance deli­ berately write down a document that advocated violence, but where it was asked to me what is your views, I put my views- across.

But when you left the Young Christian Workers for (20) example, you left there because you advocated violence and they didn't want you to advocate violence and that was the breakdown? — No I have too explained this, in its proper context. What happened is that I was involved in a trial in Bethal, a PAC trial, and at the trial I was asked by the

Judge whether I advocated violence. I mean as a Christian how do I come to advocate violence and I put my position that

I agree with violence when it is used against material things, but I do not believe in violence when it is actually used against human beings, when human life is taken and (30) 28 C7.51 - 118 - NTLOKOA

that came out in the papers and the YCW said that I was

advocating violence, but I was simply responding to a ques­

tion put to me by a Court of law and I had to speak the

truth and that was the truth.

Are you saying that when you answered the question,

you are referring to the PAC trial in Bethal? — I am.

Are you saying the question was put to you about violence

that you said you advocate it as a Christian only in regard

tomaterial things and not humans? — Yes.

You qualified it by saying material things? — Mmm. (10)

COURT: What date was that Mr Ntlokoa? — The date of the trial.

Well what year? — It was 1978, end of 1978.

MR EURMAN: You will recall a few minutes ago I asked you whether that was in 1978 and you said no definitely 1979?

— I made a mistake, it was 1978.

That violence that you believed in up to 1983, that didn't get you anywhere did it? — That violence that I..?

Believed in up to 1983..? — Yes it didn't get me any­ where ’because I didn't use it, I just believed that it (20) could be used to bring about change, I myself did not use it.

Do you believe and think that the peaceful means you and KRO are now employing are meeting with some success in the change process? — Yes, definitely.

So your belief in violence up to 1983 brought you no success but your belief in non-violence after that has brought you success? -- I have been involved in actions that involveds programmes of non-violence and peaceful change, that I have been involved in directly. And as a (30)

result/ 29 C7‘53 -119- NTLOKOA

result of my involvement in that it has brought about

results that I can see.

My Lord it was agreed between the parties at the Pre-

Trial Conference that the respondents would furnish certain

copies of certain documents, which would then be used as a

bundle. Some of those documents were the Answering Affidavit

and/or the documents by the first and second respondents.

I am now going to start referring to some of those, and I

would just like to enguire whether Your Lordship has a copy

and whether the witness has a copy in front of him. (10)*

COURT: These are the original affidavits filed by the

respondent, by the first and second respondents?

MR BURMAN': No My Lord, as I understand it a copy was

going to be made for the witness and for Your Lordship. I

understand Your Lordship does have a copy.

COURT: Yes.

MR BURMAN: I would like to enguire whether the witness

has a copy of the Respondent's Answering Affidavit. My

Lord does the witness have the respondent's bundle of docu­

ments before him? (20)

COURT: Yes.

MR BURMAN: Does Your Lordship have a copy?

COURT: Yes. It appears what the witness doesn't have is

a copy of the respondent's original Answering Affidavit.

MR BURMAN: Yes. My Lord could I place a certain copy before

the witness?

COURT: What page are you..?

MR BURMAN: I'm going to refer to page 710 of the first and second respondents'... Do you have in front of you the page that is.marked in the top right hand corner 710 (30)

and/ .>,c 30 C7.59 - 12o - NTLOKOA

and could you look at paragraph 7, do you see that? -- Yes

I see that.

It's in Afrikaans, and so I'm going to translate it into

English in the form of my questions. It states there that

you are a well known activist? Is that correct? — (No

audible reply)

And you attempt to change the existing order with an

alternative socialistic structure? — Well it's what the

police say.

No I'm asking .. (10 )

COURT: He is asking whether you agree with that? — Well no I don't.

MR BURMAN: What's wrong with it?

COURT: Well perhaps you'd better go back to the first part, which I think you agreed, do you agree that you are a well known activist? -- No, that's why I kept quiet, be­ cause... Well I'll agree that I'm a well known activist, that is a fact, that I cannot dispute.

MR BURMAN: Right, the second question, do you accept that you wish to change the existing order with an alternative (20) socialistic order? — With an alternative order, it does not necessarily have to be socialistic, and I stated before that a system that is based on the Freedom Charter would be more acceptable to me.

Do you not wish to change the existing order into a socialistic order? — From my understanding of socialistic there are a lot of different types of socialisms that could be practiced, but what I would like to see happening is a society based on the principles of the Freedom Charter.

Mr Ntlokoa, whatever those different systems are, (30)

when/ 31 C7.60 - 121 NTLOKOA

when you use the word socialistic, do you wish to change the

existing order into what you term socialistic? -- Yes in what

I term socialistic.

What do you term by socialistic? — I've already said

before that I think the only alternative that can secure

peace for this country is the precepts based on the Freedom

Charter.

Don't let us confuse the Freedom Charter with this, let's

just take the concept socialism first. What do you under­

stand by the concept socialism? — The Freedom Charter (10)

is also socialism.

So the statement that you wish to change the existing order to a socialist order is correct? — Yes.

Why did you initially say no? — Because I wanted first to qulaify what type of socialism.

Well you still haven't qualified the type but you've agreed to my question? — I've qualified it, I've mentioned the Freedom Charter as a qualification.

Paragraph 7.1, you were arresed on 2 Septemoer 1977 in terms of Section 6(1) Act 83, 1967 and you were detained (20) until 20 January 1978 when you were released on bail, is that correct? — Yes that is correct.

On 9 May 1978 you were found guilty in the regional court Krugersdorp on a charge of public violence and sen­ tenced to two years’ imprisonment suspended for five years?

— That is correct.

After that you were appointed a full time National

Organiser of the Young Christian Workers? — After that?

No that is incorrect.

When were you appointed? -- 1976. (30)

COURT/ 32 C7.61 - 122 - NTLOKOA

COURT: So it was before that in other words? — It was

before the detention.

MR BURMAN’: Paragraph 7.3 on page 711, on 12 June you

were charged with ten others, ten other members of the Y8W

at Dwarsrivier, Louis Trichardt where you were found in the

possession of a pamphlet with sixteen freedom songs? -- I

wasn't charged, I was detained.

On 10 November 1978 you were again detained in terms

of Section 9(1) of the Act on Internal Security? That is

paragraph 7.4? — I was banned. (10)

Yes. — Yes.

On page 712 in a letter dated 19 December 1978 one Joe

dismissed you as an employee or member of YCW? — Yes.

Who is Joe? -- Joe Falkner.

CouJd you spell it please? — F-a-l-k..

O-n-i-e-r? — Yes, n-e-r.

One of the reasons for your dismissal was your involve­ ment of the use of violence in change? — That's not what the letter said.

Doesn't it say that? — What you have just said is (20) not what the letter states.

Was the reason why you advocated violence not a reason for your dismissal? — No the reason was that I advocated violence. $ That was the reason why you were dismissed? -- Yes.

Well that's what I'm putting to you. — I think you said the use, it was simply advocating violence.

That letter which is annexed at JTM.l which is at page

730 before you, do you have that? 730 of that bundle. We were at 712, we go to 730. Do you have that? — Yes, I've(30)

got/ 33 C7.68 - 123 - NTLOKOA

got that.

Then at page 734 is a letter by you? — Yes.

Is there anything in that letter which is not correct,

do you adhere to what is stated in that letter? — Yes,

at that time.

COURT: Are you saying that at the time you wrote it you

believed what you were then writing? -- At the time I

wrote tnis letter I believed in everything I said in it.

MR BURMAN: Is there anything in that letter that is changed

in your beliefs apart from the advocation and use of (10)

violence?

COURT: Just repeat, is there anything in the letter?

MR BURMAN: In the letter, which is changed except the

change in your use and advocation of violence?

COURT: Well i think the answer to that question Mr Ntlokoa

must read the whole letter.

MR BURMAN: If he wishes, yes My Lord, but I think he

knows the letter well, but if you wish to read the letter

could you..? -- No, this letter was written in 197...

COURT: No but Mr Burman is asking you if there is (20)

anything in the letter apart from violence that you don't

today believe in? -- I'll have to read it again. Yes Your

Worship, I said I'll have to read the letter again in order

to answer that question.

MR BURMAN: Can you just read it and mention to us what you

- where your views have changed? — Okay.

COURT: Mr Burman, I didn't realise, this letter seems

to go on for about twenty pages.

MR BURMAN: It’s a long letter My Lord.

COURT: Well shouldn't Mr Ntlokoa read it overnight and (30)

answer/ 34 C7.71 - 124 - NTLOKOA

answer the question tomorrow morning?

MR BURMAN: My Lord I'm going to, various documents were

found in his possession and they are very, very lengthy My

Lord, some ten fifteen pages, and ..

COURT: Yes, but if you ask this sort of general question

it will be unfair to expect the witness to answer it without

reading it for the purpose of answering the question.

MR BURMAN: My Lord, I would have understood that he would

have had the documents before him and he would have known

about them. (10)

COURT: Yes, but he didn't have your question.

MR BURMAN: Yes, no^it's quite correct, if I could then

just to preclude waste of time in the future, if I could just

through Your Lordship put to the witness..

COURT: Perhaps you can give him a reading list overnight

and tell him what your questions are and he can answeE them

tomorrow.

MR BURMAN: If he could do some reading, Mr Ntlokoa His

Lordship points out that it's going to take a long time, and there is going to be a lot of time wasted if you go (20) through this letter and the other letters which I am going to put,to you now. I'm going to put to you tomorrow all the letters and documents which you wrote and which were in your possession, and those documents are clearly stated and in the respondent's bundle of documents, those that, some of them have been brought to your attention. I am going to be asking you tomorrow about those documents.

I am going to be asking you whether you admit those documents whether they are your documents, whether they were found with you, whether they are in your handwriting, and whether(30) 35 C7.72 - 125 - NTLOKOA i you agree or don't agree with the contents. Now if you

could start looking at some of those documents? _ The

thing is I did read this particular document, but I mean if

you are going to ask any question at random about all the

letters I am going to be reading, I'll have to refer first

to that articular issue.

CPUST: Yes, no obviously you will be given that opportunity.

-- I will be given that opportunity.

MR 5R0WDE: My Lord, may I with respect submit that the

way My Learned Friend has put it is unsatisfactory, (10)

purely from a time-wasting point of view, what My Learned

Friend must do I'm afraid My Lord is to set out which docu­

ments he's referring to.

COURT: Well have you a list of the documents?

MR 3'JRMAN: No I don't My Lord, I can try and get a list

but all the documents which were found in this witness'

possession, which are described as such in the Discovery

Affidavit and the papers.

COURT: Well if it is put on that general basis and he

comes tomorrow and he says he hasn’t read a particular (20)

document referred to, well you'll have to take the conse­

quences .

MR EURMAN: That is so My Lord. But My Lord I just want

to make it clear that unfortunately I have to get the proof

of agreement or non-agreement on all the documents which

this witness at some stage had.

COURT: Yes, well I don't think, Mr Browde is not objec­

ting the question, although I think that he can, it is just

a question of the mechanics of giving the witness a fair

opportunity of answering them. (30)

MR/ 36 C7.73 - 126 - NTLOKOA

MR BROWDE: My Lord may I just ask My Learned Friend some­

thing?

MR BURMAN: I don't think I'm going to be any more helpful

than being able to draw up a list My Lord, which already

exists in the form of a Discovery Affidavit.

MR BROWDE: Is My Learned Friend referring My Lord to page

17 of the Index?

MR BURMAN; Inter alia, yes My Lord. There are documents

which were found in his possession and those are named at

page 17 of the Index, others which are in the application (10)

papers which originate from him or otherwise those include

those documents.

COURT: Well Mr Ntlokoa, I think the basis on which we

should leave it is that insofar as you are able to, after

the Court adjourns this evening, before tomorrow morning, if you could have a look at the documents which emanate from you and read through them for the purpose of being able to answer, as I understand the main question is apart from obviously whether you are the author of them, whether there is anything in them which you didn't agree with either (20) at the time of writing it or now. — Okay, that can be done.

Eut I want to make it clear to everybody that insofar as you are asked tomorrow about a document which you don't have an opportunity of reading for that specific purpose either today or tomorrow, you will be given an opportunity of doing that before answering the question. — Yes, because a lot of documents were found in my possession.

Yes, well I'm simply suggesting that you do the best you can, but with the assurance that you won't be expected to answer this sort of question without that opportunity. (30) 37 C7.78 - 127 - NTLOKOA

MR BURMAN: Mr Ntlokoa what page did you get to, just that

we get clarification? -- I got to 736.

Could you come back to.. ? -- I went to 738.

I think we should not let you read the rest now, we'll

come back to that. Could you come back to page 712? — 712?

Yes with the page number at the top, 712. You were

looking at a document at page 736, now in the same bundle

go back to page 712. Do you have that? — Ja.

It has a paragraph 7.5. On 4 August 1980 in the Regional

court Krugersdorp you were found guilty of an offence of (10) going against your restriction order, breaking or contra­

vening your restriction order? -- Yes, that's correct.

You were sentenced to four months' imprisonment sus­ pended for three years? — That is correct.

Page 713, on 19 October 1980 you were arrested that you addressed a meeting at the Catholic school Kagiso, Krugers­ dorp and you were charged of contravening your restriction order and you were found guilty and sentenced to six months imprisonment? --Correct.

Paragraph 7.7 awaiting the trial in the matter I have(20) just referred to you, you were charged of attempting to leave the Republic of South Africa? -- No I was not charged by attempting to leave the Republic of South Africa.

You were arrested attempting to leave South Africa to go to Swaziland? — No I was arrested in Ermelo.

Yes, and you were arrested while you were on your way attempting to leave South Africa to Swaziland? — Yes.

You were charged with contravening your banning order and you were found guilty and sentenced to six months' im­ prisonment? -- Yes. (30) 38 C7.80 - 128 - NTLOKOA

Paragraph 7.8 on 8 July 1983 you were found guilty and

sentenced to three months' imprisonment or R300.00 because

you were in possession of a banned publication UNB News

Volume 2 1982? At paragraph 7.9 I don't know if that takes

us any firther, but you attended the trial of Mr Isaac Genu

at Krugersdorp when he was charged of furthering the aims of the ANC? -- That is correct.

'Can you remember who of the executive members of KRO were present, all went to Mr Genu's trial? — I think

Sister Bernard was there. (10)

And Mr Magotlo? -- No I don’t remember seeing him.

And Mr Dlamini? — No.

Could you just tell us at the moment who are the exe­ cutive members of KRO? -- Magotla.

He is the chairman. — Isaac Genu.

Is he the vice-chairman? -- No he is the - ja, vice- chairman .

COURI:Sorry just repeat tne name please? -- Joe Magotle,

Isaac Genu vice-chairman. Myself, as secretary, Satch

Makonyane. (20)

MR BURMAN: Is that spelt S-e-a-r-c-h or spelt S-e-r-g*-e?

— G-e. Serge. His other name is Abel.

Mr Serge Makonyane, what portfolio does he attend? —

As labour secretary.

I don't guite remember but the constitution that I read I don't think had a .. ? — A labour secretary, no I mean he represents the union in the executive, if I can put it that way, and we generally call him labour secretary.

Are you also the publicity secretary? — Yes.

And who are the other committee members? -- Bongani (30) 39 C8.00 - 129 - NTLOKOA

Dlamini.

Mr Dlamini, what post does he..? — Additional member.

Yes who else? — Those are the people who are active

now, the others are just..

You haven't mentioned Sister Bernard? — Oh, Sister

Bernard.

What portfolio does she hold? — Additional memoer.

When did Mr Magotlo get elected to be chairman? — 1981.

And Mr Genu to be the vice-chairman? -- 1981.

And yourself to be the secretary? — 1983. (10)

And yourself to be the publicity secretary? — 1983.

And Mr Serge Makonyane as the labour secretary? — Well

I'm not sure, I found him there.

You found him there? — When I joined he was already

in there, I don't know exactly when he became an executive

member.

3ut he was there when you became an executive member

in 1983? — Yes.

And Mr Dlamini? — He was actually co-opted last year,

1985. (20)

Can you remember approximately when? — About December.

That being the beginning of December or the end of Decem­ ber? — The beginning of December.

And Sister Bernard? — From 1981.

Who is the treasurer? -- At the moment we have Sister

Raphael as the treasurer, she is not an elected treasurer as such but somebody who is very trustworthy who can handle moneys because before we didn't have a bank account or any­ thing like that, so it wasn't necessary, but since the case started it became necessary so she is just sort of acting.(30) 40 C8.D1 - 130 - NTLOKOA > *

treasurer.

When did she become the acting treasurer?- — This year

when we opened the account, about a few weeks oack.

Can you give us some kind of a date? — About four weeks

back, I don't remember the exact date, four to three weeks.

Before that you didn't have a bank account? — No we

didn't have a bank account.

Right could we come back to page 714? -- Yes.

Paragraph 7.10 you attended and spoke at a mass meeting

called particularly to commemorate Soweto day, is that (10)

correct? — That is correct.

What day were you at the meeting, what day was the meeting

held? It was to commemorate the 16th..— December 16, I

don't know which day, but it was on the 16th, I think it was

a weekend.

It was 16 June? — Yes.

And where was it? — It was at the Methoaist Church.

How many people were present approximately? — The hall

was packed.

Can you give us an indication, we don't know the place(20)

how many people could it take? — About two to three thousand

somewhere along there.

The Methodist Church? -- It was packed to capacity, right

up to the platform at the front, the pulpit.

Are you sure it's physically possible to get that number

of people in that Church? — Well I said from what I saw there

were about that number, and there were also people outside,

from the windows who were trying to listen from outside.

So you don't agree with the figure given at page 714

of about 700? — No I think it's very small, that's for (30)

only/ C8.02 - 131 - NTLOKOA

only seating that.

Did you say that 16 June is a day that must be commemora­

ted? — Yes 1 said that.

Did you say that it's a day that must be commemorated

because innocent blood flowed? — I said that.

Excuse me? -- I said that.

And that Black people must never forget that the system

and the oppressors, the Black people must not forget the

system? -- Yes.

And the oppressors? — Yes. (10)

That people must remember that the security police is

responsible for the animosity between the UDF and AZAPO? -

— No, I never said they are responsible, I said they are

encouraging it.

What animosity exists between UDF and AZAPO? — Well

it's an idealogical conflict. The others believe in the

Freedom Charter, the others believe in Black consciousness or what they call the Manifesto, the Black People's Manifesto.

What is the predominant difference in their beliefs?

— Well one that the South Africa of the future must be a (20) non-racial society and one that envisages that Whites can also hej.p or be involved in the bringing about of the changes, whereas the other one completely rejects Whites.

And it's AZAPO that rejects the Whites is it not? —

Yes.

But their ideals and their beliefs in regard to what the change should be, and what alternative new system we should have, there is no difference in that? — Well I haven't studied much about AZAPO and so on, so I wouldn't know whether they are in that difference. (30)

From what one reads in newspapers, this animosity is a/ 42 C8.04 - 132 - NTLOKOA

« a fairly serious violent one and there is a lot of violence ► ■ Detween these two factions? — Yes, in some areas there is, f but not in all areas.

Is there violence between UDF and AZAPO in Randfontein?

— I haven't been to Randfontein, I've just read last week

in the papers that there was violence of that nature.

And in Mohlakeng? -- Mohlakeng is in Randfontein.

So you include that in Randfontein? — No, Mohlakeng is

a township of RAndfontein, RAndfontein is the towm, Rand­

fontein is a township and there is no AZAPO in Randfontein(10)

itself.

But there is some in Mohlakeng? — Only in Mohlakeng.

AZAPO is present in Mohlakeng? — Yes, and maybe

affiliates of the UDF.

COURT: Your source of information is a newspaper? — Yes,

on this particular matter I don't have first-hand knowledge

of the fghting. I don't know exactly who's fighting who.

MR 3URMAN: In the same way as you gave evidence that you

had nowledge of the situation in the township of Kagiso in

regard to certain things, what is your knowledge as to (20)

the happenings between the UDF and AZAPO in Mohlakeng? —

As I said from what I've read in the newspapers, I haven't

really sort of, I met somebody from Randfontein who wasn't

very sure, who said some people had gone to Burgersdal,

Burgersdal had been in force, but it was quite a confused

type of story so from what I read in the newspapers and

hearsay. I never really met somebody who seemed to knew what

was actually going on.

But you have heard it being spoken about? -- Yes. That's

a fact. (30)

It's/ 43 C8.05 - 133 - NTLOKOA

It's in fact a thing which is quite widely commonly

spoken about? -- Yes.

And in Munsieville? — No that's nothing like that in

Munsieville.

Is there no violent animosity between UDF and AZAPO in

Munsieville? — There's no AZAPO in Munsieville.

When you mean no AZAPO in Munsieville, you mean there

is no branch or no office? — Yes, there is no branch of

AZAPO in Munsieville.

But whether they are physically there, that you don't(lO)

know? — Well if they are there, they are very invisible.

Why do you say that? -- Because they are never seen,

I have never seen anybody call a meeting or go around talking

to people and saying they are AZAPO.

Yes, I am not talking about in the form of meeting's,

I mean about the form of creating violence? -- No, I haven't heard of anybody being a member of AZAPO in Munsieville, or seen anyoody who purported to be a memoer of AZAPO.

You say AZAPO is not responsible for any violence in

Munsieville? -- Did I say AZAPO was responsible for violence(20) somewhere else?

No, I'm asking you? — Oh, you are asking a different question.

Yes? — No, it's not.

And is there violent animosity between UDF and AZAPO in Kagiso 1 and 2? — No, no.

Where is there violent animosity? — Where? In Kagiso?

Is there violence in Kagiso 1? — Generally I don't know, can you expand on the question?

COURT:. . Yes, I'm not sure what the question is either? (30)

MR/ 44 C8.08 - 134 - NTLOKOA

MR BURMAN: Are you aware, let's take from 1 January of this

year, that there was violence in Kagiso? -- Yes there was

violence in Kagiso.

Meaning in different forms, stoning buses, burning beer

halls, burning schools? -- Yes.

Throwing of Petrol bombs, attacking Councillors, attacking

policemen's homes? -- Yes that is correct.

Now who is responsible for that? -- I don't know.

You said earlier that KRO's actions were of such a degree that it contained murders you referred to? — (10)

Criminal behaviour.

Criminal. They haven't been able to contain this? --

Well these things happen in the middle of the night and when

I, for instance myself I never witnessed any of these things as they happened, and when you try to find cut who is doing these things the people usually disappear, and sometimes we had people from outside doing these things and immediately running away like the incident I quoted of the night vigil where we had those people who had come, when we thought they were in good faith, they unexpectedly went on the rampage (20) and disappeared all of a sudden and we checked all over the place, we couldn't find them.

All this violence that has been happening in Kagiso 1 and Kagiso 2, Munsieville, have you any ideas who could be responsible? — I have very vague idea, I don't know who was responsible, when these acts happen, it happens when we are not there and it becomes very difficult to actually later find out who had done it.

What are your vague views about who it is? — For in­ stance some people, from outside as I say, then some (30) 45 C8.09 - 135 - NTLOKOA

criminal element who decide to take advantage of this situa­

tion.

Yes, can you identify that criminal element? — People

who are criminals.

Unorganised criminals? — Yes, unorganised criminals.

Criminals like we have in any other city in the town

which commit murders, rapes and things like that?— Yes

that's what I mean.

Could I just finish this My LorS, one or two questions?

So the violence that's been committed in Kagiso 1 and (10)

Kagiso 2 and Munsieville throughout the period from July

1985 to the present is being committed by unorganised criminal

elements? -- And other people that I do not know of. Not

all the violence that has been committed has been done by

unorganised criminal elements. There are others that might be committed, even maybe by members of KRO but I don't know

about them, if they did that type of thing it would be completely against the policy of KRO.

The organised violence, have you any ideas vague or otherwise who could be responsible for that? — NO I (20) don't know.

COURT ADJOURNS TO 10.00 AM ON 6 MAY 1986. Collection Number: AK2145

KRUGERSDORP RESIDENTS’ ORGANISATION AND 4 OTHERS v. THE MINISTER OF LAW AND ORDER AND 2 OTHERS 1986

PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand Location:- Johannesburg ©2012

LEGAL NOTICES:

Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.

People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate, distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of the collection records and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.

This document is part of a private collection deposited with Historical Papers at The University of the Witwatersrand by the Church of the Province of South Africa.