DATE: 25 MAY 1998




DAY : 1


MR PRIOR: a later stage. Mr Chairman, may I also just place on record, it is now quarter to twelve, and I do apologise for the delay. However, circumstances outside the evidence leader's control, witnesses who were on subpoena came late to court, there were transport problems from Umtata in the Nqobo area, I believe those have all been ironed out, witnesses are on their way, we can start now and it looks as if we'll be able to finish the evidence pertaining to the Meyer matter today, that's insofar as the evidence leader and the victims are concerned.

The question of whether the PAC are going to make submission today, I leave over to be dealt with later on in the day.

I now propose to call Dr Magobela, who was the doctor who performed the post-mortem report, or the post-mortem examination on Doné Meyers.

CHAIRPERSON: Shall we deal with the other matter first?

MR PRIOR: As the committee pleases, that is the Yellowwoods Hotel matter, the matter of Mr Mtembu.

Mr Chairman, yes, it was proposed that evidence would be led from the ballistic expert, who would give evidence regarding the damage to the buildings and also to the nature of the cartridges found and the type of weapons used in that particular attack, and that matter was to be actually heard tomorrow. However, Mr Mtembu indicated that he was unable to attend tomorrow for other commitments, and the proposal which was then adopted by all was that the expert, Mr - I think it's Captain Vic - I forget his surname, but anyway I was in contact with him, he will put up an affidavit explaining his evidence and with specific reference to the points of damage that he found on the building relating to the plan and to the photographs, and that document will then be given to the interested parties, particularly Mr Mtembu, for his comment and barring which it will then be presented to the committee on that basis, therefore doing away with the need of leading viva voce evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: In consequence of that, we have excused him from further attendance in September?

MR PRIOR: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, we turn now again to the applications of Zama Tuta and Nogawaya Kulman, but before proceeding with the evidence today, I would like to cause a correction to be made to the record at page 1075 where a remark by me reads:-

"The committee remains the same, with myself, Judge Wilson, as chairman, Advocate Gcabashe still acts and Mr Sandi."

Quite clearly what I said was:-

"Advocate Gcabashe, Mr Evan Lax and Mr Sandi", and they have omitted Mr Lax's name as being a member of the committee. Can I request that that be altered and to confirm that it is still the same committee, consisting of the four members' names sitting today?

MR PRIOR: Ask that Dr Magobela be sworn in?

DR MAGOBELA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Doctor, do you prefer to give you evidence in English or in any other language?

DR MAGOBELA: I prefer to give my evidence in English.

MR PRIOR: Thank you. Is it correct, Doctor, that you are a medical practitioner, qualified medical practitioner, and at present you are practising in the East London area and East London?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, it is correct.

MR PRIOR: And is it correct that during 1993, and in particular on the 31st of August of 1993, you were the - were you the district surgeon for the area of Umtata?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, it is correct that I was the district surgeon then, namely in the area of Umtata.

MR PRIOR: And is it correct that on the 31st of August 1993, at about 9:30 a.m., you conducted a post-mortem examination on the body of Doné Meyers, a female, aged 21 years?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, it is correct.

MR PRIOR: And is it correct that you recorded your post-mortem findings on the official form, Health 1, Mr Chairman which has been already referred to as Exhibit D in these proceedings?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, it is correct.

MR PRIOR: And you have a copy of Exhibit D before you?

DR MAGOBELA: I have a copy in front of me, yes.

MR PRIOR: Do you confirm the findings recorded therein?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, I confirm the findings recorded therein.

MR PRIOR: And these findings, were they made contemporaneous with your examination, or soon thereafter?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, it is correct.

MR PRIOR: So you were recording the findings as you were doing your post-mortem?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, I would record my findings as I'm performing the post-mortem.

MR PRIOR: And you adhere to the findings as they appear in Exhibit D?


MR PRIOR: Doctor, your chief post-mortem findings are set out in paragraph 4 of page 1, is that correct?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, it is correct.

MR PRIOR: What interests me and the committee, the cause of death was the gunshot wound to the head, is that right?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, it is correct that the... (intervention).

MR PRIOR: And in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 4, you indicated that there was a completely crushed skull?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: Are you able to give us an opinion as to how suddenly or how soon death would have ensued after sustaining such an injury to the head as you found on the body of Doné Meyers?

DR MAGOBELA: Death would have occurred instantaneously.

MR PRIOR: The stab injuries that you found, were those, are you able to form an opinion or give us an opinion, I know it's a long time afterwards, but whether they were fatal in any respect or not? If you look at page 2, paragraph 4, there were, I particularly am avoiding the laceration, but referring to the incised wounds, there was a one centimetre long incised wound on the interior part of the right side of the neck, there was a one centimetre incised wound on the right lateral part of the neck, there were multiple incised wounds on the thorax, and you depict those clearly on your diagram of the chest and abdomen. Were those incised wounds life-threatening in any way? Are you able to form an opinion on that?

DR MAGOBELA: I wouldn't say that they were life-threatening, I would say what was life-threatening is the head injury.

MR PRIOR: But would you agree that those injuries were to -that the incised injuries were to certainly vulnerable areas of the body, the neck and chest?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, I will say so.

MR PRIOR: Are you able to express an opinion as to what caused the incised injuries, in contra-distinction to the penetrating injuries, the penetrating wounds?

DR MAGOBELA: Well I would say the incised injuries were caused by a sharp object.

MR PRIOR: And the lacerations, you... (intervention).

DR MAGOBELA: Usually lacerations are usually blunt objects.

MR PRIOR: Which caused the skin to burst or break?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, which caused the breaking of the skin.

MR PRIOR: Doctor, I need to ask you this question and it's simply to assist, in my view, the misconception that there may have been some or any form of sexual misconduct, I noticed on the final page, page 4, the genitalia were examined and you noted there a comment "unremarkable"?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, that is so.

MR PRIOR: Were you satisfied that there was no indication of sexual assault or rape?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, I was satisfied that there was no indication of rape.

MR PRIOR: And the history that you were given, was that consistent with your finding that there was no sexual assault?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, that is so.

MR PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHMA: Doctor, just to come back to the question of the gunshot, was it only one gunshot to the head itself?

DR MAGOBELA: Well it is difficult for me to say that there was only one gunshot to the head. It is possible that there may have been more than one.

MR BOTHMA: But then it was all at the same sort of, same entry or around the same entry wound?

DR MAGOBELA: Same area, yes.

MR BOTHMA: Same area. And then on page 1, Roman (iv), paragraph Roman (iv)(f), you're referring to the collapsed lung. What was the cause of that, the stab wounds or was it the gunshot wound? Roman (iv) on the first page.

DR MAGOBELA: I would say that was the cause of a sharp object to the thorax.

MR BOTHMA: In other words parts of the stab wounds to the chest area itself?


MR BOTHMA: Thank you, Doctor.


MR MBANDAZAYA: Doctor, one portion of my question has been covered by Mr Bothma, it will be only one question and that's a matter of clarification, you told the committee that an incised wound was caused, possibly caused by a sharp object and laceration by a blunt object, are you saying to the committee that there were two different instruments, two different instruments were used to the body of the deceased?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, that is so.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Thank you, Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Doctor, if you look at the first page of the diagrams, what I have of the first page, you show there incised lacerations on the right-hand having an entry and an exit?

DR MAGOBELA: I don't see it, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It's the second-last page of that report.

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, I can see it here, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that have been a bullet wound?

DR MAGOBELA: It is possible, Mr Chairman, that it could be a bullet wound, since it's a laceration.

CHAIRPERSON: And you show on the diagrams, on both pages of diagrams, an injury of some sort underneath the left eye, there seems to be some misunderstanding perhaps on the second page, because there's a long line leading away from it and it says "2,5cm laceration, sole of foot, 150", sorry, "150cm from sole of foot"?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is the distance between sole of the foot and also the laceration.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what sort of injury was that?

DR MAGOBELA: It was a laceration, it was a break in the skin due to a blunt object.

CHAIRPERSON: Now was that the entry wound described as on the left maxillary area? At the bottom of page 4 of the report:-

"Entry wound noted on left maxillary area, fracturing maxillary bone and floor of left anterior cranial fossa, entering brain and..."... (intervention).

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, that is so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the entry wound of the bullet?

DR MAGOBELA: It was the entry wound, yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That blew the skull to pieces?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And would have caused immediate death?

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Unfortunately, whoever prepared these, didn't bother to photostat the other side of the page. You continued and said:-

"See Annexure, p.t.o."

but p.t.o. is a blank page.

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But you are satisfied that is where the bullet went in, it went up through, shattered the bone there, shattered the bone at the base of the skull... (intervention).

DR MAGOBELA: At the base of the skull.

CHAIRPERSON: ...and blew the brain out... (intervention).

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...and would have caused immediate... (intervention).

DR MAGOBELA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...death? Thank you.

MR PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman, may Dr Magobela be excused from further attendance and we thank him for coming to the hearing?

CHAIRPERSON: I gather, Doctor, that there are a lot of people waiting to see you back in your rooms and the sooner we excuse you so you can get back to treating them, the better. Thank you for having come today.

DR MAGOBELA: Thank you, Mr Chairman.


MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I call Inspector Mete(?). Mr Chairman, Mr Mete will give evidence regarding the arrest, and his statement that he made initially appears at paginated pages 33 to 36 of the bundle marked B.

INSPECTOR METE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Mr Mete, is it correct that you are an inspector in the South African Police Services stationed at Umtata at present?

MR METE: That's correct, sir.

MR PRIOR: During 1993, and in particular August, were you a, at that time a detective warrant officer in the Transkeian police stationed at Umtata and attached to the Criminal Investigation Department?

MR METE: That's correct, sir.

MR PRIOR: Is it correct that in respect of the Mike and Doné Meyers murder, you made a statement under oath, which was attested to on the 17th of January 1994 before a commissioner of oaths? I'm referring now to the statement that you read out this morning, or you read over this morning?

MR METE: That is correct, sir.

MR BOTHMA: Mr Chairman, sorry, I need to give the witness a copy of that statement.

MR PRIOR: It's in bundle B, Mr Bothma, that's bundle A, sorry. Do you want to use mine? Mr Chairman, we do have a, Mr Bothma and I will share my copy.

MR BOTHMA: All right, thank you very much, I think it will be safer, let the witness have his statement in front of him.

MR PRIOR: Mr Mete, is that correct, the statement which is marked 34 and 35 in the bundle is the statement that you read over this morning and it is clear that you made that in January of 1994? Sorry, Mr Chairman, there doesn't seem to be any sound coming through the... It's back on now, can you hear us? Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Mete, can you hear?

MR METE: I can hear you.

MR PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Can I proceed?


MR PRIOR: Can you hear me now?


MR PRIOR: Yes, all right. Is it correct that the statement you have in front of you, which is marked in black 34, 35 and 36, is the statement you made in this matter during the criminal investigation on the 17th of January '94?

MR METE: That is so, yes.

MR PRIOR: And you read it over this morning?

MR METE: That is so, yes.

MR PRIOR: Now, Mr Mete, I simply want to, I don't want to get all the detail, because we can read it through ourselves, you did certain things regarding the report of this robbery of this vehicle. I want you to take the committee through your evidence from the time that you got back to the scene where the truck was parked and there was a flashing blue light and you saw Lieutenant Magadelela, as he then was, and specifically relating to your dealings with the two applicants, Mr Kulman and Mr Tuta. Can you take us from there, what occurred?

MR METE: Yes, I can do so. When I appeared from the Umtata Police Station, I saw a truck standing facing the Idutwa(?) direction, I'm sorry Umtata direction, though it was supposed to be facing Idutwa. When I got to it, I got traffic officers standing in front of it and the two applicants, together with the traffic cop standing in front of that truck.

Opposite that road, there was a car, a grey car, a Ford Sierra, flashing a blue lamp. Next to that car was standing Mr Magadelela, who was the lieutenant, who is a superintendent today.

When I got there, I passed the traffic officers and I talked with the two Africans and asked them as to, "Where is that white lady who was in this truck?" There was no answer that I could get. What happened, I saw Mr Tuta making some movement towards his waist. In my thoughts I thought he might be having a gun and I dived towards him and grabbed him. There was a scuffle and it was apparent that he was trying to reach to his gun, and we were both trying to reach towards this gun. To his unfortunate situation, I could overpower him and I could then take this gun from him. After I took that gun from him, I tried to search him. On his body, under his manhood, I found money in bags. I took all of those and gave those to Superintendent Magadelela and that gun. It was not long thereafter, after this, a helicopter arrived that had Murder and Robbery Squad members. One of them was taken, who I did not know who it was. That was the last time I saw them. That's what happened.

MR PRIOR: Could you look at the revolver I now show you, it's a 357 magnum, a Trooper Mark 3?

MR METE: Yes, this is the gun.

CHAIRPERSON: What exhibit number?

MR PRIOR: I think it was Exhibit 1, it's the only physical exhibit that we've handed in, Mr Chairman. Thank you. Are you able to tell us how much money there was, or from your evidence I gathered you never had time to count it, are you able to, at a later stage, find out how much it was, or not?

MR METE: No, I could count it and I never got to know how much it was, but I suspect that it may have been 2 000 or R1 500,00, but I never got to count it.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it loose, you say under his manhood, was that in his, the area of his private parts? How was the money, was it wrapped up in something or was it simply loose notes, or what?

MR METE: It was money, bank notes that was folded under his private parts.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to just establish, was it in a packet or was it just the notes against his body?

MR METE: It was, I think it's in a plastic bag, but it was folded into his private parts.


MR PRIOR: At the bottom of your statement, at page 2, in handwriting:-

"The suspect was never assaulted at any stage, neither by me or by anybody in my presence."

It seems to have been added later, or before you signed the statement. There's been an allegation in these hearings that, from Mr Tuta in particular, that he was severely assaulted at the time of his arrest. Are you able to, when you were subduing him, you said you overpowered him, are you able to expand on that, did you have to use force to do that?

MR METE: I did not beat him when we were in that scuffle, because at that time one kill us, each one was trying to reach that gun, I only, I strangled him a bit before I could overpower him.

MR PRIOR: You indicate that you had a hand around his neck, or on his throat, is that right?

MR METE: I did not hear the question.

MR PRIOR: You say you had to strangle him a bit, in other words you put your hand onto his throat and squeezed his throat during the struggle for this firearm, is that what you're indicating to the committee?

MR METE: Yes, that is so.

MR PRIOR: Did you ever go back to the forest near Bashi, where the body of Doné Meyers was found? Did you attend that scene?

MR METE: I did not go where that woman was, a helicopter went there with other policemen. After that scene, I went straight to Idutwa. That's where we parted.

MR PRIOR: In the course of the investigation, the spot where the body was found was known to you, or became known to you, is that right? I want you to maybe try and give the committee an indication how far by road is that spot from where the truck, sorry, I beg your pardon, yes first answer that question on where the truck was stopped at Idutwa, can you give us that distance, are you able to?

MR METE: The distance wherefrom do you mean?

MR PRIOR: From where the body of Doné Meyers was found, we understood that was near Bashi, whether that's the Bashi River or some other place, but to where the truck, where you arrested Mr Tuta, are you able just to give us an estimation of how far that distance is as one travels by road?

MR METE: As far as I know, in terms of what you've just explained, the kilometres in terms of the distance, it could be 50 or 60 from where the body is alleged to have been to the place where I found and where they were arrested from.

MR PRIOR: Thank you. Were you able to go to the place where the incident started, that was in the... (intervention).

MR METE: The place where this woman's father was killed, I did not go, but because this is my area, I know the place.

MR PRIOR: The area where her father was shot and killed, or shot, when they were selling milk at Xhongora or Xhongoga, it's spelt X H A N G O R A, do you know that area?

MR METE: Yes, the area of Xhangora is within the district of Umtata, next to Umtata but in the area of Piki(?) in terms of police operations.

MR PRIOR: I understand you went there at the inspection in loco during the criminal trial, is that correct?

MR METE: At the scene, I did not go, in all those scenes I did not go myself.

MR PRIOR: I just want to try and get an indication, the distance from that place to where the body was found, if you are able to assist us, if you can't then obviously you can't, in other words from where the truck was parked selling milk, where the initial incident occurred to the area where Doné Meyers was found, are you able to give us an estimation of the distance by road?

MR METE: From the place where the girl's father was found and the area where Doné was found, it could be 40, these areas are not next to each other, the place where Doné was and the place where they were found, I think it is 50 to 60 kilometres, they are two different, very far off places.

MR PRIOR: All right. Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHMA: Mr Mete, you have identified Exhibit No 1, the gun. An allegation was made during this hearing that when the firearm was retrieved from the deceased, Mr Mike Meyers, it had an AWB insignia on the butt of the firearm. Can you recall something like that?

MR METE: No, there was no AWB insignia on that gun.

MR BOTHMA: Thank you, Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: For the sake of the record, there is a little gold insignia on both sides of the butt, marked "Colt".

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, maybe for the sake of completeness, under "Colt", there's an inscrip..., it looks like a small engraving of a horse rearing onto its back legs. Obviously the colt refers maybe to the horse, I don't know.

MR BOTHMA: It does, Mr Prior, it's common knowledge of that insignia. Thank you, Mr Chairman.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYA: Mr Mete, tell the committee how do you know that that is the gun which you took from, or allege you took from Mr Tuta?

MR METE: That gun had a written writing on it, it was a Magnum 3.57, there were words written on it, and though I may not remember those words as is, when I looked at it I could remember those words.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Were those words different from any other weapon which were written there, from any other 3.8?

MR METE: In terms of 3.8, that gun, which is .38, the one which you normally use is not written Magnum 3.57, the one of the police. That is why that one is written 3.57 and the words written on it are the ones that I remember having seen on that day.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Yes, that's what I'm getting at, that is there any other gun, no other gun which has the same writing as that one on it?

MR METE: At that scene there was no other gun written like that one.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Okay, I agree with you, but my point is that, which goes to my first question, how do you differentiate that particular gun to any other gun which has the same make at that one?

MR METE: What makes me to be sure that this is the gun is because I was the one who was dealing with that Meyers' case and it was that gun that I found in that case of Meyers. I do not understand that the body of another, another case can be superimposed on the case of the Meyers.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Well that was not my question. In any event, I'll pass that point. You told the committee that you had a struggle with Zama Tuta on the scene, and my instruction is that that is not correct that you had struggled with Zama Tuta, but you had struggled with Luvoya Kulman, who you have beaten him up, and as a result he suffered severe injuries and is still suffering from that even today?

MR METE: I do not know Mr Vuya Kulman, I never saw him. It is the first time that I get to hear about Vuya Kulman.

MR MBANDAZAYA: And that after you have beaten Luvoya Kulman, you went on to beat Zama Tuta?

MR METE: I would not have been able to assault someone I never saw, I do not know this person and I did not see such a person. The person I was dealing with at that time was Zama Tuta, and the person who was moving with him was Maxwell Mima. I do not know of Luvoya Kulman, and if he was assaulted saying that he was beaten by me, I would not be sure of that, because I never saw him.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Okay, thank you. Mr Chairman, for the sake of clarity, before I follow up that question, I want to explain that Maxwell Mima, as he mentioned that he knows only Maxwell Mima, Maxwell Mima is Luvoya Kulman, Mr Chairman. Yes, Inspector, definitely I'm talking, I thought that you know the name, I'm talking about Maxwell Mima.

MR METE: At that time when I was there, nobody was assaulted.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Okay. Have you ever, at any stage in your life as a policeman, never assaulted any suspect?


MR MBANDAZAYA: And you have never heard that policemen assaulting suspects?

MR METE: Yes, in courts it does happen that somebody would allege that a policeman was beaten by a policeman, an accused was beaten by a policeman and a trial within a trial would be held. I never witnessed a policeman assaulting an accused or something like that.

MR MBANDAZAYA: If you have assaulted them, would you, today would you have said that you did that today? Would you be in a position to say that you did that?

MR METE: If I had assaulted them, then I would have had a reason to assault them, I'm sure that something that would not be a secret today, and if I had assaulted anybody, I would have said so.

MR MBANDAZAYA: I appreciate that you will be the first policeman to do that in any event. Now, Mr Prior mentioned that you inserted in your handwriting that the suspects were never assaulted, which means that it was an afterthought. What prompted you to insert that, to insert that paragraph, that sentence, that:-

"The suspects were never assaulted at any stage, neither by me nor anybody in my presence."

What prompted you to put that sentence in your statement?

MR METE: Nothing prompted me. What in fact happened was that this was not included, that the accused or the applicants were not assaulted, and I then decided to include it.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Did you not include it because you knew that there were allegations that these suspects were beaten?


MR MBANDAZAYA: Is it a normal procedure that when you write a statement as a policeman after you have arrested somebody, you have to include that he was never assaulted, or do you always do that?

MR METE: Yes, it is a common procedure, so that no allegations are made that the person has been assaulted. You sometimes would then take this person to a doctor to verify that fact that he was not assaulted.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Are you aware that the suspects were taken to hospital after their arrest?

MR METE: No, I do not know of such a thing, because I parted with them, unfortunately I was not in that Murder and Robbery Squad section at the time of that incident.

MR MBANDAZAYA: And let me go to the last point, the question of money. You told the committee that you retrieved money from Zama Tuta in his private parts, and my instruction and his evidence here was that there was no money on his body?

MR METE: There was money.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Lastly, not least, let me ask you something, which is personal, Mr Chairman, do you know me?


MR MBANDAZAYA: When were you transferred to Umtata from Butterworth?

MR METE: In 1983.

MR MBANDAZAYA: '81 you were in Butterworth?

MR METE: Yes, that is so.

MR MBANDAZAYA: And you were playing rugby in Butterworth, is not that so, a team there in Butterworth, you were playing local team? I still remember you.

MR METE: That is so.

MR MBANDAZAYA: And you used to arrest many people in those days? If I remember, you were driving a Datsun Laurel (indistinct)?

MR METE: That is so, that's why I do not remember you, there was a lot of people I was working with.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Well you were just, I'm not trying to give any evidence, but I just wanted just to make a comment, I'm one of the victims of you, I was once driven by you in your boot of your car as a policeman. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR METE: I would dispute that I ever put somebody in the boot of my car.


MS GCABASHE: When you were asked about differentiating between the firearms, sir, you said that you were dealing with this case, so you wouldn't superimpose material from one case on another, that's what you said?


MS GCABASHE: By dealing with this case, what exactly do you mean, did you deal with it only on that day, or did you at a later stage continue to handle this particular matter?

MR METE: I dealt with that case at that time, and that gun I made it at that point.

MS GCABASHE: And you never ever handled this case again after that?

MR METE: No, I never again had to deal with this case until I had to go to court about it.

MR LAX: Mr Mete, I heard your explanation concerning the hand-written sentence that says:-

"Suspect was never assaulted at any stage, neither by me nor by anybody in my presence."

Is a suspect has been assaulted, do you ever write that one down and say, "This particular suspect was assaulted"?

MR METE: I don't ever get to hear that the person was assaulted, but what happens is, if you arrest a person, or let me say that person is found by the people of the village and he's assaulted, and whatever damage to his body he may have sustained to his body during that arrest, those body injuries are then recorded before he is being incarcerated.

MR LAX: At what stage did you add this particular sentence to your typed statement?

MR METE: It was after I had read it and having had decided, I then took it and wrote that added sentence.

MR LAX: At that stage had anyone alleged that the suspect had been assaulted, or did you think that such an allegation was going to be made about the matter?

MR METE: No, I did not think that anybody would allege that somebody was assaulted, because nobody was assaulted and I did not think that any such allegation would arise.

MR LAX: Thank you, Mr Mete, thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior, re-examination?

MR PRIOR: No thank you, Mr Chairman.


MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, may this witness be excused from further attendance?

CHAIRPERSON: I gather that if the need should arise, arrangements can always be made.

MR PRIOR: Certain other duties in the Umtata areas, and he came through. May we thank Inspector Mete for coming all the way from Umtata to assist us here this morning?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you and you are now excused.


MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I do have other witnesses coming from Umtata, there was some problem with the transport I indicated to the committee this morning, and having discussed the matter with Mr Bothma, I understand that, in order to save time and not waste and delay any longer, that he would call Mrs Meyers. So, with the indulgence of the committee, may Mrs Meyers then be imposed, yes, interposed at this time?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm as keen as you are to get everything going, but one of the witnesses you intend calling may give evidence about the Meyers' custom or selling milk at certain times, is that something she may want to deal with?

MR BOTHMA: She can also deal with that matter as well, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: She won't have heard yet what the evidence is likely to be. I merely raise that possible difficulty.

MR BOTHMA: I believe we've already called the two witnesses, the two, John Madoda and the other one, who testified about the movements, but the one said he only worked for about a week or so, and the other one - I don't think we'll be able to present any further evidence on the movements itself or the regular movements.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, carry on.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I indicate that the police are bringing somebody, I don't know, I haven't had contact with that person, from the area of where the shooting initially occurred, regarding the movements of the sale of milk. However, Mrs Meyers, I understand, can also give evidence about that.

PAMELA MYRTLE MEYERS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHMA: Mrs Meyers, you are the wife of the late Mr Mike Meyers and the mother of the late Doné Meyers and you were with them staying on a farm in the Elite district, is it correct so?

MS MEYERS: That's right.

MR BOTHMA: Now, Mr Meyers used to sell milk in the Transkei area. Now can you just give this committee some background of the way he normally sold the milk?

MS MEYERS: He would go down every day. He would first start in the town of Nqobo and deliver milk to the shops there, then he would go out into the district and he would first deliver at the shops. If there was any milk over, that the shops hadn't bought from him, he would stop in the villages and dispose of that milk to the individual customers.

MR BOTHMA: Did he always follow the same route when delivering milk, or when selling milk in that area?

MS MEYERS: He would go to Nqobo every day, but when he went out into the area, he would never go to the same place on say a set day, he always deviated, like on a Monday, he would never go to the Nqobo area, to the Kofinvaba area, he would deviate.

MR BOTHMA: And what was the reason for his deviation?

MS MEYERS: Because he realised he may be waylaid, so he went there unexpectedly.

MR BOTHMA: Now, the allegation was being made during this hearing that Mr Meyers, Mike, was a member of the AWB. What do you say about that?

MS MEYERS: Mike was not a member of the AWB.

MR BOTHMA: Do you know whether there were any AWB activities in the Elite district?

MS MEYERS: I did not know of any AWB people or activities.

MR BOTHMA: The allegation was further made that, according to their information, your farm was used as an AWB base, where training occurred. What do you say about that?

MS MEYERS: That was not true, I lived on the farm and we did not have any AWB people on the farm.

MR BOTHMA: I further want you to have a look at Exhibit 1, the firearm. Is it a firearm of your late husband?

MS MEYERS: Yes, this is the firearm that my husband had.

MR BOTHMA: And was that the firearm he took with him on that day of his death?

MS MEYERS: Yes, this was the firearm that he used to take with him and it was the firearm he had on that day.

MR BOTHMA: After the court case, this firearm was returned to you. Was it in the same condition that you last saw it until the time that you recovered it and as it is today?

MS MEYERS: Yes, it is the same firearm, in the same condition.

MR BOTHMA: Allegations further have been made that the butt of that firearm had an AWB insignia on that. What do you say about that?

MS MEYERS: No, it never had an AWB insignia on.

MR BOTHMA: Mr Chairman, I'm a bit uncertain at the moment whether we handed in a photocopy of the licence of the late Mike Meyers, and I've also lost track of the last exhibit number, unfortunately.

CHAIRPERSON: This will be K.

MR BOTHMA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Can I then hand in copies of EXHIBIT K then?


MR BOTHMA: Is that the copy of your husband's ID document? Mr Chairman, the original one is also available here. Maybe if you'll just have a look at that?

MS MEYERS: Yes, this is the firearm licence of the weapon.

MR BOTHMA: Indicating the serial number of the firearm as No 29191U?

MS MEYERS: 29291U, that's correct.

MR BOTHMA: Let's go back to Mr Mike Meyers himself. His relationship with other people and especially with black persons, can you give this committee some background of the time he worked with them and since when?

MS MEYERS: Mike started to work with the black people of Transkei in about 1974. We lived in Umtata and he was a salesman for Glenton and Mitchell, selling tea and coffee into the trading stations.

In 1982, he was manager of the National Foods Distributors, a Premier Milling group in Elite, selling maize, mealie meal, samp, to the traders of Transkei, mainly around the Nqobo area. For a long time he was the salesman, so he had dealt with the traders personally. At the Premier Milling or National Foods wholesale, he had about ten boys that he was in charge of, plus the four lorry drivers.

In 1991 to 1993, he had sold milk to the Transkei, going down every day.

Mark liked to trade with the black people and he got on very well with them, so all in all he had about 20 years that he had dealings with the traders of the Transkei.

MR BOTHMA: After this incident, the shooting itself, he was taken to the All Saints Hospital near Nqobo and you also went to this same hospital. Did you see any of the local people there and met with them?

MS MEYERS: Yes, the evening of the day that he was shot, he was in the operating theatre and I was waiting in the waiting room, and many of the traders and family came to the All Saints Mission Hospital where I was. They gave their sympathy, they showed their emotions, and they expressed and they said, "Please God, don't let him die".

MR BOTHMA: Can you recall anything, a press statement being made by the mayor of Nqobo after this incident?

MS MEYERS: Yes, I saw it in the Daily Despatch.

MR BOTHMA: And can you recall the contents of this press statement, or just the gist of it itself?

MS MEYERS: From what I can remember, he condemned the murder on Mike and said that he knew him personally, because he had a garage in Nqobo and Mike always used to go and buy his petrol, his diesel, from that garage, so he knew him personally, and he gave a good report of Mike.

MR BOTHMA: Let's get back to or onto Doné, what was her relationship with other people, especially once again the black people?

MS MEYERS: Doné had grown up on the farm, and as a little girl she played with the black children on the farm. She also associated herself with the boys that worked on the farm, she would do them favours, when they went to town, she would do their shopping for them, if there were phone calls and messages to the families, they always went to Doné to ask for favours. Doné could speak Xhosa fluently. I have with me a letter from one of the Transkei milk customers who wrote to her when she went to Cape Town to study for a year. If you would like to read the letter?

MR BOTHMA: The letter's in Xhosa, Mr Chairman, I don't know if we can use one of the interpreters, it is in Xhosa.

MS MEYERS: It's in Xhosa.

MR BOTHMA: Or maybe you can just give... (intervention).

MR PRIOR: Maybe Mr Van der Zi can read it for us?

INTERPRETER: Mr Chairman, it reads:-

"Hi Doné,

How are you, are you okay? I'm all right, there's nothing bad. How I think of you Doné girl. When are you going to return. Remember all of us are thinking of you. We buy a lot of milk. We buy 200 litres of milk a day. How is the climate there in Cape Town? Here in Transkei it's very hot. Is it nice there at school? Please study very hard in order to pass at the end of the year. Thank you very much for writing me a letter. I apologise for taking time to reply. Mrs Cochlane said I must pass my regards to you, Mrs Cochlane from the trading stores, Click Trading Stores. She also said thank you for writing a letter to us. Please send my regards to your friends. Hope to see you soon. Bye-bye, Eunice Mzanza."

MS MEYERS:--- May I just pass a remark here? When we - the letter says that "Doné, we do "kumbala" you". That means that we do long for you. "Sia Kumkhumbula" is what you long for.

MR BOTHMA: Mrs Meyers, can you further proceed and tell this commission how did, first of all, let's go to Mike after he was shot and in hospital, how did it affect him, could he attend to the funeral, how long did he live thereafter?

MS MEYERS: After Mike was shot, he lived for ten days. He was taken down to the Frere Hospital. He went through terrific trauma and stress, knowing that Doné was dead. His own physical pain and discomfort of being shot with a shotgun, which didn't kill him immediately, but partly destroyed all organs into which the pieces of shot or bullet came into contact, and gradually they decayed in spite of the medication. He was distraught that he could not attend Doné's funeral, he could not get out of bed or arrange it, the tears would run his cheeks in desperation. I had to pull out all resources to comfort and to encourage him to get well and to come home. This was most traumatic for me.

MR BOTHMA: Did you speak to Mike in the hospital... (intervention).


MR BOTHMA: ...about the incident itself, what happened?

MS MEYERS: He would not speak to me about it, he would just put his arm up to his eyes and he would begin to cry.

MR BOTHMA: Could you stay on the farm after this incident?

MS MEYERS: Yes, I did stay on. After we had buried Mike, I went back to the farm and I stayed there.

MR BOTHMA: For how long?

MS MEYERS: I came to live in East London in 1995, in January.

MR BOTHMA: And what was the reason for moving away from the farm to East London?

MS MEYERS: I could not stay on at the farm by myself.

MR BOTHMA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.



MR PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mrs Meyers, is it correct that in the run-up to the hearings here in April, you submitted letters on behalf, that you had received from the Agricultural Union, and those form part of the bundle, bundle A, I think, and bundle B, is that correct, I don't intend to go into great detail, they wrote letters to you and you passed them on to my office, is that correct?

MS MEYERS: That's right, yes.

MR PRIOR: Yes, and they expressed their opinions and there was depositions that were signed by their various members, is that correct?

MS MEYERS: That's right, yes.

MR PRIOR: I just want to touch on one or two aspects of your evidence. We heard from the applicants, I don't know if you recall, that when they were taking her from the truck to the place where they ultimately killed her, that she was saying, she was talking English, or saying things in English to them. You've indicated a short while ago that Doné was fluent in Xhosa and in fact corresponded in Xhosa to various of her friends. Are you able to comment at all on that evidence of the applicants that she was talking English to them?

MS MEYERS: I don't think that she would talk English, or hardly think that she would talk English to them when she could speak to them in her own language.

MR PRIOR: I want to maybe ask you, when she left the farm on that morning, did she have a jersey with her?

MS MEYERS: Yes, she had a jersey.

MR PRIOR: Can you remember the jersey?

MS MEYERS: It was a navy blue jersey and it had blue stripes.

MR PRIOR: Did you see that jersey again, that was after the incident, or not?

MS MEYERS: No, I never saw any of her clothes again.

MR PRIOR: Was Doné's - did she normally help your husband or her father with the milk round, or the milk route?

MS MEYERS: No, she didn't normally go, she went that day because he had hurt his foot and she said, "Dad, I will help you", because it was a 3 ton truck and she thought when she got to the shop, it would be easier for her to hop down the steps, go into the shop and return.

MR PRIOR: So are you saying that your husband, Mike, was in some way incapacitated, he had an injury to his foot?

MS MEYERS: That's right.

MR PRIOR: What had happened, do you remember?

MS MEYERS: He had been to one of the dairies in the Elite district and a big spanner had fallen on his foot. It was on a ladder and one of the boys at the dairy had walked up the ladder to see how much milk was in the bulk tank, and... (intervention).

MR PRIOR: And he'd injured his foot in that... (intervention).

MS MEYERS: And it fell and fell on his foot.

MR PRIOR: To what extent had it injured him or incapacitated him?

MS MEYERS: It was bruised and swollen.

MR PRIOR: And how did that affect his movement, was he able to walk normally or walk swiftly or slowly or what?

MS MEYERS: Yes. He would walk, he would walk on his heel, he would like swing around, he could not put his boot on, he didn't put his boot on, he just had a sock on his foot when he left the house.

MR PRIOR: So, do I get the impression, and correct me if I'm mistaken, that he walked with, on the heel with diffi... (intervention).

MS MEYERS: With a limp, with a limp.

MR PRIOR: With a limp?


MR PRIOR: So was that the first, was that the only day, or was that the first day that Doné had helped him, or had she helped him before that particular day?

MS MEYERS: Yes, we had all gone, I had also gone with Mike to sell milk with him, to see the area and to see what was going, and Doné had also gone.

MR PRIOR: I get the impression from the evidence that we've heard thus far, is that Doné would collect the money, particularly where the milk was being sold in the outlying areas, the people I understand would come with containers, the assistants would then fill the containers, they would then shout the amount of litres or the amount of money to Doné and she would collect the money?

MS MEYERS: Yes, that's right, the two boys that worked on the truck would decanter the milk, they would come with the left-overs of the milk, you know, in two litres, five litres or sometimes 25 litres, they would give the empty litre container to John, he would decanter, from there he would hand it to Dodo, Dodo would find the owner of the container, and then Mike would, if Doné was not with him, he would keep the money in his pocket, but if we were there, Doné or I was there, we would sit on the left-hand side of the truck and give the change or collect the money.

MR PRIOR: And you indicated it was a three ton truck and we've seen a photograph of the truck, I think it was put up in the bundle B. If the vehicle was standing, for example if the person was standing on the outside, on the road surface, could one see easily into the interior of the vehicle?

MS MEYERS: No, it was high up.

MR PRIOR: And I see on the vehicle there was a step. Did one have to actually jump onto that step and use that step to actually get into the vehicle?

MS MEYERS: That's right, you'd have to get onto that step.

MR PRIOR: Did you ever see the truck again after the incident?

MS MEYERS: Yes, the truck was brought back to me by the police.

MR PRIOR: Are you able to remember, I apologise for asking this to you, I should have asked it from the policeman but it slipped my mind, did you notice whether there was any blood in the vehicle when it was brought back?

MS MEYERS: They said there was blood, but they cleaned it in Umtata... (intervention).

MR PRIOR: I see.

MS MEYERS: ...before they brought it back.

MR PRIOR: So you never saw any blood?

MS MEYERS: I never saw any blood.

MR PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: How long do you think you'll be?

MR MBANDAZAYA: Mr Chairman, I don't think I'll be more than five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well should we continue, rather than take the adjournment?

MR MBANDAZAYA: I think so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Continue and allow Mrs Meyers to finish her evidence.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mrs Meyer, accept my sympathy for the tragic loss of your husband and your daughter... (intervention).

MS MEYERS: Thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYA: ...on the (indistinct). There's one point I want to get to, are you used to his gun, did you ever use his gun, your husband's gun?

MS MEYERS: Are you asking me if I shot with it?

MR MBANDAZAYA: Well, let me rephrase it, whether you were more familiar with it, in handling it, even if you are not shooting it?

MS MEYERS: Yes, I saw it every day when he would, at night when he would come back, he would bring his gun out of the truck and put it next to his bed, and in the morning he would take it with him, I saw it.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Do you know whether he had any other gun, except that one?

MS MEYERS: He had other guns at the farm, yes, big long ones, but it was only one small gun.



MR MBANDAZAYA: Now... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: I think it should be recorded that the number in the firearm accords with the number in the licence issued to Mr Meyers.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Now, you have heard the evidence, Mrs Meyer, from the applicants, where they said, regarding the whole incident, and why they did it. Now my question to you will be, how do you feel now that you have heard them, not necessarily that you agree what they are saying, what they did, how is your feeling now?

MS MEYERS: Towards what?

MR MBANDAZAYA: Towards them and to what they did.

MS MEYERS: I feel very sorry that they killed my family, I feel very sorry that my family were killed, I'm sorry that they did it, they attacked them, I feel undeservedly, they were helping the people of Transkei by taking fresh milk down to them, they were not, my husband or my daughter or I are not oppressors of black people. You've heard that my husband worked with the black people for 20 years, he liked to work with them, so he was doing them a favour, he was actually asked by some people in the Transkei to bring the milk.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Yes, I've heard that Mrs Meyers, and I don't dispute it, and nobody disputes that, but my point is that now towards the applicant, how is your feeling, after what they have done to your daughter and your husband?

MS MEYERS: Well, you see, I think my feeling to them is irrelevant, because nothing will bring my daughter and my husband back to me. They have done what they did and so what can I say? I'm just very sorry that they did it.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

MS GCABASHE: On a point of clarity, Mrs Meyers, are you saying that in that week and in the previous week, Doné accompanied her father on the milk round?

MS MEYERS: No, it was quite a few weeks that Doné didn't go. Of the week of the accident she went with him on the Wednesday, because he had hurt his foot on the Wednesday, and when he came back, he was limping, on the Tuesday, sorry on the Tuesday, when he came back he was limping, and Doné went with him on the Wednesday, on the Thursday and on the Friday.

MS GCABASHE: Thank you and then the second question is a slightly different one, your husband always carried his firearm with him when he went on the milk round?

MS MEYERS: There were some times that he would forget it at home, but when he carried it, he usually carried it in the safe, just in case there was a roadblock.

MS GCABASHE: And where exactly was this safe?

MS MEYERS: It was between the seats of the truck.

MS GCABASHE: To his left if he was sitting in the driver's seat?

MS MEYERS: To the driver's - on the left, that's correct.

MS GCABASHE: And the cubby-hole is left but forward, it's not where the cubby-hole is at all?

MS MEYERS: Yes. You see there was the driver's seat and two other seats, so the cubby-hole was quite a distance from the driver.

MS GCABASHE: Thank you, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR BOTHMA: No questions, Mr Chair, I thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: I would like counsel's views as to whether they think that that letter should be handed in as an exhibit? We have had it read out, it has been recorded, and I think Mrs Meyers would rather keep it.

MR BOTHMA: I believe so, Mr Chairman, she can just rather keep it and then we've got... (intervention).

MR PRIOR: I agree, Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR SANDI: I also agree, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You may keep the letter.

MS MEYERS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We thank you for (indistinct).


CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the adjournment now till two o'clock. When I say that, I hope I mean it, it depends whether the police will have arrived with the other witnesses by then.



CHAIRPERSON: ...that is that I was today handed a letter addressed to the Amnesty Committee, apparently written on behalf of either APLA combatants or Africanists Prisoners Unity, I'm not quite sure, which the tone of the letter was to complain that TRC does not treat APLA members fairly, it does not release them and that this should be done immediately after hearings. There's also a complaint about conditions in prison, which I'm afraid we can do nothing about, that is a matter that must be taken up with the prison authorities, but I would like to say that, and I have before me a copy of the letter that was written to Dr Mugaba last week, saying:-

"In terms of resolution 3.1 taken at our meeting of the 22nd of April 1998, the PAC undertook to furnish the Amnesty Committee with a written submission in which the policy of the PAC will be set out and responsibility be taken for the incidents applicants are seeking amnesty for. You may be aware of the fact that several amnesty applications involving members of the PAC have been postponed until the week of the 25th of May in East London to receive evidence from the PAC or the operational commanders of APLA, one of whom is Mr Letlapa Mahlele."

It then lists the items that have been adjourned to today and it goes on to say:-

"We require the submissions and notifications that someone will adduce this evidence on behalf of the PAC as a matter of urgency to the hearing scheduled to reconvene on the 25th."

Once again there has been no response, although the fax was received, and it makes it almost impossible for us to come to a fair conclusion in respect of the applicants if we do not get this information, and I would urge all of you who are members of APLA or the PAC to request that they carry out their undertaking and supply the submission which they have undertaken to do.

Thank you. Carry on, Mr Prior.

MR PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I now call Mr Zwelimbanse Makase. May he be sworn? Mr Chairman, Mr Makase appears at page 20 to 22 of bundle B.

ZWELIMBANSE MAKASE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Mr Makase, is it correct that you reside in the Zeleni locality in the Clarkbury district - sorry, Zeleni locality, Clarkbury, in the Nqobo district?


MR PRIOR: Now, during October - I beg your pardon, August of 1993, you were at your place of employment, which is their brickyard at Zeleni, is that correct?

MR MAKASE: Yes, that is so.

MR PRIOR: And that is the day that you saw certain things happening, you heard certain things and you were later approached by the police and you pointed out certain spots to the police near the forest, is that correct?

MR MAKASE: That is so.

MR PRIOR: And is it also correct that you made a statement to the police who were investigating that matter, which you read before you were called, and you signed that statement on the 30th of August '93 at Umtata?

MR MAKASE: That is so.

MR PRIOR: You also gave evidence at the criminal trial of the applicants, Mr Tuta and Mr Kulman, also in Umtata?

MR MAKASE: That is so.

MR PRIOR: Now on that day, which we know is the 27th of August 1993, and it was about two o'clock in the afternoon, you were at the brickyard, is that right?

MR MAKASE: That is so.

MR PRIOR: Can you tell the committee what you were doing there at that time?

MR MAKASE: Yes I can.

MR PRIOR: Yes, please tell the committee?

MR MAKASE: I was at that brickyard preparing a stand. When that truck appeared, I had finished working. It stopped near the forest. After it had stopped, a shot rang out into the forest, about three shots.

MR PRIOR: You say you saw a truck arrive. From which direction did the truck come?

MR MAKASE: From the direction of Umtata.

MR PRIOR: You say you saw it arriving and stopping near the forest. From your position, were you lower down or higher up than the truck?

MR MAKASE: Below the truck, over Mbashe.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that near the river?


MR PRIOR: And the road on which the truck was travelling, was that a tarred road or was that a gravel road?

MR MAKASE: It's a gravel road.

MR PRIOR: And are you able to say how far the truck was from you when you saw it come into your vision or line of sight and where it stopped near the forest, are you able to say?

MR MAKASE: (Indistinct) the incident occurred?

MR PRIOR: How far were you from the truck when you saw where it stopped? Are you able to point out a distance for the committee?

MR MAKASE: It's approximately two kilometres.

MR PRIOR: You said three shots rang out after the truck had stopped. What was the next thing that happened?

MR MAKASE: That truck started and came towards me. It passed by me.

MR PRIOR: Does the road on which the truck had travelled, that is from the Umtata direction past the forest, if you leave it, does that gravel road run past the brickyard?


MR PRIOR: Were you able to see from your position in the brickyard who was in the truck as it came past the brickyard?

MR MAKASE: Yes, I could see.

MR PRIOR: How many people were in that vehicle?


MR PRIOR: And then did the vehicle leave your line of sight, did it go out of your sight?

MR MAKASE: It passed near me.

MR PRIOR: Tell me something, Mr...


...either before the truck arrived at the forest, or when the truck left the forest coming past the brickyard, did any other vehicle, and particularly a bakkie, a pick-up, did that accompany the truck?

MR MAKASE: There was no car in front of that truck.

MR PRIOR: Did any vehicle arrive before the truck had stopped at the forest, that you could see?

MR MAKASE: No, none.

MR PRIOR: From where you were in the brickyard, did you have a clear view of the road which led to the forest and then the road which comes onto the brickyard, I mean can you see that road clearly from the brickyard?

MR MAKASE: It is very clearly visible.

MR PRIOR: All right. Is it correct that some time later, Mr Pangele, Mpangele, from the Umtata Police, arrived at your place of employment?

MR MAKASE: Yes, correct.

MR PRIOR: And he asked you certain questions, is that so?

MR MAKASE: Correct.

MR PRIOR: Did you take him somewhere after that?

MR MAKASE: No, I just accompanied him.

MR PRIOR: Yes, to where?

MR MAKASE: To where the truck stood.

MR PRIOR: Did you remain there or did you leave while the police were in that area?

MR MAKASE: I left after I'd given that statement.

MR PRIOR: I just want to ask you this question, did you see the body of the young girl that was found there, or not?

MR MAKASE: Yes, I saw that body.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I'm not going to pursue this aspect with the witness, I have other evidence to tender on this aspect, I have no further questions of this witness, thank you.



MR MBANDAZAYA: Mr Makase, where you were standing, or where you were working, were you able to see, or were you in a position to see clearly what was happening, where the truck was standing, was parked?

MR MAKASE: No, I could not see because that was a forest.

MR MBANDAZAYA: And you could not see how many people were in the truck at the time, when you saw the truck in the forest?

MR MAKASE: No, I could not see that, because that was in the forest, I could only see those when that lorry passed me.

MR MBANDAZAYA: And you were also not, because it was in the forest, if there was any car, other than the truck, would you be able to see it, if it was on the other side of the truck, not on the, on your side on which you were standing? Were you going to be able to see it?

MR MAKASE: Yes, I would be able to see it.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Now, if you were able to see, you would be able to see a car, if you were that distance, what made you not be able to see if there were people who came out of the truck at that place where it was standing?

MR MAKASE: I could not see, because the truck was in a road in the forest.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Can you be able to say that there is only one road where you were? Are there no other roads which are joining that same road on which you saw the truck travelling?

MR MAKASE: No, no other roads.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Are you - were there any other cars before the truck went through that road, did you see any other cars in the road?

MR MAKASE: No, none.

MR MBANDAZAYA: So you did not see the cars, or there were no other cars which passed through that road?

MR MAKASE: No, no cars.

MR MBANDAZAYA: You said that this car travelled to the direction of Nqobo, the truck, after it left the forest, am I correct?

MR MAKASE: Correct.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Where you were, in the position where you were, where do you join the road to Idutwa, do you have first to go to Nqobo direction or do you have to go somewhere, to other direction?

MR MAKASE: When you leave where I was, you first have to pass Clarkbury School and then you get a road that shows Idutwa.

MR MBANDAZAYA: So what you are telling the committee is that you have first to go to direction of Nqobo before you can to go Idutwa, because they are in the opposite directions, Idutwa and Nqobo?

MR MAKASE: Correct.

MR MBANDAZAYA: I heard you saying that you were almost two kilometres, if I'm not mistaken, from where the truck was standing. Was I correct to say that?

MR MAKASE: Correct.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Then it must be quite - a very long distance, if your estimation is right?

MR MAKASE: No question was asked, it was a statement, so... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Are you wanting him to agree with you, Mr Mbandazaya?


CHAIRPERSON: Okay, do you want him to confirm that?

MR MBANDAZAYA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR MAKASE: I agree.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Okay. Was it here a mistake when you said in your statement it was about a kilometre away from you, when you told the police about this incident?

MR MAKASE: It was not a mistake.

MR MBANDAZAYA: And also it's not a mistake to say it was about two kilometres away?

MR MAKASE: It is not a mistake.

MR MBANDAZAYA: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Makase, you were at work on that day, weren't you?

MR MAKASE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What time you had you started work?

MR MAKASE: I used to start at 8:00 in the morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Had you stopped for anything to eat at midday?


CHAIRPERSON: So you'd been working non-stop since 8:00?

MR MAKASE: Yes, because I'm working for myself.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were building a tank stand?

MR MAKASE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And this, I take it, necessitated you moving around, working from different places, getting the plant and equipment, putting it in position? Is that so?

MR MAKASE: No, all of them are in my immediate vicinity.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you have to fit them into place? A tank stand just doesn't jump into position, does it? You have to make it?

MR MAKASE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's what you were doing, and because you were working for yourself, you were doing it as quickly as you could? You agree with that?

MR MAKASE: Yes, that is so.


MS GCABASHE: Mr Makase, if a motor vehicle had come down that road and made a U turn where the truck stopped, would you have seen that car?

MR MAKASE: Yes, I would have seen it.

MS GCABASHE: Are you saying that the entire road was clear from where you were working, all the way back from the place where the truck had stopped, even beyond it, going backwards?

MR MAKASE: Correct.

MS GCABASHE: And at about what time was this, roughly, when this truck stopped and then passed you a few minutes later?

MR MAKASE: It was after lunch.

MS GCABASHE: And then the point Mr Mbandazaya was making about one kilometre and two kilometres, can you assist us with that? Exactly how far were you from this truck, the point where it stopped before it moved forward? It can't be one and two kilometres? Just estimate?

MR MAKASE: I'm approximating it at two kilometres.

MS GCABASHE: Now I'm not very good with distances, but to me two kilometres is a long way to be able to identify a particular motor vehicle. Please help me with that. Are you saying that at two kilometres, which I would say is way - you know if you had to drive up this road, quite a long way, you could identify a particular motor vehicle?

MR MAKASE: I could see clearly there, because the road that that truck used is high up in terms of altitude, from where I was standing.

MS GCABASHE: Are you saying that you could see it was some kind of motor vehicle, but you didn't know what type of motor vehicle until it passed you? I'm just trying to piece things together here, to understand this.

MR MAKASE: I could see that it is a truck.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you see what sort of truck it was?

MR MAKASE: I could see that it was a white truck.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you see more than that, could you recognise the truck?

MR MAKASE: No, I could not point out any detail about what type or what model and that type of thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know whose truck it was?

MR MAKASE: No, I did not know, but it used to pass where we were as we were working there.

MS GCABASHE: But when did you actually recognise that it was a truck that you knew, when it had stopped or when it passed you?

MR MAKASE: It was when it was coming towards me.

MS GCABASHE: Thank you, Mr Makase, no further questions.

MR SANDI: Mr Makase, when you say you saw this truck, do you mean to say that you could see the entire body of the truck, or just certain parts of the truck?

MR MAKASE: I could only see certain portions of the truck.

MR SANDI: Which portions were those that you could see?

MR MAKASE: The upper portion of the truck, as there were trees in that vicinity next to the road.

MR SANDI: Is that to say that you were only able to see the top of the truck? 

MR MAKASE: Correct.

MR SANDI: Now, if this was a much smaller vehicle than the truck, do you think you would have been able to see it, of the top of such a small vehicle?

MR MAKASE: I would only see the top of that car.

MR SANDI: If, let me explain my question, if it was just a small bakkie, would you have been able to see it?


MR SANDI: I see from your statement that you say you did not see anybody alighting from the truck. What was preventing you from seeing a person coming out of the truck?

MR MAKASE: What may have made me not to see anybody alighting is because I did not concentrate, I was busy with my work, I only heard those shots in that forest, I did not see anybody alighting from that vehicle.

MR SANDI: Oh, I see. You were not really concerned about this truck and what was happening. I thought you were focusing and concentrating on this truck all the time?

MR MAKASE: I did not concentrate on that truck all the time.

MR SANDI: Thank you, Mr Makase. Sorry, before that truck came there, were you focusing and concentrating on what was happening on that particular part of the road?

MR MAKASE: Yes, I was concentrating as I saw that truck as it was coming to pass me.

CHAIRPERSON: You were asked about before you saw that truck there, were you concentrating on that road or were you concentrating on your work? 

MR MAKASE: I was concentrating on my work.

MR SANDI: In other words, cars going up and down that road were none of your business as far as you were concerned?

MR MAKASE: Correct.

MR SANDI: Thank you, Mr Makase.

MR LAX: Just one question, Mr Makase, what, in the light of your last answer, what drew your attention to the truck in the first place?

MR MAKASE: It was because of the shots in the forest.

MR LAX: So you heard shots, you looked up from your work and you noticed - you heard shots, you looked up and then you noticed that the truck was there, is what you're telling us?


MR LAX: And then that truck then drove past you where you were working?


MR LAX: Thank you, chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, I need just to clarify that last aspect. Mr Makase, in your statement you indicated that before the shots were heard, you - and your evidence about the two kilometres, you said before the shots were heard, you saw the truck driving on a gravel road, from the direction of Umtata towards Nqobo, and you identified the truck as "the one I used to see being driven by a white man", and that this truck stopped on the road, in your statement you said "about a kilometre away from me". Can you maybe just explain that in the light of your evidence now, what did you mean by that?

MR MAKASE: I'm approximating the distance.

MR PRIOR: Yes, but the question that the committee put to you now was, were you aware of the truck before the shots were fired, did you see it before you heard the shots fired, or did you only become aware of the truck after you heard shots?

MR MAKASE: I saw a truck that came and thereafter shots rang out and then it passed me.

MR PRIOR: Yes, that's how I understood your evidence, but what the committee, Mr Lax asked you now, seemed to create the impression that you only became aware of the truck after... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: It didn't create the impression, Mr Prior, it's precisely what he said.

MR PRIOR: But, Mr Chairman... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) he said it.

MR PRIOR: But, Mr Chairman, with respect... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: His evidence in chief was to confirm his statement. You cannot change his evidence, he said precisely to Mr Lax that it was the shots that drew his attention to the truck.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, with respect, it's obvious that he may not have followed that question precisely, because his evidence now, a short while ago, clearly confirms his evidence in chief, and I think in fairness to the witness, I mean certainly one can't make the suggestion that he's come here to perjure himself, with respect, he has no interest in this matter whatsoever.

CHAIRPERSON: What I objected to was, you said it gave the impression, it wasn't an impression, it was a clear statement by him, Mr Prior.

MR PRIOR: Yes, it was a statement, with respect, but it created the impression, certainly in my mind, that he hadn't seen the truck before he heard the shots, and I want the witness maybe just to have an opportunity to clarify that position, but he's indicated in re-examination that he saw the truck before he heard the shots. Mr Makase, you indicated that the brickyard is situated near the river, which is lower down from the position where you saw the truck stop in the forest. Apart from, if one looks in that direction what draws your attention to a vehicle coming on that road in the direction of the brickyard? Can one hear anything?

MR MAKASE: The reason for me to look on is because whatever appears on that road, you can see, because it's higher up.

MR PRIOR: And where you were working in the brickyard, in which direction are you looking at, or facing, when you're doing your work, are you facing away from the road or to the left or to the right of the road, can you maybe just explain that?

MR MAKASE: I was facing the direction wherefrom the truck was appearing.

MR PRIOR: And as you indicated earlier, the vehicle would come from a higher position coming down the road towards the brickyard, if it follows that route?


MR PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You may go.


MR PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I call Mr Pangele.

MPHAMELO PANGELE (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Mr Pangele, is it correct that you are presently in the service of the South African Police Services stationed at Umtata?

MR PANGELE: Correct, sir.

MR PRIOR: On the day of the killing of Doné and Mike Meyers, you were, it was on the 27th of August '93, you were in the employ of the Transkeian Police Service at the Murder and Robbery Unit based at Umtata, is that right?

MR PANGELE: Correct, sir.

MR PRIOR: Now it's common cause that Mr Meyers was shot and later died, that his daughter was kidnapped from the place where they were selling milk and taken to the Bashe River where she was killed, and that that happened in their truck, a three tonner, white tonner truck. How did you become involved in that investigation?

MR PANGELE: Our control police radio told us as I was travelling in a police van.

MR PRIOR: So you got information of this incident that happened at Xhangora, is that right?

MR PANGELE: Correct, sir.

MR PRIOR: All right. As a result of that, where did you go?

MR PANGELE: I took the road between Idutwa and Umtata, it was a gravel road going to the direction of the truck as I knew that area well.

MR PRIOR: All right. Is it correct that eventually you came to the brickyard at the Zeleni area, where Mr Makase, the previous witness, was employed or was working?

MR PANGELE: Correct, sir.

MR PRIOR: Did you make inquiries from him as to what had occurred there, or whether he had seen anything?

MR PANGELE: Yes, I inquired about that truck as I heard about the police radio from Mr Makase.

MR PRIOR: Did he direct you or show you any place?

MR PANGELE: What he told me was that the truck had passed him, a white truck with a yellow, a grey, a blue roof, and that they had stopped before they had passed him.

MR PRIOR: Did he show you where the truck had stopped before it had passed him?

MR PANGELE: I said he must accompany him to where he said the truck had stopped.

MR PRIOR: And did you go to that spot?

MR PANGELE: Yes, we went to that place.

MR PRIOR: Now, at that place, was that near a forest?

MR PANGELE: Yes, in a forest-like place, a (Indistinct) forest.

MR PRIOR: Did you find the body of Doné Meyers there, in that vicinity?

MR PANGELE: Yes, that's where we found a body of a white lady.

MR PRIOR: How far from - sorry, let me just establish this, where Mr Makase took you or showed you the spot, was there place for vehicles to park, in other words is it a clearing, is there a space without bush or what, what is the position?

MR PANGELE: No, there was no place where cars could stop. The truck stopped in the road.

MR PRIOR: Okay. And from that - I'll come back to it, but from the place where Mr Makase indicated the truck had stopped to where the body of Doné Meyers was found, can you just estimate how far that distance was?

MR PANGELE: The distance was not long, it could be 200 metres from where Mr Makase was at the brick place and the place where he says the truck had stopped.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, do you say it was 200 metres from where he had been at the brickyard and 200 metres from where the truck had stopped?

MR PANGELE: The distance is not very long, it could be in that amount of metres.

MR PRIOR: Sorry, we're trying to clarify which distance you're referring to here, because there seems to be a confusion. What distance are you referring to, just clarify that for us, this 200 metres, what is that in respect of?

MR PANGELE: It is the place, the brick place where Mr Makase was working and that is between that brick place and the place where Mr Makase said the truck had stopped.

MR PRIOR: Now what was the distance from the truck, where the place the truck had stopped, to where you found the body?

MR PANGELE: It could have been about 40, 50 paces.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks Mr Prior.

MR PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The applicants indicated in their evidence that the young girl, Doné Meyers, was taken, carried over a fence to a spot where she eventually was killed. Was there a fence in that area, in other words did you have to go over a fence to get to the body?

MR PANGELE: Yes, you had to pass a fence.

MR PRIOR: All right. You obviously, or let me ask you the question, did you investigate the area, did you search the area for articles or clues or disturbances of the soil or whatever, was that part of your work there?

MR PANGELE: That is so, yes sir.

MR PRIOR: I understood from our discussion before you gave evidence, that eventually reinforcements and support came, so you weren't the only policeman on that scene, shortly after you got there reinforcements arrived is that correct? I understand a helicopter also arrived?

MR PANGELE: Correct, sir.

MR PRIOR: I want to show you bundle C, it's the photo-graphs, Mr Chairman. The photographs depict various positions from, or various places at the scene, you know different angles from which the body was photographed. Do you confirm that the body of Doné Meyers was in that position as you see in the photograph?

MR PANGELE: That is so, yes, correct, sir.

MR PRIOR: I need you to clarify one aspect, possibly two aspects: the first two photographs indicate that the blue jeans, the denim jeans, of Doné Meyers had been unbuttoned; and then the other photographs 3 and 4, I think indicate that the jeans are closed. Now I've had the benefit of seeing the negatives which showed the sequence of the photographs, and unfortunately I put up the bundles in the wrong sequence, I just wanted that to be clarified for the committee, when you saw the body for the first time, were the jeans closed?

MR PANGELE: The jeans were buttoned, as shown in 3 and 4.

MR PRIOR: Okay. And I've heard the explanation why the jeans were opened. Can you maybe explain that just for the committee, because I don't want any wrong suggestion to be maybe levelled at this stage, why were the jeans opened and that photograph taken? 

MR PANGELE: When we got there, the body was as is shown in photo 3 and 4 with the trousers buttoned.

MR PRIOR: And the blouse, was it in that position or in another position?

MR PANGELE: The blouse is as is shown in photo 3.

MR PRIOR: It appears to be pulled up, exposing a portion of her brassiere, is that correct?

MR PANGELE: Correct, sir.

MR PRIOR: Yes. Those photographs were then taken. Now let's go back to photographs 1 and 2, just, you were explaining why the buttons of the jeans were opened?

MR PANGELE: It was because the jeans were soiled with blood and they wanted to determine as to whether she had been damaged in her private parts.

MR PRIOR: Now, in your statement that you made at the time of this investigation, Mr Chairman I refer to page 27 and 28 of the bundle, that is the typed statement, and then his hand-written statement is 29, 30 and onwards, towards the end of your statement you said:-

"Seemingly there was a struggle as I saw the track of the training shoes wearing by the culprits and the scattering of the articles from the truck."

Can you maybe just expand on that and explain that, were there signs of a struggle that you could determine from looking at or examining the ground or the terrain there?

MR PANGELE: I saw a lot of papers scattered around at about where the truck had stopped and marks of training shoes that were in that vicinity in that road.

MR PRIOR: And where the body was lying, were there any, I know it may be difficult after all this time, but is there anything in your recollection that may have indicated a struggle or not? If you are unable to say that, say that clearly from the beginning and we won't pursue that?

MR PANGELE: I'm not saying there was a scuffle, but what I'm saying, there was proof of things having been strewn around in that road and the marks of those training shoes in that vicinity.

MR PRIOR: All right. Mr Chairman, I have prepared another bundle, it was photographs that had been taken. Unfortunately there's no index. I've prepared copies for the committee and if I may mark it L, and if I may also have the committee's indulgence just to take this witness through the ten photographs?

CHAIRPERSON: I suggest you should mark the first bundle C1 and this C2.

MR PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'll do so. So that is the first bundle C1, and C2. May I ask if Mr Mbandazaya could be so kind, I only have a limited amount, five, if he could maybe just assist? Thank you.


MR PRIOR: If I can go to C1, that's a photo - I beg your pardon, C2, photograph 1, that's a photograph of Mr Tuta, is that right?

MR PANGELE: Correct, sir.

MR PRIOR: Now, were you there when that photograph took place, or these photographs were taken, or were you at some other place, let's just clarify that?

MR PANGELE: Yes, I was present, sir.

MR PRIOR: And behind Mr Tuta, I can see clearly a - it looks like a fence, with the droppers and so forth, do you remember that?

MR PANGELE: Yes, there is a fence there.

MR PRIOR: I just want clarity, was the body found beyond that fence or is that the fence - is that some other fence on the other - sorry, the fence on the boundary of this track where the vehicle stopped? In other words, if I'm looking in the direction of the photographer, behind Mr Tuta, was the body found beyond that fence?

MR PANGELE: The body was found beyond that fence.

MR PRIOR: If you look at photograph 2, there seems to be a wet patch in the foreground. Are you able to remember what that was?

MR PANGELE: It looked like a patch of oil where the truck has stopped.

MR PRIOR: Was that the area indicated where the truck had stopped before the shots were fired, is that your... (intervention).

MR PANGELE: Correct, sir.

MR PRIOR: If you look at photograph 3, can you remember what that photograph depicts? If not, say so. Yes, it shows a track with rocks in the foreground, it looks like a thorn bush. Was that just a photograph of the general area?

MR PANGELE: I cannot recognise that place at No 3.

MR PRIOR: All right. Photograph 4, Mr Tuta appears to be pointing to, it looks like a yellow plastic carrier, or certainly yellow plastic with it looks like something white. Do you remember that, or not?

MR PANGELE: This plastic looks like a plastic that had fallen from that truck.

MR PRIOR: Okay. Photographs 5 and 6, they seem to indicate a pathway, a rough path, from the initial positions in photographs 1 and 2. In photograph 6, Mr Tuta is appearing, apparently pointing, it looks like a dark object, it could be a piece of cloth of sorts. Can you remember that?

MR PANGELE: No, I cannot remember clearly.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, may I just explain briefly the reason why this, it was simply that there was no proper index and album of photographs could be found from either the police investigation or the court record, so we're doing our best to maybe paint as full a picture as possible, and I was unable to find anyone who could, with any clarity, give me a - make any sense of these photographs, but it seems to be a general pointing out. Photograph 7 looks like he's pointing to a, it looks like a R10,00 note, a green note, under a stone. Can you remember that?

MR PANGELE: It looks like R10,00 that may have fallen from that truck.

MR PRIOR: Do you remember that there was money, or a R10,00 note, lying there, or don't you remember, independently of the photograph?

MR PANGELE: I do remember something relating to money that had fallen down.

MR PRIOR: All right. Photograph 8, you had already indicated that documents had been lying there. It looks like documents, are those documents letters or whatever, can you remember that, photograph 8?

MR PANGELE: Yes, I remember.

MR PRIOR: Photograph 9 is a, it also looks like an item of clothing near a stormwater pipe. Can you recall that, and are you able to identify that piece of clothing?

MR PANGELE: No, I do not remember that place, sir.

MR PRIOR: As also photograph 10?

MR PANGELE: Even 10 I do not remember anything about, sir.

MR PRIOR: But is it correct that Mr Tuta was pointing out certain places at that spot where Mr Makase had indicated to you earlier on that day?

MR PANGELE: Mr Tuta may have been pointing out these places, moving with the photographer.

MR PRIOR: Do I understand from that that you never went, you weren't walking with the photographer when these were taken, but you were in the general area at the time that photographs were taken?

MR PANGELE: Correct, I did not move around with the photographer.

MR PRIOR: I need to put this to you, I believe at the last, or I remember at the last hearing in April, there were allegations from the applicants while you were sitting in the audience that you were one of the policemen who assaulted them, in fact you were asked to stand up. Do you wish to comment, you have now an opportunity to comment on those allegations?

MR PANGELE: No sir, I cannot comment on that.

MR PRIOR: Well did you assault these people, after they had been arrested and at the spot where they were, obviously there was pointing out done?

MR PANGELE: No, I did not assault them.

MR PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Did you see them being assaulted?

MR PANGELE: No, I did not see them being assaulted.

MS GCABASHE: Just to finish off, well for me, this point, but if you look at C2, photograph 1, and you look at Mr Tuta's face, it would appear to me that he had been assaulted?


MR PANGELE: A very, very short time.

MS GCABASHE: Roughly five minutes, one hour, just an indication?

MR PANGELE: It could be one hour, about.

MS GCABASHE: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MBANDAZAYA: At the time that the helicopter arrived there with Zama Tuta, were there some local people there at that point or at that spot, waiting?

MR PANGELE: No, there were none, sir.

MR MBANDAZAYA: You cannot recall seeing any local people there at that spot, and their attitude towards Mr Tuta at the time he arrived there?

MR PANGELE: No, I do not remember well, sir.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Pangele, at what time did you arrive at the spot where the body of Doné Meyer was discovered? Can you still remember the time, what time did you arrive?

MR PANGELE: It was afternoon, I do not remember the time accurately.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Can't you say whether it was three or four o'clock or five o'clock?

MR PANGELE: It may have been about those times.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Am I correct to say that you did not move from that spot until the other policemen arrived with the suspects?

MR PANGELE: Correct, sir.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Did you see them on their arrival?

MR PANGELE: I saw them, sir.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Did you see the condition of Mr Tuta?

MR PANGELE: I saw it, sir.

MR MBANDAZAYA: And you could see that he has been assaulted?

MR PANGELE: No, I did not see him as if he had been assaulted, but I could see that he had a torn overalls.

MR MBANDAZAYA: You did not see that his eye was swollen and almost the right side of his face was swollen, almost closed, the other eye?

MR PANGELE: No, I did not notice such a thing, sir.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Is it your evidence that, here in this committee, that what was said by Mr Tuta in the last hearing, that you assaulted him severely, is not true?

MR PANGELE: No sir, it's not true that I assaulted him.

MR MBANDAZAYA: If you had done that, would you have been in a position to tell the committee that you had done that?

MR PANGELE: Yes, I would have told the committee.

MR SANDI: Yes, but Mr Pangele, sorry for the interruption, Mr Mbandazaya, I thought your attitude was to make no comment at all about the allegation of assault until Mr Prior asked you to admit or deny the allegation?

CHAIRPERSON: My recollection is, Mr Prior, you invited him to comment on it?

MR PRIOR: Yes, Mr Chairman, to comment on the allegation that was made in public... (intervention).


MR PRIOR: the last hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and (indistinct) he said he couldn't make any comment.


MR MBANDAZAYA: Can I proceed, Mr Chairman, or is it still on the floor? Thank you, Mr Chairman. Now in your statement you said that at around half past one on the day in question, you received a message on the radio control, you said it was around half past one. If it was around half past one, can you estimate to the committee at what time did you arrive at that spot after you have received it at half past one, the message, that there is this incident that took place?

MR PANGELE: I cannot estimate, but what happened that afternoon, me hearing about the whole matter and me getting to the body, I did not see the time.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Oh. No, I agree with you, you received the message at half past one, but what I'm trying to get at is what, after you have received the message at half past one, how long did it take you to arrive at the spot where the body was discovered?

MR PANGELE: I cannot estimate how much time I took to get to the body.

MR MBANDAZAYA: You are also not in a position to estimate the distance you travelled, how long the distance was when you received the message that there's this incident that took place, distance to that spot where the body was discovered?

MR PANGELE: No, I cannot estimate.

MR MBANDAZAYA: But you are able to estimate that the distance from the brickyard to where the truck is was 200 metres?

MR PANGELE: Yes, I can.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Thank you, Your Worship, I have no further questions.


MS GCABASHE: The questions I have really relate to the village where the incident occurred. I don't know if you would be able to assist me with just a few details there. It's not evidence that you have given. Can I continue? Do you know the village at all, where the incident occurred?

MR PANGELE: No, I do not know the place where the incident took place.

MS GCABASHE: Thank you, then you will not be able to assist me. Thank you, no other questions.



MR PRIOR: Thank you, we also thank Mr Pangele for travelling from Umtata to attend.


MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, may I ask for a short adjournment? I just want to make inquiries, I haven't been informed that anyone from the village was in fact brought from Umtata, and I must confess, it escaped me to ask the policeman while I was precognising them. May I just ask for a short adjournment to consult with Mr Magadlela?


MR PRIOR: For a minute or so, Mr Chairman.



MR PRIOR: ...names were supplied to them as persons who had knowledge about the shooting, they were residents in the area, one was a young boy, and one was another resident, but unfortunately none of them arrived at the police station as per arrangements, so they never came through, but I also understand that they were unable to give any indication on the regularity of the route. All they could say was that from time to time milk was sold in that area, and one can probably expect, after six or seven years, that they would have difficulty remembering with any clarity or any precision the exact route or the exact time schedule that - the selling times by Mr Meyers at that particular time, so as far as I'm concerned, the evidence leader's concerned, I have no further evidence to tender. I understand Mr Bothma wishes to address the committee and then Mr Mbandazaya also needs to address the committee on further evidence that may be tendered by them. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR BOTHMA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We don't wish to present any further evidence, but I was just discussing the matter with Mr Prior now, that there is a court record available of a portion of the evidence, it also includes two witnesses who were on the scene of the first shooting, and as I understood it normally that this committee will have a transcription of the record available and I believe that attempts will be made by Mr Prior to get transcripts of the record available. What happened is, the case was postponed on a certain occasion and thereafter a second file was opened in the registrar's office and that second file with the rest of the evidence cannot be found, but I'm just wondering whether this is not actually relevant to this committee to have copies available of this record. I've got only one copy, but I can make it available to Mr Prior to make the necessary photocopies.

MS GCABASHE: The value being that we have some indication of what witnesses who were there might have said to the Court then?

MR BOTHMA: That is correct, ja, especially on the first occasion, at the first scene, where Mr Meyers arrived, two locals from that area were called and they testified what had happened on that first scene.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, the first scene, you mean when the incidents took place, not when he came, not on the first occasion he came to sell milk there?

MR BOTHMA: No, I was referring to that occasion on that day when he went to sell milk there.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Mr Chairman, I don't have a problem, we can (indistinct) about it, but I haven't read it, that's the unfortunate part, I don't know what relevance, but ordinarily I wouldn't have any problem about it.

CHAIRPERSON: My feeling is that this may be of assistance to us all, I can't say, I have also not read it, but what I do suggest is that it be made available on the somewhat tentative basis that if counsel for the applicants is of the view that it is prejudicial to their interests and should not be considered by us, he can take the point in his argument. Do you agree with that?

MR MBANDAZAYA: I agree, Mr Chairman.

MR BOTHMA: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I certainly endorse the approach that the committee should be appraised of whatever material is available, to obtain as full a picture of the event as possible, and also with the approach that should anything to the detriment of the applicants arise, that it be raised. However, yes, we will deal with that, if that eventuality arises, but certainly, being an official court transcription, or a portion of the transcription, it should be, or it could be and can be properly admitted as part of the evidence before this committee, and obviously it would be prejudicial on the basis if it was admitted now without proper discovery or notice to Mr Mbandazaya, so I will see to it that copies are made and properly delivered to Mr Mbandazaya and to the rest of the committee in due course.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I was talking to Mr Prior about this question of submission from the PAC. I was talking to him and I heard that it seems as if we are going to always not come to decisions, we will not conclude all these cases waiting and waiting for them to come with this submission and we don't know when.

CHAIRPERSON: I think rather the opposite, I think that we have endeavoured to give the PAC every opportunity, they have not taken it, that we will now proceed without any further submissions by them. When I say "without", we will give them perhaps another week, but I gather the matter will be brought to their attention almost immediately, and if they do not take advantage of the opportunity that's given them, we will have to decide without it. It is grossly unfair to the their members and supporters that they should keep making promises and do nothing, and, as you say, delay, delay, delay, so my feeling is, and I think I speak for all the members of this committee, that we are prepared to say give them a week or until the end of next week to make what submissions they wish to make, but if that is not done, we will have to proceed without it.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I was still on that point, I was saying to Mr Prior then I will make my - forget about them myself, I will contact the relevant people like Lethapa Mphahlele, because as I indicated to the committee is that I was waiting for the submission before I can call him. Now I want to make arrangements with him that he must come and see the committee so that we make arrangement to make this submission on our own, because definitely, also myself, I have a problem, I have been contacting PAC, I can't get hold of them until - luckily for him I'm able to get hold of him now, and he indicated that (indistinct) is in Johannesburg, otherwise he can make, even if the committee is in Cape Town, I can arrange and go with him in Cape Town, wherever it is, so that we can seek the clarity and thereafter we arrange for him to give the testimony at a convenient time.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that mean that he will not be able to be here this week or on Wednesday?

MR MBANDAZAYA: He would not be able to be here on this week. He was here last week, I understand, and he couldn't get hold of me, and I was trying to get hold of him, and he wanted to come and discuss this thing, but I couldn't. When I received the message to phone him, I couldn't get through to him and he was around here. He left Friday night for Johannesburg, and now he told me, I was talking to him over lunch, he said, look, unfortunately he has already committed himself. I have that problem, Mr Chairman.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, maybe, just from my side, the evidence leader's side, it's, I agree with the chair, in the circumstances every latitude has been extended, I mean at the end of the day the applicants are the ones who suffer, the onus is on them to present evidence that supports their application, there have been undertakings, but unfortunately it's difficult to schedule hearings around, I don't want to use the word empty promises, but certainly undertakings that are not carried out, the logistical implications, the financial implications are such that we need clarity and we need firm arrangements to be made so that we can properly plan these hearings, so from our side and from the logical officer's side, we have serious problems and, for example, if Mr Mphahlele and/or the PAC indicate they will only be ready next week, how do we set up, it's no doubt possible to set up another hearing, but obviously at great inconvenience and expense, so I'm in your hands, I'd be grateful, and we actually, from the evidence, the Amnesty Department evidence leader's side, we actually implore the PAC, as we did in March when we met with the general secretary, we are here to assist the PAC in whatever problems they may have in getting the evidence to the hearing, but we ask them to come forward with proper submissions and proper evidence, that we can conclude these matters.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think, from what I learnt last Friday at a meeting of the TRC and from what I have been informed since, that, inconvenient as it may be, we should give them one last chance, but perhaps you, Mr Prior, can make arrangements with Mr Mbandazaya, as to where he, if he can contact his client and we, if the PAC does not come in the next few days, we ignore them, but we go on with this one. I don't know where we would have to sit. Where are the applicants in custody?

MR PRIOR: The present applicants are all at Fort Glamorgan in the East London area, so they are here, and I will make arrangements for the prison authorities to hold them here for the next at least week or so.

CHAIRPERSON: I would suggest till the end of next week, say, rather than find we've made arrangements and then we find they've disappeared.

MR PRIOR: I'll liaise with Correctional Services, I'm sure, they've accommodated us thus far, I'm sure that it won't be a problem. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If we are going to await, as we think we ought to, a general submission, I don't think it would be fair to ask any of the parties to make their addresses now, till they've heard what is included in that and been able to deal with it.

MR PRIOR: I agree, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We once again get to the stage that we adjourn this matter to a date to be arranged?

MR PRIOR: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that we should also place on record our gratitude to Mr Mbandazaya for the sterling efforts he has made to bring about this submission of general propositions. I think all of us who've had any dealings know how much he has tried himself in the last few weeks to achieve success in this regard, and if there's anything we can do to assist him in any way, he has only to approach us and we will do all we can, but I feel it would perhaps be better to leave matters in his hands than rather let people feel that he's acting on our behalf, but I leave the matter to him.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you suggest we do now, Mr Prior?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, that concludes the evidence as far as I can take the Doné Meyers and Mike Meyers matter. We don't have anything scheduled for tomorrow, in the light of the adjournment of the Yellowwoods case, Mr Mthembu's case, we are then scheduled to commence on Wednesday. Advocate Calitz said she was unable to be here before 11 o'clock, she will do her utmost to be here earlier, but asked for an indulgence that we start at 11:00 or soon thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think that we should rather be here before and ask her for an indulgence that she sees to get her before 11:00. I know that she has, I would hate to call it a problem, she has a young... (intervention).

MR PRIOR: A very young baby, yes, (indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: ...a very young baby to look after, one she must be inordinately proud, because I think this is the... (intervention).

MR PRIOR: It's an amnesty baby, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...first daughter?

MR PRIOR: First daughter, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: After four sons.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, she... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: So if you could make contact with her and tell her that we will meet her request if necessary, but we would prefer if she could get here a bit earlier and we start at ten o'clock.

MR PRIOR: Yes. Mr Chairman, in addition thereto, I brought it to your attention earlier in chambers that in respect of the King William's Town golf club attack, Mr Ray Rade, the member of parliament for King William's Town, had contacted me last week and had indicated that he wished to make submissions under oath to the committee in that matter on Wed..., and he will be here on Wednesday morning. So... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: So we can start earlier with him.

MR PRIOR: And I've indicated that we'll be starting the hearing at nine o'clock, so to that extent we will start on time and Mr Van der Zi has indicated that his clients are aware of that date, he only has some problem with Mr Xundu, who seems to have been transferred around the country, but I'll leave that up to Mr Mbandazaya to sort out.

MR MBANDAZAYA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, it is true, I confirm what has been said by Mr Prior. My clients are around the two other clients because also their case was postponed to this week, but unfortunately Major Xundu is not around, I couldn't get him until this morning, and he told me that he was in Umtata, from PE to Umtata, transferred to Umtata, but he's back in PE and he's leaving on Wednesday for a course, he's writing exams in the morning, in the afternoon he's leaving for a course until the end of June, but in any event, Mr Chairman, I indicated to Mr Prior that we will proceed with the matter. I've contacted, I'll keep in touch with him.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the evidence we are likely to have is such that if it is recorded and he's allowed to see a copy of the record, he will be able to deal with it adequately.

Right, we'll adjourn till nine o'clock on Wednesday morning.





MR PRIOR: We intended to hear the matters of the Yellowwood Hotel ...[intervention]


MR PRIOR: ...[inaudible] Advocate Collett's matter. We anticipated hearing Mr Jimmy Jones' evidence, that is Mr Ntonga's client. An affidavit was handed to me late last night and that has been distributed amongst the Committee. Miss Collett has also received a copy. However, Mr Ntonga indicated to me this morning that Mr Jones will not be attending this morning because his employer in Butterworth, that is the Butterworth Municipality was loathe to release him in the absence of an official notice or a subpoena.

May I place on record at this stage that I had several weeks ago prepared a notice in terms of Section 19 of the Act and we had endeavoured to serve that subpoena on Mr Jones at Butterworth at his place of employment and unfortunately he was not there and no-one was prepared at the Municipality to receive it on his behalf.

To cut a long story short, there seems to have been some difficulty in getting the subpoena to him and on that note he is not here and obviously there is nothing that I can do, other than try and serve a further subpoena upon him.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Mbanjua coming here?

MR LAX: Mr Ntonga.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ntonga, sorry.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, Mr Ntonga indicated to me that he was coming to the hearing this morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn't you wait and say this when he is here in case he has any explanation he wants to place on record or deal with in any way. I think it is unfortunate that it should be done in two separate bits and I think we can deal with this when he has arrived.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman. May we then proceed with the King William's Town Golf Club and I ask Mr Radie to come up to the podium.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbandazayo, you are prepared to have this proceed today without the presence of the applicants I understand?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It will of course be recorded and you can consult with the applicants if anything should be said which you think requires further investigation.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR LAX: Mr Radie, is it correct that your full names are Raymond Julius Radie?

MR RADIE: That is correct.

MR LAX: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?

RAYMOND JULIUS RADIE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Mr Radie, is it correct that you are a member of Parliament, Nationalist Party and representative of the, is it King William's Town Constituency?

MR RADIE: It is correct, I am a member of Parliament. I have been since 1987. At the moment I am a permanent member of the National Council of Provinces representing the Eastern Cape on behalf of the National Party.

MR PRIOR: Mr Radie, at the last hearing in April, the affidavit that you had prepared, the statement that you prepared was handed up to the Committee. You confirm that affidavit, is that correct?

MR RADIE: Mr Chairperson, yes I do, I confirm the affidavit which I prepared and signed on the 11th of March in Cape Town before Mr Ntsebeza, the Chairman of the Amnesty Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: It was handed in as Exhibit E.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Radie, you subsequently contacted me and indicated that there were further matters or further information and further submissions that you wished to place before the Committee, is that correct?

MR RADIE: That is correct Chairperson. I felt that in the light of the allegations which were made in my absence by certain of the applicants relating to myself as being one of the targets of the attack, that I felt I should just amplify the affidavit before this Committee.

MR PRIOR: Could you please proceed with your further submissions and amplification of your affidavit, Exhibit E, thank you.

MR RADIE: Thank you Advocate. I do not want to take up unnecessary time of the Committee but I feel that the following remarks perhaps might assist the Committee to obtain a completely full picture in order to make a decision in this matter.

Mr Chairman, the King William's Town Golf Club is one of the oldest clubs in the country. It was founded in 1892 and in 1992 we had a series of centenary celebrations. I had been a member of the club since 1963 and also served for many years as a Committee member of the club and was very deeply bound up in the history of the club and totally committed to it. And it was for this reason that I decided in my capacity as a golf club member, to organise a tournament called the Masters, the King Masters Golf Tournament as one of the culminating celebrations that year in 1992 and we were allocated a date several months in advance namely the 28th of November 1992.

It was a non-racial tournament. It went off extremely well and one of our own members of the club, Ivan Kwelani, if I remember correctly, won the first prize. It was a totally non-racial event and I may just that King William's Town Golf Club was one of the very first clubs to open it's doors to all races in the 1980's.

It therefore came as a surprise that the attack which I understand was aimed at myself and at killing and maiming as many of those present as possible, actually took place at 10p.m. in the evening because the golf tournament had finished during daylight hours and the presentation had been completed by half past seven and most of the participants in that golf club tournament had already gone home. That was in fact fortunate. If an attack had occurred at 6 o'clock in the evening I'm afraid that there would have been even more severe damage to both life and limb.

The second aspect I just want to proceed to Mr Chairman, is the question of the amnesty itself, the applications of the applicants. I have not had an opportunity personally to read the record up till now, so I haven't an exact replica of the record before me. I'm relying on what I've read in the newspapers.

But the Committee in essence, as I've pointed out in my affidavit and as the Committee well knows, will have to determine whether there has been a full and complete disclosure on the part of the applicants. Have they been entirely truthful?

I have some doubts as to whether they have told the full story and I say that for a very good reason. Naming me as the target at the time that they gave evidence before this Committee, frankly strikes me as strange and I honestly don't believe that I personally was the target that evening.

I believe this attack was planned by the APLA cadres, very well planned and planned in advance but I do believe that the possible intelligence which was available to them might have been somewhat less than accurate.

The Committee must examine the record of the criminal trial if it is possible to do so and endeavour to establish whether in fact at that time my name was mentioned as one of the targets and whether in fact the National Party was mentioned in the criminal case. I've not had an opportunity to read that report either but I don't believe that my name was mentioned as a target during the whole of the criminal trial.

Why then was my name mentioned? As I've indicated to the Committee, I gave evidence by way of affidavit on the 11th of March and obviously that affidavit or a copy of it was made available to the applicant's legal counsel. Having read that affidavit I would suggest that it provided the perfect hook upon which to hang a coat of political motivation.

Quite frankly Mr Chairperson and Members of the Committee, the callous attack that night was an unprovoked attack on innocent civilian people who had nothing to do with the golf tournament, certainly little to do with me. I was attending only in my capacity as one of the members of the Wine Tasters Association of King William's Town. It was an annual dinner and there was absolutely no reason for such a callous and cold blooded attack to take place on the unfortunate people.

For these reasons I would suggest that it is really doubtful whether a full confession has been made. If it has, whether in fact the applicants have been entirely truthful by raising my own name as a target in the attack.

One aspect which does really concern me is that in our Christian world we are faced with a situation where forgiveness comes after due confession and after repentance. In this case it is doubtful whether there has been a completely full confession but even if that is so, there is absolutely no remorse and no repentance and this is one of the things that I find the most difficult to accept in the light of our constitution, in the light of our constitutions injunction about Ubuntu and reconciliation.

And it must be one of the most difficult things for those friends of mine who suffered the loss of loved ones in the attack or suffered injury themselves, to accept that there is absolutely no remorse whatsoever on the part of the applicants. Whether that in fact forms part of the criteria which the Committee has to weigh up in considering the application, is something which the Committee will have to decide and which the legislation may or may not provide for but that is a matter for the Amnesty Committee.

I think at this stage, that is about all I wish to say Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee and I'm quite willing to answer any questions that might be put.

MR PRIOR: Mr Radie, just one question from my side. Was your golf day postponed at any time because of bad weather?

MR RADIE: Mr Chairman, no, the date of the 28th of November was set several months prior to the tournament taking place and at no stage was there any postponement of this particular tournament.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.




Mr Radie, I will start by saying that following up to your comments that you were a target of the attack. Firstly I would like to say to you that there was never any criminal trial in this matter and I think if there was any you would have been a witness. The criminal case is still pending.

MR RADIE: Thank you, I'm indebted to you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Secondly, the question of you being the focus of the attack at the golf club, yes I want to consider that that was the evidence led in this, before this Committee and further evidence was that because you were a member of the National Party, according to the information those who were there were members of the supporters of the National Party and that members of the intelligence, security of the country will be there because you were there as a member of the ruling party. But that one is for the Committee to decide. That was the evidence led.

MR RADIE: May I reply to that? Mr Chairman, as an ordinary member of the National Party at that time, and I was a back-bencher, certainly I was not privileged to have intelligence members or bodyguards or any support whatsoever. I was completely regarded as an ordinary member of the public.

Although I was a Member of Parliament obviously and had political inclinations, I certainly did not have any authoritarian support or cover whatsoever on that day. There was, as far as I was concerned, no members of intelligence near the place nor were there any police on the premises. We had to call the police after the attack.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you for that Mr Radie. Would you agree with me to say that as a member of the National Party, definitely the people who are mostly in your company would be mostly supporters of your party although you are not autocratic, that it's necessary that all of them should be the members of the National Party or supporters of the National Party, would you agree with me that mostly it would be people who agree with your views?

MR RADIE: I would agree that there were some members of the National Party present who took part in the tournament but the tournament itself was participated in by members of other political persuasions. And certainly there were no political speeches, there were no political flags flown, there was absolutely no indication in effect that it was in any way sponsored by the National Party.

That does not exclude the possibility that there was political motive for the attack in the sense that it was decided to attack a soft target. May I just mention Chair, that I do have a video recording of the news bulletin which took place on the evening after the attack and also a video recording of myself being interviewed on Agenda by Madam Collie Long, which I can make available, I have it with me, to the Committee for it's records. I think that will probably amplify the situation, if the Committee wishes to use it.

MS GCABASHE: If I might just ask at this point Mr Mbandazayo.

Is this the news bulletin where Bennie Alexander ...[indistinct] himself ...[indistinct]


MR RADIE: That is ...[inaudible]

MS GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Would you Mr Radie, agree with me that the intelligence report is not always accurate?

MR RADIE: Of course. Quite frequently intelligence is not as accurate as it should be. I serve on the Joint Committee on National Intelligence at the moment in Parliament and so I'm aware of these things. You don't always get absolutely accurate information.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you. And that is the reason why most of the time the raids of the South African Defence Force and the police were always killing so-called innocent people?

MR RADIE: I think that's a very general question put to me and I have no specific knowledge of that particular suggestion.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Let me quote a recent example:

"1993: Attack in Umtata where school kids were killed in their sleep"

MR RADIE: I'm not qualified to comment on that particular attack but all I can say is that obviously it was a tragedy and it may well have been the result of inaccurate intelligence information.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Would you agree with me that the confrontation, the confrontational politics in our country was a result of the policies of your party?

MR RADIE: It was the result of the apartheid policy, of that I have no doubt. And I may add that as far as my own personal situation was concerned, I entered politics in 1981 when I stood for the New Republic Party and defeated the National Party Candidate of the day in King William's Town, for the King William's Town constituency, for the Provincial Council and I crossed the floor to the National Party in 1985 after Mr P W Botha's: "adapt or die" speech, when the New Republic Party had folded up and when I decided to go into the National Party in order to work from within to rid it of the policy of apartheid.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Would you also agree with me that inasmuch as you were in the, not in the National Party initially, whether in the DP or PFP or whatever the party, rather than National Party, you were there because you belonged to the privileged group in the country, that is the white community?

MR RADIE: I was fortunate at the time to have been born white yes, and privileged certainly. But I've certainly worked hard to make amends for that subsequently.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And also that even today you are still reaping the fruits of being that privileged, being in that privileged group?

MR RADIE: Can I ask what you mean by; "reaping the fruits"?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Like even your, you correct me if I'm wrong, that you had a business in King William's Town

and the building you have leased to the Government and you are earning a lot out of that. It far exceeds what you were getting whilst you were still running that business.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the relevance of this as to what took place at the golf club?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, what I'm getting at is that what happened on the day in question was the results of the policies of his party, that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that we dealt with. You are now talking to him about his private earnings as a result of owning a business.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, I may have taken it from a different perspective. Mr Chairman definitely, as a result of being in that privileged class at the expense of the other groupings in the country which also belonged to the country, he managed to be in that position. That is what I'm trying to get at, as a result of the policies of his party.

MR RADIE: I'm happy ...[intervention]

MR MBANDAZAYO: In any event Mr Chairman, I ...[intervention]

MR RADIE: I'm happy to answer that question. I certainly don't the business referred to which I presume is Radie ...[indistinct] Holdings, that you're talking about. My shares were sold in 1985 in that regard so I have no interest there. I have no interest in the legal profession any longer as I'm no longer a partner of Barnes and Ross in King William's Town. And I'm just wondering if you are suggesting perhaps one of the reasons why the attack took place and I was a target was because I was one of the rich and privileged whites in the community. Is that the suggestion on the part of the applicants?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Well let me answer this way, is it correct that all the white people had a right to vote?

MR RADIE: Certainly, that was the position at the time, yes.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And you were put, the National Party was put into power by the white community?

MR RADIE: Correct.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And as such they agreed with your racist policies to subjugate that African people?

MR RADIE: At the time yes, but things have changed considerably and the National Party took the decision under ex-President de Klerk, to do away completely with apartheid.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Thank you Mr Chairman.


MR LAX: Just one question Mr Radie, were there actually high ranking police officers of Security Force officers who may have been there as your guests on that day?

MR RADIE: No, Sir, not to my knowledge.

MR LAX: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I have been to King William's Town a few times. I don't know the town but I presume like most towns of that size, you would at a function such as the wine tasting and as part of the centenary celebration, expect to find at it more the important people in the community that would of necessity mean perhaps the senior policeman, the senior army officers if there were any there, the doctors, the lawyers and people like that?

MR RADIE: Judge, yes, the Wine Tasting Association was mainly supported by a number of the Rotarians who are various leaders in their own field and members of the professions and so on.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is what one would expect because it wasn't aimed at any section of the community like that, it was merely that in a small town you find all the people who are running the town, at the functions.

MR RADIE: Absolutely yes, I quite agree.

MR PRIOR: There is nothing in re-examination, thank you Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Radie, for having come here today. I'm sorry that the audience resembles the audiences that certain political parties used to get in the past but thank you yourself for having come here.

MR RADIE: Thank you very much Judge, Members, thank you. Thank you Mr Mbandazayo.


CHAIRPERSON: Are we now adjourning till 10 o'clock Mr Prior? Well it is 10 o'clock. We'll take a short adjournment for you to find out what the position is.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.



MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, this matter, could this matter just stand adjourned because there is still the, there was an indication of submissions and maybe Mr Leklapa's evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, we're still waiting to hear from him. Have you got any further information, have you managed to achieve anything as yet or are we still hopeful?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman, as of today I haven't managed to get anything Mr Chairman but I am trying my level best Mr Chairman. I would request that it be adjourned for a date to be arranged and I'll communicate with the leader of evidence, Mr Prior.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we will do that because this potential witness is, I think we all agree, important not only in this case but to give a general picture of what the PAC and APLA policies were at the time. He held a very responsible office and he could assist us and the applicants in many cases if he does come forward and give us an accurate picture of what the policy was and how it was applied. So we will adjourn this matter to a date to be arranged.

MR PRIOR: The applications of Zukile Mbambo and Dumisani Ncamazana was scheduled to proceed today. Mr Chairman, for the following reasons the matter cannot proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you go on Mr Prior, may I place on record that the same four members of the Committee or sitting and can you and the applicants' attorney place yourself on record.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman. Evidence Leader, Paddy Prior from Cape Town.

MR NTONGA: For Jimmy Jones or Njabane, B B Ntonga from Mdantsane.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, we anticipate ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: We also place on record that the attorney acting for the applicants in this matter is aware of the fact that it is being adjourned for reasons which appear later and she has been excused from attendance at this hearing. She is fully aware of it and will given notice of when the matter recommences.

MR PRIOR: That is Advocate Sally Collett from Bisho. She has been fully appraised, in fact the message is for the applicants please to remain for a short while. Her secretary will be attending them and taking further information, and giving them further instructions and information. So she is fully aware of the proceedings to be adjourned.

Mr Chairman, firstly it was anticipated that we ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you go on, are those the two applicants sitting there?

MR PRIOR: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are they completely conversant with English? If not, could they please be given headphones so they can understand what you are saying.


MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I just repeat that. This matter of Mbambo and Ncamazana is to be adjourned. Their advocate, Advocate Sally Collett from Bisho has been informed of the developments. She is sending her secretary or a representative from her office to consult further with the applicants this morning and the request has been conveyed to the Correctional Services, that they remain in attendance until that business is completed.

The reason for the adjournment is as follows: We anticipated hearing Mr Mbambo and Ncamazana's matter today and for how long it would take to finish the evidence. We also anticipated hearing the evidence of Mr Xolile Njabane, also known as Jimmy Jones and when the hearing was also scheduled it was also anticipated that the PAC would be either sending someone to testify or making submissions.

Mr Chairman, despite efforts on the part of our office to serve a subpoena on Mr Jimmy Jones, numerous attempts were made in Butterworth at his place of employment, unfortunately the subpoena wasn't served personally and no-one at the Municipal Offices was prepared to accept the subpoena on his behalf.

Captain Els who assisted the TRC in the area, because there was other business to be attended to, was in telephonic contact with Mr Jones. I'm informed by Captain Els that Mr Jones was not prepared at that stage to divulge his whereabouts but wanted to consult with his attorney before giving any further information to Captain Els.

So the unfortunate upshot of all that was that Mr Jones wasn't served properly with a subpoena and I'm informed by Mr Ntonga this morning that his employer now refuses to release in the absence of a formal notice or subpoena from the TRC. So it seems to be just confusion upon confusion which results in Mr Jones not being here, not being able to give evidence and not being able to be cross-examined.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand his employer is the Butterworth Municipality?

MR PRIOR: Yes, that is so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I trust someone will inform them that their failure to release him this morning has rendered in probably thousands of rand being wasted in the costs incurred by these sittings and they could well have communicated with you or with the TRC offices in Cape Town to ascertain that he was legitimately required here. And I think that their lack of co-operation is something to be deplored.

MR PRIOR: We will certainly convey the Committee's sentiments to the Executive Secretary, Mr Coetzee, in Cape Town and request him that he takes up the matter at high level. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ntonga is present and maybe he can add something.

Mr Chairman, may I just request, it's rather difficult to reschedule this hearing in the absence of any firm indication whether Mr Jimmy Jones will be available in the near future. Certainly if he is able to be served a subpoena then that will be the end of the matter. We will simply determine a date to reconvene and serve him properly with a notice.

CHAIRPERSON: I find it difficult to understand how someone who works for the Butterworth Municipality cannot be properly served with a subpoena. If his employers are so strict that they won't allow him to come to attend a hearing, they must surely be strict in ensuring that he is at work and if he is there he can be served. So I think that is a matter that should also be taken up with them, that they can't treat the Committee as they appear to, the contempt they appear to do such.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood though that he did in fact consult his attorney yesterday and that an affidavit was drafted, so he is fully aware of the fact and was aware of the fact yesterday, that he is required to be here. And now the only reason he is not here is because he says his employers won't let him be, which is a matter as I have already said, should be investigated with his employers.

MR PRIOR: Mr Ntonga is present and is in a better position or maybe in a position to shed some further light Mr Chairman.

MR NTONGA: Mr Chairman, I did consult with him and pointed out this to him. But as I've already indicated to the Leader of Evidence, is that he is still prepared as long as he can be served with a subpoena because his employers now are starting, are squealing about him coming over here. Actually I had to go out of my way to go to Butterworth to try to get something going about this application.

CHAIRPERSON: We're obliged to you for the assistance you have given us but it does seem the employers are not. And in those circumstances it is obviously important that he should give evidence, that we will have to adjourn the matter to a date to be arranged because it may not only, as I have already indicated to Mr Prior, he must ascertain whether the averments set out in the affidavit are applicable or would have reference to not only the present two applicants but any other persons. If they do, they must also be given notice.

MR PRIOR: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] be inquired into and we must ensure that when this matter is next set down for hearing, subpoenas have been served and notice has been given to all relevant parties. And I would be obliged if you could explain to Mr Ncamazana(?) what would happen to him if a subpoena is served and he does not attend.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We now ...[intervention] If you would tell Mr Jimmy Jones what would happen to him after he has received a subpoena and he doesn't come here. We therefore have to adjourn to a date to be arranged.

MR PRIOR: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless anybody has anything further to say or anything they wish to bring to our attention, we will now close this sitting.