DATE: 18TH JULY 2000


DAY: 2

_____________________________________________________GOODLUCK B MPUNGOSE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. Mr Mpungose, you have heard the evidence of the two applicants applying for amnesty in respect of your detention in Lusaka and Angola from 1987 until 1991?


MS MAKHUBELE: I want you to confirm that you are not opposing their application for amnesty as such but that you want to place on record that you were wrongfully accused of being a security agent and as such your detention was not - they had no grounds to detain you but you do not oppose their application?

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it and I can be confused, is certainly that the second applicant was not asking for amnesty for the detention, he was asking for amnesty for taking part in the interrogation? That is so, isn't it?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, Chairperson.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chairperson. The two applicants who appeared before this Commission, you have heard what they said their role was, that is to interrogate you but you were further detained by people who did not appear before this Commission. Can you recall that?


MS MAKHUBELE: And the basis upon which they interrogated you was because they thought that they had received information that being an ANC person on the other hand you were helping the police to - you were giving the police information that led to the arrest of MK cadres. You heard this evidence?

MR MPUNGOSE: Yes I heard that evidence.

MS MAKHUBELE: Mr Mpungose, you were a police officer until you, due to ill health in 1978, you left the service?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: When did you join the ANC or become involved in ANC underground activities?


MS MAKHUBELE: Who recruited you?

MR MPUNGOSE: Mrs Hlahla from Lamontville.

MS MAKHUBELE: What was your role in the organisation?

MR MPUNGOSE: They wanted herbs so that they can evade the police when they are sought.

MS MAKHUBELE: You provided that service?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is indeed so.

MS MAKHUBELE: Other than that were you involved in any ANC underground activities, say helping the ANC cadres in any way?

MR MPUNGOSE: At the time I was not involved with the ANC as such except for helping them as I explained and they were not comfortable about the fact that I knew some members personally.

MS MAKHUBELE: But did you at any stage before you were detained in Lusaka get involved in their activities other than the provision of muti?


MS MAKHUBELE: What kind of help did you give to them?

MR MPUNGOSE: They would use me as a courier to take money to the guerrillas inside the country and transport ID's and the people that I was giving these things to did not have any problem.

MS MAKHUBELE: Let's then now come to events that led to your interrogation and detention in Lusaka in Angola. How did you end up in Lusaka?

MR MPUNGOSE: Bafana Duma who was in Zimbabwe wrote a letter to me and I went to him, I think it was on the 31st May and he told me that he wanted herbs but he said one person who wanted me urgently was Zuma in Lusaka. When I left I was leaving for Zimbabwe and with an intention of coming back home.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes and he said Zuma wanted you, which Zuma? Did he mention the Zuma that wanted you?

MR MPUNGOSE: Jacob Zuma.

MS MAKHUBELE: Then you left for Lusaka straight from Zimbabwe. Can you recall the dates?

MR MPUNGOSE: I left Zimbabwe on the 19th May and I headed for Lusaka.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you see Zuma in Lusaka?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is it 19 May 1987?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you get to see Jacob Zuma when you arrived in Lusaka?

MR MPUNGOSE: I was told that he had gone overseas and I would have to wait for him.

MS MAKHUBELE: But did you ultimately see and talk to him?

MR MPUNGOSE: Indeed so.

MS MAKHUBELE: After how long?

MR MPUNGOSE: I arrived on the 19th and I saw him I think it could have been on the 2nd June.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did he tell you what he wanted from you?

MR MPUNGOSE: He did not but he said there are certain things that he wanted me to sort out with the boys and he said after sorting these matters out with the boys I would then be given money to go back home and I indicated that I had boys or guerrillas who would come to my place. I didn't have money to take care of these people.

MS MAKHUBELE: At what stage did you meet the applicants, Ndaba and Dieta?

MR MPUNGOSE: They came on the 20th and they said Zuma was not around and I would have to write down my biography so that whilst we were waiting for Zuma they should know exactly who I am.

CHAIRPERSON: 20th of what?

MR MPUNGOSE: The 20th May.

MS MAKHUBELE: So whilst waiting for Zuma you were instructed to write your biography. Did they tell you what the biography was all about?

MR MPUNGOSE: They didn't say what it was for except to say they wanted to know me very well because they wanted to ensure they are safe in my presence.

MS MAKHUBELE: We heard evidence yesterday to the effect that you were ultimately assaulted. Can you proceed to tell us when and the circumstances thereof?

MR MPUNGOSE: They rejected my biography and they rejected the second and the third one and Zuma came and said I would be moved to another house because it was frequented by people from home. I was taken to another house where I was forced to admit to things that I didn't know anything about.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you speak to Zuma in their presence?

MR MPUNGOSE: They were not present.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did it appear to you that they were aware of what you had spoken with Zuma?

MR MPUNGOSE: I concluded that they knew because he said he was going to send them to come and fetch me. They came in a ...(indistinct) and they brought me to the place and started assaulting me.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, did Zuma come to you and say you were going to be moved to another house and that he would send people to move you and these people who now asked for amnesty came and fetched you, took you to the other house and started assaulting you? Is that what happened?


MS MAKHUBELE: Did you see Zuma again?

MR MPUNGOSE: I never saw him again until at the camps when he came to see us.

MS MAKHUBELE: When you were moved to this house by you say the people, can you recall how many people there were?

MR MPUNGOSE: There were four of them.

MS MAKHUBELE: Their names?

MR MPUNGOSE: Sphinx, Tim Williams, Dieta as well as Piliso.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who assaulted you amongst these four?

MR MPUNGOSE: All of them.

MS MAKHUBELE: How many times?

MR MPUNGOSE: I was beaten twice in this particular house, that's when the doctor was brought in and it was said I should not tell him I was assaulted, instead I should tell him that I got injured in the motor vehicle accident and they came back. They wouldn't allow him to see me because I was so sick. It was an Indian doctor. Instead they took medicine from him. He too was a member of the ANC.

MS MAKHUBELE: How were they assaulting you?

MR MPUNGOSE: They would hit me with their bare fists and handles of some hoe and all assortment of things as well as sjamboks.

MS MAKHUBELE: Were you assaulted in any other manner?

MR MPUNGOSE: They used to burn me with candle wax or candles and they would pull me with my beard and they would spit on me. There's only one person who was doing that and the others would call him to order.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who was that?

MR MPUNGOSE: This one calling them to order and him too.

MS MAKHUBELE: When you say this one, who are you referring to?

MR MPUNGOSE: Dieta. Dieta would call them to order and Tim would call them to order too.

MS MAKHUBELE: So the people ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: But who was burning you?


MS MAKHUBELE: Sphinx demonstrated to the Committee yesterday the manner in which he assaulted you. Was that one of the other way on which you were assaulted?

MR MPUNGOSE: Yes it was one of the many ways which I was assaulted and they would also hang me upside down in a tree and assault me and they would make me sit at the corner of a house and they would hit me with a handle of something and they would hit me on the bottom of my feet and at the back. I still have some scars as proof of this. I can prove us. On the chest I also have a mark where I was hit with a knopkierie.

MS MAKHUBELE: We also heard evidence that you were assaulted at Chongele Farm, is this correct?

MR MPUNGOSE: That was for the third occasion, that's where I was hanging in a tree upside down and heavily assaulted and that's when they said I should run away. I was given food and Sphinx kicked the food and it splat all over. Sphinx too didn't have his meal that day.

MS MAKHUBELE: How many people assaulted you at Chongele Farm?

MR MPUNGOSE: There were four of them. Tim went back to get some food and he continued assaulting me with the others but I must say it was Tim Williams who said they should leave me at 4 o'clock. They said they had brought me to the place because I was resisting, I did not want to talk and the ANC, I was told, had instructed that I should be killed but the problem is that they were asking me about a number which I didn't know anything about. Apparently this was a number connected to the police. I appealed to them saying they should give me the number, I will admit if they know how it is written. The number seemed to be the bone of contention.

MS MAKHUBELE: Mr Mpungose, can you, when I ask you a question, just try to answer the question that I've asked you because now you are saying so many things and the Committee must get this picture clearly so just assist me by just answering one question. Will you?

MR MPUNGOSE: Thank you.

MS MAKHUBELE: I was still asking you the number of days you were assaulted. You said two times in the house, the third time was at Chongele Farm. Can you tell us about the fourth incident?

MR MPUNGOSE: That was in Angola, that's where Sphinx upon arrival with me, the beating continued. That was the last time I saw him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could we finish the farm incident now? At one time of the day did they take you to the farm? When did you come back? How long have you been staying on the farm? What assaults took place on the farm? Who were present? Tell us all the details about what happened on the farm now, so that we could finish that incident.

MR MPUNGOSE: It was on the 16th June 1997. They took me at 7 in the evening to this place where they assaulted me upon arrival. I was beaten until 4 the following morning.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Okay. Could you go slowly so that we could write down what you're saying and don't rush it so that we could clearly get the picture. You went to the farm on the 16th June at 7 o'clock in the morning or the evening?

MR MPUNGOSE: In the evening.

MS MAKHUBELE: And you said that people that took you there were the four of them, that's Sphinx, Dieta, Piliso and Tim Williams?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did they all assault you?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.


MR MPUNGOSE: They were sjamboking me and they were also using sticks and knopkieries as well as a fan belt.

MS MAKHUBELE: You heard the evidence yesterday that Sphinx did not take part in the assault, that he only took you to the farm and left you there. What do you say to this?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is not correct.


MS MAKHUBELE: Sorry, Tim Williams.

CHAIRPERSON: Tim Williams wasn't it?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes sorry, pardon me. That Tim Williams only left you in the farm, he didn't stay, he didn't take part in the assault. What do you say?

MR MPUNGOSE: They are not telling the truth.

MS MAKHUBELE: What time did the assault at the farm end?

MR MPUNGOSE: It went on until four in the morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you've told us in answer to my colleague that they assaulted you with sjamboks, sticks, knopkieries and a fan belt?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Earlier you told us that they tied you upside down in a tree at the farm?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that on this night?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: Were you injured on this occasion?


MS MAKHUBELE: Is this day occasion in which a doctor was called?

MR MPUNGOSE: No, not on this occasion.

MS MAKHUBELE: The last incident, the fourth, when did it happen?

MR MPUNGOSE: This happened in Angola.

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you recall the date?

MR MPUNGOSE: I cannot recall the date very well.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who assaulted you?

MR MPUNGOSE: Sphinx himself.

MS MAKHUBELE: And how did he assault you?

MR MPUNGOSE: He was hitting me with his bare fists, kicking me and pulling me by my beard and spitting on me, on the face.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did he tell you why he was assaulting you?

MR MPUNGOSE: They were accusing me of being a police spy.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was that in the presence of other people after he'd handed you over, before he handed you over? Who was present, who took part and who did what?

MR MPUNGOSE: There was one man who was called Austin as well as others whose identities I didn't know.

MS MAKHUBELE: Where were the others with whom he assaulted you in the previous three occasions. That's Tim Williams, Dieta and Piliso?

MR MPUNGOSE: They remained behind in Lusaka, they didn't come to Angola.

MS MAKHUBELE: So you only went to Angola with Sphinx.

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: Were you told why you were then removed from Lusaka to Angola?

MR MPUNGOSE: They said I was being taken for Umkhonto weSizwe training.

MS MAKHUBELE: Let's now come to the allegations that you were a police agent or a spy. You heard evidence yesterday that they had information about you and furthermore, when you got to Lusaka they searched you and they found certain articles in your possession that confirmed their suspicions, do you recall this?


MS MAKHUBELE: Were the articles found in your possession?

MR MPUNGOSE: Not on my person and they did not show me anything. They actually searched my case. I remember the IFP membership card, I cannot testify about the other things which they claimed to have found. One other thing that they found in the bag was a small container, polish container which I was going to use for my herbs.

MS MAKHUBELE: Is that the polish container which apparently belonged to Joe Nhlanhla's car?

MR MPUNGOSE: I don't even know who it belonged to, I was going to wash it very nicely and use it for my medicine.

MS MAKHUBELE: Where did you get it?

MR MPUNGOSE: I was thrown away after it had been used.

MS MAKHUBELE: You found it in Lusaka or in South Africa?

MR MPUNGOSE: It was a bottle that had been thrown away in Lusaka, I took it not knowing who it belonged to or who it had belonged to. It was a throw away.

MS MAKHUBELE: They also said you were found in possession of registration numbers of the cars belonging to Jeli and Nhlanhla. Do you know anything about this?

MR MPUNGOSE: I know nothing to that effect and nothing was shown to me, claiming to have been found on my person. I was removed from the room whilst the searching was going on.

MS MAKHUBELE: You say the only thing you are aware of is the IFP card?

MR MPUNGOSE: Yes and that was not a secret.

MS MAKHUBELE: Why do you say it's not a secret, can you tell us?

MR MPUNGOSE: When I obtained the membership card we had discussed this with the people with whom I was involved. I indicated that this was necessary for my protection.

MS MAKHUBELE: So when you travelled with this card, IFP card to Lusaka, you saw no need to hide it because the ANC people you were working with were aware of the card?


MS MAKHUBELE: Did you give this explanation to say the applicants, Ndaba and Dieta, when they searched you and found the card?

MR MPUNGOSE: I did explain but they pretended to understand but it transpired later that they were not listening.

MS MAKHUBELE: Were you afforded an opportunity to explain everything or the allegations that had against you were discussed in all the times that you were held in Lusaka and Angola?

MR MPUNGOSE: Never afforded such an opportunity. You see, was regarded as a person who was resisting, I was accused of refusing to talk.

MS MAKHUBELE: It was also said that you confessed that a certain Botha was your handler. Do you know anything about this?

MR MPUNGOSE: The Botha that I was talking about was a station commander at the station where I was based so that I was compelled to admit that he was my handler, yet he was my station commander.

CHAIRPERSON: What station was this?

MR MPUNGOSE: Berea Police Station in Durban.

MS MAKHUBELE: The other allegation against you is that you helped MK cadres to obtain illegal documents and then you later gave information to the police causing them to be arrested. What can you say about this?

MR MPUNGOSE: I was compelled, I was beaten up into saying exactly that. Everything that I said which did not involve the police was not accepted and I had to admit to everything that they were saying about me because I was trying to avoid the beating.

MS MAKHUBELE: But do you know of any person you had helped to obtain ID documents illegally who was later arrested?

MR MPUNGOSE: Not a single one who was ultimately arrested. Everyone whom I was working with back home was safe to the time when I left.

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you recall their names?


CHAIRPERSON: Were you providing false documents for people?

MR MPUNGOSE: I was requested to go to Swaziland to take these documents and bring them home to these people.

MS MAKHUBELE: But none of those persons was arrested, as far as you know?

MR MPUNGOSE: None was arrested.

MS MAKHUBELE: You wanted to tell me their names before the Chairperson interrupted you?

MR MPUNGOSE: One of them is Benjamin and the other one is Bongani.

MS MAKHUBELE: After you were transferred to Angola, did you see the applicants again?

MR MPUNGOSE: I never saw them and I also saw Sphinx for the last time in Angola. That's where I was held in a military prison.

MS MAKHUBELE: After that were you assaulted by any other person during the period of your detention?

MR MPUNGOSE: I was beaten up when I was at the Quatro camps.

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you know who assaulted you?

MR MPUNGOSE: I remember them.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who are they?

MR MPUNGOSE: Griffiths, Austin, Hamba and one other person whose name was Mellow Yellow. Those were their tribal names and there were numerous of them, I cannot enumerate them all. At some time I'll be beaten up by at least 30 people.

MS MAKHUBELE: What was the nature of the assaults there at Quatro camp?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you go on. Was this Austin the same man as the one who was present when you were beaten for the fourth time?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, thank you.

MS MAKHUBELE: How were they assaulting you at Quatro?

MR MPUNGOSE: They were lashing me with ropes and canes as well as coffee sticks and they would slap me and hit me with their bare fists and they would make me blow my cheeks and they would hit me on the cheeks and they would kick me.

MR SIBANYONI: What are coffee sticks?

MR MPUNGOSE: They are these trees wherein they poured these coffees. These are the sticks that they were using to assault me with.

MR SIBANYONI: Yes, thank you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could you kindly describe that because I see my colleague also didn't hear of it before? What does it look like, how long is it, how big is it? Is it a hollow stick? What is it?

MR MPUNGOSE: It's a stick, sometimes it would be very big or small. You would go there and cut such a stick yourself and bring it back and they would say it's not appropriate and you would have to go back and cut a bigger one and bring it back and they would use it to assault you with.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did the stick come from a coffee tree?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you recall the number of times you were assaulted at Quatro?

MR MPUNGOSE: The assault was such that you would sigh with relief when the day goes by without any assault.

MS MAKHUBELE: So it's a period of - you were - before I get there, when were you transferred to Angola. Do you recall the date?

MR MPUNGOSE: It was in March 1989.

MS MAKHUBELE: Are you certain about the date or you cannot recall because according to their evidence you arrived in Lusaka in May of 1987?


MS MAKHUBELE: How long were you in the company of Tim Williams and his group?

MR MPUNGOSE: About a month.

MS MAKHUBELE: So let's say you were transferred to Angola in June of 1987?

MR MPUNGOSE: In August 15, in '87.

MS MAKHUBELE: So from August of 1987 to the time you were released, which is when?

MR MPUNGOSE: I was released in 1980, it could have been September.

MS MAKHUBELE: When were you released from Quatro?

MR MPUNGOSE: I was not released from Qrom Quatro, there came a time when Quatro had to be demolished because there was now Unita which was fighting the Angolan Government and the camp was demolished and we had to go to Luanda from March 1989. After which we went to Uganda and others were taken to some other places.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, would you repeat that? You had to go to where in March 1989?

MR MPUNGOSE: We went to Uganda where we were held in the prison.

CHAIRPERSON: So you weren't transferred to Quatro in March 1989, you were transferred from Quatro in March '89?

MR MPUNGOSE: I was transferred to Quatro on the 22nd October 1987.

MS MAKHUBELE: Then from Quatro, which other facility were you taken to? When?

MR MPUNGOSE: I was removed from Quatro on the 23rd December and I was taken to Angola because Quatro was now going to be demolished.

JUDGE DE JAGER: To get this picture clear here, you were arrested in May 1987, is that correct?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You were taken to the farm on the 16th June 1987?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Then Sphinx took you to Angola on the 17th October - on the 22nd October?

MR MPUNGOSE: On the 15th July I was taken to Angola.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry on the 15th?

MR MPUNGOSE: On the 15th July I was taken to Angola.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you say 15th August a short while ago?

MR MPUNGOSE: No, of July.


MR MPUNGOSE: Yes, I was taken to Angola by Sphinx.


MR MPUNGOSE: Thence I was taken to the Angola Military Prison, that's where I was fetched when Sphinx came to assault me.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You weren't taken to Quatro straight from Zambia?


JUDGE DE JAGER: So you first went to Angola to the military prison on the 15th July?


JUDGE DE JAGER: And were you then transferred from there to Quatro?

MR MPUNGOSE: That's right.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And was that on the 17th or the 22nd October?


JUDGE DE JAGER: And you stayed in Quatro until it was demolished?


JUDGE DE JAGER: During March 1989, is that right?

MR MPUNGOSE: I left Quatro in December, on the 23rd December. We left for Angola. In 1988.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You left Quatro on 20 what of December 1988?

What's the date?

MR MPUNGOSE: On the 23rd December.

JUDGE DE JAGER: 1988 and then you went to?

MR MPUNGOSE: 1989 March, we were transferred to Uganda.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And how long did you stay in Uganda?

MR MPUNGOSE: I stayed there up until 1990.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And from there?

MR MPUNGOSE: In 1990 - in 1989 in September I was released.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, I don't get it now. You're in Uganda now from March 1989, is that correct?

MR MPUNGOSE: Yes, in September 1989 I was released but this was not clear because I was taken to the camp of ANC soldiers and I was always imprisoned because I would do their laundry daily. I was doing the laundry for the whole camp on a daily basis.

MS MAKHUBELE: Chairperson, if I may assist Mr Mpungose with the dates? You have written a statement some time ago when maybe all this was still fresh in your memory. Can you just look here to try to clarify the dates as to when, what happened, Mr Mpungose? This is your statement. If you can just read from here to try to give the Committee the exact dates as to what happened when?

JUDGE DE JAGER: You could read it to us, if you could refresh your memory. It's not that important but we want to have a full picture, it's not so important, the exact day and minute of the hour.

MR MPUNGOSE: On the 23rd December 1988 Quatro Camp was evacuated and the prisoners were taken to a place called Nomkala in Luanda in Angola. This was a warehouse where we were treated somewhat better than in Quatro prison camp.

During March 1989 I was taken to Uganda to where I was further detained. Here the circumstances were somewhat better than Quatro. On the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, was this Bokoloto Prison?

MR MPUNGOSE: We didn't know the name of the prison because we were not allowed to know the place where we were kept.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I'm just reading from the report, the evidence that was given to them. They write a report on you on page 80 where they give that name of the prison. Second to last paragraph.

MR MPUNGOSE: On the 21st September 1990, I was partially released from detention and brought to Kampala security camp of the ANC. I stayed there at the place called Buyga and I was given a hard duty of doing washing and ironing for everyone in the security camp. I stayed there for seven months and on the 20th day of April 1991, I was taken to Tanzania in Morogoro in the camp of the ANC called Dekawa via Dar-es-Salaam, East Africa.

MS MAKHUBELE: So from 1987 to 1991 you were moved from one facility to another and assaulted and as you said, you can't recall the number of days but it would be almost on a daily basis?

MR MPUNGOSE: Yes that is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: The report ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I just clear up something else? We have heard evidence already about what happened to you. Was that on the - in April, the 20th April 1991 where you told us you were taken to Tanzania. Is that when you were appointed head of the religious department at the camp?

MR MPUNGOSE: Yes that is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: Then you were no longer assaulted?

MR MPUNGOSE: Yes that is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: What were your duties as head of that religious department?

MR MPUNGOSE: I had to educate people with the Bible. That used to be a problem because even when people who would let their children come to attend the lecture, we would go and visit places to sing there.

MS MAKHUBELE: When were you finally released from detention?

MR MPUNGOSE: I can say when I was finally released, leaving for Tanzania, that was my final release although I would be still in other places but I can say I was finally released when I got home on the 13th February 1992. That's when I felt my freedom, when I was back in South Africa.

MS MAKHUBELE: Mr Mpungose, so you gave evidence at the Matsonyuane Commission, is this correct?

MR MPUNGOSE: Yes that is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: The report that's often referred to here, that's based on what was said in that Commission. Were you told of the findings of that report, of that Commission?

MR MPUNGOSE: No one paid any attention because nothing happened after the Matsonyuane Commission. I was not told anything.

MS MAKHUBELE: During consultation I informed you what the Commission has found, that amongst other things that security department, the people who interrogated you or detained you or arrested you, that had reasonable suspicions. That is to say that they had reasonable grounds to believe that you were a security agent. What is your comment to this?

MR MPUNGOSE: I think that because the Commission was a result, a product of the ANC, they were not doing anything properly and I was never given a chance to listen to the people giving testimony and after my testimony I showed them marks on my body and then I left and I was never told about anything that took place at the commission. I'm hearing their testimony here for the first time today in this amnesty commission.

MS MAKHUBELE: The commission also recommends that the ANC should apologise to you. Has this been done?

MR MPUNGOSE: No, nothing like that ever happened and I didn't even know that they were told to apologise to me.

MS MAKHUBELE: You also told that commission what the damages you suffered in respect of property as well as bodily injuries and on page 81 of the bundle before us, can I just confirm that if this is what you told them or if there is any more damages you suffered which are not indicated here, that you lost medicine in the amount of R5200, a briefcase worth R100, shoes, trousers, two shirts and a bag valued at R195, a watch and a wedding ring valued at R600, R1800 Zimbabwean Dollars and radio tape player worth R300. Is this correct?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: You also say that you borrowed money to pay your debt which money amounted to R2046, is this correct?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

MS MAKHUBELE: And ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: You've given evidence before the Human Rights Commission, I believe?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Because we're not dealing with the damages and reparation but if we would grant amnesty to applicants we will recommend in any event that victims should be considered in terms of the Act and be dealt with but this Committee is not dealing with damages at all.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. And finally, do you - what is your opinion to the applicants' contention that they had reasonable grounds to interrogate you and that it was necessary for them to assault you in order to obtain the information that they wanted from you as a final resort because you would make a confession and further retract it?

MR MPUNGOSE: If I do not forgive them, that is not going to benefit me anything. As a religious leader I even mentioned there while they were still assaulting that God should pardon them because they didn't know what they were doing. I'm the one who knew well about my activities. I cannot say that I'm not forgiving them. If the Commission feels it's the right thing to do they can pardon them but I cannot say that they shouldn't be granted amnesty. I am a religious person, I'm supposed to forgive the others because to carry on with such grudges, I'm not going to benefit anything.

CHAIRPERSON: You weren't asked about grudges because what we understand from your evidence is that these people have not been telling the truth, that it is not a question of you making concessions and then withdrawing them. That they assaulted you to get you to say what they wanted? Then what is the position?

MR MPUNGOSE: In their testimony they are not telling the truth because even what they had mentioned during the Matsonyuane Commission, they are totally denying that they are bringing new information. In whatever they are doing it's not going to take me anywhere, whether they tell the truth or not, it's not going to take me anywhere, I'm not going to benefit anything. What I can say so that when I die I mustn't die with a grudge against a certain person. I don't want to grudge any person who is going to disturb me.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you, that's the evidence-in-chief.


JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, the only thing that - you've heard them yesterday telling us what they did to you?


JUDGE DE JAGER: Did they tell us the truth or did they hide something, things that they didn't tell us about? They deny, for instance, that they hung you up a tree. What's the truth there?

MR MPUNGOSE: They were not telling the truth. There are so many things that they have omitted that I cannot say that they've assaulted me for so many times. They are not telling the truth at all and even when they say that they only assaulted me once at Chongele, that is not true. But I cannot force them to admit things to admit that they're not prepared to admit.


Mr Mpungose, you say you were moved from Quatro. The correct name, Chairperson, is Camp 32. You were moved from Camp 32 to Angola, is that correct?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Was Camp 32 not in Angola?

MR MPUNGOSE: Yes it was in Angola. We are talking about Luanda in Angola. I was taken from Camp 32 to Luanda.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, now let's start at the end. You were taken to Uganda and - no, in fact to Tanzania, at Dagawa, you said and this is where you were made a religious head. Did you have any other responsibilities?

MR MPUNGOSE: Yes, there were other duties. I was working as the head of the religious department but I would visit other places with a certain group that was involved in music.

MR KOOPEDI: Were you not made a commissar at this camp?


MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Now you say the Matsonyuane Commission, after you gave evidence you say you left and then did not get to hear the evidence of the people who gave evidence there and you also say - is that correct?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: You also say that after that commission, no one came to you, no one told you anything about the report, is that correct?


MR KOOPEDI: But did you have any occasion to get the report of that commission or the transcripts thereof to read, what was said there after you had left?


MR KOOPEDI: Now how are you able to tell this Honourable Committee that the applicants have changed what they said in the Matsonyuane Commission because in your own admission you don't know what they said?

MR MPUNGOSE: I got that from my legal representative that this was the findings and I was shocked to hear that.

MR KOOPEDI: Now in Uganda you say that you were at a camp where you did washing and ironing for all the soldiers there. How many soldiers were there?

MR MPUNGOSE: I cannot say but some soldiers would come and go to the other camps. I cannot say for sure how many were there but there were many of them.

MR KOOPEDI: At a given time what average would you put, would there be fifty soldiers, would there be five hundred soldiers or five thousand soldiers?

MR MPUNGOSE: I can say there were twenty, more or less.

MR KOOPEDI: The fact that you had to do their washing and ironing on a daily basis, why did you not tell this to the Matsonyuane Commission? Had you forgotten?

MR MPUNGOSE: What was discussed there was only about assaults when I came. Even if I made mention of that but there I was taken as a person who was released but I later realised that I wasn't released because I had duties that I had perform for the whole camp.

MR KOOPEDI: I don't understand the answer. Why did you not tell the Matsonyuane Commission that amongst the things that you told them that at this place one of the things you were made to do was to do washing for an entire camp, washing and ironing on a daily basis for an entire camp?

MR MPUNGOSE: When one is testifying verbally it's not always that you can mention everything. You can omit some of the things by mistake and this is what happened and even the people who are there cannot dispute that because those are the people that I was doing their washing.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. The Zuma story. You say that when you were in Lusaka, shortly after you had arrived, some days after you had arrived, Jacob Zuma came to you, is that correct?

MR MPUNGOSE: No, he didn't come immediately. I was told that he was overseas. He came at some stage to talk to me and then he came for the second time to tell me that I was being transferred to a certain place. After that I did not see him.

MR KOOPEDI: Now that part of the story, why did you not tell it to the Matsonyuane Commission also? Was it another mistake?

MR MPUNGOSE: It's not always possible to mention everything. Even here on this forum I didn't mention anything about Zwele Mtungu who is alleged to have been cooking for me. He would do that only once a week so it's not possible to utter everything and sometimes some of the issues would appear as if they're not important. Even there, Zuma never assaulted me and never uttered any bad words that was not important. What was more important was the fact that I was assaulted.

MR KOOPEDI: What I want to find out is that - and perhaps you can assist me with this. Since the Matsonyuane Commission more than seven years has - no, almost seven years has passed. I would imagine that your recollection of things would have been sharper then than now but what I find strange is that there are new things that you are telling at this stage and I need to understand why now, why do you remember these things if you had forgotten them.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Have you got a verbatim or transcription of what he told the commission? Is it available somewhere?

MR KOOPEDI: I tried to find it Chairperson and I don't know if it is available.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Because from the report itself it's almost a summary, it's not referring exactly to who said what as evidence?

MR KOOPEDI: Well that is indeed so, Chairperson. However, I know what the applicants said in the Matsonyuane Commission, I represented the applicants that are before you in that commission and I rely on my memory to ask him these things and as you will see from his responses, he doesn't say I did say that, because he didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Surely the ANC must have a copy of this available of the evidence that was led at their commission?

MR KOOPEDI: Like I said, Chairperson, I tried to find it but I didn't get it. I've gone to the council who were involved in the matter, I couldn't get a copy of that and for interest sake, Chairperson, it's a very voluminous document with about 50 volumes. If you intend looking at that perhaps you should be warned.

CHAIRPERSON: One doesn't want to look at 50 volumes, one wants to look at the transcript of this witnesses evidence?

MR KOOPEDI: Well Chairperson, I am referring to the entire volume because you will from time to time want to look at the transcript. If I may go on?

You say that when you arrived at Lusaka, you were kept at a house, is that correct?


MR KOOPEDI: And you were later moved to another house?


MR KOOPEDI: Now at this first house were you assaulted?

MR MPUNGOSE: No, I was never assaulted there.

MR KOOPEDI: Now at this first house with whom were you staying, were you alone?

MR MPUNGOSE: I was staying with a young man whose name was Zweli Mkunu. He was originally from Lamontville and there was this other young man who would be there sleeping with me in the room who would have his AK47 all the time.

MR KOOPEDI: Now you say that there were four people who took you to the farm and assaulted you, is that correct?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: You also said that when you were assaulted at the house the four people assaulted you?

MR MPUNGOSE: Yes that is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now what I find strange is why in the Matsonyuane Commission you said that in Lusaka you were only assaulted by three people?

MR MPUNGOSE: I don't remember saying that. The other thing in that statement that was prepared for the Matsonyuane Commission, I did not compile this statement and some of the things that are written there, it's not what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is this that he said he was only assaulted by three people?

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, if you look at page 82 of the report.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, page 82?

MR KOOPEDI: Page 82 of your bundle, page 98 of the Matsonyuane Report, at the bottom there, there starts a list of people whom he mentioned to have assaulted him.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if you look at page 79 you will see that he said:

"In Lusaka Mpungose was interrogated and tortured by four members of the security branch including Floyd Huna known as Sphinx, Tim Williams and a young man Piliso."

Four persons.

MR KOOPEDI: Could you direct me to the paragraph, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Centre of page 79.

MR KOOPEDI: I see that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you cannot put to him that he said only three, that is not true?

MR KOOPEDI: Maybe let me not argue about that Chairperson, because I believe it would be up to him to answer that question. Now the things that were found on you by the unit, you have admitted that the IFP membership card was found but I heard you in your evidence saying that you were not found with car registration numbers. Is that the case, are you confirming this?

MR MPUNGOSE: Yes that is correct.

MR KOOPEDI: Now Chairperson, page 82 of your bundle, the Matsonyuane Commission Report again, at the top of that.

You gave the Matsonyuane Commission an explanation of why you had the registration numbers of Joe Nhlanhla and Joe Jeli and why is it today that you don't know ever having - you did not have the registration numbers of the vehicles?

MR MPUNGOSE: What is written there I do not believe it's what I said. I never said that. Whoever was compiling that statement said whatever he liked but I didn't write the statement.

MR KOOPEDI: But maybe if I remind you, this might help. When you were asked why you were in possession of the number of items which were said were in your possession, you had them in your possession amongst others the car registration numbers. You gave an explanation that the reason why you had the car registration numbers of Joe Nhlanhla and Joe Jeli, was because you did not know who are the people who had come to Lusaka and visit their house or the place where you were kept and further that you were afraid that your torturers might come and ask you about these cars that came. Do you remember that?

MR MPUNGOSE: I cannot remember that. Truly speaking, each and every item that was found there was never brought to me. Even the fact that I admitted to having such items, I was forced and even video cameras that everything that I was saying would be recorded. That's what they were doing everywhere.

MR KOOPEDI: They say there was another allegation against you, that you were involved in the abduction and the killing of an ANC member in Swaziland named Mapumulu. Do you remember that allegation?


MR KOOPEDI: Of course you say that you did not hear what Matsonyuane had to say about your testimony but I believe as you say you consulted with counsel, counsel told you that according to Matsonyuane's findings there was reason to suspect you on Mapumulu's issue, on Mapumulu's death. Do

you have a comment on that?

MR MPUNGOSE: I do remember that.

MR KOOPEDI: Well, there were other allegations against you, that you provided assistance to four cadres who were then caught by the police. Do you remember that?

MR MPUNGOSE: No, I cannot remember that because when I was talking about the people that I assisted, it's only two people that I worked with. Though I was Shange who was arrested, he was later released and I was not there, I was in Johannesburg. But the person that I can think of, the girlfriend of his, I never worked with her but he was one of the people who had gone to Swaziland and who were later arrested but the people who were working with me, no one was ever arrested.

MR KOOPEDI: Well I find it strange that you say that no one was arrested then because the ANC security department produced a file during the Matsonyuane Commission which your counsel had a copy of and in that file you were placed at Swaziland at the time of Mapumulu's disappearance. Do you remember that?

MR MPUNGOSE: I was not in Swaziland when Mapumulu died or was killed.

MR KOOPEDI: Well I put it to you that you also conceded to have been in Swaziland at that time in the Matsonyuane Commission?

MR MPUNGOSE: I only went to Swaziland but when Mapumulu was killed I was in Johannesburg. I heard that when I was in Johannesburg when I called Shange and I got that from Shange. I was not in Swaziland during the incident. I came and proceeded to Johannesburg. I came to Swaziland and proceeded to Johannesburg. I was in Tshabalala's place in Johannesburg.

MR KOOPEDI: And finally, I put it to you that the applicants gave full disclosure and further that you have once more, like you did and it was found in the Matsonyuane Commission, exaggerated the beatings that were done on you. Your comment?

MR MPUNGOSE: That is not exaggeration. Here I'm telling the honest truth.

MR KOOPEDI: No further questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Where does it say that he exaggerated the beatings?

MR KOOPEDI: (The second paragraph of page 82 of your bundle of documents. The fourth line, starts with:

"The Commission finds it more likely than not that he was beaten by them in some manner, even if not exactly as he described it".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, "even if not exactly", that is not exaggeration, is it? "Even if not exactly", that means merely that you don't accept word for word that somebody remembers?

MR KOOPEDI: Well Chairperson, the word that was used was that he exaggerated it in the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: You cannot continue to give evidence of what you say occurred at the hearing to support your questions. In that case you must come and give evidence properly, not just put things to the witness and say that's what was said? Are you saying they have not written down in the commission's report what they said at the hearing.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, like I initially said that - or perhaps let me put it this way, it is in this commission that he was asked questions and it is in this commission that he made certain admissions. It may well be that the report has a wording which says that the beating did not happen exactly as he said it did but what was put to him was that there was exaggeration and if he ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It may have been put to him. That does not mean the commission accepted it.

MR KOOPEDI: If it will please the Chairperson, I will put it to him that "although you were beaten, you were not beaten exactly as you described, like the Matsonyuane Commission found. Your comment please".

MR MPUNGOSE: I am describing the beatings as they happened and the times I am telling exactly what happened because as they say I was assaulted only once. I can say I was assaulted up to four times and even as things continued in Angola even though the others didn't get to Angola, I was injured on my body. Who caused the injuries if they didn't do that because they're even denying about the parts on my body. I don't even have sexual feelings because they were kicking my bladder, kicking me on my back. What could be the cause of my loss of sexual feelings if that is not the truth. I am telling the honest truth, this happened as I'm telling you now.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Questions?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, before I consider questions to ask I would like to make an application that the statement which was referred to this Committee which is alleged to have been made by Mr Mpungose be made available to the Committee and to all parties involved. It is then that I'll be able to probably consider what questions to ask.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And could you perhaps obtain the statements given by the applicants to the commission too and let's have those statements too if it's available? This one is available, the others I think should be available too?

MR MAPOMA: I will endeavour to do that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) adjournment?

MR MAPOMA: Yes I propose to an adjournment, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we'll take a short adjournment now.




MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, copies of a statement by Mr Mpungose have been made available to the parties involved and I ask the Committee to accept the statement as Exhibit A.


MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the statement prepared for?

MS MAKHUBELE: If I may? The statement was prepared for the Human Rights Violations.


MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, this was after the Matsonyuane Commission.

MR MAPOMA: I have enquired from Mr Koopedi about the statements which are supposed to have been made by the applicants to the Matsonyuane Commission and unfortunately those statements, I'm told, cannot be found at this point. Mr Koopedi is here to say, whatever.

MR KOOPEDI: Well after speaking to Mr Mapoma, I have called the ANC office and I've asked someone to go again and look where we have failed, to see if they cannot trace the transcript and the statements made by the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: We're obliged to you, if you would.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But could you perhaps tell us is the commission correct in finding that they denied that they ever assaulted the victim here?

MR KOOPEDI: I missed the question. Did the commission?

JUDGE DE JAGER: The commission stated that the applicants denied - I haven't got this ...(intervention)


MR KOOPEDI: Now I understand the question. Chairperson, that question was asked to the first applicant and his answer was just as I recalled that what was denied in particular. In fact, let me say Tim Williams denied ever assaulting the applicant throughout the commission and the first applicant here who has come to be known as Sphinx denied that he assaulted as excessive as he had stated. He denied that the marks on his back were occasioned by any assault by him. The only thing he said he did was to assault him under his feet with something, a stick or a knopkierie or something.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what he told us, that he assaulted him under his feet. Did he tell the commission that?

MR KOOPEDI: This is the part that I remember, Chairperson, that he said he only beat him on the feet but he denied the series of beatings, the hangings and all those things.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You see, because the commission stated on page 80:

"Both Tim Williams and Floyd Huna who worked with the counter-intelligence section of the security department denied that they assaulted Mpungose in any way."

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, what I say my recollection is, my recollection is that applicant who has become known as Sphinx denied the other forms of beatings other than having beaten him on the soles of his feet.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So then the report on this aspect is wrong?

MR KOOPEDI: As far as my recollection goes, Chairperson, it is.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But the ANC itself submitted this report as part of their submissions to the TRC?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, that is indeed so. Or it also submitted various reports relating to the same incident. There was a Douglas Commission, there was a Stewart Commission, there was a commission by the Amnesty International. All these reports were submitted which had very different findings, which had very different versions of evidence by similar applicants.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but those commissions weren't appointed by the ANC itself?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so. Well some of them, I know for instance that the Stewart Commission was an ANC commission.

MR MAPOMA: For the record, the Matsonyuane Commission was an independent commission appointed by President of the ANC, Mr Mandela, then in 1993 inside South Africa.

Chairperson, regarding this statement I have no questions and I have no questions to the witness as well.


MR SIBANYONI: Maybe just a few or one, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Mpungose, when you said you were hanged upside down on a tree, who hanged you? Are you able to say so and so grabbed me, tied me upside down. Is it possible for you to explain?

MR MPUNGOSE: It was Sphinx himself and Piliso as well as Dieta. That was the time when Tim had gone to fetch some food.

MR SIBANYONI: What was used to tie you up to the tree?


MR SIBANYONI: For how long were you on the tree?

MR MPUNGOSE: From 9 o'clock to around 11 o'clock.

MR SIBANYONI: No further questions Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR KOOPEDI: No further questions, Chairperson.

MS MAKHUBELE: None. That's the applicant's case. There are no witnesses to call. I'm sorry, I'm used to representing applicants, that's Mr Mpungose's case. No witnesses.


CHAIRPERSON: Right gentlemen, are you ready to start addresses?

MR KOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: Yes we are Chairperson, I believe there's also a lady, Chairperson.

Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, it is my submission that the two applicants that appeared before you have told you the whole truth, have fully disclosed all the relevant facts to you. It is my submission that there is of course a very big gap between their version and the version of the applicant. My submission is that even though the one might say this happened a long time ago, there are a lot of things that happened to this victim and it may well be so that what some of the things that he says happened to him in Lusaka may have happened in Angola and it also may well be so that some of them were not as exactly as he stated.

I will ask you Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members, to look at the Human Rights Violations Committee statement which has now been placed before us. It will be seen from that statement that what he said there, I've not been able to go through it all but the very first portions of that indicate that this statement is also not similar to the evidence that was given here and my submission is that the victim's evidence, is not exactly as it happened.

To pass that, I also wish to submit, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members that all that was done or admitted to have been done before you by the applicants, none of the applicants received anything that is materially beneficial to them, there was no material personal gain. It is also my submission that at all times when they acted their action was political motivated with a political objective in sight. At no stage would one say the applicants acted otherwise, they did not act out of malice, they did not act criminally, they did not do anything which did not have the political motive.

The applicants that were before you were members of a counter-intelligence unit which had a task to fight anyone who was seen or who was thought to have been fighting the ANC or against the ANC at that stage. It is my submission that the manner in which they conducted themselves was dictated upon by the circumstances in which they found themselves and the evidence which they found the victim to be in possession of and whatever information that they had. It is therefore my submission, Chairperson, that the two applicants that appeared before you do qualify to be granted amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: In the light of the fact, as I recollect it, the applicant said, "he made confessions to us then he changed so we assaulted him", isn't that grossly disproportionate? He had made admissions, he had told them, they say that he made confessions but then he changed his confessions or tried to withdraw them and that's what provoked the assaults? That's not a political objective, that's just their temper reaction, isn't it?

MR KOOPEDI: No, I don't see it that way, Chairperson, in that it was explained, I believe, over and over that the assault was used as a last resort to achieve the purpose of the whole exercise. The purpose of the whole exercise was to understand a number of things which they had on their dossier, the disappearance of certain MK members, the abduction of other people, the killing of Mapumulu and the fact that the victim in this matter belonged to an underground cell and had endangered a number of people. Therefore Chairperson, if the biography written or the confession made does not tally with certain information that they had and they had to resort to this last step of assaulting, my submission is that this was not purely out of temper but purely ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That is what worries me, doesn't Dieta say - this is my note"

"I'm not a violent person but I do get cross. I must have slapped or fisted him"?

MR KOOPEDI: That's what he told you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that's not that we did this on a procedural basis, it's "I got cross and I slapped him."

MR KOOPEDI: That is so Chairperson, but this is what made him cross, took him to the last step and which step was to get him to tell him the truth or what they believed to be the truth then. My submission is that, Chairperson, if they didn't take that step, according to them there was no other way they would then get to the truth that they wanted.

Well perhaps and finally Chairperson, it might be prudent for me to also add that the applicant was at a later stage released. I know that once he got to Camp 32 in Angola, may not be part of this hearing, but yes, I wanted to say that at some stage he was finally released because there was no reason to or as they saw it then, to proceed detaining him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So the only assaults that they admit of administering was a few slaps by applicant number two and beating underneath the feet by applicant number one. No other assaults?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No hanging from a tree or pulling his beard or spitting or whatever, none of those occurred?

MR KOOPEDI: None of those occurred according to their evidence.

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) administered by the present applicants?

MR KOOPEDI: That is so, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: We heard very little evidence about kidnapping or abducting or did the applicants play any part in that or didn't they ...(intervention)

MR KOOPEDI: Kidnapping the victim?


MR KOOPEDI: They played a part in the sense that at some stage he then came to them and they took the matter over. The kept him at this house and they, at some stage, took him to the farm at Chongele and this is where they assaulted him and I believe therefore that ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: But they said they ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: They didn't ask for it, did they?

MR KOOPEDI: I understood their amnesty applications to be applications for all the acts, whatever they did to them and in particular assaulting him and my submission is therefore that, Chairperson, if they assaulted him they would have had to abduct him. I may give an example that if an applicant asks for amnesty for having shot and killed someone, I believe that this person will also then be asking for amnesty for the weapon he had, he used to do this, if this weapon is what he carried.

CHAIRPERSON: What they say here is they participated in the debriefing of Mpungose, not anything indicating kidnapping by them or anything, participating in the debriefing. The man comes along to be questioned and they participated it.

MR KOOPEDI: I thought they said they participated in debriefing and interrogating him and what I'm saying, Chairperson, is that they would not have been able to do so if they did not abduct him.

CHAIRPERSON: Why? You can question a man without abducting him? You have been questioning people here on numerous occasions and you haven't abducted them?

MR KOOPEDI: I've not been interrogating them Chairperson. For you to interrogate a person, you'd have, I believe, to have this person at a certain place and you are at this stage not asking questions, you are insisting, you are not begging for answers, you are insisting on them and my submission is therefore that you cannot conduct an interrogation the way they did when in fact he had come freely. And thank you, Chairperson, that's my submission.

MS MAKHUBELE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson. In passing, firstly I would just want to respond to Mr Koopedi's statement that Mr Mpungose's statement made available to the Committee today. The first few submissions are wrong. Well, he doesn't refer to a specific one but I just want to point out that I have read it without him referring to a specific portion. I submit that it's in accordance with the evidence that he gave before this Committee. Maybe Mr Koopedi read the first line where he starts, he says he left the country in 1987 and then he is back on the same paragraph, but he's back in 1992. I can just point out

that the statement was prepared by himself, he was not assisted by a legally trained person and as such the facts as they appear were written in a random manner, if I may put it that way.

Then turning to the political motive and if I recall, the applicants indicated that it was not ANC policy to assault but as a last resort or if we make a report, finally we would motivate why we assaulted a specific person. But one would be surprised because on the same breath the applicant, if I recall particularly, Mr Dieta indicated when I asked him why they had to - one of the reasons they would not have done certain things in the farm at Chongele is because had the treasurer general or some other official but whose farm maybe that was, had he known about that, obviously they would have been in trouble and that indicates immediately to one that they had no reason to believe that their actions would be ratified by their superiors and as such, which would also indicate they - on another question, he indicated that "we would not have assaulted him in the house because that would have raised suspicion. That too indicates that they had no reason to believe then that their actions would if not authorised have been ratified.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't that slightly different? My understanding what he has said about the house was they were an ANC underground organisation. They didn't want their neighbours to hear screams and to know that something was going on in that house?

MS MAKHUBELE: I concede that, Chairperson. I'm not going to take that further.

Again, Chairperson, on the question of - we have heard evidence that this was a matter - they were with him for at least, they said, two weeks. According to him it could have been a month or so. They had ample time to verify the allegations they had against him in view of the fact that at the end of the interrogation they are the people who, according to their evidence, had to make recommendations as to what was to be his fate from there. Well, they say they cannot remember whatever recommendations - if they made recommendations, they can't remember recommendations they had made. Then one would say that they did make recommendations and which would mean that they had a chance to verify.

Mr Dieta's evidence regarding the IFP card, for example, he said that at the time they - his - because he was not in the country, he could not imagine the reality and if a person would have given him that explanation, then he would not have believed it. But then, Honourable Committee, we're talking about a counter-intelligence unit. There are people who, if we are to believe that they had access to information on that level, they would have obviously verified that information and the other thing is that the evidence of the victim, Mr Mpungose, is that except for the card, all the other allegations, he was just told that "we have found this thing in your possession" but he was never shown those things.

Regarding whether they assaulted him in the manner that was described by him, obviously as one applicant answered in one of my questions that "it's his word against mine". But then, what's not in dispute is the fact that the was assaulted and as such, the circumstances which, at the end of the day, would be the determining factor and their reasons for doing so and it's my submission that they acted outside their mandate which they were aware of and that's all, Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, I have no submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: For the record, we will take time to consider our decision.




MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, the next matter which I intended calling now is that of Mr Noosi but unfortunately, Mr Maseko who was here yesterday and who indicated that he would be attending this hearing, is not here and we have endeavoured to phone him and the report I've just received is that he says he is in Johannesburg, his mother has just passed away. But he has indicated that by 1 o'clock he would be here.

In the meantime, there is a matter which can be called but the problem with that one is that the victims have not been located up to this point.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But you've advertised for victims. Is there anything more you could do to trace the victims? Can anybody point a finger at you or at the TRC that they didn't do enough to try and trace the victims?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, as you correctly say, we have advertised and we have made investigations about these victims whom we could not identify at this point in time and in the circumstances, Chairperson, I mean we could not find and in the circumstances, I may submit, Sir, that indeed all that is reasonable has been done.

CHAIRPERSON: Which case is this, which application?

MR MAPOMA: Mandlazi, that's matter AM5095/97, that is B.


MR MAPOMA: Yes and Matlaletsa is also here, that's AM5096/97 which is C. We can deal with those matters in the meantime.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You see, the trouble is it's probably the last time or the last opportunity we have to hear applications in Pretoria. We're winding up now the work of the Committee. In all probability we won't come back to Pretoria unless it's for a part heard thing so we must try and finish it and if victims would come forward later they would have the records available and they could, if there's still time, make representations if it's after we've given a decision of course it would be too late.

MR MAPOMA: Yes I appreciate, Chairperson, in fact I agree.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So you propose to start with?

MR MAPOMA: I propose calling Mandlazi, S M Mandlazi.

MR KOOPEDI: I would say, Chairperson, that we had thought that we would start with Mr Noosi's matter so I would need just a few minutes to finalise certain things with Mr Mandlazi but whilst I'm on the floor, I wish also to state that matter number 3, the matter of Matlaletsa, the applicant was here and he has instructed me to withdraw his application, Chairperson. He feels that he is not psychologically fit to go through the application, he feels that he has also served his sentence in this matter and basically that he is withdrawing his application.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyone have anything further to say in this regard?

MR MAPOMA: Nothing Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: You say he has served his sentence. Was he convicted?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, he was convicted in a Tanzanian court and served a sentence, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, the application of K N Matlaletsa is withdrawn.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You haven't got other any further withdrawals, perhaps?

MR KOOPEDI: No, not at this stage, Chairperson. I might have, I don't know but at this stage I don't.

I also believe that another matter which can be done easily and quickly is matter number 7, that one of S M Mangena. The facts are very straightforward and it's not a matter that can take forever and my submission would be that in the instances where victims cannot be located, I would ask that we proceed with the matters if this would not cause any prejudice and if the victim is found at some stage a transcript will be provided to the victim for the victim to make further representations to yourselves.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Are you ready to proceed with any one of them without further consultation or should we adjourn for a few minutes?

MR KOOPEDI: I would appreciate the few minutes adjournment, Chairperson, so that I can prepare the next applicant.

JUDGE DE JAGER: The next one will then be? Mandlazi?

MR KOOPEDI: Mandlazi, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mangena, has the ANC been asked to assist in finding the victim?

MR KOOPEDI: Not to my knowledge, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: He was a member, wasn't he?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes but my instructions are that at some stage he deserted the ANC and they don't know what...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well - so there have been some enquiries because I'm just glancing at the papers now, I see he is described as a mutineer. Okay, we'll adjourn for a few minutes.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, I'm indebted.



CHAIRPERSON: Right, what are we going to continue with now?

MR KOOPEDI: Matter number B Chairperson. The applicant is Samuel Mandenkosi Mandlazi, he is ready to be sworn in.


EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Mr Mandlazi, is it correct that you are appearing here today in an amnesty application which involves one Sizwe Mabaso?


MR KOOPEDI: I am showing to you now a document, page 24 Chairperson, of the bundle of documents. Is this document your application form?


MR KOOPEDI: And on page 29, in fact, which is page 6 of that form, there is a signature. Is that your signature?


MR KOOPEDI: Now at the time when this assault occurred, were you a member of a political organisation?


MR KOOPEDI: If you were a member of a political organisation, what political organisation was it?

MR MANDLAZI: African National Congress.

MR KOOPEDI: Now would you briefly tell this Committee, when did this assault on Mr Sizwe Mabaso occur.

MR MANDLAZI: If my memory still serves me well, that was in 1982.

MR KOOPEDI: Now briefly tell this Honourable Committee what you were doing in 1982, where were you and what did you do to Mr Mabaso?

MR MANDLAZI: I was based in Mozambique, Maputo, as a reporting officer there and I was responsible for a safe house where we used to keep our comrades who were either going home or those who were coming back from home and of course this safe house was our - that is, the department of intelligence and security headquarters. I worked under the command of Denmo Hapi who was also known as Stalin, whom unfortunately has passed away and Stalin was the head of the screening team.

Sizwe Mabaso was brought to the safe house for clearance as it was alleged that there were discrepancies between the biographies he had written and further that he was involved in the internal machinery and was responsible for the arrest of Thandi Modise.

Well one night, I can't recall the exact date, I was called by Stalin who was my commander to assist him in the interrogation of Sizwe Mabaso. In the process we beat him, we beat Sizwe and we tied him with a rope. After that night I had no further dealings with Sizwe.

MR KOOPEDI: To what did you - or how did you tie him? Did you tie his hands, his legs?

MR MANDLAZI: We tied his hands and his feet.

MR KOOPEDI: And what was this interrogation all about?

MR MANDLAZI: Well, it was in connection of the arrest of Thandi Modise who was an underground operative and Sizwe happened to be the courier between Thandi Modise and the other units whom I don't know their names. But then when Sizwe arrived in Mozambique or rather first in Swaziland, that's where he first wrote his biography detailing his activities inside the country. But when he arrived in Mozambique he wrote a different version of his biography which did not tally with what he had written in Swaziland about his activities with Thandi Modise and as a result of those two discrepancies in the biography, he was then taken to this safe house for further interrogation in terms of what he had actually been involved in.

MR KOOPEDI: Now after or during this interrogation, what was the reason really for hitting him, for hitting Sizwe?

MR MANDLAZI: Sizwe would not have been beaten had he not been aggressive towards the questions that we were asking him about with regards to the arrest of Thandi Modise because to us it was just unbelievable that a person could work with a person inside the country, be involved in the ferrying of weapons and the contacting of other people and all of a sudden the person is arrested and then he cannot account the arrest of that person.

MR KOOPEDI: When you say he became aggressive, did he threaten you in any way?

MR MANDLAZI: In fact he did hit me and then Stalin called me outside where he said to me let us tie this person and beat him up.

MR KOOPEDI: Now you are asking for amnesty for the part you played in beating him up?


MR KOOPEDI: Is there anything that you gained materially, personally, for having participated in this interrogation and beating up?

MR MANDLAZI: Nothing that I can, personally.

MR KOOPEDI: Would you say that your involvement, the part that you played was politically motivated?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes it was.

MR KOOPEDI: How, if it was?

MR MANDLAZI: As part of the security establishment then, my task was to secure the members of the ANC wherever they are and it was my responsibility then to make sure that all members of the ANC were free from infiltrators of the then special branch.

MR KOOPEDI: As far as your recollection can assist you, have you told this Honourable Committee, that is have you disclosed all the relevant facts?


MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that is the evidence-in-chief of this applicant, thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Was he injured at all?


JUDGE DE JAGER: What happened to him?

MR MANDLAZI: The last time I saw him it was when he was removed from a safe house. Well, I'm made to understand he went to Angola.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know whether any recommendations have been made that he should go to a camp in Angola? What happened, why was - was he transferred to Angola, did he go on his own, was he released?

MR MANDLAZI: I take it he was released or taken to Angola for further training in as far as recommendations or anything of that sort, I wouldn't know because I was not responsible for the movement of him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were you satisfied after the interrogation that he nothing to do with Thandi's arrest?

MR MANDLAZI: Of course I was not satisfied.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So why should he be released then?

MR MANDLAZI: Well, that was not my discretion to say he should be released or not released because I was just a foot soldier.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So that was ...(intervention)

MR MANDLAZI: The responsibility of Stalin.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I see. And although you had no personal knowledge about it you were informed or heard rumours that he was transferred to Angola?


JUDGE DE JAGER: You've never heard of him again whether he survived or what happened to him?

MR MANDLAZI: I wouldn't know, it's a long time and in fact I never even bothered myself to find out what happened to him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was this his real name or was it a pseudo?

MR MANDLAZI: I assume it was.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Under what name did you operate at that time?

MR MANDLAZI: I only know him as Sizwe Mabaso, that's all.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but you yourself?

MR MANDLAZI: Rex Ombabesi.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now whilst you were operating under a pseudo, why wouldn't he have operated under a pseudo too?

MR MANDLAZI: That was not responsibility to give people names because I was also given that name.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So you don't know whether this was indeed his correct name?


JUDGE DE JAGER: Because you see we've or the TRC have made efforts to trace him but they couldn't. It may be because we're not using the correct name?

MR MANDLAZI: Well, I wish I could be of help in that regard but unfortunately I can't. Maybe as a form of assistance I would say if you can contact Thandi Modise maybe she might help you in that regard but I'm not saying she can, I'm saying she might.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What did you actually do to him?

MR MANDLAZI: I beat him under his feet.



JUDGE DE JAGER: With a stick? And did he confess anything?

MR MANDLAZI: He did eventually say he did work with Thandi Modise, he was responsible for Thandi's pregnancy, he was responsible for Thandi's arrest.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Has the Evidence Leader - have you got the address for instance of Thandi Modise? This man is perhaps paying maintenance for the child or whatever happened to him?

MR MAPOMA: I don't have those particulars, Chairperson, save to say that I am aware that Ms Thandi Modise is a member of parliament for the ANC. Perhaps we may have to contact her and find out further.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Maybe she could in some way assist you in tracing this person and giving him notice or sending a copy of what has been said here?


CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, I may have misread it, looking at your application it appears that when you were questioning him about Thandi Modise, he called her by names or was it you who called her by names?

MR MANDLAZI: It's him who called her by names.

CHAIRPERSON: And this made you angry, understandably so?

MR MANDLAZI: In a way it did make me angry, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And did this also influence your decision to give him a hiding?


CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?


Mr Mandlazi, what was the discrepancy in the biography actually that which he gave in Swaziland and that which he gave in Mozambique?

MR MANDLAZI: The biography he gave in Swaziland, it did not indicate his involvement with Thandi Modise but when he arrived in Mozambique, he then mentioned underground units and amongst those units was the name of Thandi Mondise who, by that time, was arrested and of course we had already got information that Thandi Modise was arrested.

MR MAPOMA: Now was he, that is Mr Maboso, an MK operative inside country or from outside?

MR MANDLAZI: From the story he gave us, he was not an MK operative but he was a hawker and as such he came to know Thandi Modise through the selling of clothes and through that contact with Thandi Modise, Thandi Modise - that is now I'm saying what he told us - he then or Thandi Modise in fact recruited him to her unit as a courier.

MR MAPOMA: Inside South Africa?

MR MANDLAZI: Inside South Africa, yes.

MR MAPOMA: And now when you happened to deal with his biography was he in the process of joining MK?

MR MANDLAZI: Yes. In fact when he came to the safe house he had already written his preliminary autobiography which is done voluntarily by any member who was joining the organisation and then he had then to conduct a biography which is a detailed biography of his activities which is guided by the person who is conducting the interview.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

Sorry, Chairperson, one last question?

So when last did you see him, that was 1982?

MR MANDLAZI: When he was moved from the safe house.

MR MAPOMA: When the ANC was unbanned?

MR MANDLAZI: I will say I saw a person like him but I won't say per se it was him.

MR MAPOMA: Where did you see that person?

MR MANDLAZI: That was in 1993 in Shell House, Johannesburg.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions. Thank you, Mr Mandlazi.


CHAIRPERSON: No re-examination?

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-examination, thank you Chairperson.


JUDGE DE JAGER: Only on this last - this person you saw in Shell House, was he working there or was he only a visitor or don't you know?

MR MANDLAZI: I wouldn't really say whether he was a visitor or working there.

MR SIBANYONI: When beating him what did you really intend to achieve?

MR MANDLAZI: Basically, the beating was to prove to him that he was a liar and he was lying deliberately because firstly, Thandi Modise was an intimate - he was intimate with Thandi Modise so he couldn't have just tell us that Thandi Modise had nothing to do with his activities. So we were just proving to him that he was a liar.

MR SIBANYONI: But what would you achieve by beating him?

MR MANDLAZI: To make him feel the pain of letting a person be arrested whilst at the same time claiming that he was involved in the struggle.

MR SIBANYONI: Would you say you were punishing him?

MR MANDLAZI: It was a punishment and of course it was also, it's because of the manner in which he talked about Thandi Modise, insults that he uttered against her. For me it was uncalled for.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Perhaps, Chairperson, one last question of re-exam flowing from what was asked?

Had Stalin, your commander, not called you outside and said to you "let's tie him and beat him up" would you have beaten him?


MR KOOPEDI: No further questions, Chairperson.


JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, Mr Koopedi, I've got a problem now. If you'd beaten him with the objective or the motive that he should fell pain and because he insulted Ms Modise, that really had nothing to do with politics but because he insulted her you felt aggrieved and you felt that a person insulting a woman should be punished, isn't that so?

MR MANDLAZI: Politics was involved.

JUDGE DE JAGER: In what way, wouldn't you have acted the same way if it was another woman that's been insulted and not a political woman?

MR MANDLAZI: The fact that he voluntarily left the country to join the ANC and to pick up where Thandi Modise had left, there was no need for him to tell lies about Thandi Modise, there was no need for him to call Thandi Modise names if Thandi Modise was a comrade as he had claimed earlier.

JUDGE DE JAGER: My colleague asked you "what did you want to achieve by doing so, by attacking him?" What in fact did you want to achieve?

MR MANDLAZI: What I wanted to achieve was for him to accept the responsibility of his actions.

MR SIBANYONI: Maybe to put it otherwise? Did the ANC benefit anything by you beating this person?

MR MANDLAZI: I wouldn't say the ANC benefited or not benefited, I wouldn't know.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand your evidence, he was aggressive towards the questioning, he abused and insulted Thandi and he then hit you, is that correct?


CHAIRPERSON: And it was after this that Stalin called you outside and said let's tie him up and give him a hiding?


CHAIRPERSON: So it was because of his aggressive anti-social behaviour that you decided to treat him like this?

MR MANDLAZI: I didn't take it that way.

CHAIRPERSON: No, Stalin decided?

MR MANDLAZI: Oh, when? I will say yes.


JUDGE DE JAGER: And you don't know after that whether he was accepted as a comrade and sent for further training?



MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that concludes the application of this applicant. We are calling no other witness, Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: There is no further evidence from my side, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: A brief submission, Chairperson.

Chairperson, it is my submission that the applicant before you, Mr Mandlazi, acted when he acted under the command of his commander who was then Stalin. It is my further submission, Chairperson, that whether the beating was right or wrong, he acted under an order and therefore he had to obey the order. But I wish to take it further, Chairperson, and say that when he acted, according to his evidence there was enough reason to act as he did. He was asked to come and assist in an interrogation where certain facts were needed or wanted from Mr Mabaso and indeed this interrogation resulted or ended up in certain beatings being done.

It is my further submission, Chairperson, that this applicant has fully disclosed all the relevant facts which effect him where he was involved and finally, it's my submission that this applicant did not receive anything of material gain, personally to himself and I would ask this Honourable Committee to consider granting him amnesty.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Koopedi, I've got no problem with full disclosure, I think he has told us what he has done. My only problem, whether this in fact, the beating had anything to do with politics. Wasn't it because this man became aggressive and insulted a woman? Wasn't that the motivation for the assault and even we don't know whether this man was a political opponent, we don't know how things proceeded from there?

MR KOOPEDI: I understand the difficulty, Judge. However, I wish to move from the premise that this applicant was called on a certain night to come and assist in interrogation and during this interrogation he was then called outside and by the time he was called outside, he had been assaulted and his evidence is that he had not retaliated, he did not hit back. I believe he could have. He did not hit back. He was then called outside and told "let's tie him and beat him up." I wish to believe that by him acting immediately after being called outside he was like continuing to act under orders.

However, the beating itself, even if Stalin is not here to tell us, my submission is that the beating itself was also politically motivated because what was needed, as the applicant said, they wanted him to tell the truth, to tell them exactly what happened and to clear the discrepancies in his various biographies.

CHAIRPERSON: But when he was giving the reasons, the reasons were far more - "we wanted him to feel pain for doing this, for behaving like this", not we wanted further information? Stalin only ordered the beating after the victim had hit the applicant?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, that's when Stalin ordered the beating.

CHAIRPERSON: And that was an immediate reaction, "let's give him a hiding".

MR KOOPEDI: Yes, this is ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That's not to get information from him, it's "We're not going to let him behave like this. He has become aggressive, unpleasant, we won't have young men treating us like that."

MR KOOPEDI: I seem to have heard it differently, Chairperson, in that although the applicant has stated that it was they were angered by the fact that he had insulted Thandi. The fact of the matter is that at that stage he had not given them what they ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Basically, the beating was to prove he was a liar, that's what he said when he was asked why they beat him?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, Chairperson, to prove that -even that they need to find certain facts and he is lying to them. So the point is that they beat him up to prove that he is a liar and that he must come up with the truth. But be that as it may, Chairperson, my submission is that had Stalin not ordered the beating this would not have happened.

MR MAPOMA IN ARGUMENT: Just something, Chairperson, regarding the explanation which has been tendered by the applicant as to why the assault was made.

Chairperson, I would draw the attention of the Honourable Committee to the provisions of Section 20.3, those criteria set down and I would ask the Committee to look into the - to assess the political motivation by looking holistically to the circumstances that gave rise to the assault itself because the assault is part of what was being done, that of interrogating a person who was suspected of having been responsible for the arrest of their co-combatant, so to speak and that Chairperson, it may be bad, I must say, the explanation that is being given by this particular applicant regarding as to why the assault was done. But Chairperson, having said so, I would say he being a foot soldier and a person who was carrying out what has been ordered to do, is not the right person to know better, what was in ...(indistinct) that the assault was done for. Mr Mohapi was unfortunately not here, but as I say Chairperson, given the - holistically, the circumstances which gave rise, the motive that was there, it would seem, Chairperson, that the matter was politically motivated. Thank you, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR KOOPEDI: That is fine, Chairperson. Can we assume, Chairperson, that this matter has been finalised?


MR KOOPEDI: Can we agree that this matter has been finalised?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, the applicant can leave, we'll ...(inaudible)

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.




_____________________________________________________CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes we are, Chairperson. The applicant is here and he is ready to be sworn in, Chairperson.

MORUTI EDMOND NOOSI: (sworn states)

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson ... (intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: At the outset, could we kindly have - he is applying for amnesty in respect of two incidents?

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is there somebody appearing for the victims? Could you tell us on behalf of whom you are appearing?

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. I'm appearing on behalf of Ben Maseko. I was supposed to appear also on behalf of the other victim. I was supposed to represent both victims but I've been informed that Mr Twala does not wish to attend the hearing. I got the information yesterday from I can't remember from who but ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: And are you opposing the application?

MS MAKHUBELE: The victim wants a full disclosure, he is not opposing the application as such. If I may just confirm? That's correct, that's the position.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And then he'll decide whether he is opposing after he's heard the story?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes that is correct because as the Committee can see, in the application there's nothing which is said and as such it's difficult to say anything about the application itself.

MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairperson, may I confirm at this stage that I personally spoke to Mr Mwezi Twala over the telephone yesterday and he has indicated to me that he is not willing to attend the hearings, the matter can go on in his absence and he indicated that he is not opposing the application but he wants the truth to come out. That's what he said. Thank you Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: In respect of Mr Twala, how would you formulate your application? You're applying for amnesty in respect of what offence?

MR KOOPEDI: Having shot Mr Twala.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Attempted murder or how would you?

MR KOOPEDI: Well, that's assault, Chairperson, it may well be attempted murder, yes.

And perhaps, Chairperson, before we could proceed, there's a matter I should have raised and forgot to raise. I was advised Chairperson, that I would have to bring a formal application and this is what I'm doing. The application concerned a transcript of a Section 29 hearing. In this Section 29 hearing a historical background was given in connection with the camps in Angola. How, where and when were these camps established and my application is that I would like that the transcript of that Section 29 hearing and in particular where it relates to the history of the camps and Camp 32, that that be made part of the bundle here or be given, even at a later stage, perhaps to assist you to understand the condition in those camps and who was in charge at what stage.

CHAIRPERSON: We have got some information about the camps already. Is this further information?

MR KOOPEDI: I'm not sure which information you're referring to Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: In one of the applications there is a report about an inspection of the camps, the conditions they're in, matters of that nature.

MR KOOPEDI: But that's not the Section 29 hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: That's not, no. I don't think it is. It think it is just another ...(intervention)

MR MAPOMA: It is, Chairperson, an extract from the Matsonyuane Commission that appears there.

CHAIRPERSON: But we haven't got or seen the Section 29 yet?

MR MAPOMA: No we haven't Chairperson, in fact a request was made by Mr Koopedi on behalf of the applicants and I conveyed that request to Cape Town but the view of the Cape Town office, Mr Martin Coetzee in particular, was that that is a Section 29 hearing which is an in camera hearing so to speak. That being the case, a formal application must be made and then an order must be given by the Amnesty Committee that that information would be necessary for this hearing, then they are going to release that information for the purposes. Otherwise they have indicated that they do have those transcripts available but they just need a go ahead from the Committee if the Committee deems it necessary.

JUDGE DE JAGER: My only problem would be, I don't know what undertakings were given to the persons giving evidence there. Did they indicate that we'll probably reveal all the evidence? If it was in camera, I wouldn't like us to break our word or the Commission's word. We were not sitting on those hearings, perhaps we'll have to acquire more background about it before making the decision?

MR KOOPEDI: Well, it might be helpful to mention that, you might know that the initial list of applicants was more than what we have today and two of those applications were withdrawn and for two reasons.

One, the applicants were not saying we participated in this offence but were taking collective responsibility for having been in certain positions of authority.

The second reason is that those applicants participated in the Section 29, especially in telling how and what happened in the camps to give the general conditions in the camps and who was responsible for what camp and what I'm saying is that the applicants were made aware, or the would be applicants were made aware that the Section 29 hearing, we'll ask for a transcript of the Section 29 hearing, and it will be placed before this Amnesty Committee and that therefore they do not need to come in that they do not have proper applications before the Committee and further that what we would call general or broad evidence about the background will not be necessary because they've already given evidence in the Section 29 hearing.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Koopedi, I think my problem is prima facie this, the moment we make it part of this hearing it's a public document. There may be implicated persons mentioned in that evidence that haven't been given notice about this. It could complicate matters. I don't know, it may not be so but it would be very dangerous without having a look at it and to decide well, we're making this public now, implicating a lot of persons, who may feel, well we've not been involved in this and we want to be here when it's made public. That kind of thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't the answer that we cannot make a decision until we have had the document and had a chance of examining it? I don't know what the document looks like, as my colleague has said there may be serious allegations made in it which interested parties may want to contest the admissibility of the document. I think what we should do is request Cape Town to make available a copy, not to be publicly produced, but for the Committee and yourself to assess as to whether the legality of it's admissibility. Because I know, is another one that's becoming very public at the moment, that at Section 29 hearings, witnesses are frequently told that anything they say is being said in private it will not be disclosed to the public. So they are prepared to give evidence. We don't know, as my colleague has said, what the witnesses, who the witnesses were or what they may have been told at this hearing. So I think if you could make arrangements to obtain this documentation and we can then come to a decision.

MR KOOPEDI: I'm prepared to go with that, Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: I confirm that Chairperson, as well. I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: What might be preferable and I'm thinking about time and economy, that they send up more if they have more than one copy. If they send them up, if they're going to courier them up to us, they will not be made available, but if we then decide we are going to, we can hand them out then and there and we won't have to adjourn and wait for them to come from Cape Town again. Do you agree with that?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, I will do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I haven't seen them, I know nothing about the documents. It may be only five pages which they'd rather fax up here. I don't know. If you could perhaps discuss it with Mr Coetzee?

MR KOOPEDI: Mr Koopedi is smiling when you mention five pages.

MR KOOPEDI: There's two, in fact three days of evidence, Chairperson. Not five pages.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then I think it would be better to courier it up because you fax documents and half of it fades away and - well, can we take a very short adjournment now so you can go and talk to him now and if it is going to be done they can start making arrangements now rather than after 4 o'clock?

Would that suit you?



CHAIRPERSON: Mr Noosi, you have been sworn in, we won't bother with that.

EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, we'll proceed.

Mr Noosi, is it correct that you are appearing before this Honourable Committee and asking for amnesty for two incidences, the one being a shooting at Mwezi Twala, as he is now known and also the beating of Mr Ben Maseko who is present here today?


MR KOOPEDI: Now is it correct that when - or let me put it the other way, when this incident had occurred, were you a member of any political organisation?

MR NOOSI: I was a member of African National Congress.

CHAIRPERSON: When you said "when this incident" were these two events or just one incident or were they separate incidents?

MR KOOPEDI: It may well be that my pronunciation, Chairperson, I said incidents meaning two incidences.

When the two incidences occurred, were you a member of any political organisation?

MR NOOSI: Yes, I said I was a member of African National Congress.

MR KOOPEDI: Now I am showing to you a document, Chairperson, page 189 of your bundle of documents. This document, is this your application form?

MR NOOSI: Yes it is.

MR KOOPEDI: And on page 194, just above the words "deponent", there's a signature there. Is that your signature?

MR NOOSI: That's my signature.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Now briefly tell this Honourable Committee why ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, do you confirm the truth of the contents of that document? There isn't a - sorry, there is an attestation.

MR NOOSI: Yes I confirm.

MR KOOPEDI: What I was asking you to go into now was to take this Honourable Committee through the incidence that involves Mr Twala. You have put his name as Ghotso Marena also. Why did you shoot at him, under what circumstances did that happen?

MR NOOSI: In 1994 there was mutinous situation in Angola in the ANC camps and at that particular time I was a member of the security department within the movement.

What happened is on that particular day, I shot at Mr Twala. It was in a camp situation where the mutineers were being disarmed and we had one of the mutineers in the car. Unfortunately, we didn't know that this mutineer had a grenade with him. We had already called Mr Twala into the vehicle and the leadership was around looking for other people who were involved in the mutiny in the camp.

At that particular time, I don't remember this guy who had a grenade in his hand. He wanted to throw it to the leadership and one comrade whom we were travelling with grabbed his hand and they fought for this grenade until the grenade slipped off the hand and exploded. This was the time when Ghotso, whom I called Ghotso, which is Mr Twala, had jumped off the vehicle and ran to the tent where we knew that there were weapons. Actually it was part of our mission to look for other weapons that were with the mutineers.

He was shouted at, told to stop, didn't. But because of my responsibility as a security officer, my responsibility of protecting the leadership of the ANC and the general membership, I took it upon myself that I stop him by shooting at him because there was no other way that I could stop him. That's what happened on that particular day and that's what I'm asking for.

MR KOOPEDI: How many times did you shoot at him?

MR NOOSI: I shot at him once.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you remember where did you shoot at him?

Where on his body?

MR NOOSI: It could be from the back because he was jumping out of the car and running to the tent and because it was an automatic rifle and I think there were two bullets that were released from the weapon but that was once.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. After shooting him, what happened to him?

MR NOOSI: After that, one of the leaders of the membership instructed other members of the security department to take Mr Twala to the hospital. That was in Luanda, there was a military hospital in Luanda where he was taken.

MR KOOPEDI: Now how would you describe the reasons for shooting at Mr Twala? Why did you shoot at him? Was it for -did you want to arrest him or was it because you wanted to protect your leadership and if so, how?

MR NOOSI: Mr Twala was part of the mutiny. We were going to pick him up and lock him in the prison in Luanda and shooting at him was stopping him from going to fetch the weapons which we didn't know what he was going to do with the weapons but my duty, as a security officer of the department, I was protecting the leadership or the general leadership of the ANC from the threat from Mr Twala.

MR KOOPEDI: I understand, now maybe let's ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, Mr Koopedi.

Were you at that stage, you had in mind that Mr Twala is going to attack the leadership or to harm the leadership and you shot him in order to protect them from this imminent attack?

MR NOOSI: Actually, what I did not indicate from the beginning is that we had already lost comrade from the security department who was shot at by the mutineers and I didn't want other members of the movement to be shot there and I don't know whether any persons who were involved in shooting at him applied for amnesty anyway from the mutineers. So my aim to shoot at him was to stop him or to stop the threat of any member of the ANC to be injured in that incident.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You see, I wish to point it out at this stage on this evidence, my prima facie is that you didn't commit an offence?

MR NOOSI: That's how I understand it because it was in the war situation.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And you wanted to protect your leaders from a man rushing during a mutiny at them?

MR NOOSI: That is correct Sir, it was my understanding but because there was TRC established then I thought it was important that I should apply for amnesty and it would be you who would decide upon that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But Mr Koopedi, apart from that I don't think whatever decision - we may even decide, it's not an offence but a court of law may differ. It may be they could decide he'd exceeded the bounds of protecting ...(inaudible)

MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, that is the premise from which we moved from. We had thought that you might notice that we're not proceeding with number 3, that is where he states the things he is applying amnesty for. We were tempted to remove this one but realised that he in fact shot this person and it might be found at the civil court that he was not supposed to have shot this person and we thought that then we would ask for amnesty for this because he shot him. Thank you, Chairperson.

Now let's move to the incident that involves Mr Maseko. You've stated here that you beat him, you assaulted him. When this happened, of course you have said you were a member of the ANC but where were you based?

MR NOOSI: I was based in Angola in our security camp, that is Camp 32, whereby I was in a position of authority.

MR KOOPEDI: What was your position?

MR NOOSI: I was a senior member of the administration in the camp, in that security camp.

MR KOOPEDI: And what did your duties entail amongst others?

MR NOOSI: Among others I was an interrogator.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, now Mr Maseko, how did you get to beat him?

MR NOOSI: As I've just mentioned that I was in the position of authority. It was reported by our comrades who were guarding the camp, that I will not remember when it was but it could have between 1981 and 1984/85 because I left the camp in 1986. It was reported that he was not co-operating in the camp and he at one stage wanted to charge at them, that is the guards in the camp, people who were looking after the inmates in Camp 32. So as I'm saying, I will not really remember when this happened but I remember going to him asking him not to do that and in that process I beat him because I wanted to maintain order in the establishment. I could have done it once or twice, I can't remember. That was about fifteen or more years ago.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you remember how you assaulted him, would it have been claps, would you have used other things? Did you hang him? What did you do to him?

MR NOOSI: I really can't remember, I can't remember. There were so many incidents in the camp.

MR KOOPEDI: But now the reasons for assaulting him, was it only because you wanted to install this order after the reports you got from your guards or is there any other reason?

MR NOOSI: In the camp we were governed by rules and regulations, that is of the camp. Both members of the ANC who were responsible to the inmates and the inmates as well. So anyone who acted against those rules and regulations of the camp would be punished so that he complies with the rules and regulations of the camp. So when I beat Mr Maseko, it was because he didn't comply with the rules and regulations of the camp and I wanted to maintain order in the camp.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But did the rules and regulations authorise you to assault anybody?

MR NOOSI: No they didn't.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So you also transgressed the rules and regulations that you're trying to enforce?

MR NOOSI: I was a member of security. At that level and it would be from my discretion what kind of method I used to tell him to be in order or to cooperate.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But if there's rules and regulations I would suppose you would also be bound by those rules and regulations?

MR NOOSI: I didn't get the question clearly?

JUDGE DE JAGER: If there are rules and regulations in a camp I suppose you would also be bound by those rules and regulations?

MR NOOSI: I would be bound yes, by the rules and regulations of the camp.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And those rules and regulations didn't authorise you to attack and assault people?

MR NOOSI: No, they didn't authorise me to do that.

MR KOOPEDI: Where there rules and regulations that stipulated what kind of punishment was to be meted out to inmates?

MR NOOSI: No, that I would not remember.

MR KOOPEDI: You don't remember could there have been such rules which would say if an inmate has committed this further offence, this is how you must deal with him. Would there have been such rules, would you know of any such thing?

MR NOOSI: No, I didn't know of any but I knew that we were governed by rules and regulations in the camp, that there were wrong things that we were not supposed to do, both us and the inmates in the camp.

MR KOOPEDI: Now supposing if you were to relive, redo or relive the situation again and what other form of punishment do you think you would then mete out other than beating him?

MR NOOSI: I think he would be reprimanded, that verbally, that he shouldn't do that but if he continued doing that then anyone of the members would do what he thought, tell him to do what he was supposed to do.

MR KOOPEDI: But then, be that as it may, your intention. Your intention in beating him up, is it correct that it was to get this discipline or order as you put it that you wanted in Camp 32?

MR NOOSI: Yes, I wanted him to act in line with the policies and regulations of the camp of the ANC.

MR KOOPEDI: Now do you know if he got injured?

MR NOOSI: No, I don't remember him getting injured.

MR KOOPEDI: And after that did you have any further dealings with him?

MR NOOSI: As I have said this happened long time ago, I can't remember, I really can't remember whether I had but as I'm saying I was an interrogator. I could interrogate, I could have met him in some of the sessions. I can't really remember.

MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that is the evidence-in-chief of this applicant. And perhaps just the formalities, Chairperson, which I didn't take with him?

As far as your recollection can assist you, have you told this Honourable Committee the truth? Have you disclosed all relevant facts?

MR NOOSI: I think so, this is what I can really recall at the moment.

MR KOOPEDI: And did you receive any material gain personally?

MR NOOSI: No, I was doing it for the movement. I was not doing it for my personal interest.

MR KOOPEDI: As you know that all your actions must have been politically motivated for you to get amnesty. What would you say was your political motivation and in particular with Mr Maseko's situation?

MR NOOSI: I think the establishment of the security department is the department of the ANC is to protect it from whatever threat and I was doing that with that in mind that I'm protecting the movement so I think it is a political that I was - I mean the political gain that the movement got from me.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. No further questions, Chairperson.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chairperson. Just before I start I just want to find out if the document that's awaited will have anything to do with the Maseko incident so I may know whether I may need to ask more questions or not?

MR KOOPEDI: If the question is directed at me, Chairperson, I will have a problem in that I do not remember the Maseko matter being mentioned. I was present in the Section 29, I represented the people who gave evidence there. However, in light of the fact that there's not been a ruling made now as to making the contents of that document public, I would also even if I had information, have a problem with divulging the contents of a Section 29 hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you were being asked about the contents of the document. You were being asked whether this incident was dealt with at all in that document. That is so, isn't it? Is that what you asked him?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes Chairperson, because in his submission here he referred to the submission made to the TRC so like he wouldn't answer a specific question or say anything, just say "I refer to the TRC submission". So I'm just being cautious because on page 198 and this specifically, page 198 of the bundle, it relates specifically to the Maseko incident, paragraph 4, line 2 where he says:

"I once more refer to the ANC submission to the TRC"

and then he goes on to - so I'm just wondering if maybe I proceed to ask questions and then which answers are in that document.

MR KOOPEDI: No, what is being referred to here, ANC's submission to the TRC, there were two bundles of those submissions made and clearly this was not in reference to the Section 29 hearing.

MS MAKHUBELE: I will then proceed but with a request that should the document be allowed to form part of this evidence and after having perused it, may I then be allowed to consult with Mr Maseko and make further submissions?


MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Noosi, in your page 199 of the bundle you stated that you do not know the whereabouts of these two people meaning Twala and Maseko? This is correct?

MR NOOSI: Yes I didn't know.

MS MAKHUBELE: And this was as of the 26th August 1999?


MS MAKHUBELE: My instructions are that you knew or you know his whereabouts because you are working together in the ANC, in the organisation. So it's not correct that you don't know his whereabouts.

MR NOOSI: No it's not correct that I knew their whereabouts.


MS MAKHUBELE: Maseko. You're working with him?

MR NOOSI: I'm not working with him.

MS MAKHUBELE: Not in the same building but you are both working for the ANC?

MR NOOSI: I'm not working for the ANC.

MS MAKHUBELE: Those are my instructions. So it's not correct that you're working together?


MS MAKHUBELE: Okay, let's then proceed. I just want to confirm with you though I'm not going to dwell on the reasons why Maseko was detained because that had nothing to do with you, but I just want to confirm with you that where he was he had been called and been detained because he was - it was said that he had infiltrated the organisation. Is this correct?

MR NOOSI: No, I thought you were dealing with the incidents of beating him, not the case.

MS MAKHUBELE: I'm saying I'm not going to deal with that, I just want to confirm that he was being detained at Camp 32.

MR NOOSI: I would assume that he was detained for that reason because people detained in that camp, it was for security reasons.

MS MAKHUBELE: That's when you came to meet him. Were you part of the people who interrogated him?


MS MAKHUBELE: So it's not - rather, my impression from your evidence-in-chief, I got the impression that you only got to meet him when you were called to - when you were given a report that he is problematic?

MR NOOSI: No, I said I was in a position of authority in that particular camp so I was responsible for the running of

the camp as well as part of the administration.

MS MAKHUBELE: And you are saying that when you hit him it was because you had received a report that he was not co-operative and you wanted punish him, that's the reason?

MR NOOSI: No, you didn't hear me properly. I didn't say I wanted to punish him, I said he was uncooperative and problematic and beating him ...(intervention)

MS MAKHUBELE: And because you wanted to maintain order ...(intervention)

MR NOOSI: And beating him was part of the punishment ...(intervention)


MR NOOSI: ...that he should comply with the rules and regulations of the camp.

MS MAKHUBELE: My instructions are that - before I even come to the nature of the assault, my instructions are that the assault occurred under circumstances when he was being interrogated. You were part of the people who were interrogating him and that's when you came to hit him in the manner that I'm going to put to you later but then I just want to put it, this version to you, that it was not because he had been called to attend to the problem but that you were interrogating him?

MR NOOSI: Then I think we are talking - I mean there are two incidents that you are talking about. I'm talking about that particular one, I don't know about that one but I mentioned to you that I was part of the interrogation team and I could have participated in interrogation sessions in the camp. That I don't deny but I have applied for this particular one that I've mentioned.

MS MAKHUBELE: Then I think I have a problem then because my questions will relate to the - our version is that the assault in whichever manner it happened, happened during the course of the interrogation which so far I thought was not going to be part of this but then now you are saying that you were part of the interrogation and that's not when you assaulted him and the incident where you assaulted him is somewhere else and we only know of one incident, I mean from our side. So if there are two incidents, I think we rather clarify that and then we deal with both of them.

MR NOOSI: I will ask for your proper attention, ma'am. I said I was part of interrogation team and what that means is that I participated in some sessions of interrogating people in the camp and he could have been one of them. But what I have applied for now, is this particular incident where I was calling him to order. This is what I have said and I would like you not to ...(indistinct)

MS MAKHUBELE: I get you clearly. That's when I'm saying that then it means we are not dealing with one and the same incident. I mean you and us. We are dealing with the incident when he was being interrogated which is not the incident you are applying for amnesty?

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand from that, that your client knows of no other assault on him, that the only assault he knows of was one which occurred while he was being interrogated?

MS MAKHUBELE: Actually there are other incidents. The interrogation is one of them but then there are other incidents.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But then it's not clear. On how many occasions do your clients say was he assaulted?

MS MAKHUBELE: Two occasions.

JUDGE DE JAGER: By the applicant?

MS MAKHUBELE: Two occasions, the first is when he was being interrogated.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes and the second?

MS MAKHUBELE: The second was during the course of the detention. He was arrested, I don't know what word to use but I think arrest would make sense and then interrogated by, amongst others, the applicant.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But during that interrogation he was assaulted?

MS MAKHUBELE: That is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And then we've got another assault, is that correct?


JUDGE DE JAGER: But now the applicant testified about, as I understand it, the other assault which did not occur during interrogation but because of a different reason?

MS MAKHUBELE: That is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So then it seems as though we're ad idem, at least he didn't say he'd assaulted him during interrogation, he's not asking for amnesty in respect of that. You're asking for amnesty in respect of assault because he was not co-operative in the camp with the guards? You're only asking for that incident?

MR NOOSI: That is correct and I've also asked for amnesty for other incidents in my application - you can go through it, which I don't remember as mentioned because that's a long time ago.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, it's difficult to give you amnesty for something you can't remember yourself because then we don't know whether it's an offence?

MR NOOSI: But for this particular one, I've mentioned any way.

MR SIBANYONI: He says you assaulted him on two occasions. Would you dispute that?

MR NOOSI: I said I remember assaulting him once. It could have happened. I don't remember. I've said so. But I was part of the team that interrogated inmates in Camp 32.

CHAIRPERSON: And is it possible that there might have been an assault during the interrogation?

MR NOOSI: It is possible. It is possible.


MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you.

My instructions are, I'll just put this to you. I know you've already said you didn't assault him maybe during interrogation but my instructions are, regarding the interrogation, that yourself, one person called Nkosi, Stanley and another one whose name he cannot recall, interrogated him for the whole night saying he must confess that he had infiltrated the organisation and at the same time assaulting him with different objects, butts of pistols, that night when he was being interrogated. Can you comment on it?

MR NOOSI: I don't remember that and anyway I haven't conducted my interrogation sessions with a weapon anyway, it hasn't happened.

MS MAKHUBELE: And that after that he was put in solitary confinement for 155 days where the beating continued by different people, amongst them yourself?

MR NOOSI: I will not answer for other different people, I will answer for myself. I've already mentioned or told you what happened.

MS MAKHUBELE: You said that the hitting that you meted him, you don't remember if he was injured or not?

MR NOOSI: There was no injuries as far as I can remember. Anyway an injury can be anything, I don't know what kind of injury you are talking about.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, I'll tell you. Mr Maseko's instructions to me are that as a result of this first assault and the other one which I'll come to, he has lost sight on his left eye and his left nostril is broken, he also had multiple injuries on the head and which he showed me and which if the Committee allows me, I may allow him to show to the Committee?

MR NOOSI: Should I comment on that?

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) You're pointing out?

MR MASEKO: I'm pointing out at the left nostril.

CHAIRPERSON: Nostril, yes.

MR MASEKO: Which is broken.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and you said your left eye?

MR MASEKO: And my left eye as well does not see, hence I have to use glasses to read and my head has got multiple injuries.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, scars?

MR MASEKO: Scars, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there are no injuries there now. They're scars from injuries. Thank you. ...(inaudible)

WITNESS?: No, Chairperson. We don't remember assaulting him that way, Chairperson. We don't have ...(inaudible)

MR NOOSI: Did you say I should comment, ma'am?

MS MAKHUBELE: No, I didn't ask for your comments, I wanted to show the Committee - I was telling you that you said you don't remember injuries but he had or he has injuries from the assault which he says were administered by yourself and others.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could you put to the applicant, was this injury to his nostril caused by the applicant or by somebody else? Which head injury did the applicant cause so that the applicant could respond and say well, it's possible or it's not possible. By what were these head injuries caused, these scars, because it can't be by slapping somebody? Scars can't be caused similar to those?

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you know what could have caused the injuries that he described?

MR NOOSI: You have just mentioned that as a result of many assaults or continuous assaults, then Mr Maseko - I mean appeared, how he appears now and he didn't say I did do that myself as Moruti Noosi. It could have been other people who did that. I'm trying to quote you.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes Sir, but then I didn't say, I didn't put to you that you were the only person who assaulted him. I said during the interrogation night you were four. I mentioned names, Nkosi, Stanley and another one, that's four people and obviously if you say you only slapped him, whether it's - you didn't use the word slap but then the question that I'm asking is, during the, say the interrogation, did any other person assault him but not yourself because you have already said you didn't assault him on any other occasion other than the one you mentioned? That's why I'm asking you this question whether you are aware that maybe any person could have caused these scars?

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't recollect him saying he didn't assault him on any other occasion. My recollection is he said he may have participated in interrogation. He doesn't recollect.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes and the defence I think indicated that he was assaulted or rather he was hit by him in one occasion and at no other occasion. I don't know if this is the evidence, whether he is saying - are you saying that you may have assaulted him some other day which you cannot recall?

MR NOOSI: Maybe I should start by what you have just said now. You said in one occasion it was Stanley, it was Nkosi and other two people. I don't remember participating in that session. I am Stanley, that's the name I used in exile. I don't know Nkosi and I don't know two other people you are talking about.

MS MAKHUBELE: If I may correct this? It's not Nkosi it's Nusi. Do you know a person by that name?

MR NOOSI: Nusi? Yes it could be one of our members, it's Nusi, if that's what you want to say?


JUDGE DE JAGER: Ms Makhubele, could you kindly ascertain from your client, did this applicant assault him and what injuries did he, the man sitting there, cause to your client? Let him instruct you so that we could get to the hard facts of the case.

MS MAKHUBELE: My instructions are that the first incident, I haven't come to the second incident yet, but the first incident as far as he is concerned was the interrogation where he was assaulted by this Nusi, Stanley and another one whom he forgot the name and yourself and that yourself, you hit him with the butt of a pistol on this first assault incident which is the night of his interrogation?

MR NOOSI: No, I don't remember that.

MS MAKHUBELE: And that the second incident occurred one night in the medical rooms. There was someone who had an epileptic fit in the medical rooms and apparently Mr Maseko was accused of having something to do with that. Then you hit him with the butt of a pistol. This is the second incident where you assaulted him?

MR NOOSI: The first incident was with a pistol and the second was with a pistol again?


MR NOOSI: No, I don't remember that. Anyway, as a trained soldier, I can't use a pistol in interrogating people. I draw a pistol when I want to shoot, that's all.

MS MAKHUBELE: I don't know that.

MR NOOSI: I explaining it to you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, did you ever assault anybody with the butt of a pistol?

MR NOOSI: I don't remember that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But if it's a principle of you, not to use a pistol in assaulting people, then you wouldn't have done it but if you sometimes did assault or use a pistol in assaulting people it may be that you wouldn't remember whether it was this one or the next one?

MR NOOSI: I haven't done it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You'd never hit anybody with the butt of a pistol?

MR NOOSI: No and the person he mentions or she mentions, this Nusi, was my senior. Even if I was doing it I couldn't have done it in front of him because he would not allow it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: How would he allow you to assault people?

MR NOOSI: I don't remember the incidents he is mentioning, I just mentioned that, I have mentioned the incident I was involved in.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What did you do on those occasions? How did you assault him?


JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, the one you remember.

MR NOOSI: I used my hands, I used claps, fists, I could have done something else but not with a pistol. We used sticks as well but not a pistol.

MS MAKHUBELE: The incident where there was a sick person in the medical room, a person with epileptic fits, do you recall it or you were not present?

MR NOOSI: You know, there were so many ill people there. I can't recall the particular incident you are talking about.

MS MAKHUBELE: My instructions further are that there's no stage where you were called to and ultimately discipline him because there were complaints about him and as such, your version that you hit him under circumstances where you had been called because he was uncooperative is not true?

MR NOOSI: That's what he tells you.

MR SIBANYONI: And what do you say to that?

MR NOOSI: I have said what I have done.

MS MAKHUBELE: In your - after hitting him, the day that you said you did, did you see him again?

MR NOOSI: We were living in one camp, yes.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did he have any injuries?

MR NOOSI: I said I don't remember injuries that he had a result of my beating.

MS MAKHUBELE: I didn't ask you that, I just want to know if you saw him ...(intervention)


MS MAKHUBELE: At a later date and whether he had injuries?


MS MAKHUBELE: If I can be excused for a second?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Noosi, just to be clear on this answer. Did you see him and he had no injuries or can't you remember him having injuries?

MR NOOSI: I said I was living with Mr Maseko in the same camp. I don't remember seeing him with injuries.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Would you deny that those injuries, if pointed out, that he sustained those injuries in the camp?

MR NOOSI: It's possible, yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is it possible that he sustained injuries?

MR NOOSI: It is possible, but I don't know. Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Were those kind of assaults carried out in the camp which could have caused those injuries?

MR NOOSI: No, but as he says I can't say no, because he says he got the injuries in the camp.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But hitting somebody with a stick?


JUDGE DE JAGER: How thick was that stick, could you indicate?

MR NOOSI: I'd assume a stick is a stick, it can't be bigger than what I would call it a stick, really.

JUDGE DE JAGER: As thick as your arm, as thick as your finger, or what?

MR NOOSI: A stick is something that you'll be able to break, as a branch from a tree and I will not say ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Wouldn't stick cause an open injury on a skull?

MR NOOSI: Maybe it can.

JUDGE DE JAGER: We're not beating about the bush, we're here about the truth, Mr Noosi. We want to help you. If you tell us the truth.

MR NOOSI: At the same time I can't say what I don't know.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But surely you should know that a stick could cause an injury on a skull, it could break the skin?

MR NOOSI: Yes I said possibly it can do that depending on what ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: But you'd seen this man walking around, you've never seen him with an injury on his head?

MR NOOSI: No, I don't remember that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was that because there were so many injuries that you didn't see him because really it's so exceptional that ...(intervention)

MR NOOSI: If there were many injuries in the camp I think many people would have come to this Committee or Commission and reported about the injuries or that kind of injuries.

CHAIRPERSON: How many people were there in the camp?

MR NOOSI: You mean including the security guards and inmates?

CHAIRPERSON: No, the inmates.

MR NOOSI: Let's say plus minus forty or fifty, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Forty or fifty? So those were the people you'd see every day?


MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you.

If he had been assaulted say or hit later on, after you hit him, by any other person would you known about it? Would you have received such a report as you said you were a senior member in that place?

MR NOOSI: There were cases that we wouldn't know of as members of the administration, but serious cases, yes we would know.

MS MAKHUBELE: And incident where say a person has lost sight of an eye and a broken nostril and then head injuries, would that have amounted to a serious matter requiring your attention?

MR NOOSI: Yes and the medical point would report about that because we did have a medical point in the camp.

MS MAKHUBELE: And you never received such a report?

MR NOOSI: About Mr Maseko in particular?


MR NOOSI: I don't remember really, I'm honest about that.

MS MAKHUBELE: Before the incident where you came in contact with him, where you hit him personally, had he been - had he had these injuries which I've described to you? Would you have known about it?


MS MAKHUBELE: And what can you say, did he have them or not? Did he have sight of his eye?

MR NOOSI: Yes, as I have just mentioned that there was a medical point in the camp and everyone who felt, was not feeling well, would go to the centre and report about whatever happened. It was happening on a daily basis and we could have known about it.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes Mr Noosi, I'm trying to establish from you whether Mr Maseko was injured after you hit him or before you hit him. Had he had these injuries before you hit him would you have known about them or did you know that what can you say in this regard?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well let's put it to you this way. Did you see any injuries on him before you assaulted him or have you heard of any injuries caused to him before you assaulted him?

MR NOOSI: When you say injuries, do you mean scars that he has on his head or ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: His nostril, his eye, scars on his head?

MR NOOSI: I will not recall that, there are so many people that I've met, there were so many people who were brought to the camp and left so I'll not really know about Mr Maseko as a person and remember how he came into the camp. We dealt with many people on a daily basis.

MS MAKHUBELE: But then, Mr Noosi, I don't know what you actually remember about Maseko. Initially I first referred you to where you said you don't know his whereabouts and he has just been telling me here that you and him, you go to the same general practitioner, you meet on occasions, why is it that you don't want to associate yourself with anything to do with him, even a simple thing as saying knowing his whereabouts?

MR NOOSI: My understanding of knowing the whereabouts of a person is that you know his address, you'd know his telephone number, you'd know someone who stays with him or where he stays, that's my understanding. But seeing him in the street and meeting, I would say really I know - I see him in ANC meetings or rallies, that was in early 1990's and it ended up there.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes but then that you are going to the same G.P. now. If a person is really looking for Maseko and comes to you, wouldn't you give these people at least a clue that well, we go to the same G.P. and if you want him, why don't you try the G.P. for details?

MR NOOSI: Would you mean you know his whereabouts?

MS MAKHUBELE: But that's a clue?

MR NOOSI: That's your understanding, it's not my understanding.

MS MAKHUBELE: I've no further questions, Chairperson.


MR SIBANYONI: When you applied for amnesty were you still able to recall or to remember Mr Maseko?

MR NOOSI: I know him, yes. I know Mr Maseko.

MR SIBANYONI: And maybe finally, would you say you assaulted him on one occasion or more than one occasion?

MR NOOSI: I have mentioned the occasion that I remember I said as part of the interrogation team I could have participated in other sessions because it was a continuous thing, I don't think it's one, it could be more than once.

MR SIBANYONI: And you are saying in those occasions you never used a weapon?

MR NOOSI: No and it was not in every session that people would be assaulted.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You've known this man since the war ended, you've seen him on occasions in your home vicinity, is that correct?

MR NOOSI: No, it's not correct. For instance in Johannesburg, I don't know whereabouts in Johannesburg. I stay in Pretoria.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Are you sort of working at the same place, going to the same meetings?

MR NOOSI: I haven't worked with Mr Maseko.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Where did you meet him?

MR NOOSI: Before I came to Pretoria I was staying in the East Rand and he was staying I don't know where in Johannesburg.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Where have you seen him since you've left the war zone, sort of?

MR NOOSI: I saw him Luthuli House that was when he said I should apologise to him personally.

JUDGE DE JAGER: He spoke to you?


JUDGE DE JAGER: And he asked you and told you that you should apologise to him?


JUDGE DE JAGER: What did he say why should you apologise, what have you done to him?

MR NOOSI: He said because I've assaulted him, I assaulted him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And did he tell you what you've done to him?

MR NOOSI: No, he said I assaulted him and I said to him no, I can't apologise to you because I was not doing that for my personal interests, I was doing it for the organisation. If you want an apology, the ANC has apologised. That's what I said to him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But when you saw him there did you realise well, I've assaulted this man? Did you remember it?

MR NOOSI: That's I've assaulted him? Yes I said I assaulted him.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes and did you discuss with him why you assaulted him, what he'd done?

MR NOOSI: No, I didn't discuss that with him. I told him that I could not apologise to him, that's what I said.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And even today you can't apologise to him?

MR NOOSI: Yes, this is a formal structure formed by the - established by the government, that's why I'm apologising today because it was not for my personal interest, anyway.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well, I haven't heard you saying sorry, sorry that I've assaulted you?

MR NOOSI: Well I applied because of that purpose.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, but the purpose may be for you not to be prosecuted?

MR NOOSI: I'm telling you what is the purpose.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well, tell him what's the purpose if you want to reconcile with him?

MR NOOSI: We haven't reached that stage, you are still questioning me and I'm answering questions.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You didn't apologise at that stage because you thought the structure is not there, you shouldn't apologise because you carried out your duties, is that right?


JUDGE DE JAGER: Is that still your opinion today?

MR NOOSI: I'm asking for you to repeat the question please?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is it still your opinion today that you carried out your instructions?

MR NOOSI: I was performing my duties, yes. That's part of the security ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: And that's why you need not apologise?

Is that the reason?

MR NOOSI: I was doing my duties, yes. That's what I have said.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Right. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

BY MR KOOPEDI: A few questions, Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Excuse me Chairperson, maybe I've been forgotten?


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr Noosi, I would like to get clarity on this mutineering. You say on that day there was a mutiny?

MR NOOSI: Not on that particular day, it was in the process of the mutiny.

MR MAPOMA: No, sorry, sorry. I'm referring to the day when Mwezi Twala was shot at by yourself.


MR MAPOMA: What was happening actually.

MR NOOSI: We were going to collect Mr Twala and take him to prison in Luanda.


MR NOOSI: Because he was part of the ...(indistinct) of the mutineers.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, why him in particular?

MR NOOSI: Others were already locked up and he was still left out because he was in another camp, so we were going to fetch him from another camp to the prison.

MR MAPOMA: Now let me be clear. These mutineers, when

you went there at the camp, which camp was it?

MR NOOSI: The camp was called the plot, we were from another camp, it was called Viana. So we were from Viana to the plot and the incident took place at the plot.

MR MAPOMA: Now at the plot, were there other mutineers there?

MR NOOSI: There were other mutineers, yes.

MR MAPOMA: Was the mutineering taking place at the plot at that time?

MR NOOSI: At that particular time, you know, as I've just explained that Mr Twala was part of the mutiny and the co-leaders of the mutiny and other members were already locked up, other people who were not playing the bigger role as Mr Twala was playing in the mutiny.


MR NOOSI: But they were there at the camp.

MR MAPOMA: So when you went there you went to fetch him?


MR MAPOMA: Other than him was there anyone else that you went to fetch there?

MR NOOSI: There was someone in the car that we were also taking to prison.

MR MAPOMA: Now the activities of the mutineers, did they have anything which hampered the organisation at all?

MR NOOSI: I did mention earlier that we had already lost one of the comrades in that mutiny and then mutiny I would assume that it is understood as mutinous, rebellious situation I mean within the army, he is organising whatever is taking place at that time.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, now what is it that made you believe that by Mr Twala, by running to the camp he was going to fetch weapons?

MR NOOSI: We had information and we knew that some of the weapons were still missing and were still in the hands of the mutineers.

MR MAPOMA: What information did you have?

MR NOOSI: That there were weapons still missing and are in the hands of the mutineers.

MR MAPOMA: Yes but did you have information to the effect that the weapons were in the tent to which he was running?

MR NOOSI: Yes. There were some of the weapons in his tent.

MR MAPOMA: I see. Now do you remember what year was it then?

MR NOOSI: I think it was in 1984.

MR MAPOMA: Was it before or after the assault on Mr Maseko?

MR NOOSI: I said I can't remember when Mr Maseko came to our camp but it was between '81 and '85 or '84. So it could have been while he was still in the camp.

MR MAPOMA: Now the assault on Mr Maseko, did it take place on that very same camp?

MR NOOSI: Same time?


MR NOOSI: No, no, it's another camp. We were staying in a security camp with Mr Maseko. The plot is another place in Luanda and Viani is another camp in Luanda which is about two hundred and something kilometres to the security camp.

MR MAPOMA: Okay. Now what was the name of the security camp where you were with Mr Maseko?

MR NOOSI: It was called Camp 32. Later it was called Moeri Savelo Camp.

MR MAPOMA: Now let us come now to - I take it that Mr Maseko did not participate in the mutineering, did he?

MR NOOSI: No, he was not part of the mutiny.

MR MAPOMA: Now let us come to the assault which you recall. You have given evidence to the effect that you heard that he was uncooperative and problematic. Where did you get that information from?

MR NOOSI: It was in the camp, it was from the guards in the camp but I don't remember who actually reported that, there were so many reports coming in on a daily basis about the inmates within the camp.

MR MAPOMA: What was the meaning of being uncooperative? I mean in what manner was he said to have been uncooperative and problematic?

MR NOOSI: I ...(indistinct) in that it was that he wanted to charge, to fight them and this was what really urged me to go and confront him.

MR MAPOMA: So now when you confronted him did he come to your office or did you go to him? What happened actually?

MR NOOSI: No, I went to him. I remember it was between from the cells where he stayed and the medical point. I can't remember where he was going to but it was in the yard of the camp.

MR MAPOMA: So you met him on the way?


MR MAPOMA: And then what happened?

MR NOOSI: I beat him.

MR MAPOMA: Did you just beat him?

MR NOOSI: I explained to him why he beat him because there was a reason for me to do that.

MR MAPOMA: Did you confront him about these allegations, that he was uncooperative?

MR NOOSI: Yes I did.

MR MAPOMA: And what response did you get?

MR NOOSI: But it was not like a formal situation where he would respond and I would talk.

MR MAPOMA: So when you assaulted him did he retaliate?

MR NOOSI: No he didn't.

MR MAPOMA: And that occasion, was it before or after his interrogation?

MR NOOSI: He was already staying in Camp 32 and there were so many sessions of interrogation with him, I will not remember at what stage did that happen. But we didn't interrogate him once, I mean it was in many occasions because we got some information and go back to him, he would say something else and then it continued.

MR MAPOMA: I see. The interrogations sessions.


MR MAPOMA: Where did they take place?

MR NOOSI: In the camp. At times in the cells or in one of the rooms in the administration.

MR MAPOMA: But not outside?

MR NOOSI: No, not outside.

MR MAPOMA: And when you assaulted him, the time you remember assaulting him, was it outside or inside?

MR NOOSI: It was outside, yes.

MR MAPOMA: Were you alone at the time when you assaulted him?

MR NOOSI: There were others, there were guards. Well, they were not with me when I did that, I did that alone.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: A few questions thanks Chairperson.

How many times do you go to your doctor?


MR KOOPEDI: Now, yes. Do you go to your doctor frequently? How many times do you go to your doctor?

MR NOOSI: No, not frequently. When I'm sick, yes. When I feel ill.

MR KOOPEDI: And where is this doctor?

MR NOOSI: My doctor?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes. Is he in Pretoria or in Johannesburg?

MR NOOSI: Here in Pretoria.

MR KOOPEDI: Have you ever met Mr Maseko at your doctor's, seen him there?

MR NOOSI: I think what Mr Maseko is saying is when I was still in Johannesburg. Dr Randera, he was the doctor that I used to go to and I don't know how many times I saw him there.

MR KOOPEDI: And when was it?

MR NOOSI: That was before 1990, 1995.

MR KOOPEDI: Now - 1995 you said. Now you gave evidence that you left Camp 32 in 1985/86?

MR NOOSI: '86, yes.

MR KOOPEDI: '86. Do you know when did Mr Maseko leave Camp 32?

MR NOOSI: No, I don't know.

MR KOOPEDI: Could you have left him at Camp 32?

MR NOOSI: I think I left him there. I think so.

MR KOOPEDI: Now the ANC has made submissions to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and in the submissions there is mention made that the leadership of the ANC would from time to time visit the prisons. Now, what I need to ascertain from you is do you know of such visits where the leadership would come to the prisons to see the conditions there and even talk to the inmates? Do you know of any such visits?

MR NOOSI: Yes there were regular visits.

MR KOOPEDI: Now during those visits, did you ever get to hear of a complaint against you for having assaulted or having blinded or broken a nostril of one of the inmates?


MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.



MR KOOPEDI: And Chairperson, that will be the case for the applicant and we're calling no other witness, thank you.




MS MAKHUBELE: I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you were waiting for me. I was trying to confirm with Mr Maseko. He is not prepared to give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you need a little more time?

MS MAKHUBELE: I think I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you let us know when you're ready?

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chairperson.

Thank you Chairperson for the indulgence. Mr Maseko will give evidence.



CHAIRPERSON: You're persuasive.

MS MAKHUBELE: Sorry Mr Sibanyoni, before we proceed, can I just place on record that his real name is Don Sipho Mashele.

MR SIBANYONI: Don Sipho Mashele?

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, this Ben Maseko was the travelling name then.

DON SIPHO MASHELE aka BEN MASEKO: (sworn states)


Mr Mashele, you have heard the evidence of Mr Moruti Noosi. I want you to particularly deal with the assault on you by him. In his application and evidence before this court he says there's one, he is applying for amnesty in respect of one incident where he hit you. What's your comment on that? Was it one incident or several incidents? Can you tell us about the incidents?

MR MASHELE: Well there were several incidents where he particularly, alone, interrogated me persistently and hit me in most of those occasions. I recall one incident when he insinuated that when a sick person, when I knocked at the door at night for a sick person and they find out and they know there is a sick person because we tried everything for a person to revive that person who had fits and we were failing. So he called that person the medico, he was in charge of the camp there. He called the medico and they went and looked after this person and later on they brought him back. He had not fully recovered, this person, he was still in a daze. And then, immediately after that, I was called out where him, Mountain and Ronnie, Ronnie was the medico, he in particular had a pistol and he hit me persistently with a pistol. Well, his evidence that he did not remember other incidents where he hit me, it's not true because he - in particular this incident he must remember because he emptied the - he took out the magazine and emptied the gun and hit me with the pistol.

MS MAKHUBELE: Was this medico incident the first incident where he hit you?

MR MASHELE: No, it was one of the many occasions where he hit me.

MS MAKHUBELE: The first one being which one?

MR MASHELE: The interrogation known the 24th September 1981.

MS MAKHUBELE: How did he hit you in this first incident?

MR MASHELE: In the first incident he in particular, he hit me with a pistol again, that night and he insisted that until he had what he wanted, he wanted to hear from me, he would not stop.

MS MAKHUBELE: So you said, you keep on referring to him in particular which means that you're only referring to how he assaulted you but you were assaulted by other people too in this say, the first occasion?

MR MASHELE: Yes, it's true.

MS MAKHUBELE: Who were in his company?

MR MASHELE: It was Nusi, it was Mashego's son, I think, I don't remember his name, what he was called then. That's why I was saying Stanley and another guy from Klipspruit but well, I forget his name.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you sustain injuries in the first incident when you were hit?

MR MASHELE: Especially that night, I could not eat for several days after that interrogation and he knows about it, I was given a special diet to recuperate.

MS MAKHUBELE: The nature of the injuries you sustained ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Why couldn't you eat?

MR MASHELE: My whole body was sore, my jaws were like broken. I could not, you know, move my jaws easily.

MS MAKHUBELE: You exhibited the scars that you said you sustained, from the injuries you sustained. On which particular incident did you sustain the injuries say that resulted in you losing sight of your eye and your nostril being broken and cuts on your head?

MR MASHELE: The eye was swollen from the first day when I was interrogated, the first day that I went into that camp but I could not see much difference as to the severity of the injury that I had suffered on the eye. But after the incident of the night when he hit me with a pistol, for that epileptic case, I immediately saw that my eye was gone now.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did these incidents follow each other? How far apart were they?

MR MASHELE: Like four years apart.

CHAIRPERSON: Four years?


MS MAKHUBELE: You mean the first one, the interrogation was on the 24th September 1981?


MS MAKHUBELE: And the incident where you were hit because of an epileptic person had happened four years later which would be in 1985?

MR MASHELE: That's true.

MS MAKHUBELE: So between '81 and '85 your eye had been injured but you could still see?

MR MASHELE: Yes. Even now I can see, I can drive with my eye without glasses. The only problem is that I can't read.

MS MAKHUBELE: So it's not that you have lost sight but then your vision has been affected?


CHAIRPERSON: Have you been to a doctor for this?


CHAIRPERSON: And what has he prescribed?

MR MASHELE: I have since applied for a disability with the military pensions which I'm receiving even now from the doctor's observation of my eye or examination of my eye.

MS MAKHUBELE: Do you know what blow caused your eye to be swollen? Isn't it you being assaulted by four people? A blow administered by which person of the four?

MR MASHELE: Yes, it's because of the hitting with the butt that really damaged my left eye.


MR MASHELE: By Stanley.

MS MAKHUBELE: And the injury on your nostril? What caused it?

MR MASHELE: That as well came from the butt beating.


MR MASHELE: By Stanley.

MS MAKHUBELE: When you say Stanley and you nod the head what ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is Stanley the applicant sitting over there?


JUDGE DE JAGER: Well, refer to him as the applicant.

MR MASHELE: By the applicant, yes.

MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. Was this also on the first occasion? The first assault? The nostril?

MR MASHELE: That I also noticed the first day because it bled throughout but since you were all by yourself in solitary confinement you could not even look at a mirror or whatever.

MS MAKHUBELE: Did you go for medical treatment? Apparently there was a medical centre in that camp?

MR MASHELE: Yes, on countless occasions I went to the medical treatment and the only thing that we used to get there were pain killers.

MS MAKHUBELE: The injuries on your head, which occasion did you get them? The first of the second incident?

MR MASHELE: The first incident.

MS MAKHUBELE: And what caused them?

MR MASHELE: The hitting with all sorts of things, the sticks, the butts, the boots, the trampling upon, everything.

MS MAKHUBELE: You heard the applicant, he says that the occasion on which he hit you, he had been called because you were uncooperative and you wanted to charge at the guards. Did this ever happen where you were labelled, say problematic?

MR MASHELE: That's not true. Anybody could give evidence to my behaviour in that camp. I was the most, you know, co-operative person at that camp because I felt that this would be solved though it took so much long.

MS MAKHUBELE: You also heard that he left the camp in, if I'm not mistaken, I speak under correction, 1986 and then you left the camp in 1989. Is this correct? '88 or '89?


MS MAKHUBELE: But then the point is he left you in the camp?

MR MASHELE: Yes it's true.

MS MAKHUBELE: After he left were you assaulted by any other person between '86 and '88?

MR MASHELE: Yes, there were several occasions of assault but those were administered in a way that - just buttocks, you were beaten on the buttocks.

MS MAKHUBELE: You are certain that the injuries you exhibited, you sustained them by beatings by him and not after he left?

MR MASHELE: Yes I'm certain.

MS MAKHUBELE: You also - rather, he also mentioned when he was - when the Panel sought clarification on the issue of apology, whether he has apologised to you or not and he said that you approached him and sought an apology, is this correct?

MR MASHELE: It's true.

MS MAKHUBELE: Under what circumstances?

MR MASHELE: We met at Shell House, then called Shell House, now Luthuli House. I met him, I asked him what he did there because I'm fully convinced it was not motivated by any good intentions, that he must apologise to me for that and this was done seriously because I wanted him to take an opportunity then to apologise to me.

MS MAKHUBELE: Which year was it, if I may ask?

MR MASHELE: It was around '94/'95.

MS MAKHUBELE: Yes and what was his response?

MR MASHELE: He never apologised and moved away from me. Turned his back against me.

MS MAKHUBELE: You also gave me instructions which I put to him during cross-examination that he knows - that he cannot say he doesn't know your whereabouts. In fact you work in the same organisation and he denied it. Can you clarify this?

MR MASHELE: It's true. I met him on maybe two or three occasions at the general practitioner, which is my practitioner, and you know, this thing is straining our relationship, especially when we meet because he just looks at me and he doesn't care. You see, he doesn't want to, know like, extend, you know, even a smile, to show that I recognise you, you see? And recently we met at a funeral of Dr Haga, we used to call him Dr Haga, he also you know, exhibited the same - I don't know whether to call it arrogance or what.

MS MAKHUBELE: But what I want, I'm particularly interested in, does he know where you work?

MR MASHELE: Yes he does.

MS MAKHUBELE: To an extent that he would have say given the Commission your contact details?

MR MASHELE: Yes he does.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you work together?

MR MASHELE: Well he is in the government structure, I mean the ANC, with the MK veterans. He always comes to Shell House, well not always, occasionally comes to Shell House, he knows I'm there and I don't know why he denies that. He should have gave an effort at finding out where I am.

MS MAKHUBELE: You said that because you are convinced that when he assaulted you it was not for good intentions. What do you mean because he says that he, as a person in authority then, he had to instil discipline and order in the camp. What's your opinion on this? Are you saying he was not - it was not his duty to do that?

MR MASHELE: The applicant had authority in the camp and the warders, they used to do their punishments to the occupants of that camp without any - there was no reason for them to go and even report any case of that nature because they used to mete out the punishment then and there by themselves. So that incident is not there, I don't know why he even mentions an incident when there are several others that he in particular was doing the assault on.

MS MAKHUBELE: Are you saying if you had been problematic, it's the warders who should have dealt with it and not him?

MR MASHELE: Exactly.

MS MAKHUBELE: Evidence-in-chief.



Mr Maseko, I hope you don't mind us calling you Maseko because I've just learnt that you are Mashele.

Mr Maseko, maybe let's start with this incident where you say you had reported that there was a case of an epileptic person. After this person had been attended to you say that you were - I need to understand what happened to you. You mentioned certain names which would include Mountain and Ronnie. What did they do to you, these people?

MR MASHELE: I was called there, he was the highest authority in that meeting. He said that, he insinuated that I was giving a chance for this guy to bolt from the camps because it was midnight and when I knocked and asked that they should attend to him because he was actually an epileptic and a common thing which they knew but when the insinuation came that I was making ways for him to bolt, you see, I don't know what they meant.

MR KOOPEDI: And how were you assaulted on this occasion?

MR MASHELE: He assaulted me first with the butt and I was dazed, completely dazed and after that I found myself on the floor being beaten by all of them.

MR KOOPEDI: And where did he hit you this time with the butt?

MR MASHELE: He hit me right on the slap of the left side of my face.

MR KOOPEDI: Did he hit you again with the butt?

MR MASHELE: Yes he did.

MR KOOPEDI: Did he hit you once?

MR MASHELE: He hit me - I think he hit me twice because after that I could not see anything.

MR KOOPEDI: On the second occasion, the one that you remember, where did he hit you? You say he hit you twice?


MR KOOPEDI: On your left?

MR MASHELE: On my face. On my left face.

MR KOOPEDI: On the left side on your eye and you think he hit you twice?


MR KOOPEDI: Now I want to know, on the second blow, where did he strike you?

MR MASHELE: On the same place.

MR KOOPEDI: On the same place. And other than this incident, you say there were other incidences but I want to get to the incident where your nose got broken. Which incident was this, what was happening there?

MR MASHELE: Like I said during the interrogation they were hitting me with everything, all sorts of articles. Sticks, butts, boots, trampling on me and I bled for a very long time.

MR KOOPEDI: Now let's forget a little about the - you know, we understand that there were other people. I want us to concentrate on him. On this other occasion did he also hit you with a butt? Did he use a butt?


MR KOOPEDI: And what kind of a firearm was it?

MR MASHELE: A Makarov, a small one. A pistol.

MR KOOPEDI: Can you remember how many times he hit you with that?

MR MASHELE: Many times, I wouldn't remember, I could not recall the count.

MR KOOPEDI: Now other than that occasion, there are two occasions which we've spoken about and on both of them you were hit with a butt. Did he hit you again?

MR MASHELE: On the first occasion?

MR KOOPEDI: No, I may not have put the occasions in the chronological order that they follow but the first one you and I just spoke about was the situation which involved the epileptic person and there was this second incident where you were hit again during interrogation in using a butt. I want to know if there was another occasion where he assaulted you and if so, what did he use?

MR MASHELE: There was an occasion where he had an electric cord, a big one and it was woven and he kept hitting me on the head during interrogation.

MR KOOPEDI: Now who else, who else hit you other than him in the various times when you were assaulted. Who else hit you?

MR MASHELE: I said many people hit me. Many.

MR KOOPEDI: I'm asking for names.

MR MASHELE: I could mention twenty if you want me to but this is not about mentioning people, this is about me and him, trying to find a way of resolving our difference.

MR KOOPEDI: So you're not prepared to mention who else hit you? Are you not prepared to mention who else hit you?

MR MASHELE: It this won't implicate other people, I could mention a lot of names but I'm sure those people didn't inflict the injury he inflicted. Why? It's because the warders, like I have already said, they used to mete out their punishment on the buttocks.

MR KOOPEDI: So, the other people who hit you would have been the people who hit you in a sort of formal way, like those warders as you say they did?


MR KOOPEDI: Maybe let me put it the other way, do you work for the ANC?


MR KOOPEDI: And what do you do for them?

MR MASHELE: I work in different departments. Right now I'm working with MK veterans, I'm an organiser.

MR KOOPEDI: And - I don't understand how organisers work and you will bear with me? And where do you work from?

MR MASHELE: From the headquarters, Luthuli House.

MR KOOPEDI: And are you salaried by them, are you paid by the ANC?

MR MASHELE: Yes I'm paid.

MR KOOPEDI: Well I find it strange because I made enquiries and no on seemed to work for the ANC but I'm not willing to make that an issue.

And finally, I put it to you that the reason why you are only prepared to mention, to name this applicant and the reason why you are saying that this applicant is the one who caused, you know, the bigger injuries, if one may call them so to you, is simply because you had an acknowledgement from him and you didn't get it. You asked for an apology and he refused to give it to you, that is when you asked. When he meets you at funerals, he does not acknowledge you and that is solely the reason why you're trying to change the situation?

MR MASHELE: It's not changing the situation, it's stating the facts as they are.

MR KOOPEDI: No further questions, Chairperson.



Mr Mashele, is it your evidence that at some point in the camp you yourself was assaulted by the warders in the course of their duties?

MR MASHELE: Yes it's true.

MR MAPOMA: What was it that they advanced for assaulting you?

MR MASHELE: There would be several reasons, excuses. For instance if you're working they would put a target and if you are unable to make the target within the stipulated time they would hit you.

MR MAPOMA: So is that an example of the circumstances under which you'd be hit?


MR MAPOMA: And did they, to your knowledge, did they report your failure to make the targets, did they report this to the head, that is Mr Noosi?

MR MASHELE: They could have reported but I doubt if they would report because they'd already punished you.

MR MAPOMA: Now when you were interrogated, if I understand you, your evidence that you were interrogated on a number of occasions, is it so?

MR MASHELE: It's true.

MR MAPOMA: And what reasons were they, that they would advance for you to be interrogated, by those who were interrogating you?

MR MASHELE: It's still very strange, even today, nobody wants to come up and say why.

MR MAPOMA: Yes but what - then at the time when you were interrogated, were there allegations put to you what was happening actually?

MR MASHELE: Allegations of infiltration were hinted upon.


MR MASHELE: As the duration of my stay there.

MR MAPOMA: I see. Now you said in your first part of evidence that there were several incidents when you were assaulted by the applicant, do you remember that?


MR MAPOMA: And in the course of evidence you said these incidences differed, I mean had been interrupted by a four year period?

MR MASHELE: No, I was talking about an incident from the first interrogation to the incident where of the epileptic case.

MR MAPOMA: I see. Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.


MR SIBANYONI: Mr Mashele, I heard you mentioning the date being the 24th September 1981. How do you recall the date, the exact date? Your microphone before you speak?

MR MASHELE: The date of this nature you cannot forget in your life. When you are confronted with this situation, that really puts you off guard, that you did not expect.

MR SIBANYONI: Did I understand you correctly that you said you became dazed and you fell down on the ground?

MR MASHELE: Can you repeat that question please?

MR SIBANYONI: Did I understand you correctly that after the applicant allegedly assaulted you, you became dazed and there was an occasion that you were on the ground?

MR MASHELE: Yes. It was in the case of the epileptic case.

MR SIBANYONI: And when you were on the ground did any people assault you?

MR MASHELE: I don't know because I was in a state of coma or something.

MR SIBANYONI: We see a number of scars on your head which you showed to the Committee. Were those scars inflicted on the same occasion of the epileptic fit, of the person with an epileptic fit?

MR MASHELE: They simply added to the ones that I already had from the first interrogation.

MR SIBANYONI: Are you able to say how many did you sustain in the first occasion and how many in the second occasion?

MR MASHELE: No, I'm not able to say that.

MR SIBANYONI: When you were cross-examined by the applicant's legal representative, Mr Brian Koopedi, you said the applicant also used an electronic cord and hit you on your back?

MR MASHELE: On the head.

MR SIBANYONI: On the head. Why didn't you say that in your evidence-in-chief? You only mentioned it when you were cross-examined by Mr Koopedi.

MR MASHELE: I mentioned, I said several occasions he assaulted me during interrogations which he also admitted that there were several incidents, many incidents when he interrogated me. Many, countless ones.

MR SIBANYONI: You said you could mention twenty names of people who assaulted you. Are you saying it's the applicant and nineteen others who are warders or who are the other people who assaulted you?

MR MASHELE: The warders.

MR SIBANYONI: And they didn't inflict any injury during the assault?

MR MASHELE: I have several injuries in my body which are not significant.

MR SIBANYONI: Do you know of any reason why the applicant would persistently assault you?

MR MASHELE: It puzzles me because he was like the main person who was bent on getting whatever he wanted from me which even today is still puzzling.

MR SIBANYONI: Are you still having problems with him today or are you still angry with him today?

MR MASHELE: No I'm not. Even now I want him to be given amnesty on this case but I want the truth to come out.

MR SIBANYONI: And you are saying he hasn't told us the truth?

MR MASHELE: Exactly.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You were assaulted by numerous people, weren't you?

MR MASHELE: Yes it's true.

CHAIRPERSON: Your counsel put that for 155 days you were in solitary confinement and you were assaulted again and again and again?

MR MASHELE: Yes it's true.

CHAIRPERSON: And they were - there's all these other people, only caused insignificant injuries? Is that so?

MR MASHELE: It's true.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry, re-examination?


You, on this - can you just clarify this? On this question of you not wanting to mention names of people who assaulted you and you further when Mr Sibanyoni wanted to clarify that you said it's Mr Noosi and nineteen warders. But then is the position not that say in the first incident you were assaulted by the people with whom the applicant was interrogating you, amongst others Noosi, Stanley and this other one and in the second incident, you mentioned names like Mountain, Ronnie. Are these not the names of the people who assaulted you?

MR MASHELE: Yes it is true but I don't want to mention other names in that those persons were not persistent. You know, when you torture a person, you can torture him over 24 hours. You see, this is exactly what I'm implying here, that the interrogation of the 24th September 1981, was so severe that it caused a lot of damage and the other ones were - significant damage was also caused was the one the night of the epileptic case. That's why I mention names of those particular incidents. The others everybody was like an inmate in that place, suffered those and they were not significant in the sense that I still have my legs, my buttocks, I don't have any effects that are bothering me from those things.

MS MAKHUBELE: That's all.


MR SIBANYONI: Maybe can I just comment Mr Mashele? You know, as the TRC should try to get a full picture as possible of what happened of relevant facts, as much as the applicant should tell us the whole story, we also expect you to tell us exactly the whole story what happened, how you suffered those gross human rights violations. So I do not know what is your reason for withholding certain names of people who assaulted you?

MR MASHELE: I would have expected a lot of people to come forward, you know, because the picture is portrayed here is that people were defending the ANC and people were motivated by certain, you know, things that were motivating them to do these things whereas the opposite could be true, that certain people did these things with certain motives, you see? That's what lies in the bottom of this thing, hence it is came as a surprise to me when I saw my name on the paper, that here is somebody who has got a conscience, to come and acknowledge that he did a wrong thing and I'm prepared to bend backwards and say I apologise - I accept your apology because he is brave to have come forward. A lot of people would never think, they would always hide behind the ANC and the ANC, everybody knows it, it's a non-violent organisation, it's a peaceful organisation. Even now persuasion methods are only used. Hence he can't say he was given directives to do what he did.

MR SIBANYONI: But you can't think of any motive other than a political motive for the applicant for having done what he did to you?

MR MASHELE: I'm pondering on a lot of ideas but I cannot say which one motivated him to do what he did.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any more witnesses?

MS MAKHUBELE: No more witnesses, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we'll hear argument tomorrow morning.

MR KOOPEDI: Fine by me, Chairperson. That's fine by me, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What time suits you all, lady and gentlemen?

MS MAKHUBELE: Same time.