IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION)

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION) CASE NO. 3464/86 JOHANNESBURG BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE GOLDSTONE In the matter between: THE KRUGERSDORP RESIDENTS ORGANISATION First Applicant AND FOUR OTHERS THE MINISTER OF LAW AND ORDER First Respondent AND TWO OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS: ADV J. BROWDE, S.C. ADV. D. A. KUNY, S.C. ADV. J. STRAUSS ADV. J.H.A. MUNNIK ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS: ADV. P.A. HATTINGH, S.C ADV. J.C. LABUSCHAGNE ADV. B.W. BURMAN ADV. J. J. WESSELS, ^......, ON BEHALF OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT: ADV. J.H. COETZEE, S.C. ADV. Q. PELSER LUBBE RECORDINGS (JOHANNESBURG) VOLUME 10 (PAGES 709 to 803)

2 1 C NTLOKOA COURT RESUMES ON 15 MAY : APPEARANCES AS BEFORE LAWRENCE JONAS NTLOKOA (still under oath) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BURMAN (continued) My Lord thank you for the indulgence and I apologise once again for the delay. The delay was caused by those documents not being entirely ready. Yes. MR BURMAN: My Lord I have placed three bundles on Your r Lordship's left hand side on the bench there, the one on the extreme left is thankfully at last a corrected news- (10) paper bundle. The second small bundle My Lord I hatfe marked 8 to 11 and they will become exhibits. The other large bundle which is the telephone conversations, the first of which starts at page What we have done My Lord is we have given them the same numbers as in the papers and at a stage we will punch holes in them and we will place them where the others were and we will leave the old ones there and the new ones will then be numbered in red and the old ones will hold their present numbering. But these unfortunately are longer than the old ones. What we've done (20) we've kept the first page and we've kept the last page and we have just numbered where there is extra the last page with sub-paragraphs. Very well. What I think I might do is just simply have a, I'll arrange to have these put in a separate file. MR BURMAN: We will arrange that for Your Lordship. Yes, very well, thankyou. MR BURMAN: Mr Ntlokoa I have placed there before you a bundle of documents which starts and is numbered 8, they might be behind you. Do you have that document number (30) there/

3 2 C NTLOKOA ther? -- Yes. That document is a letter from the Magistrate Mr JDebodd to Mohlahedi & Associates, headed 11 April It is a reply to the letter from MOhlahedi to the Magistrate, EXHIBIT 7? That is correct. The document which is EXHIBIT 9 is a letter from the Magistrate Mr Debodd to the Secretary of KRO dated 4 April 1986 granting permission for the holding of the 6 April 1986 meeting. -- Yes I can see that. And the document EXHIBIT 10 is a letter from the Magis-(IO) trate to the Vice-chairman of KRO dated 3 April It is in reply to KRO's application for the holding of the 6 April meeting and reguests certain particulars? That is correct. Could you look at the document EXHIBIT 9, you will see that there is a word on the left hand side, "purpose", do you have that? -- Yes. The "purpose, discussion the Greyhound bus boycott with intention to negotiate the bus company to resolve the bus boycott? That's correct. (20) You were aware on receipt of that letter that permission had been granted for the holding of the 6 April 1986 meeting for that purpose as set out in EXHIBIT 9? That is correct. Then could you look at EXHIBIT 8. a word on the left hand side, "purpose". Likewise there is "Authority is hereby granted for the meeting to be held of:.." then "PurDose. As stated in paragraph 2 in the annexure to the application annexed hereto and no other topics", and then if you go to Mr Mohlahedi's letter, EXHIBIT 7 in the para-(30) graph/

4 3 C NTLOKOA graph 2 you will see the purpose given, "The purpose of the meeting can be seen from the annexed notes which our clients intend distributing" that is the pamphlet setting out the request for witnesses? -- That is correct. Why, if permission was granted for the holding of the 13 April 1986 meeting, for the purpose solely of getting more witnesses, was purposes other than that attended to at that meeting? For instance? For instance Mrs Mandela and the other topics which you gave in evidence? -- I think I explained what happened. (10) I've already explained that. Yes but what I'm asking you is why did you allow other topics other than that for which you got permission to be canvassed at that meeting? -- Because they were beyond our control. On the left hand side of the witness box, if you will just look there you will see two placards there? -- Yes. Could you just look at those two placards? That is correct. My Lord I will ask that the placards or photographs of(20) the Dlacards go in as EXHIBITS 14 and 15. Could you just hold up the two placards Mr Ntlokoa so the Court can see them. My Lord the red one will be EXHIBIT 14 and the black one will be EXHIBIT 15. Mr Ntlokoa you will notice from those two placards EXHIBITS 14 and 15 that they advertise an AZAPO/AZAZO meeting in Kagiso, can you see the date there, what is the date? 22. March, 1986? -- Yes. Now we haven't at the present been able to get evidence as to the presence as an organisation or otherwise of (30) AZAPO/

5 C NTLKOA AZAPO in Kagiso 1 or 2 but what I am putting to you at this stage is it seems from those two placards that AZAZO in fact do hold meetings in Kagiso 1 or 2, that one being Kagiso 2? AZAZIM or did you say AZAZO? AZAPO? -- I think one is stated that National Forum AZAPO, AZAZIM and AZANU and the other one also states the three organisations and it is common knowledge that the National Forum actually consists of these organisaitons therefore it doesn't automatically infer that AZAPO had called this meeting. (10) Why not? Because it could have been called by AZAZIM or AZANU. Yes but it purports to have been called by AZAPO, whether by others as well? No I think the red one states clearly that "Pambile ngo..(inaudible).. AZAZIM..". Yes but look at the black one? Yes I see it's written AZANU, AZAZIM, AZAPO. Yes and I can bring you three or four more, I just brought those as examples, which only the name AZAPO appears on? -- Oh I see, and what's the problem with that? (20) It's no problem I'm asking you to explain your statement that AZAPO was not present in any organised form in Kagiso 1 or 2? -- Well I said there were individual people who subscribe to the aims and idealogies of AZAPO. COURT; But what Counsel is putting to you it would appear as if those posters relate to a meeting called in Kagiso, that in addition AZAPO has called a meeting in the area? - Yes My Lord but under other circumstances. It could be AZAPO from a different area, say Randfontein or Dobsonbille or any other area where AZAPO is established. It (30) doesn't/

6 C NTLOKOA doesn't say the Kagiso branch of AZAPO, it just says AZAPO and AZAPO is a national organisation. Yes but wherever they are they are active in Kagiso 2? The point Mr Ntlokoa is making Mr Burman is in anser to your question, is that that is not inconsistent with his statement that there is no organisation of AZAPO in Kagiso. MR BURMAN: Let us look at the semantics then Mr Ntlokoa. Do you say that, to what degree is AZAPO acting in Kagiso 1 and/or 2? -- Very little degree. (10) Do they have meetings there? Well I don't know whether they do have meetings. Do you know about that meeting advertised on EXHIBITS 14 and 15? Yes I saw this meeting advertised. Did you go to that meeting? No I didn't. Yes, I think I did, at the Dutch Reformed Church. Are you still an honorary member of fflapo? No, AZAZO. Are you still an honorary member of AZASO? No, no, I was while I was banned, but when the banning order (20) fell away then I could actively participate in other organisations therefore it became unnecessary for me to become an honorary member of any organisation. I want to ask you a question or two about the disciplinary committees. Would you look at the bundle of documents I placed in front of you, it starts at, marked in red, That is a transcript of telephone conversation between yourself and a certain Makwaba on 24 December, 1985, did you have a telephone conversation with Mr Makwaba on 24 December, 1985? To remember the exact dates of (30) all/

7 C NTLOKOA all the telephone conversations I have had within for instance the last three months is completely an impossible feat that I can accomplish. So you can't remember whether it was on that date? I can't remember it was on this date.,look at the telephone conversation, from the gist of that which is discussed there would you tell us whether in fact you had such a telephone conversation with Mr Makgwaba? Yes I remember I did speak to Mr Makgwaba. And was it some time in December? Yes. (10) And it seems, was it some time close to Christmas? Probably it was some time close to Christmas. Who is Mr Makgwaba? He is a shebeen owner in the township. What is the name of his shebeen? -- It's a tavern, what do they call it again..? No, I only know that they call it Makgwaba's Tavern. Could you look at page B? The fifth line from the top, "B" is yourself. Did you say "He shall be dealt with acordingly"? Well I cannot be sure that I said (20) these particular words at that time. Can you deny that you used those words? I said I cannot say offhand whether I did use this word in a telephone conversation that took places sometimes in December. Let me explain to you there is a difference between saying you can't remember something and saying you deny that it happened, so..? -- Well I'm not saying I deny, that is correct, I'm not saying I deny, I cannot remember whether I said these exact words at that time. Just let me clarify one thing, I'm going to be asking(30) you/

8 C NTLOKOA you about many telephone calls and in each instance I'm going to be asking you in most cases those two questions, namely do you remember it or do you deny it, and as I said the two are different, and if on each occasion you could just indicate which one is explicable? -- Okay. In other words you could say to us in the negative, you don't remember or the positive it didn't happen? That is correct. So "he shall be dealt with accordingly" you can't be sure? Yes. ' (10) Mr Makgwaba then said "Yes you see", did you then say "These others take an advantage"? -- It's going to be the same answer all the time. Just tell me which, if you deny it then you say I didn't say that, if you can't remember then you say you can't remember. -- You see I mean the difference is I wasn't recording the telephone conversations, somebody else was so I didn't really find it necessary to try to remember, so what I can say is that I do not remember if I used these exact words. (20) Then Mr Makgwaba is purported to have said "That's good ja", did you say "Especially that one we will send our guys to see.him."? I don't think I said that. Do you deny that you said that? Yes I deny this one because it doesn't make sense from the whole topic. And Makgwaba is then supposed to have said "Yes, yes", did you then say "I think we will ultimately have to flog some of these guys"?-- I can't remember whether I said that. Mr Makgwaba is purported to have said "A. ja", did you then say that "They should understand that they don't (30) have/

9 C27.ll NTLOKOA have to give our people such a hard time"? Probably but I can't remember if I said the exact words. Mr Makgwaba is then supposed to have said "Jy*sien ja, dis waar, hmm", did you then say "Now at least you've got the name"? -- No the same answer applies to this one, I can't remember if I said these words. Look on pagel 138C, can you remember if Mr Makgwaba said "Harry's," A."It's white, he says it is white but that boy said he is Modisi". "Modisi what", can you remember # those words being said? -- The same, I can't remember exactly (10) if I said those words. Did you then say "Oupa"? -- The same applies. You can't remember, and did Mr Makgwaba then say "Oupa Modisi, ja"? Can I just say to maybe shorten things up, I won't be in a position to say I deny anything that is said here so that all the answers I'm going to give you are the same on any question that you ask me, on telephone conversations that I had in the past. I can never be sure if I used this exact words, until maybe if I've heard the tape and I can recognise whether it is my voice then obviously (20) it will be a confirmation. Mr Ntlokoa it's going to be the first and second respondents' evidence that this is what you said, so you must either tell us you can't remember saying so or you must positively deny it. -- Yes what I'm saying is that I won't be able under any circumstances to remember telephone conversations that I held with people because obviously these are selected telephone conversations which are obviously intended to prove a certain point as far as the respondents are concerned, but the basic fact is that I (30) have/

10 C NTLOKOA have used the phone, it rings almost all the time and for me now to start saying I will be able to remember any particular, conversation that I had on the telephone is impossible so that I say I cannot remember until such time that I can, or it can be proved to me that this is your voice that said those words and I can verify that is correct I did say them, then I'll be in a position to say, either deny or not deny what I said. Well just to give an example, at 1 138B you've already remembered a telephone conversation because you remembered(10) that you didn't say a certain thing. No, no, he didn't say that Mr Burman. MR BURMAN: You denied that you said it? He denied it because it doesn't make sense, therefore he denies it, not because he remembers that he didn't say it. MR BURMAN: That might be, yes. There is a big difference. MR BURMAN: He might have said that. Well My Lord what.. Well isn't there any, I don't want to tell (20) Counsel how to conduct the case but mustn't you put anything that you consider relevant to Mr Ntlokoa on the basis that if it s proved that he did say it what is his comment or cross-examine him on it? It's a waste of time to go through, it seems to me as you say, many conversations whether he can remember or not when he says "I don't remember". MR BURMAN: It's the same guestion My Lord. Where.I say to him "can you remember that" or I say to him "I put to you that's going to be led", it's the same guestion My (30) Lord/

11 C NTLOKOA Lord. Yes, well just put it. MR BROWDE: My Lord may I say that speaking for our side I have no objection to My Learned Friend assuming that these are correct and putting that to Mr Ntlokoa... On that assumption. MR BROWDE: On the assumption that they are right. Subject to proof. MR BROWDE: Yes My Lord. MR BURMAN: My Lord can we just have one rider for that (10) before we go to tea, if there is anything which the witness positively denies could he then at that stage just say to me, no that one I positively deny? Yes. Before we take the adjournment I would just like to mention to Counsel and particularly to Mr Browde, my Clerk had a telephone call from I think it was the Johannesburg Hospital, it was certainly one of the two hospitals that handed in documents on the first day which are now in the custody of the Court and if there is no objection what she arranged with the hospital was that she (20) would photocopy a particular file which they need for their purposes and we will keep the original and hand over photocopies. MR BROWDE: Yes My Lord by a strange coincidence I was going to ask Your Lordship if we couldn't perhaps see those, perhaps just go through them, we haven't actually looked at them yet. Yes, but I take it there is no objection to that procedure? MR BROWDE: No, certainly not My Lord. (30) COURT/

12 C NTLOKOA Yes very well. Well they're available in my chambers Mr Browde. MR BROWDE: As Your Lordship pleases. COURT ADJOURNS FOR TEA: COURT/

13 C NTLOKOA COURT RESUMES: MR BROWDE: My Lord, before My Learned Friend continues with the cross-examination, I have been reminded that, perhaps I have not made out position absolutely clear, although I think I have. My Lord, I have no objection to My Learned Friend cross-examining this witness on the basis that this is what he said in the telephone conversations. My Lord, obviously these would have to be properly proved in due course, but at the same time, My Lord, I reserve my right to argue that these are not admissible for any purpose, whether proved or not. My (10) Lord, because we will submit in due course what I said yesterday, I think, that either they are irrelevant as going only to credibility, My Lord, or alternatively there are many of them not admissible for other legal reasons. Needless to say, My Lord, we have no objection to Your Lordship reading all of them. Yes, well, I am not going to read them, unless my attention is directed to them. MR BROWDE: As Your Lordship pleases. Mr Burman, is that... (20) MR BURMAN: Yes, but My Lord, I accept that to mean that I can proceed on the basis as if this is what was said and I will be met with a positive answer. I will not be met with "I cannot remember why, I do not know". It would be on the basis that this is what was said. Well, you must proceed on the basis that it was said, but that is subject to proof and subject to argument on admissibility. MR BURMAN: Admissibility, yes. LAURENCE NTLOKOA: s.u.o. (30) Cross-examination/

14 2 % C NTLOKOA CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BURMAN: (Continued) Mr Ntlokoa, could you look at page 1138(b), why would you have said: "I think we will ultimately have to flog some of these guys." Why would I have said that? I said I cannot remember if I said that. On the basis that you did say it, why would you have said it? On the basis if I would have said it? I think I explained that there is a D.C. Committee functioning and it was established in order to help in the, as an addition to (10) help in the crime prevention campaign that was taking place in the townships and it was treated in order in particular to deal with people who are actually committing criminal acts and that there was an agreement that if parents had, the parents of the particular demeanour had to be called in to the D.C. and they had to listen to what their children had done and if they, themselves, approve that these people be punished, then it was administered. So, reference would have been to the D.C.? Yes. MR BURMAN: So, when you say, "we will ultimately have to flog (20 some of these guys", you are saying with the qualification that they would come before the D.C. That they would state their case and if the consensus of the people there think they have done something wrong and they voluntarily agree to be flogged, they were going to be flogged? That is correct. I put it to you... No person can voluntarily agree to be flogged. Why not? Even, I mean, simply punishment that tries to correct a person. Well, when the D.C. has now decided that a man must get (30) six/

15 ......, 3 C NTLOKOA six lashes, does he then undergo those lashes voluntarily or is it forced upon him? If the parents have agreed that that person had committed a misdemeanour, then it is administered. Only if the parents agree? Yes. Let us take an adult. Would you flog him against his will or only if he agrees? I have not heard or seen any situation where adults were flogged, because usually, basically, adult problems involve marital problems, by and large, and the only time where flogging came into being, was where people had committed serious things like stabbing other (101 people, assaulting other people or stealing and this in most cases involve young people. I put it to you that when you here refer to "ultimately have to flog some of these guys", you are not referring to a person who eventually goes through the process of a Disciplinary Committee? I think then it means we need to go back where, I think, the fifth line, where I said: "It shall be dealt with accordingly." Yes. I am referring to being dealt with according to the procedure that we had adopted to deal with people. (20) I put to you that your "accordingly" means accordingly have to be flogged. I am putting my position, which is different from yours. Then look at page 1138(g). Now, Mr Mqwaba says: "He has long noticed that one." You say: "Oh". Mr Mgwaba says: "I also threatened to lash him." "E", (you say) Mr Mgwaba says: (30) "So/

16 C NTLOKOA "So that he should give way." You say: "If it is possible, use the shambock." He says: "Yes, E". You say: "All those who are not according to your judgments doing the right thing." I put to you that you are there saying to Mr Mgwaba that he should lash these people with a shambock, nothing to do with the Disciplinary Committee. No, I think if we follow the (10) conversation through from the other part, if I had said this, I had meant that in a situation where he, himself, as a * person, is threatened by another individual and there is no recourse to the D.C., then he has the right to defend himself and the only way to defend himself, is by also administering this punishment, particularly if this person is a young person and, therefore, it is his, at his own discretion whether, how he deals with this person and I am suggesting that maybe the best thing is, if it is possible, then he can do that. Then you say to him. He says: (20) "That is good, ja." "When you see that they are not many in number..." "Ja, that is good." "You can shambock them is possible." So, you are saying to him, if you see they are not too many, use a shambock on them. He says: "Yes, I see." You say: "And when you are through with him, bring him to us again." (30) "Yes/

17 C NTLOKOA "Yes, I will bring him over to you." "We will repeat it also." So, you are saying, you lash him and you bring him to us and we will lash him, and I am putting to you that you, yet again, are not referring to a Disciplinary court procedure and a lashing only voluntarily. A Disciplinary court procedure, I have stated before, that we have no courts. We simply have a Disciplinary Committee functioning and I think maybe I need to explain something about African tradition. One thing that we have, is that we have to respect every parent, whether he is (10) your physical parent, I mean, biological parent, as your parent, and this thing is taught from almost the time that you are growing up and that if a small child or a young person actually disrespects an elderly person, then that adult person can also discipline this child, because he regards this child r~ as his. That is our, that is very strong within our culture. How old is Oupa Modise? I do not know Oupa Modise. I mean, he just identified it on the phone and said it is a young boy. I did not say his age, according to this conversation. (20) Why did you assume that he was a young boy? Because he said he was a "laitie". A "laitie" is a little boy. He said Modise is a "laitie". No, there is somewhere where it is referred to, to these "laities" and we regard "laities" as young people. No, I do not think you are correct. I think when he refers to "laitie", it is Mr Mqwabe referring to the young boy in his shop, who he is speaking to as "laitie". I will get that reference. If you look at... I think there is also a reference where he says, "these young people". (30) Look/

18 C NTLOKOA Look at 1138(c), down towards the bottom. 1138? MR BURMAN; (c), towards the bottom. You are having a discussion now about trying to identify this person. Did he "Did he identify himself as such." "Yes, he is short, dark of complexion." Does the 'laitie' not know them by their names?" He is now referring to this young boy in the shop, who was present when these people came in. That is the reference to "laitie", and then if you look at the top of 1138(c) you see (10 Mr Mqwabe says: "Yes, let me ask this 'laitie'. Tell me, that person of yesterday, how many were they." So, the "laitie" he is referring to here, is the young boy who assists him in the shop. Yes, I see that. I find no reference in the telephone transcript to Mr Modise being a young person, and if you look at page 1132, there is a reference to... "Hier kom h ou met 'n 'van' hierso." If anything, it is indicating that he is an older type person, (20 because he is at least driving a van. That is subject if these things are correct. Yes. But well, I have said that it might not be correct. Yes, on the basis that they are correct. 1132? MR BURMAN: Yes, My Lord, paragraph, typed page 2. It is the fourth line from the top. "Hier kom h ou met h 'van' hierso. Hulle was twee." Mr Ntlokoa, could you look at EXHIBIT 13? In the telephone (30 conversations/

19 C28.8 " 726 " NTLOKOA conversations? No, Mr Raath will come and try and help you. Could you look at EXHIBIT 13 on page 1. This is a transcript of a telephone discussion between Sister Bernard and yourself on 27 April 1986 and the 7th line from the bottom. A is Sister Bernard. She says: "Ja, okay, Lolla, the one thing that is urgent, hey, man I just landed now, hmm, I am landing on the D.C. problem." What is the D.C. problem which is being referred to there? The problem in the D.C.? (10) Yes. There must have been some problem in the D.C. I am asking you, can you remember what that problem was? No, I cannot remember what problem. There has been problems in a number of instances. What were those problems? I cannot remember the problems. Like a misunderstanding between people or misinterpretation between people and that type of thing. Let us see whether EXHIBIT 13 gives us some indication of what that problem was on that instance. Go down page 1: "They ask that all of you must be present tomorrow at (20) eight in the morning." When they say that "they ask that all of you...", who is being referred to as reguesting to be present? The Executive of KRO. In the morning, and then on page 2: "... in the morning, because the old man has been causing to them trouble amazingly." "No, they told me." "Ja, so, please, if it is possible. Just now I have already phoned Makgothlo." (30) What/

20 C " NTLOKOA What is, "... in the morning, because the old man has been causing to them trouble amazingly...", what is that "trouble amazingly" by the old man? It was a misunderstanding with some members of the D.C. Who is the person being referred to? The chairman of the D.C. Who is that? Mr Motoedi. And can you tell me what the misunderstandings were? I think the misunderstanding was over personality. There were some new members in the D.C. who wanted to change things and (10) the old members of the D.C. disagreed. So, it created the problem where he, as an old person, as an elder, I mean, an old member of the D.C., wanted things to run the way they had been running and the others wanted new changes to be made. I cannot remember... Can you just give us an idea of the nature of that dispute? I cannot remember exactly what the dispute was. I think it was about him actually not giving people a chance also to contribute to the proceedings. Could you look at the record of the proceedings at page (20 53? Mr Ntlokoa, it is in the bound volumes with the yellow covers. I do not think I have it here. Which line, Mr Burman? MR BURMAN: We are going to start at the third line from the top. Do you have that, Mr Ntlokoa? Yes. There is a quotation. The quotation is: "And a KRC spokesmen said if unruly elements do not stop their irresponsible actions, they shall be dealt with thoroughly." Yes. (30) Do/

21 C NTLOKOA Do you see that? And that spokesman was you? That is correct. What do you mean by "... they shall be dealt with thoroughly..."? MR BROWDE: My Lord, the answer is on that very page. Yes. MR BURMAN: Do you mean that you will do to them something similar to the pouring of beer over them? I said here, the first time that people were affected, this is what happened. Did you then come back... So, it did not happen all (10) the time. Let me come back to my question. I specifically asked it like that, so that I did not have the confusion of it being suggested that what was thoroughly meant was that in that article. What do you mean by, if you say "... they shall be dealt with thoroughly..."? Taken to the D.C., then dealt with there. So, you say that which you give an example of on page 53, that this pouring of the beer, that is a proceeding at the D.C.? No, no, I think I talked about the first time when we (20 actually went onto this campaign, this was done to teach people how to behave. This pouring of the beer over these people, is that preceded by a D.C. hearing? Yes, that is correct. So, when you say "thoroughly", you mean you will take the people to the D.C. and have a hearing about it? Yes. And there will be a majority decision. Yes. Whether the person has committed the act or not? That is correct. And then that person will voluntarily agree to undergo (30) whatever/

22 C NTLOKOA whatever punishment is decided on. Yes. And these people with the beer, they voluntarily agreed that this should happen to them? That is correct. Now, I put it to you, Mr Ntlokoa, that there will be evidence that the D.C. sits as a court. What do you say about that? I have explained the position of the D.C., that it is not a court. That it gives judgments and sentences? The same as I have said. (10) Decisions, and that it then enforces those decisions against those who have been found guilty, against their will. Well, against their will is quite a wide term to develop, but what I said about the D.C., is what I stand by. Can we just take an example, though? Assuming a boy of 18 is, that a D.C. decides that a boy of 18 is to get lashes, does that happen? If the parents are present. Yes. Yes. It will happen? It will happen. And the parents are present and they agree? They will (20 agree first. Yes, and the boy does not want to be lashed, what will happen? I do not know. I have not come across that situation. I have not heard about, why somebody refused to be lashed. MR BURMAN: And I put to you further that the participation by the participants in the procedure, is not voluntarily. Well, I said that people bring their problems to the D.C. The does not go looking for problems. And people are taken to the D.C. to participate against their will. Well, I do not know about that one. (30) They/

23 C NTLOKOA They are fetched by people. People will arrive at their house and say: You have now to go to the convent, to the D.C. Well, I do not know about that one, because I have not fetched anybody. And there are instances where reference is made on such occasions to go to the Peoples' Court. Well, if maybe people do not understand that it is a Disciplinary Committee, then it is their own understanding of what is happening. And it is'known in the townships that that body is referred to as the Peoples Court. I think I can tell you that probably it is known in the township and some members of (10 4 the D.C. has been detained and the chairman has been detained twice and I understand very clearly that if somebody starts to act, or to pretend as if they are caught, that is illegal, and I would like to say on this score that, had it been the truth that these people who had been arrested by the police for their participation in the D.C. were, say contrary to the law abiders, says they had established criminal courts, then the police would have caught them and they would have appeared in a court of law for doing this thing, but it does not happen. Therefore, I assume that the police could not prove (20) themselves. The question Mr Burman asked was, that he is putting it to you, as I understand, in the townships of Kagiso 1 and 2 and Munsieville, the D.C., what you refer to as the D.C., is known by the people generally and referred to as the Peoples' Court. Well, My Lord, I do not know what people call the D.C., but I know that we call it a Disciplinary Committee. But have you ever, have you heard other people call it the Peoples' Court? I cannot remember exactly if I heard anybody call it the Peoples' Court. (30)

24 C NTLOKOA MR BURMAN; I want to ask you some question of active people in the areas. Firstly, there was an attack on attorney Moses Mohlaledi's house? Did you know about that? -- Yes, I did. And there was a report in the Sowetan about that? That is correct. Did you give the information to the reporter of the Sowetan or not? No, I did not. He got it from Mohlaledi. Could you look at the respondents' bundle, at page 1. Do you have that, Mr Ntlokoa. It is an article in the Sowetan on 14 January That is correct. (10) With the heading, "Boycott Group warns youths". That is correct. If I remember correctly, it refers in the top left hand corner to "Krugersdorp Consumer Boycott Committee" has a warning and a Committee spokesman and that Committee spokesman was you? Yes. Firstly, it says in the left hand column: "A Committee spokesman said it was not their policy to engage in such activities. We warn these people. We do not know where they come from, that disciplinary action (20 will be taken against them." Are you there referring to disciplinary action will be taken against them in the Disciplinary court. Committee? That is correct. Well, I put it to you that that is a very strange way of saying, we will invite someone to the Disciplinary Committee and if he does not want to go, he need not come, and we will take a majority decision against him, and if he does not want to accept the punishment, we will not give it to him. I never said that. (30) 1/

25 13 C28.21 _ NTLOKOA I know you did not. So, what are you trying to say? I am saying to you that that cannot be a reference to inviting someone to partake in Disciplinary Committee proceedings and to voluntarily agree to be punished. I think if you change the statement, it reflects what you want it to mean, but if you read it from here it can mean anything. Do you say that that warning can refer to an intivitation to partake in Disciplinary Committee procedures? I think a warning is in this sense refer to people not to do these things, because then they will be taken to a Disciplinary (10) Commitee, and they would be disciplined according... But why? If they do not want to accept the discipline, they just do not agree to it. Well, either we are going to allow people to do wrong things or we are going to get some order. COURTt But what Mr Burman is getting at is, he is putting to you that your description of what takes place in the D.C., is voluntarily. Now, he is saying to you that, what is the point of warning somebody who is doing something you do not want to do, that they must stop doing it, otherwise they will go (20) before the D.C., when they can turn around and say, well, we are not going before the D.C. and then that is the end of it. Well, I say we have not come across a situation where people have refused to come to the D.C. When they are called to attend to a D.C. matter, they do come. MR BURMAN: Well, this is certainly not an invitation to partake voluntarily in proceedings. -- Well, this was not intended to be an invitation. What was it intended to be? It was intended to stop people doing these things of attacking delivery vehicles. (30) That/

26 14 C NTLOKOA That is right. Whether those people were going to agree to go to the Disciplinary Committee or not. A warning, yes. Yes, you were not saying to the people here: You have got a choice of going to the Disciplinary Committee. You are saying to the people: Unless you stop doing this, whether you want to or not or voluntarily agree or not, we are going to discipline you. That is what you are saying. Is that correct? Yes, correct. Well, why did you previously not agree with that? I think I tried first to explain to you that we have never had a (10 problem where people refused to go to the D.C. So, if from this statement you are going to make a generalised statement and say this implied that people are forced to go to the D.C., then I will say from the statement that is correct, and as I can see that, obviously this is not a full statement. There are two lines there and as you know, the press always edit whatever they publish. Yes, you have not up to now suggested that you have been quoted incorrectly. No, no, I do not suggest that. What I am suggesting, maybe some things had been left out by the (20) person who was doing this article. You also have not suggested up to now that you told him anything else in that regard which should have been in that paragraph. Okay, I think I have answered you, that if your interpretation of this statement is the way you put it, then that is correct. You see, because this article was referred to by your advocate in evidence-in-chief and there was no suggestion that you were incorrectly reported or otherwise here. And what is the point? (30) Do/

27 15 C28.24 _ NTLOKOA Do you accept that this is what you said to the reporter? Yes, I have said that. Now, why did the Consumer Boycott Committee not want delivery vehicles coming into the townships to be attacked? - Because it was not the policy of the Consumer Boycott Committee. Why was it not the policy of the Committee? Simply because we did not want delivery vehicles to be attacked. Yes, why did you not want them to be attacked? Under the name of the consumer boycott. (10) Yes, why did you not want them to be attacked? Because it is not right to attack delivery vehicles. Why did you not include other vehicles? Why did you just say delivery vehicles? Why did you not say police vehicles, Bantu Administration Board vehicles. Post Office vehicles, any vehicle that was not delivering goods? I think I was, «obviously, reacting to a particular incident or incidents that happened. As can be seen from the statement itself, I was reacting to a problem which involved delivery vehicles. Why do you include all those other vehicles, if they were not (20) involved in that particular happening that I was responding to? But there were and there was damage on other vehicles, other forms of vehicles other than delivery vehicles? COURT; Mr Burman, is it not obvious this articles relates to the consumer boycott? What have the other vehicles got to do with the consumer boycott? MR BURMAN: Well, My Lord, let met put it to him, My Lord. I will tell you why you refer only to delivery vehicles. Because it is the policy of the Consumer Boycott Committee to (30 allow/

28 16 C NTLOKOA allow delivery vehicles to deliver in the townships, because it is also the policy of the Consumer Boycott Committee that the people should be allowed to buy from the Black shops in the townships to the exclusion of White shops and if you attack the delivery vehicles, then there will be no goods for the people to buy in the Black owned shops. That is correct. That is why you referred only to delivery vehicles and you were not concerned about attacks on other forms of vehicles. But the Consumer Boycott Committee was involved (10 in a consumer boycott, not in the other vehicles. I mean, what have the other vehicles got to do with the consumer boycott? The Consumer Boycott Committee's responsibility was to see that the consumer boycott as a campaign is successful. The consumer boycott also called for action against Councillors? Action against Councillors? Demands. Yes, demands against Councillors? No, we just called for the Councillors to resign. Yes, well, why did.it not refer to action against, which would have the effect and the result of Councillors resigning? (20 Policy and demands are two different things. If you make a demand to a particular group and say I am taking this action and during this time of this action, we would have certain policies, then it does not mean that you cannot make a demand. That demand does not become a policy by itself, because you do not even know whether the demand will be met or not. I put it to you further that it is part of the strategy of the Consumber Boycott Committee to enter into arrangements with the shop owners that they will be protected if they do what the Consumer Boycott Committee wants them to do, like for (30 example/

29 C28.27 ' NTLOKOA example lowering prices? I think meetings have been held with shopkeepers to discuss the whole question. It does not mean a question of policy, and they have not been dragged from their houses to attend this meeting where these issues were discussed. They came volunatarily. Could you look at the applicant's bundle at page 89? I am going to refer you to that portion on the right hand side under the heading, "Enforce boycott". Do you have that? It has been referred to already? MR BURMAN: It might have been, yes, My Lord, but not by me. - (10 Sorry, which one is that? It is on page 89. It has got the heading, "Police detains 7 boycott officials". On the right hand side it has a heading, "Enforce boycott". Yes. Are you the... I am sorry, "Police detain 7 boycott officials"?? Yes. Oh, you mean the sub-title. Sub-title on the right hand side, "Enforce boycott". Yes, I see that. You are the Consumer Boycott Committee person being (20) referred to there? That is correct. You said on behalf of the Boycott Committee: "They dissociated themselves from any acts of hooligalism and criminal behaviour perpetrated by people claiming to be our members enforcing and monitoring the boycott." Now, who were your "... members enforcing and monitoring the boycott..."? I have already stated which organisations were in the Consumer Boycott Committee. Who were the people, who were your members who were physically enforcing and monitoring the boycott? Every (30) member/

30 C NTLOKOA member of the Consumer Boycott Committee. Those 40 people? And those 40 people represented organisations. So, it is not only those 40, it is all the members of the organisations which those 40 represent? -- That is correct. For example, the 700 active members of KYCO? That is correct. The Youths? That is correct. The youth activists? That is correct. Now, how did they enforce the boycott? I have (10) explained that before. Yes, tell us again? Look, I mean, if I say I have explained that thing again, why should I repeat it again? Would you answer my question, please? How did they enforce the boycott? -- I said the question had been answered already. Would you please answer my question? How was the boycott enforced by those people? I said, according to our policy, they had to educate people. That is those who had gone against the boycott and help them to understand what the (20) consumer boycott was all about. That is what I said. In other words you are saying that they go to the shops and they speak to the people nicely and they ask them not to buy there? To the shops, to the streets, everywhere, in the houses. And if the people say to them, no, I want to buy there, then nothing happens? Yes. And what is referred to as "monitorying the boycott"? To see whether it was effective, whether it was, yes, effective. That is the word I can use. (30) Then/

31 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.