CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mamasela, you are still under oath.

JOE MAMASELA: (s.u.o.)


MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, before I proceed, I've been informed by Mr van der Merwe, he's given me the case number of the Supreme Court in which the document Exhibit T which I have referred to. It is Supreme Court Number 3236/86, I'm told and the previous case number, I believe that there was also a previous application, was under case number 1247/85.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you may proceed.

MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman if I may, there are indeed three applications. I don't have the case numbers handy right now but there were indeed three applications brought by the families for the loved ones to be produced.

CHAIRPERSON: Did each family bring it's own application?

MS HARTLE: No, the first application was brought by I believe, Mrs Hashe or her daughter and then there were two applications subsequently brought by the three parties who are mentioned on the papers before the Commission.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, the interview that you had, that you had before the Independent Board of Inquiry, when was that?

MR MAMASELA: I did not have the interview with the Board of Inquiry?

MR LAMEY: Well can you just assist me there then, what did you have with the board of inquiry?

MR MAMASELA: We, I just accompanied Coetzee there and it was just a social discussions, not an interview.

MR LAMEY: Did I understand your evidence correctly before that there were - my question is, when was it?

MR MAMASELA: It was on the 22nd of July 1994, 22 July 1994.

MR LAMEY: And you, did I understand your evidence correctly that you just assisted Dirk Coetzee?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that is so.

MR LAMEY: And during that discussion he told certain lies, that is Dirk Coetzee?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that is so.

MR LAMEY: You were present at that meeting.

MR MAMASELA: I was there.

MR LAMEY: You confirmed the lies that Dirk Coetzee told?

MR MAMASELA: I confirmed them yes.

MR LAMEY: Now, in this document which has been minuted, it was stated - before I ask that, what advantage did Coetzee want, what advantage did he want to gain by telling lies to the IBI?

CHAIRPERSON: He was targeting the position of being a Commissioner of Police?


CHAIRPERSON: And in the process wanted to get rid of ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: Joe Nklankla.

CHAIRPERSON: Joe Nklankla because he saw him as a stumbling block.

MR LAMEY: Now in this document, it is minuted that Venter "beat", referring now under the heading:


"Venter beat the three about the head with an iron bar"

MR MAMASELA: I think we have dealt with that matter when we started here, that it was Dirk Coetzee's version which was incorrect, it was never said by me. I think we've cleared that with Mr Booyens.

MR LAMEY: No, I know that you've said that Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I'm still saying it now.

MR LAMEY: Yes. Let me just get an opportunity to complete my question. It is Dirk Coetzee who said:

"Venter beat the three about the head with an iron bar"

MR MAMASELA: He was the one who was giving the version of the PEBCO 3, it was not me.

MR LAMEY: No, I'm asking you, did Coetzee say:

"Venter beat the three about the head with an iron bar"

MR MAMASELA: I'm saying Dirk Coetzee was giving the version of the PEBCO 3 in that meeting, not me.

MR LAMEY: No, I hear that you're saying that Mr Mamasela, but I'm asking you specifically, did he also say Venter beat the three about the head with an iron bar?

MR MAMASELA: That is true.

MR LAMEY: And in the light of your further, of your previous evidence, that you confirmed the lies of Coetzee, then I take it that you have confirmed also this false fact.

MR MAMASELA: That's a cheap perception you are painting here because I said I confirmed the lie about Joe Nklankla. He ...[indistinct] me specifically to confirm the lie of Joe Nklankla, not of the PEBCO 3 so your perceptions are not only false but ridiculous.

MR LAMEY: Now what did you say when Coetzee said to this IBI:

"Venter beat the three about the head with an iron bar"

MR MAMASELA: I do not care what he said, Coetzee talked a lot of nonsense and I didn't care about that.

ADV DE JAGER: We're caring about what he said.

MR MAMASELA: No, he ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: And I'd like you to answer the question. It's a fair question and we would like to know what Coetzee told the Commission.

MR MAMASELA: Mr Chairman with due respect, when the meeting ...[indistinct] is not a formal meetings, it's a shoe social meeting and anybody can say anything that he says. I was not there to monitor what people say, I did not even take notes. How can I give a definite answer on something that was informal? I think the question is unfair to me.

MR LAMEY: Was this a deliberate lie by Coetzee?

MR MAMASELA: Well, I wouldn't say "deliberate lie", perhaps what I've told him, I've told him about the PEBCO 3 incidents and whatever, he confused the issue. I will say he made mistakes, I won't say it was a deliberate lie.

MR LAMEY: Okay, if it wasn't then a deliberate lie and it was an innocent mistake, why did you not just correct Dirk Coetzee there and inform the Committee that Mr Coetzee: "I think Mr Coetzee is just making here a little error, it was in fact Niewoudt"?

MR MAMASELA: I think we are chasing a wild goose and we'll never catch it.

MR LAMEY: Will you answer the question ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: I'm telling, ...[intervention]

MR LAMEY: Will you please answer the question Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: Wait a minute, I'm coming to your question. You take a "draai", I'll also take a "draai" answering you.

MR LAMEY: I'm asking you directly.

MR MAMASELA: Right, yes, I'm answering you directly now you're asking me directly. I say it was not a formal gathering, it was just an informal social gathering, so if a person says something of insignificance to me I wouldn't say: "No, no, no, you are lying, you are telling the truth", no I didn't bother to monitor what was Dirk saying.

He was talking, I was talking with ...[indistinct] this pony hair guy and I was talking with other people. My attention was distracted by other people, I didn't hear everything that Dirk Coetzee said there.

I was surprised myself when I saw the document that he said a lot of hallbaloos there.

MR LAMEY: It is clear from the context of this document that this IBI meeting, and I would like you to comment on this, was interested in certain incidents of atrocities such as the disappearance of two businessmen in Mamelodi, the role of murder of robbery units, Constable Brian Makalunga, the PEBCO 3, Goniwe, Shell House, Piet Retief incident and I can list many more.

It is clear that the IBI was interested in information about these incidents.

MR MAMASELA: In answering that question, let me take you back to what I said yesterday. I said you are having only one version. There are three documents that were written the same day. Now you have only one and that's why you quote everything out of context. If you had the other two maybe you would be talking sense.

MR LAMEY: What you're saying Mr Mamasela is that the name of Niewoudt hitting the victims in the PEBCO 3 incident with an iron bar, wasn't said by ...[indistinct]?

MR MAMASELA: You didn't say Niewoudt, you said Venter.

MR LAMEY: Yes. During that meeting ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: You didn't say Niewoudt, you said Venter.


MR MAMASELA: Yes. You - so correct yourself please.

MR LAMEY: No, no, I'm not correcting myself, I'm perfectly aware of what I'm saying. During that meeting - will you please listen to the question Mr Mamasela ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: I'm listening, I don't listen by seeing.

MR LAMEY: During that meeting the name of Niewoudt hitting the victims in the PEBCO 3 incident with an iron bar was not mentioned by Dirk Coetzee, it was - he named Venter.

MR MAMASELA: Ja, I think that is what I said, I said - I thought it was just a mistake but like I say, I was distracted, I was talking. It was not a formal meeting, I was talking with other people, he was talking with other people and whilst somebody was taking - Sally Sele was taking whatever, she was taking something, I think she was minuting the whole thing. So it was not ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just a minute.

I think you should qualify your questions because the witness told you that there were three documents produced. Now on the basis of only one document you have, you want to put it to the witness that: so only, I mean Niewoudt was not mentioned or the other way around, only Venter was mentioned.

We don't know what stands in the other remaining two documents, may Niewoudt was mentioned. I think when you put it to the witness say: "As far as you can remember, as far as you can tell", qualify your question because otherwise it's based on the premise that he's not mentioned in the other two documents. We don't have them, we don't know what stands in there.

ADV SANDI: Sorry for a moment Mr Lamey, is it not clear from this that Mr Dirk Coetzee was simply talking hearsay?


MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, yes it's probably so but we now know that Mr Mamasela was a direct witness and even if Mr Dirk Coetzee portrayed evidence which is hearsay and which was incorrect at that stage, one would expect a person who was a direct witness to that incident to correct a mis-statement of fact to that board of inquiry.

ADV SANDI: I thought Mr Mamasela says he did not understand himself to have any obligation to correct those misconceptions on the part of Dirk Coetzee.

Isn't that what you're saying Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: Absolutely so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I appreciate that you said you didn't care what he said, you actually said you didn't care what Coetzee said but perhaps what we should ask is: "From whom did Coetzee get that version"?

MR MAMASELA: Mr Chairman with due respect, when Dirk Coetzee came into the country and I met him and we started talking he started asking me a lot of third force activities and whatever activities and I gave him my synopsis.

And it is on the basis of some of the synopsis that he make out that presentation without informing me and without seeking my opinion.

CHAIRPERSON: No, let me ask you directly. Did you tell, or are you the person who told Mr Coetzee that: "Mr Coetzee, the person who hit the three people with the iron pipe was Venter"?

MR MAMASELA: No, that is not so, I did not tell him that.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did he get that from?

MR MAMASELA: I told him the story of the PEBCO 3, he might have confused the people there, that somebody, Niewoudt was beating them with - and instead of saying Niewoudt he said Venter. He might have confused the issues.

And when he invited me to come to this meeting he never told me that he was going to talk about the PEBCO 3. I would have prepared myself, I would have come with my statement that I've made to the Attorney General. He just said he's going to talk about Nklankla and I must help him out with Mklankla.

And when we were there Dirk Coetzee talked a lot of things and the other documents will tell you the ridiculous statements that he made. Even the allegations that George Fivaz was in the raid of Maseru, those were said by Dirk Coetzee. I've got an affidavit of him, the same document in that same meeting.

So I'm not surprised that this thing emerges now all of a sudden, George Fivaz was in the Maseru raid. It was Dirk Coetzee who said that. He even implicated Doctor Jan D'Olivera of Maseru raid. The man is mad.

MR LAMEY: It seems to me that you've got quite a good memory as to what Dirk Coetzee said at that IBI meeting Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: I've got documents, I've got three documents, you've got one and that's why I've got quite a good memory, more than you.

MR LAMEY: So you remember quite well what was said at that meeting?

MR MAMASELA: I don't remember quite well what was said in the meeting, I remember quite well what was written in some of the documents.

MR LAMEY: Can I ask you this, did ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry Mr Lamey.

Mr Mamasela, could you kindly assist us? If you've got the three documents, would you permit the evidence leader to make copies of them so that we could have it to assist the Commission in it's work?

MR MAMASELA: Mr Chairman, if I knew that they will be of vital importance to this Commission I would have brought them along.

ADV DE JAGER: So they are not here?

MR MAMASELA: They are at home, at home, I've got them Mr Chairman.

MR LAMEY: Now, do you recall that Coetzee said during that meeting that Venter hit the PEBCO 3 with an iron bar?

MR MAMASELA: No, in that meeting I don't recall that. I recall him talking about the PEBCO 3 incidents but, with Sally Sele and I was talking with a Pierre and then it's only subsequent to my looking at this document at a very later stage, that I found that: Oh, he said this in Durban.

And then I even pointed out that it's lies, it was Dirk Coetzee's lies. I even pointed that out in the Supreme Court of Durban.

MR LAMEY: And why did you go along with these lies of Coetzee, why did you confirm it?

MR MAMASELA: Confirm what?

MR LAMEY: The lies which Coetzee told to the Independent Board of Inquiry.

MR MAMASELA: Which lies?

MR LAMEY: Well, you've said that during that meeting Coetzee told certain lies and I asked you whether you confirmed it and you said: "yes", now I'm asking you why.

MR MAMASELA: Specifically we are talking about Joe Nklankla because I was called for Joe Nklankla only, not other lies. I'd not confirmed other lies.

MR LAMEY: Well, let us just then stick to Joe Nklankla ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: That will be nice for me.

MR LAMEY: Why did you confirm a lie about that matter?

MR MAMASELA: I think that that matter has been exhausted and dealt with by my honourable learned friend Mr Booyens, we exhausted that. I said the reason was that Dirk called me as a friend to help him out of a situation, of a predicament and that is the reason and I don't have reasons, I've got only that reason.

MR LAMEY: So you assisted Dirk Coetzee as a friend?

MR MAMASELA: As a friend, yes I did.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, you are on record saying that: "At Vlakplaas, under the command of Dirk Coetzee and de Kock it was hell"

I think you described it as:

"The chambers of the devil"

MR MAMASELA: That is true, life was hell for a black man, especially an Askari. Our lives were worthless there. We were beaten, we were killed. It's history, it speak for itself. More than 10 Askaris were killed there so how can I say it was heaven.

MR LAMEY: If you could just bear with me for a minute Mr Chairman.

During the interview which was recorded with Jacques Paauw and of which we have a transcript here, you had described Mr Eugene de Kock as the: "prime evil", is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: That is not correct.

MR LAMEY: Is that not where the name of the programme: "Prime Evil" comes from?

MR MAMASELA: I think you can rather ask Jacques Paauw where that name came from, he will tell you it is not the source of, Mamasela is not the source of that programme.

ADV SANDI: Can I ask Mr Lamey, where in this document does Mr Mamasela say Mr de Kock is: "prime evil"?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I'm just trying to find the relevant portion, if you could just bear with me. I want to refer to page 4 of Exhibit R, it is the - it starts of from the 4th paragraph where:


referring to Jacques Paauw asks the following question and I'm going to read it out to you Mr Mamasela:

"How would you describe Dirk Coetzee"?

the answer here is:

"Well, to me Dirk Coetzee is, like I said in Court, he is the flip side of de Kock and they are both devils"

MR MAMASELA: Yes, not: "prime evil".

MR LAMEY: Ja, just listen further Mr Mamasela.



"they are both devils but you know they cannot be equal devils, there is a lesser. I would say Coetzee is the lesser of the two devils"

MR MAMASELA: That was my honest opinion, even in my death I would always stick by that opinion.

MR LAMEY: Right. So you agree still this is not exaggeration, that is the truth?

MR MAMASELA: That is the truth as far as I'm concerned. And you were talking - you are dodging your question now. Mr Chairman asked you a nice question, where in this document is it that Mamasela said this is: "prime evil".

MR LAMEY: Well, I can ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: De Kock is a: "prime evil", where is it in this documents?

MR LAMEY: I'll explain that Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: Later, later.


MR MAMASELA: I hope you won't forget.

MR LAMEY: No, I'll do that immediately now.


MR LAMEY: You see, the name of that programme was: "Prime Evil".


MR LAMEY: And it centred around de Kock.


MR LAMEY: And here we've go a statement by you that: "they are both devils"



"but Coetzee is the lesser devil"


MR LAMEY: And therefore the logic, absolute logic conclusion is that Jacques Paauw give the title to the programme by referring to: "prime evil", namely the first devil, to de Kock.

MR MAMASELA: No, where do you get that from now?

MR LAMEY: Well, that ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: Where do you get that from?

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute. I think maybe Mr Mamasela, just hold on a bit. Please don't argue with Mr Lamey.

Mr Lamey, just put questions which will help us in getting the evidence, please.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Now in 1992 you became a reborn christian Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: We now have it that Mr Coetzee is the devil.

MR MAMASELA: He's the lessor of the two devils.

MR LAMEY: Yes. But he's just the lesser of two devils but he still remains a devil?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, in my opinion he still remains a devil.

MR LAMEY: And in 1994 after you had became a reborn christian you - and in your evidence in the Mxgenge matter in Durban, you said that in your assistance with Coetzee at the IBI, you assisted a friend.


MR LAMEY: So, what you're in fact saying Mr Mamasela, and I want to put it to you, at that time as a reborn christian you are a friend of a devil.

MR MAMASELA: Let us not play with words here. You know, when I say this man is a devil I don't mean the satan from hell. It's an adjective that describes a person with evil intentions or evil works or evil deeds, not the devil himself as you perceive it in your mind.

MR LAMEY: Well, certainly ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: It's and adjective, it's the superlative that I used.

MR LAMEY: Yes, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey with all respect, even if it's so, how would that assist us in solving the problems we've got to deal with in this matter? I'm sort of getting worried, it's often been asked in these hearings: "but you're a christian or you're a so and so". Christians are also sinners so I don't think that line of cross-examination really brings us anywhere in trying to solve what we as a Committee should try and solve here.

MR LAMEY: Yes, Mr Chairman. I just want to put it to Mr Mamasela, and that's what I'm trying to do, explain that I find it - and I want to put it to you Mr Mamasela, that I find it quite astonishing that you being a reborn christian hasn't got the morality to make an attempt to speak the truth.

You are prepared to exaggerate, as you describe it, the truth, you are prepared to assist another person in portraying false pictures to an independent board of inquiry.

ADV SANDI: That may be ...[intervention]

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, may I ...[intervention]

ADV SANDI: Sorry. That may be astonishing to you Mr Lamey but that is what he is telling us.

MR LAMEY: I won't labour that point further, I'll move on to the next point.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt but I wonder if Mr Lamey could revert to the issue in hand which relates to the PEBCO 3.

The exaggerations, the untruths have been dealt with comprehensively and extensively by both Mr Booyens and Mr du Plessis and I don't think we need to have a third cross-examiner traversing exactly the same path.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, will you bear that in mind please because I imagine if there are to be 10 counsel cross-examining a witness it doesn't mean each one of them just go back to exactly the same thing.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the same issue should be traversed 10 times. And if you could concentrate on the areas which are not covered perhaps that will take us somewhere.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mamasela, I understand also your evidence that you were a victim of the security forces throughout your involvement with them, from the days at Vlakplaas and also further on, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: I still consider myself so, even today. I'm a victim of both black and white politicians.

MR LAMEY: You were coerced to participate in all the atrocities that you participated in.

MR MAMASELA: That is true, if one did not do that one would have been killed as is the case with more than 10 Askaris who were killed in the same fashion.

MR LAMEY: And that was also the position with regard to the PEBCO 3. In your heart you were feeling remorse, you were sympathetic towards these activists, not so?

MR MAMASELA: That is natural and it is human.

MR LAMEY: I also take it Mr Mamasela, that you had to be very careful not to display that sympathy to your security officer superiors.

MR MAMASELA: What is sympathy? Sympathy means anything. If you give people food, it's sympathy, you cannot be killed for that. If you give a person water, it's sympathy, you cannot be killed for that. If you pick up somebody when he's fallen, it's sympathy, you cannot be killed for that. So would I be careful about it?

MR LAMEY: I'm just asking you Mr Mamasela, you had to be - my question is, you had to be careful not to give an impression or create a perception of sympathy for activists and the victims because that would create a perception that you are loyal towards the activists, not so?

MR MAMASELA: That's you own perception and I don't align with it.

MR LAMEY: I'm asking you Mr Mamasela, is that correct or wrong?

MR MAMASELA: No, I say it's your own perception, it's not correct and that's why I say I'm not going to align myself with that perception.

MR LAMEY: So are you saying that you would, during an incident, and I'm talking in general, you would not participate in a manner which shows that you are completely with the aim of the white security policemen?

MR NYOKA: Mr Chairman, can I chip in there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you can do that.

MR NYOKA: Mr Chairman as I recall, Mr Mogoai said he abstained after the assaults took place, to show sympathy. I don't know whether those instructions, this question comes from Mr Mogoai because he did the same thing to show sympathy. I do not understand how this question can be posed when one of his clients said so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, are you putting this question with reference to your client's version or not?

MR LAMEY: No, I'm not putting it with reference to my client's version.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if that is not with reference to your client's version can't we put it this way, unless you have problems with it.

Mr Mamasela, you would be careful not to do anything which would cause your colleagues to suspect your loyalty?

MR MAMASELA: That is definitely so Mr Chairman.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

At the time when these PEBCO 3 people were abducted from the airport and at the arrival at Post Chalmers, did you realise that they are going to be eliminated?

MR MAMASELA: This is what I said. From Pretoria when we left we knew that our mission was to go and help to eliminate political activists. And in Port Elizabeth we were briefed about the people that we wanted, that at last the plan has been worked and these people are going to be - and we were told to go back to our base to change into our operational clothing, ...[indistinct] and all that. So I knew by that time that these people were going to be killed.

MR LAMEY: So why then, if you realised that it's going to be inevitable that Mr Hashe was going to be killed, that you tried to revive him with water?

MR MAMASELA: It was a natural compulsive instinct to me because they were still cross-examining him and he was there gargling, lying and being unconscious. It was a natural reaction that took place, it happened instinctively.

MR LAMEY: Were you given an order to do that?

MR MAMASELA: I was not given an order to do that.

MR LAMEY: You acted out of your own humanitarism?

MR MAMASELA: Myself and Piet Mogoai when we jumped out, we acted on our own humanitarism, your own client.

MR LAMEY: And I also take it that you acted out of your own humanitarism when you suggested that when the food was brought in the following morning that the three people be given food.


MR LAMEY: You didn't receive an order to do that?

MR MAMASELA: No, it was a natural instinct, they were fellow humans. I did not see just black people, I saw human beings like myself who stayed the whole night without food like some of us and when I was given food I knew how they felt because I know the pains of hunger.

MR LAMEY: Well, you know that they're going to be killed and you know that, why did you care?

MR MAMASELA: I'm human and I care for other human beings. I set myself first, in the first place to liberate these people that I was forced to kill, by your own people, so it was a human compassion more than anything else.

MR LAMEY: Well Mr Mamasela, if we now assume, and what you've stated, that everyone knew that these people were going to be killed and you were informed of that prior, in other words that your superior at the Port Elizabeth security branch and Niewoudt and all of them knew that you knew that they're going to be killed, was it not a very dangerous risk that you took by showing humanitarian compassion towards the PEBCO 3 people by offering water to revive Mr Hashe and offering to take food to them?

MR MAMASELA: I will not answer that one in a way that will satisfy your curious mind but let me put it this way, I'll try to be - you feed your chickens and you kill them, you feed your cows and you still kill them so feeding a human being, what is the difference feeding a human being and an animal? What is the difference? You don't leave cows to go hungry for years because ultimately you are going to kill them.

MR LAMEY: Well, I want to put it to you Mr Mogoai ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: I'm Mr Mamasela, I'm not Mr Mogoai.

MR LAMEY: Ag Mr Mamasela, excuse me, that you didn't know that these people were going to be killed because Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole state that they didn't know that and we heard evidence by the other applicants from Port Elizabeth also that they didn't know and that there was deliberately a false perception created by them that the purpose of their abduction to Post Chalmers would be merely interrogation.

And they want to put it to you that you knew nothing more and because you knew nothing more and you thought that it was merely interrogation, that is why you felt free to try and revive Mr Hashe with water so that he can further be interrogated.

And that is also why you offered to give them food in order to get some co-operation from these people.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree with him Mr Mamasela or do you not agree with him?

MR MAMASELA: No, I don't agree at all with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, thank you.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, you went down with a contingent of Askaris not so, under the command of Captain Roelf Venter at the time, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: That is correct but we didn't use the same vehicle, he used his - the whites used their own vehicles, the blacks always used kombis.

MR LAMEY: Yes. And who normally drove the kombi?

MR MAMASELA: Your client Koole, Warrant Officer Koole.

MR LAMEY: And Mr Beeslaar was also there?

MR MAMASELA: Mr Beeslaar left with - when we left Pretoria with that contingent, Mr Beeslaar left with Venter.

MR LAMEY: Were there any other white security policemen from Vlakplaas going ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: I said I could understand only Joe Coetzer(?), I could recall only the three, Venter, Beeslaar and Coetzer.

MR LAMEY: Are you sure about Joe Coetzer?

MR MAMASELA: I'm not sure about him but I said I recall he was one of the entourage, that is why he does not fear too much on the PEBCO three and the killings because he was not there.

MR LAMEY: Was he in Port Elizabeth?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, he was in Port Elizabeth.

MR LAMEY: Are you sure?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, he was in Port Elizabeth with us but operating, taking charge of other Askaris. While Venter and Beeslaar were taking in charge of this PEBCO 3 operation, he was supervising other Askaris to go around ...[indistinct]

MR LAMEY: Do you I understand your evidence correctly previously given, that you were told to dress in dark clothes, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: That is correct, at the Port Elizabeth police station. That was on the 8th of May 1985, I do understand that.

MR LAMEY: Am I correct, is my memory correct from your evidence that you also to wear balaclavas?

MR MAMASELA: No, we were told to take night clothing, operational clothing and in my way I know that if we are going to operate at night we must use balaclavas and hand gloves and whatever.

But we did not come with our balaclavas, so if they wanted us to go the township they were going to provide us with their balaclavas because we cannot go like this in the townships without risking being identified.

MR LAMEY: Now at the stage when you left from Glen Connor to Port Elizabeth for the mission, where were the other Askaris? Did they stay behind at Glen Connor?

MR MAMASELA: No, they - you know how we used to operate, let me explain a little bit. Every morning as Askaris we will be dispatched in groups to go and operate at various stations, others will be patrolling the bus stops, others will be patrolling the railway stations, others, just maybe two or three would be patrolling drinking areas where possible insurgents can be found.

That was the norm and they will come very late at the evening, at about half past seven, 8 o'clock to come and sleep.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I'm going to interrupt you Mr Mamasela. I know you are trying to explain but to the question, they were not there or were they there or where were they? Just tell him where the other Askaris were.

MR MAMASELA: They were not there, I don't know where they were, they were working.

MR LAMEY: When you returned to Glen Connor, were you and Mogoai and Koole alone with Venter and Beeslaar?

MR MAMASELA: I don't understand the question. When we returned where, from where?

MR LAMEY: Before you went to Port Elizabeth on the 1st day of the mission.

MR MAMASELA: From the Port Elizabeth police station when we were told to go back to our bases to where ...[intervention]

MR LAMEY: Ja, did you go back to Glen Connor?

MR MAMASELA: We went back to Glen Connor, yes.

MR LAMEY: Were there other Askaris there?

MR MAMASELA: No, it was myself, Koole and Piet Mogoai.

MR LAMEY: Which bus did you, which mini-bus did you have to take?

MR MAMASELA: We were using this - for the operation itself we were using a Husky mini-bus, blue in colour with filtered windows but like I said, when we landed there we were using small sedan cars.

The whites said: "Go back to the base, go and change", we used a sedan car and they came later on to fetch us with the Husky bus.

MR LAMEY: With what vehicle did you drive from Glen Connor to Port Elizabeth?

MR MAMASELA: It was one the sedan vehicles, the small sedan vehicles that was issued to us on our arrival there.

MR LAMEY: So you drove with a sedan vehicle to Port Elizabeth?

MR MAMASELA: With a sedan, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: I don't know whether you're on the same page, when you came from Glen Connor on the 8th to the airport, isn't that what you're talking about Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Yes, the ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] came back from Glen Connor on the 8th for the operation, what car did you travel in then?

MR MAMASELA: No, from Glen Connor to the operation?


MR MAMASELA: The white commanders fetched us with a Husky minibus with tinted windows.

MR LAMEY: Who are you referring to, who fetched you with this minibus with the tinted windows?

MR MAMASELA: That was Venter and Beeslaar.

MR LAMEY: So they came to Glen Connor to fetch you with that minibus.


ADV SANDI: Was not police office from Port Elizabeth with one of them?

MR MAMASELA: No, I didn't see anyone at that stage, no.

MR LAMEY: Now on that same day before you were called or instructed at the Port ELizabeth security branch to participate in this mission, this operation, what were you doing before that?

MR MAMASELA: Before participating in the operation?

MR LAMEY: No, before you were instructed at the Port Elizabeth security branch, what were your daily tasks on that day, what were you doing?

MR MAMASELA: No, on the day, for about two or three days prior to that we were helping them to interrogate a detainee by the name of Toto Sithole.

MR LAMEY: No, on that same day, what general tasks did you do before you received the instructions about this mission?

MR MAMASELA: We were still busy with Toto Sithole when the head of the security branch came to us, congratulated us for at least managing to - get Mr Sithole to co-operate with them.

It is then that he came out with this information that at last they managed to made a major breakthrough because they intercepted the conversation telephonically and blah, blah, and that these people were going to be at the airport the same day so we were told the same day, on the 8th of May.

MR LAMEY: Were you at any time during, since your arrival in Port Elizabeth, involved in the daily normal patrols of which Askaris were used for to identify MK insurgents?

MR MAMASELA: No, the three of us we were never involved in that because already we knew our special operation because the seniors made sure the three of us remained behind by saying: "We are going to help the Port Elizabeth security police to interrogate somebody".

So that excuse was always used. The others knew that we were working at the police station to help to interrogate some other detainees whilst they were going on with their patrols.

MR LAMEY: So, do I take it correctly that you and Piet Mogoai and Koole were involved in interrogation?


MR LAMEY: Well, I want to put it to you that that is denied by both Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole. They say they were involved in the normal daily patrols in Port Elizabeth.

MR MAMASELA: I'm not surprised if they deny that, they've denied almost everything of vital importance in this, I'm not surprised. And then I even dealt with this matter yesterday by challenging all of you to get the record of Port Elizabeth and to see whether a detainee by the name of Toto Sithole was detained their on that particular month or not and then we can clarify this matter once and for all.

MR LAMEY: So his name was Toto and his surname was Sithole.

MR MAMASELA: Sithole, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I'm not sure why we went back to asking him: "What were you doing at the time when you were told about this mission on the 8th, at that particular time, what were you doing, what was your routine.

I mean yesterday there was such a huge argument, in fact perhaps not argument but I remember at some stage the witness repeated things so many times, he even said: "Well Sithole is still alive, we can go and ask him". And then we went back to this same thing again.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Mr Chairman, I won't - this name of Toto was actually just now mentioned by Mr Mamasela. I wasn't actually focusing on that, I was focusing on their daily tasks before they were called for this specific operation.

Now this minibus, the Husky, to whom did that belong or who was using that before Venter and Beeslaar came with that to Glen Connor to pick you up?

MR MAMASELA: No, the other units were using that bus.

MR LAMEY: Was it a Vlakplaas vehicle?

MR MAMASELA: It was a Vlakplaas vehicle yes.

MR LAMEY: Was it perhaps the vehicle that Peggy Gadebe used there?

MR MAMASELA: It might probably be the one.

MR LAMEY: Because that is what Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai stated, that they were instructed to use Peggy Gadebe's minibus who had dark windows.

MR MAMASELA: No. That vehicle was issued out to Warrant Officer Koole but when we were there Peggy Gadebe, because he was transporting a quantity, quite a number of Askaris, then the vehicle was given to him and then we were issued with a sedan because we were only three for this special help with the Port Elizabeth Police.

I don't know whether Venter or Beeslaar arranged with Peggy to take his kombi to come and fetch us with that kombi because they came with the kombi.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, were the Askaris as a group and individuals while with - during their involvement at Vlakplaas, were they under surveillance and under continuous suspicion, were they trusted?

MR MAMASELA: It depends on what you call trusted because Askaris like I said, they were never considered as humans, we were never considered as humans. And we were only trusted as far as killing of the black people by us is concerned, further than that we were never trusted.

MR LAMEY: Now this oppression of the Askaris, did that lead to some form of brotherhood among the Askaris?

MR MAMASELA: I don't know what you mean by "brotherhood among Askaris". Each and every Askari that was at Vlakplaas had to survive by all means, whether his survival centred around the brotherhood of other Askaris or in ...[indistinct] himself with other black policemen like Koole or in ...[indistinct] himself like in my case with the Generals, it was purely for survival, everybody had to survive.

So it was not a uniform overall survival tactic, everybody, every individual had his own survival instinct that he used to survive.

MR LAMEY: But I mean you were there Mr Mamasela, you surely could have - you've witnessed what Askaris did. If they were oppressed by their white superiors, I would take it that they were brothers in this oppression?

MR MAMASELA: Not really man. Let me tell you something, these people that you are representing, most of them, they used a divide and rule tactic. They sent an Askari to check on another Askari, they even sent Askaris to kill other Askaris, so what are you talking about? I was there, like you say.

MR LAMEY: You were not known to the Port Elizabeth security branch, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: No, I was not known and I did not know them too.

MR LAMEY: They did not, because you were not known to them and you and Piet Mogoai and Koole, I take it that they couldn't have blindly trusted you.

MR MAMASELA: It was not a member of them trusting Mamasela, Koole or Piet Mogoai for that matter, it was them our commanders, Colonel Roelf Venter because it is them who asked the head office to come and help them sort out a problem, that's why we went there so it was not a matter of them trusting us, it's a matter of them asking help from us to help them.

MR LAMEY: Why do you think were you and Mogoai singled out among the other Askaris?

MR MAMASELA: Most probably maybe the man who singled them out, because like I told you, Koole is the lapdog of Colonel Venter so he was an automatic choice and myself and Mogoai, it's probably because I did not drink and maybe I did some other missions, I had experience, I could be trusted, maybe that's why we were put here But with Koole definitely he was an automatic choice. With us I cannot give you one explanation why we were chosen.

MR LAMEY: Why would Koole be an automatic choice?

MR MAMASELA: He's the lapdog of his Colonel Venter.

MR LAMEY: So you were not the lapdog of Colonel Venter?

MR MAMASELA: No, I have never been, I will never be and shall never allow myself to be.

MR LAMEY: Mr Koole must have portrayed or must have actually acted in a manner before or in front, in the presence of Colonel Venter, for you to say that he was a lapdog.

MR MAMASELA: Like I've explained elaborately yesterday, Koole and Venter worked together for many years in Thabazimbi. When Venter was transferred from Thabazimbi to Pretoria he took his lapdog with him. When Venter who - I exposed Venter's activities, third force activities and Venter ran away from the police taking a package, his lapdog followed suit.

MR LAMEY: And Piet Mogoai?

CHAIRPERSON: What about him?

MR LAMEY: And Piet Mogoai, was he also the lapdog of Venter?


MR LAMEY: Piet Mogoai.

MR MAMASELA: Piet Mogoai was a lapdog of Colonel Koos Vermeulen.

MR LAMEY: I'm asking you about Venter.

MR MAMASELA: No, not Venter, Koos Vermeulen. Koos Vermeulen and Venter, they worked together so they will always say: "Take my man, that's my man. Take that man, that's my man". Like myself, I was the lapdog of Brigadier Cronjè.

CHAIRPERSON: But I thought a short while ago you said you'd never be anybody's lapdog.

MR MAMASELA: A lapdog of Colonel Venter, I know myself too.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh I see, I see.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, whose lapdog did you say you were there?

MR MAMASELA: Of Brigadier Cronjè.

MR LAMEY: So were you not coerced and oppressed by Brigadier Cronjè while you served under his command?

MR MAMASELA: I became his lapdog because I had to ingratiate myself to him so that I can survive like I am surviving today. Had I not done that I would have long been killed.

MR LAMEY: Was that not necessary to do that at Vlakplaas?

MR MAMASELA: Brigadier Cronjè was at Vlakplaas, what do you mean? He was at Vlakplaas.

MR LAMEY: Oh I see, so already at Vlakplaas you became his lapdog?

MR MAMASELA: Definitely. For survival, yes I became his lapdog.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, do I remember correctly that you stated under evidence previously that you arrived in Port Elizabeth approximately on the 3rd ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what are we doing about this question of lapdogs, what point are me making out of it? Because it is hanging, we are just asked and told, lots of questions are asked about who is whose lapdog and all that and while we are still listening then we move to something else. What is the point that is being made here?

MR LAMEY: Perhaps I ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Or were you worried about your client being described as a lapdog? Or were you trying to make the point that your client is not a lapdog?

MR LAMEY: Well, I'll come back to that Mr Chairman, I ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Let's finalise it, I don't think we should go on like this. If your client's version is that he is not a lapdog then let's put it to him and say to him that Mr so and so will deny that he was a lapdog, at least then the point is made and at least we will know why all these many questions about the issue of lapdog.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, you also said in your evidence that, and I take it you referred in the direction of Mr Koole yesterday when you said that, that the permanent policemen such as Koole were also used to keep a watch over the Askaris, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: That was definitely part of their job description.

MR LAMEY: So they were more in the camp and absorbed by a security, white security policemen and the system than the Askaris, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, they were what I would classify as the: "house niggers".

MR LAMEY: What do you mean by that?

MR MAMASELA: Exactly what we have defined now.

MR LAMEY: What do you mean by saying: "house niggers"?

MR MAMASELA: They were completely incorporated into the system of the whites and they did it willingly.

MR LAMEY: Bearing in mind that you were oppressed and you acted and you were self a victim, you must have had feelings of vengeance towards the white security policemen and the black permanent policemen which you described as: "house niggers".

MR MAMASELA: I'm not a vengeful man by nature, I'm not vengeful and I'm gong to demonstrate that very late, after you're finished, that I'm not a vengeful person. I'm not a vindictive person.

CHAIRPERSON: I think let's leave it there Mr Mamasela. If he wants to know more about that he will ask you.

MR LAMEY: But with all these years of oppression and the fact that you were a victim, did you know hate the security policemen for that and the black security policemen who were part and parcel of that?

MR MAMASELA: In the initial stages when I went to the African National Congress to join them I hated the system, I hated the system for what it stood for when I left this country to receive military training.

When I came back I still had that hatred but when my own commander, my own Transvaal ...[indistinct] commander, Siko Makopo sold me out on a platter to these boers then I started to do some re-introspection about who is the real enemy of the black people. I found that the real enemy of the black people were black people themselves, not necessarily white people. The blacks themselves are the real enemy of themselves.

MR LAMEY: But did your feeling then towards the white security policemen and the white system that the day represented, did that change?

MR MAMASELA: It couldn't change, it worsened because I was tortured, savaged by them, how can it change?

MR LAMEY: Did you not hate them for that?

MR MAMASELA: Obviously you cannot love a man who tortures you and punches at your testicles and put the electronic shocks at you, would you love that type of a person? He's an animal, you cannot love him. You cannot expect that type of a man who does that to me.

MR LAMEY: And you say that you realised that there were lots of enemies among black people, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: Enemies what?

MR LAMEY: You realised, after you had been betrayed, that there's lot's of enemies among ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: No, don't put words into my mouth that I do not say. If you do not hear me properly, you must ask me: "Mr Mamasela, can you please repeat"? I said it then dawned in my mind that the black man's real enemy is another black man.


MR MAMASELA: Yes. Not that there were many enemies among the black people. We are the worst oppressors of ourselves.


MR MAMASELA: We sell each other like hell.

MR LAMEY: And a person like Mamasela, ag, a person like Mr Koole who was a permanent force member would you regard him as one of those enemies of the black people?

MR MAMASELA: Mr Koole, for your information, you don't know the information of your own client. Mr Koole was never a commanded member of the South African police force, Mr Koole was the Chief of Ordinance of my organisation, the ANC in Botswana.

He went A.W.O.L. (Absence without Leave) from the liberation struggle, he ran to South Africa and then he took out 17 trunks(?) of the DLB's of our struggle and gave them to the boers. So he was never a commander, a member of the SAP, it was your client Koole who was, not him. You don't your client.

MR LAMEY: Are you referring to Mr Mogoai or are you referring to Mr Koole?

MR MAMASELA: Mr Mogoai, you said Mr Mogoai.

MR LAMEY: No, I said Mr Koole.

MR MAMASELA: No, Mr Koole himself was a commanded member, not Mr Mogoai.

MR LAMEY: Yes, Mr ...[indistinct] Now you say - I'm asking you, is Mr Koole one of those, being a permanent force member of the security police, was he one of those traitors, the enemies of the black people?

MR MAMASELA: No, I wouldn't describe him as traitors and enemies man, I said he was specifically brought to Vlakplaas to oversee and to monitor and to spy on Askaris, it was his job description.

MR LAMEY: For doing that, was he not regarded as an enemy?


MR LAMEY: By the Askaris and by you?

MR MAMASELA: No, we were working together with him, that's why we killed the perpetrators together with him, how can we regard him as an enemy?

MR LAMEY: No, but you were forced to do that Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: No, he was there also, we were there, whether we were forced to kill, we are killers, we killed.

MR LAMEY: You're not answering the question Mr Mamasela. I'm asking ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think he said: no, he didn't regard him as an enemy, that is why he was able to kill with him.

MR LAMEY: Well the fact Mr Mamasela that he was the one who spied on the Askaris, did you not hate him for that?

MR MAMASELA: No, I put it clear that Askaris themselves, we were also set against each other to an extent of other Askaris killing other Askaris, this is what I said. I said I realised that the greatest enemy of a black man is another black man, myself included.

MR LAMEY: Now yesterday you referred to Mr Koole as his master's voice, Venter's lapdog, when you ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that true.

MR LAMEY: When you were put certain statements of the evidence by Mr du Plessis to you, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: That is absolutely correct and I still do even now.

MR LAMEY: I also remember, if my memory serves me correctly, that you said that in the context that the version of Mr Koole is made up to coincide with his master and the other applicants, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: Absolutely.

MR LAMEY: On what grounds do you say that?

MR MAMASELA: On the ground that Koole collaborated. He was merely here to collaborate about the watch, that he saw me steel the watch and sell it to Warrant Officer Beeslaar for R30. So that is why I say the crux, the gist of his statement was, he personally saw Mamasela steal the watch from one of the deceased, Mr Hashe.

And I stole the watch and I went to police officer, a white police officer and then I sold it to him and he is a Warrant Officer of 27 years police experience and I was just a mere Askari. Why didn't he arrest me there and then? And if you steal something the last person you want to see is a policeman, especially a white policeman.

Now Mamasela steals and he goes to a white policeman and here's a veteran of 27 years in the police force watching and rubbing his hands gleefully and congratulating Mamasela. Ten years, he says: "No I saw Mamasela steal". I mean that's bungledash you know, you can see for yourself.

MR LAMEY: So what you're saying, if - do I understand the gist of your evidence here correctly, that Mr Koole is deliberately implicating you in the theft of that watch because he's still a collaborator with the white security policemen?

MR MAMASELA: No, you are making - you are painting a political picture as if I'm a big politician, I'm taking the system, no, no, no, it's not like that.

Let's put things in their proper perspective. I am saying and I want you to perceive me to be saying Mr Koole's submission to the Commission was mainly to collaborate his master Beeslaar, that he saw Mamasela steal and then the watch and then sell it to Beeslaar. He's the one who says that.

Now I am saying because the dispute of the watch is between me and Beeslaar, here comes his master's voice and jumps into the fry and says: "Yes, I also saw", that is my perception. Not that the whole security forces, the system, no, no, no, don't try to enlarge what I'm saying.

MR LAMEY: Well, are you referring also to Beeslaar as his master's voice?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, his master's voice has no name, he's just his master's voice. Whether you're the master's voice of Beeslaar, of Venter, of whoever, you are his master's voice irrespective.

MR LAMEY: Now if you understand, and I'm not saying that because the evidence wasn't that as you stated it, but is you understand that Koole testified that you stole the watch from Hashe and sold it to Beeslaar, isn't he then also implicating Beeslaar in receiving stolen goods?

MR MAMASELA: No, he's not implicating him. You know it's a difference to say: "he receives stolen goods", it's a lesser charge than to say: "he stole". Receiving stolen goods is different from stealing goods.

MR LAMEY: But he's still implicating him in an offence by stating that he received stolen goods.

MR MAMASELA: In a lesser offence and he's also implicating himself being a bona fide member of the South African police with 27 years experience. To see a crime being to committed and he decides to look the other way, he is also implicating himself for negligence.

ADV SANDI: I'm sorry Mr Lamey, can you just clarify this before there's more confusion on top of confusion. Was it not Mogoai who said this in his evidence, this story about the watch, Mamasela having stolen the watch and sold it to Beeslaar?

MR MAMASELA: It's Koole.

MR LAMEY: I can't now remember whether that was an aspect which was also testified by Mr Mogoai but I remember that Mr Koole stated that during the unconsciousness of Mr Hashe the watch was taken from his arm and then later he overheard a discussion about a price of the watch between Beeslaar and Mr Mamasela.

ADV SANDI: I seem to recall that it was Mogoai, anyway I may be wrong.

MR LAMEY: May I just check that?

ADV DE JAGER: As far as I could see from the applications, there's no application for amnesty for the theft of a watch. ...[sound switched off] We've been on this for an half an hour now and there's no application for amnesty so I think if you could try and finish this part so that we can come to the real issue please.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

Now apart from this watch Mr Mamasela, is it also your impression here that Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole - what I want to put to you, that in all essential respects their version differs vastly from your version.

If I say that to you, is it your conclusion in your mind that they are telling a story to the Amnesty Committee to fit the versions of the other white security applicants?

MR MAMASELA: I don't want to put black and white applicants, an applicant is an applicant as far as I'm concerned, I want to concentrate on the truth. The truth of the matter is, it is clear in the amnesty application that you must satisfy two categories. First you must make sure that the crimes you committed were of a political nature and secondly, you were doing it for a particular organisation.

Now, most of the crimes these people committed were of a criminal nature, not a political nature, so in order to get amnesty they are trying to politicise the criminality and that is where now we get these problems.

That is the gist of my statement, that's where you get different versions.

Some people they want to say: "Those people they were political giants, they belong to the ANC, we had a duty as security policemen to arrest or to kill them", whilst on the other hand we know for a fact that it's not an ...[indistinct] that those people were not ANC people, they were ordinary residents of Port Elizabeth. They belonged to PEBCO.

They spent their long suffering twin lives in the townships, they never left the country for military training.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mamasela, I'm going to have to stop you there.

MR LAMEY: I want to repeat that question Mr Mamasela because you haven't answered it directly. Is it your impression that Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole are making attempts to fit the version of the other applicants because they're still instruments and their master's voice and lapdogs ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I will not allow that question to be framed that way because I'm not sure whether Mr Mamasela has heard what the other applicants said. So you want him to contrast the evidence of Mogoai and Koole with that of Venter and others and I'm not sure whether - I know he wasn't here when the other people testified.

We can reframe hit and ask him: "Do you think that Koole and Mogoai, or in particular - I don't know, is it Mogoai, could he have come here to try and give evidence which would be in line or the same as that of Colonel Venter and Beeslaar"?

MR MAMASELA: I will definitely think so Mr Chairman, because they were buddies from many years ago.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, apart now from Mr Venter and Beeslaar, would you also think that they would try and bring it in line with the version of the other applicants from Port Elizabeth?

MR MAMASELA: I wouldn't know that but my third force experience tells me they will only align themselves with what their masters tell them to. If their masters say: "Yes, collaborate also those statements", they will do that but if their masters say: "No, no, no, Port Elizabeth is Port Elizabeth, Pretoria is Pretoria, they will do as their masters please.

MR LAMEY: Now Mr Mamasela, I want to ask you now, what is your comment if I state to you that in contradiction with the evidence of Mr Venter and Beeslaar, both Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai place them on the scene at Post Chalmers from the first evening right throughout the second day up to their departure, that is the departure of you two Askaris and Mr Koole on the 3rd day and they also, in contradiction with the evidence of Venter and Beeslaar, implicate them also in the assaults on Mr Hashe and Mr Godolozi. Would you be surprised to hear that?

MR MAMASELA: I wouldn't be surprised to hear that. I've explained even yesterday about the Klopper/Cloete(?) syndrome of the Kwamakuta. People can come and play around and create some doubts and create some reasonable doubts of grounds of justifications and just to throw the whole thing into disarray.

I don't say they are doing that but we mustn't be caught with the same syndrome of the Malan tribe(?). So I really wouldn't say what was in the mind of an applicant when an applicant applied for amnesty, I'm not God. It's impossible for me ...[indistinct], to can put myself in the work of God, I'm not God I wouldn't know. I wouldn't even have a clue.

MR LAMEY: But you Mr Mamasela, has described them still today as being the lapdogs and their master's voice.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, they are and they know it and they know that I was a lapdog of Cronjè.

MR LAMEY: Now if that is so, why would they contradict the evidence of Mr Venter and Mr Beeslaar?

MR MAMASELA: That's a good question but you are asking it to the wrong person. Why don't you ask your client why did do they?

ADV SANDI: I'm sorry, Mr Lamey I think we would have to be careful how we go about putting this to the witness. As I understand him he is not saying the two applicants, that is your clients, have been told what to say in their applications but he says his experience tells him that they most probably tell a story that would sort of coincide with the story of those people whom he has said they are is lapdogs.

Isn't that what you're saying Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: That's absolutely correct Mr Chairman.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, the only aspect - and I won't argue with the witness further and I won't take the point further but the point that I want to elicit from his evidence in which I will argue is apparent, is that he's got a certain perception about Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai, he is biased towards them, he still regards them as their master's voice on no grounds whatsoever and that indicates the attitude of the witness towards the applicants that I represent. But I won't take the matter further Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: No, let's put it to him ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: I want to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Let us put it to him.

Mr Lamey is putting it to you that you are biased against his client, I think it's Koole and Mogoai and that's why you say certain things about them.

MR MAMASELA: Mr Chairman with due respect, there is no way I was an Askari can be biased against another Askari, a fellow Askari like Mr Mogoai and I have described them as lapdogs of both Venter and Vermeulen including myself as a lapdog of Cronjè, so where is bias there?

CHAIRPERSON: So you are saying you are not biased against them?

MR MAMASELA: I'm not biased Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And also he is saying that by reason of the fact that you hated - he's saying you hated the system because you had been tortured by the security police of which Mr Koole was part and therefore you had an attitude generally towards the security branch, that is why you would certain things which would harm Mr Koole.

MR MAMASELA: That is pure nonsense Mr Chairman, to a -in a sense that I have never ...[indistinct] and in a blanket form alleged atrocities to, and attributed them to the security forces per se generally.

I had always been specific and consistent in all my allegations, that I was with this and this and I was with Vlakplaas. I don't know generally of other security forces, I only spoke about Vlakplaas and Kompol where I was stationed, where I had my own personal experiences that were never generalised.

I know as a matter of fact and I want to put it on record, that 99% of policemen, black and white, are innocent law abiding citizens whose main concern is to serve and to protect innocent people. It is only us, 1%, less than 1% of people like myself and Mogoai who were the ...[indistinct] in the thorn of the flesh of the forces.

Today these poor uniformed policemen are getting killed like flies for crimes they did not commit, people hate them for our crimes. If that makes me biased so be it.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, yes Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, to come back to Post Chalmers, is your evidence that you were left, you and Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole were left alone with the PEBCO 3 deceased on the first evening to guard them?

MR MAMASELA: That is a fact.

MR LAMEY: Where were they taken? Where were they kept overnight?

MR MAMASELA: They were kept in that shed I described as a long garage and they were chained inside there.

MR LAMEY: You described that shed, it's a shed-like double garage.


MR LAMEY: What do you mean by double garage?

MR MAMASELA: It has a big door, a big almost like a garage door but it was a wooden door and it was very long and inside there was fodder, there was horses fodder packed somewhere there.

MR LAMEY: And how did you guard them?

MR MAMASELA: I think Piet Mogoai and Koole chained them somewhere on the floor or whatever, there was some stuff where you can chain your horse, they were chained like horses there.

And then we slept in the kombi outside and locking the door and there was a small little window that - we parked our kombi straight to that window that we can hear any movement inside.

MR LAMEY: You say Piet Mogoai and Koole chained them?


MR LAMEY: To something that looked like horses.

MR MAMASELA: No, I said ...[intervention]

MR LAMEY: No, something that horses are chained to?

MR MAMASELA: Ja, it was something like that but it was in the evening, I can never describe that particular place well.

MR LAMEY: Were you not ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: We had a word for it last time, what is it? Can somebody help us? We had a word for that thing that the horses were tied. Mr Brink? A horse something? Mr Nyoka?

MR NYOKA: What is that, can you repeat Mr Chairman? Can you repeat?

CHAIRPERSON: That object onto which you tie your horse, on which we were told some of them were tied. Mrs Hartle? Well alright, we will get it during tea time. Yes, go on.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, but the following day when it got light, did you see to what they were tied to?

MR MAMASELA: I went with Piet Mogoai and he untied them and then I came out, I can't describe that thing so well. I don't want to tell lies, I can't recall the place so well.

MR LAMEY: Is it a type of a ring?

MR MAMASELA: No, I can't describe it, don't put words into my mouth, I'm afraid. I don't want to ...[intervention]

MR LAMEY: I'm just trying to ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: No, no, no, I don't want to commit myself. I can't describe it well.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't one of your clients say the same thing, that they were tied onto a particular object?

MR LAMEY: Yes indeed Mr Chairman, the evidence was that Mr Hashe was handcuffed and he also had chains and at a certain stage they were tied to rings in the wall but I ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: So there's not dispute about that?

MR LAMEY: No Mr Chairman, there is a big discrepancy which I would like to come to.

CHAIRPERSON: Not about the ring anyway? I'm just wondering, why do you want him - why are you so persistent about him describing that something? We know that there was something onto which they were tied, whether it was round or triangular or yellow or white, does it really matter? You know one of your clients said that.

ADV SANDI: That was Mr Mogoai.

MR LAMEY: Yes, indeed Mr Chairman, but I just want to come back to the locality because, and I don't want to divulge this to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he can't describe it anyway because he didn't take proper notice of it.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[indistinct] handcuffed in this or chained to an object in this double garage as you call it.

MR MAMASELA: ...[inaudible]

ADV DE JAGER: And were all three of them kept in the double garage?

MR MAMASELA: That is absolutely correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think one of the applicants, I think Mr Mogoai as far as I can remember the impression I got from his evidence was that the room in which they were chained and the object onto which they were tied or one of them was tied was attached to a house or something like that, to a main house.

MR MAMASELA: No, there were houses there nearby, this was a shed, they were inside the shed. I don't know whether there was a house inside the shed, I have never seen a house inside the shed.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, could you please refer to the bundle of photographs, Exhibit P?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, what is your client's version, where was this? Where lies the dispute? Can you identify for us because we can't recall details of the evidence but maybe you do because you're keeping constant touch with your own clients.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, if you will allow me I will put the version of my clients too, but I just want to elicit Mr Mamasela's version about this before I put the version.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if you think there is a lot which is going to turn about mislocating the ring onto which they were tied you can go on.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

Do you have the bundle in front of you Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I've got the bundle.

MR LAMEY: Exhibit P? Could you indicate the garage where these three people were kept on the first night?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, the photo 11, the long shed that is garage-like. That is exactly the place that I know of, that I've seen.

MR LAMEY: Were you and Piet Mogoai and Koole constantly, over this whole period that you were at Post Chalmers, together?

MR MAMASELA: We were together yes.

MR LAMEY: Did you ever enter one of the houses on the premises?

MR MAMASELA: Not necessarily really enter, most of the houses that are on the premises were locked. The only house -he only place that was open, it was a sort of a cell-like place. It was the only one that was always with the door wide open but we could see it was old cells that used to keep people, we never kept those people there.

MR LAMEY: Can you identify these cells that you refer to on the photographs?

MR MAMASELA: They are not here but I think when I took the police there they even took those cells photos because they were still open, the door was still open, so I can't see it properly here.

ADV DE JAGER: Photo 7 or 12, what would that be?

MR MAMASELA: It is not the same thing, I don't think it's the same thing.

MR LAMEY: I think you must refer to Exhibit P Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: My eyesight is not so good but - I wouldn't be certain but I will say, in the aerial photograph in photo 1, I would say in my opinion the cells were somewhere in B because they were nearer the house that was used as a main police station.

Next to that house that was used as a police station, just a few paces on the right hand side you'll find that little house with cells. I will take my guess it's an aerial photograph, I cannot be certain.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mamasela, I'm going to show you photo number 3 in this booklet, if you can look at it. Do you see that house?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, this was the house that was used as a police station, there were no cells inside this house.

CHAIRPERSON: The first evening, was anyone of the deceased taken into that house?

MR MAMASELA: No, the house was locked. All other premises and that were locked. The only thing that we used was that shed. There were keys and it was a chain-like, thick chain around that with a lock.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as you can remember, was anyone of the deceased at any time ever taken to that house?

MR MAMASELA: No, I've never seen any deceased being taken to this house.

CHAIRPERSON: So if somebody were to come and give evidence to that effect, would you agree or disagree with that?

MR MAMASELA: No, I would completely disagree with that.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, on that same bundle which you just had, can you just have a look at - it is Exhibit B I believe. Could you have a look at photograph number 7?

MR MAMASELA: These are the cells I'm talking about. These are the cells, they are not in that house, they a little bit further from the house.

MR LAMEY: Yes, we don't dispute that.

MR MAMASELA: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: Now could you have a look back to Exhibit P, the other bundle of photographs, Exhibit P.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I've got it.

MR LAMEY: Can you look at photograph number 7?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I see that.

MR LAMEY: Do you recognise that building?

MR MAMASELA: The new building, I see it is a new building when I went there the last time. When we were there in 1985 this building was not there ...[intervention]

MR LAMEY: Are you looking at photograph number 7?


MR LAMEY: Now I want to put it to you that photograph number 7 on Exhibit B and photograph number 7 on Exhibit ...[intervention]


CHAIRPERSON: Sorry which photos are you comparing?

MR LAMEY: Photograph number 7 on the blue bundle of photographs which was handed in by Mr Niewoudt comparing that photograph ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] 2 Mr Lamey, it's called volume 2, the blue bundle, the one with the map in front. It's the one with the map in front yes.

MR LAMEY: I'm comparing photograph number 7 on that blue bundle with photograph number 7 in Exhibit P.


ADV DE JAGER: Isn't that the same building Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: Mr Chairman, as you can well see there's an extensive renovation of the building, how will I know? I last saw the building in 1985, now it's extensively ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: No, but the only thing I'm asking is, the two photographs both before numbered number 7, isn't that the photo of the same building, the two doors, the one is a nearer one, there's the tree, look at the roof ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: No, I said I identified this one, I don't want to commit myself Mr Chairman because the next thing I'll be tying myself into a knot. I will always stick with what I believe in. Photograph number 7 in this is the place, this one I'm not sure, it's renovated, I'm I don't know, it might be it as far as I'm concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think Mr Lamey, it's a fair comment. If you compare them, the one thing you see at once in the photo number 7 in Exhibit B, I think you said Exhibit B, I see open doors with a blue colour inside and on photograph number 7 of P the doors are closed and they look red.

Possibly also even on the previous one they are red from outside, I don't know but it's just that they are open and in P7 we have got a more fuller picture of the building whereas in the other one the picture of the building is not complete, it's not that complete.

One gets the feeling that is the same building but as the witness says, he can't commit himself and I think it's a fact.

MR LAMEY: But Mr Mamasela, you've also indicated on the aerial photograph that the cells are number B on photograph number 1 of Exhibit P, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: I said I'm not sure, I'm not a good reader of aerial photography but I took a guess and my guess is it will be this one. If it is not so be it, if it is I'm happy.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you can put your question on the assumption that it is the same building.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, now I want to refer you still to Exhibit P photograph number 8 and photograph number 9 and 10. Do you see that?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I see that.

MR LAMEY: Do you recognise that building?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I recognise it.

MR LAMEY: You saw it at the time when you were at Post Chalmers?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, but it did not look like this it was red, it was just bricks and it was not painted white and the roof was not painted silver it was red. It was stones, red stones and the red roof, it was not painted like this when I saw it in 1985.

MR LAMEY: Did you ever enter that building which is shown on photograph number 8?

MR MAMASELA: No, it was always locked.

MR LAMEY: It was always locked?

MR MAMASELA: Ja. There was a board indicating that it - Old Cradock Police or whatever, police office of police station yes, nearby.

MR LAMEY: How do you know it was locked?

MR MAMASELA: It was locked, you could see even the doors from outside, it was locked. We tried to open other buildings around, they were locked, we wanted water.

MR LAMEY: So I take it that Mr Mogoai and Koole wasn't able to enter that building?

MR MAMASELA: In my opinion it was always locked. If they entered it then it's their own funeral. They will tell you how they entered it because in my opinion it was locked.

MR LAMEY: I see. Now can you have a look at photograph number 13?


MR LAMEY: I want to, on Exhibit P, I want you specifically - you can see it's a renovated, well it's a furnished room or something.

MR MAMASELA: Extensively renovated, yes.

MR LAMEY: Right. Can you see those rings there in the wall?


MR LAMEY: Does that resemble the type of horse things that these PEBCO 3 were chained to?

MR MAMASELA: I'm not sure about this stuff, I don't want to commit myself, I've said it before. It was at night and mostly Piet was the one who was having the keys to unchain these people and to chain them, I don't want to commit myself.

MR LAMEY: Who had the keys to unchain them?

MR MAMASELA: Piet Mogoai.

MR LAMEY: And who took the PEBCO 3 people out the following day during the daylight?

MR MAMASELA: Myself and Piet. I said it throughout, it was myself and Piet.

MR LAMEY: Now were you not able to see to what they were chained?

MR MAMASELA: No. I cannot recollect a little minute chains, I don't commit myself. I don't want to commit myself.

MR LAMEY: You took all three of them out, you and Piet Mogoai only?

MR MAMASELA: No, not all three me and Piet Mogoai only, Godolozi, Sipho Hashe I think they went to fetch him while I was doing the breakfast file. He was brought by Piet and Koole I suppose, this is what I said. And then I was told with Piet Mogoai to go and fetch Godolozi and to fetch Champion Galela.

MR LAMEY: Are you sure that Mr Hashe was also in the garage?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I'm sure, they were all three in that shed.

MR LAMEY: The whole time?

MR MAMASELA: At all material times to the best of my recollection.

MR LAMEY: And it was in this garage and this shed that their bodies were thrown into, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, yes.

MR LAMEY: Now Mr Mogoai testified that upon arrival at Post Chalmers somebody said: "Take Galela to the cells", can you recall that?

MR MAMASELA: No, that's nonsense, the cells doors were wide open, there were no keys for the cells. They were dilapidated, you couldn't keep a person there.

MR LAMEY: I see. Now, Mr Mamasela, Mr Mogoai further testified that Mr Hashe was tied to these rings, the rings in a room.

MR MAMASELA: It depends on what you call a room, a shed can be a room also, it can be called a room.

MR LAMEY: A room in a house?

MR MAMASELA: In a house? No. I don't know but I know of a shed. If he calls a shed a house ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, I've already put that to him a few minutes ago, he denied that and he said that as far as he is concerned that is not true.

MR LAMEY: Now what I want to put to you further Mr Mamasela is that these rings that you see on photograph number 13 - can you just have a look at photograph number 13 Exhibit P?

MR MAMASELA: I've seen that, wherein you said it's ...[indistinct] all that, I've seen that picture.

MR LAMEY: And I will lead further evidence if necessary but I want to put it to you now that that is a room in the house shown on photograph number 8. Can you look at photograph number 8?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I've told you I've seen the house, it was a what what and it was locked, I've never in there, I cannot comment on things that I don't know. I have never been in there myself and I've never seen anybody entering and coming out of there.

MR LAMEY: And you and Mogoai and Koole were always together?

MR MAMASELA: Always together.

MR LAMEY: Yes. So, and it wasn't possible to go into that house because it was locked?


MR LAMEY: Yes. Now if that is so Mr Mamasela and if we assume it's correct that this photograph number 13, the room with the rings in it is in the house on photograph number 8 and if we assume that is correct and Mr Mogoai - and if we assume it's correct that Mr Mogoai pointed that house out to the investigating officers from the Attorney General's team, that room where the rings were Mr Hashe was kept, how would he know about that? How would he know about the rings in a room if that house was locked and they never entered that house, how would he be able to point that out?

MR MAMASELA: I am not Mogoai, go and ask him: how did he know what was inside. Why do you ask me you client's things, I don't know. If he did get in at a later stage when I was busy maybe helping or making fire, it's his funeral.

I was not there when he got in and I wouldn't lie whether he got in or he got out, why should I lie when I said we were all there and we were all beating these people up, why should I lie about him getting into a house and not getting out? I can't lie about those things. If I don't know, I don't know, ask you client to brief you more.

MR LAMEY: Well, I want to put it to Mr Mamasela, that you are not telling the truth and that you are confusing the places where the PEBCO 3 were kept in custody prior to their interrogation and that you remember perhaps, the garage because during the following day Mr Godolozi was taken into that garage at a certain stage according to Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole, that is why you mentioned the garage.

MR MAMASELA: Let me tell you something, you say I am lying. For your information it must be borne in your mind that I was the first person to come out about the PEBCO 3 in 1994 in City Press with the head - in front page with the headlines saying Sergeant X. I was operating under that norm of Sergeant X.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are saying you are not lying, you deny that you're lying.

MR MAMASELA: I'm not lying, I'm the first man to come out with this truth and your Piet Mogoai came just recently here. I'm the first man to go in 1995 to the Attorney General and ask them when did they go to the Attorney General. So what is their motive of coming late to the Attorney General? Why didn't they come out immediately when I stood up in 1994 and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mamasela, I'm going to stop you there.

MR MAMASELA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, is this a convenient stage to have a break?

MR LAMEY: As it please you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And I hope that when we come back we'll deal with the question of assaults.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Allegations made against your client by Mr Mamasela.

MR LAMEY: Yes, yes.



JOE MAMASELA: (s.u.o.)


MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mamasela, the next morning after the arrival at Post Chalmers, Mr Hashe - it was the first time that Mr Hashe was assaulted, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: That's absolutely correct.

MR LAMEY: At what time did the assaults start on him?

MR MAMASELA: I would just approximate, at about 10a.m.

MR LAMEY: At what time did the other security policemen arrive that morning?

MR MAMASELA: I've already indicated yesterday that they arrived between 07H30 and 08H00 a.m.

MR LAMEY: Now was anything done with Mr Hashe between 8a.m. and 10a.m.?

MR MAMASELA: I wouldn't say whether there was anything done to him because he was not outside he was still chained inside.

MR LAMEY: So these assaults started at 10a.m.?

MR MAMASELA: To the best of my recollection.

MR LAMEY: Was he kept in that shed-like garage until approximately 10a.m.?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, let's say at about half past nine, between quarter past nine and half past nine he was taken out for questioning and the assault in my opinion approximately at about ten. I'm approximating, I didn't have a stop watch.


MR LAMEY: What prompted the assault on Mr Hashe? Let's talk about the first assault, this being now the first assault that started at approximately 10 o'clock.

MR MAMASELA: I've said it yesterday that Mr Hashe, at one stage when he cross-examined and questioned, Mr Niewoudt posed a question that he caused black policemen to leave the townships and why and now these poor black policemen are pitching up tents in town.

And Mr Hashe's response was: "That's good because the black people are staying in town for the first time and heaven doesn't fall and that's what the ANC stands for, for a non-racial democratic South Africa". And that is the spark of the first assault on him, I've said it.

MR LAMEY: Which person started with the assault on him?

MR MAMASELA: It was Niewoudt who started and Beeslaar was also there, myself, Mogoai, Koole, Venter and a whole lot of other people that I told this Commission that they were unfamiliar to me.

MR LAMEY: What was your role in this assault?

MR MAMASELA: We were just told - because he was screaming and making a lot of noise because his hands were handcuffed from the back, he couldn't protect himself, we were told to try to stifle and - to stifle his screams and hold him down.

MR LAMEY: Is that while he was assaulted by the other people also?


MR LAMEY: How did you stifle his screams down?

MR MAMASELA: By holding his mouth very hard down.

MR LAMEY: Was he standing, Mr Hashe, was he on the ground?

MR MAMASELA: He was on the ground, lying on the ground.

MR LAMEY: Did you bend down to stifle his screams?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I did bend down to stifle his screams. I cannot stifle his screams standing whilst he is on the ground.

MR LAMEY: Did Beeslaar simultaneously take a stick to put it against his throat?

MR MAMASELA: After a while, after a while, after he was assaulted for a while Beeslaar went to look for a weapon also and he came out with a stick.

MR LAMEY: Were you the only one who stifled his mouth?

MR MAMASELA: Myself and Piet we - Piet pinned him down and I tried to, I was busy stifling him and when he turns to Piet's side and I will try to bring him down and Piet will stifle him. So it was an exchange between myself and Piet Mogoai.

MR LAMEY: And while you and Piet Mogoai were trying to stifle him, his screams, he was also assaulted?

MR MAMASELA: He was continually assaulted.

MR LAMEY: Also by Niewoudt with the iron pipe?


MR LAMEY: This hitting of the iron pipe, did it hit him on the head?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, on the head, on the body, all over.

MR LAMEY: So you - let me just, you and Piet Mogoai had quite a busy task to stifle his screams while he was assaulted?

MR MAMASELA: That is true.

MR LAMEY: And while that was done he was hit by Niewoudt with an iron pipe?


MR LAMEY: And also assaulted by the other people?


MR LAMEY: Was he also during this time, his screams or suffocated by the stick which Beeslaar used?

MR MAMASELA: Ja, at a later stage when Beeslaar stifled him he was to a certain extent suffocated by the stick but he was always managing to shake his neck and twist his neck.

MR LAMEY: Did Beeslaar also join in in the struggle to stifle his scream, is that why he tried to use the stick?

MR MAMASELA: Yes. You know sometimes he will be strong, we couldn't stifle him, the three of us big men there and others are beating. Sometimes some of us, one will just leave and the other one will come in and the other one will drag him, his feet to keep him straight. It was like a frenzy shark feeding frenzy, it was shark feeding frenzy.

MR LAMEY: But while you were struggling with the smothering of his screams, you and Piet Mogoai and Beeslaar, the assaults with the iron pipe by Niewoudt continued and also the other assaults by the other people?

MR MAMASELA: Others were kicking and others were doing a lot of things, others were punching at him while he was down and we were also struggling to keep him down because he was struggling to stand up. So it was not like we were all three one time holding him and others beating him up, no, no, no.

Some of us with stand up and you know you move away, some of us were afraid that we might be hit by the iron, we'll jump to the others to the safer side and then the victim will have freedom to move where you relented and then he'll move that side and once he moved that side the other will come you know join that side. It was a beehive activity, it was not like a scene, a stage managed thing where a man lies there and you pretend to be assaulting him, all of you no, it was not like that, it was a real war.

MR LAMEY: There must have been moments when the stifling was released during the assault, is that what you're saying?

MR MAMASELA: The what?

MR LAMEY: Your and Piet Mogoai's attempts to smother his screams by stifling him as well as that Beeslaar, there must have been moments during the assault when you had to release that, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: No, that is correct, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And did he continue screaming?

MR MAMASELA: He kept on, continued screaming, that's why the stick was fetched to smother his neck and to stifle his voice.

MR LAMEY: And while the stick was used he was also hit with an iron pipe and kicked and assaulted?

MR MAMASELA: At all material times.

MR LAMEY: Now if that was so Mr Mamasela and you wanted to stifle the screams and everyone knew that he was screaming, how did it happen that you and Piet Mogoai and Beeslaar weren't also struck by blows?

MR MAMASELA: I was not struck, I don't know about Piet, I don't know about Beeslaar, they can tell you whether they were struck or not.

I was very careful, I always moved away from there, especially the pipe iron. I was always making sure that I move away from it.

MR LAMEY: But if you move away, then you would release ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: I will release ....[intervention]

MR LAMEY: The grip and then he will scream.

MR MAMASELA: And then he will scream and somebody will come and stifle him and while this man beats, and he was also careful, he was not beating as if he was a blind or he was blindfolded. He was looking at where he was beating and he knew his colleagues were there.

MR LAMEY: And where were the other two deceased at that time when he was assaulted?

MR MAMASELA: They were still locked up in the shed.

MR LAMEY: Did they keep quiet?

MR MAMASELA: They were locked up in the shed, they didn't see what was happening outside.

MR LAMEY: What was Koole doing at this stage?

MR MAMASELA: Koole was also in the frenzy, he was in that frenzy that was kicking and punching these people and he was stamping on his head with his feet.

MR LAMEY: Did you recall that specifically, that Koole was stamping him on his head with his feet?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I said they were stamped with their feet and they were assaulted, yes. You asked me specifically what he was doing, what must I say. I said he was in that frenzy. Now you'll say: "You are introducing a new thing, why didn't you say it in your statement"? It's funny.

MR LAMEY: Ja, because later you make specific reference to him, what Koole did but nothing in this first assault in your statement you make any reference to Koole stamping with his feet on his head.

MR MAMASELA: You are asking me now, I couldn't put everything there. You know if you ask me to recall something that happened my subconscious mind is ignited by your questions, by your line of aggressive questioning, now I can recall, that's how the human mind works.

MR LAMEY: You said further in your statement:

"I saw that blood was coming out of his mouth and his ears and he became lame. Piet Mogoai and I got a fright and stood aside"

MR MAMASELA: ...[inaudible] which was collaborated to a certain extent by your own client Piet Mogoai.

MR LAMEY: Why did you get a fright?

MR MAMASELA: No, it's human when you see a human being bleeding profusely through nostrils and ears and mouth and he's making this gargle and his eyes are turning. To me it's a human thing for you to jump aside and get a fright because we were the ones who were closer to him, you know stifling him.

MR LAMEY: Well I want to put it to you that Mr Piet Mogoai never said that he got a fright as to what was going on, he had to move away in order to avoid some of the blows.

MR MAMASELA: Oh, if that is his version then it's fine but he followed me when I jumped out with fright, he followed me.

MR LAMEY: Why would you get a fright if you knew that the purpose is to eliminate these people?

MR MAMASELA: You know eliminate, you put it nicely, you put it very nicely. You know, if you're going to butcher a human being, you butcher a human being and you say you cannot get a fright. I'm not like you, I'm human.

Eliminating is one thing, butchering a human being is another. Those people were never killed, they were slaughtered, worse than you can kill your own dog.

MR LAMEY: In how many killings were you involved before he PEBCO 3 incident?

MR MAMASELA: Many killings I was involved as a person, as Joe Mamasela. I never got involved in many killings as an individual. I got into killing as a collectively, not as an individual.

MR LAMEY: In how many killings were you involved prior tot he PEBCO 3 incident Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: I was involved in the Mxgenge killing and we were about four. And in that incident also I'm the one - my honourable learned friend Mr Booyens can tell you about that, that I did not even, I held the man down whilst he was ...[indistinct] and until one of my stopped me.

And he can go further as to how I gave evidence there, that I was the one who was most sympathetic. I was the one who ordered Nofumela to stop cutting the man's throat and I took the knife away from Nofumela, you can ask him. I took the knife to the car.

Nofumela went berserk, he went to the car, he took a tyre lever and he came and beat the man and I took the tyre lever again, you can ask him. So, it was not a new thing for me to get a fright when somebody was killed in that fashion, it was my nature.

MR LAMEY: Was the Mxgenge killing the only first one that you were involved in prior to the PEBCO 3 incident?

MR MAMASELA: There was the killing of that so-called diamond dealer by one of your brethren, Dirk Coetzee.

MR LAMEY: And why are you referring to him as "my brethren"?

MR MAMASELA: He's white, you are white.

MR LAMEY: I thought that colour doesn't make a difference to you?

MR MAMASELA: No, it makes a difference.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Mamasela, let's not get into that.

MR MAMASELA: Thanks Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose why you were asked about other previous incidents is because you say you got a fright and you left. I suppose the question is: "If you had in the past killed so many people, how come that you could have got a fright on that day"?

MR MAMASELA: No, he's specifically asking me Mr Chairman, as to prior to the PEBCO 3. Not many people were killed by me prior to that, that's why I mentioning these incidents where I played a little role and my role in all incidents ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, let ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: The fear, the fright factor is there in all instances ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: For the sake progress, I think then let's reframe it. He is saying: "Well, it was not your first occasion to kill, why take a fright"?

MR MAMASELA: No, then I'd tell it's inherent in my nature, I'm human.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, thank you.

MR LAMEY: Prior to that, when the assault started on Mr Hashe, when you wanted to give food to the PEBCO 3 people he said to you:

"Do not give them food, they are going to die in any case"

Is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: Ja, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Was your participation in the assault from the outset, when the assault on Hashe started, was your participation also to assist in killing him?

MR MAMASELA: Those were my instructions yes, that we must assist them in killing these people. Those were my instructions, yes.

MR LAMEY: You knew what it was going to entail?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I knew what it was going to entail.

MR LAMEY: Brutal mob-like attack?


MR LAMEY: And still you got a fright?

MR MAMASELA: And still I got a fright, it's natural, I'm human. I've seen soldiers running away, throwing away their tanks and their rifles out of fright.

MR LAMEY: After you poured water over him, also as a humanitarian act notwithstanding that the intention was to kill him, according to your evidence you said:

"He regained consciousness and began to talk"

Is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: That is correct, I said it yesterday.

MR LAMEY: And then you referred to the 17 AK47's?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, this is what he told Niewoudt, that is what he told us.

MR LAMEY: And it was subsequent to this that Niewoudt started with quoting from the bible?

MR MAMASELA: Not necessarily, that man Niewoudt is devoted to his bible, he knows his bible by head. He quoted the bible better than Jimmy Swaggert.

MR LAMEY: No, but it was after Hashe gained his consciousness and after he spoke about the AK47's that Niewoudt started to quote from the bible?

MR MAMASELA: I don't whether it was before or after but he did quote from the bible, so I cannot tell you.

MR LAMEY: Did he mention names of ANC people?

MR MAMASELA: No, I told you yesterday that he did not mention any significant names of ANC people that me and Piet Mogoai can make any significant analysis of. He mainly talked about his organisation, the PEBCO and how it functioned, it's structures and whatever and the boycotts they were involved in and, you know, that stuff.

MR LAMEY: Are you saying that he did not mention about ANC people?

MR MAMASELA: No, to me he was asked about his daughters: "Where are your daughters"?, that's when he mentioned the ANC people. He said: "My daughter is married to an ANC chap in Lesotho", I forgot the name. And then he said: "My other daughter is married to Popo Molefe" who was a UDF member by then, so that was that.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mamasela, you said it was quoted:

"He started talking well"

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] or did he speak in the way you would have like him to speak, he spoke excellently or did he speak about many things?

MR MAMASELA: Thank you Mr Chairman. I think I've elaborated too very well yesterday how he spoke, I even said he spoke inherently. I couldn't hear some of the things, some were insignificant.

To me appeared as a completely confused person and it appeared as though he was trying to save himself from more punishment. That's what I've said Mr Chairman, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR LAMEY: Did he say anything of significance after he was revived by the water?

MR MAMASELA: I wouldn't say anything of significance. Like I said yesterday, he blurted out a lot of things.

MR LAMEY: Like what?

MR MAMASELA: Like the ones I'm telling you now, 17 AK47's, the daughter, and he talked about his organisation, the work and the boycotts and to me it didn't make sense because most of what he said is what Niewoudt said, they've got that information. He wanted the ANC, he wanted the guns, he wanted this, he was actually leading him to what he wants and the poor old man couldn't make head or tail of what he must do. Then, he then said: "Oh, I've got 17 AK47's", it is then that I knew that I couldn't believe him because it's after Niewoudt has forced him about these DLB's and his ANC contacts, that he said he has 17 AK47's stashed up at his sisters place. He even described his sister's place to me.

MR LAMEY: Well if duress and assault had to be used to get that out of him, why did you think that that is not correct?

MR MAMASELA: No, if you assault a man to, that much until he becomes unconscious and when he wakes up he's still busy, he's still dizzy, a lot of people say a lot of things, including myself. Under my interrogation I said a lot of things that were hullabaloo, that were insignificant, trying to save myself from more blows because - it's a pity. I wish you could have been black in those days, you would ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think you have made your point Mr Mamasela.

MR LAMEY: Did he also at that stage mention names of ANC people?

MR MAMASELA: No, he didn't mention names. I just asked him: "Where are you daughters"? and he said: "One is married by an ANC chap in Lesotho", ANC chap is not a name. We wanted names, he couldn't provide the names. He said the other one is married to Popo Molefe, that's the only name he mentioned and Popo Molefe by then was a UDF chap.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Lamey, can I just ask a question in relation to this?

Mr Mamasela, we have been told that one of the reasons why the PEBCO were abducted and eliminated was because they were sending people away for military training. Now, you've just said something about the mentioning of names, was any particular name mentioned to Mr Hashe in the course of that interrogation, a name of a person whom he had sent away for military training?

MR MAMASELA: No, no, no, no, there was nothing like that. These people, most of the investigation centred around, they wanted his ANC contact of DLB's. They never asked him about: "Are you recruiting for ANC and whatever", they didn't care about that. The central point was: "Where are your ANC contacts inside"? and "Where are you DLB's"?

ADV SANDI: Was any name or names mentioned of any people who had received military training whom he was harbouring somewhere in Port Elizabeth or anywhere in the Eastern Cape?

MR MAMASELA: No, Mr Chairman, that's a blatant lie, no mention was mentioned to that effect, no.

MR LAMEY: And you state now Mr Mamasela that this talk, it was just talk about his daughters and the fact that he was married to someone, to Mr Popo Molefe, is that correct? This is what he spoke about after he regained his consciousness?

MR MAMASELA: No, let me explain to you. Before he revived, after he revived his consciousness, prior to that he was asked in a very ridiculous way: "hulle het hom gespot" by Niewoudt that: "What are you doing for a living"? and he said: "No, I'm a vegetable vendor and then also I have a shebeen, I run a shebeen at my house", then Niewoudt said: "Oh, you're a bladdy capitalist too", then he asked him: "Where are your daughters"?, then he said: "No, one of my daughters is married to the ANC chap in Lesotho and the other one is married to Popo Molefe", then he said: "Oh, you love so money that you even seel your daughters to the ANC". That was the whole thing, and then they asked him: "What about the policemen that you people in your PEBCO organisation, that you are chasing out of the township and now these poor policemen are pitching up tents in town"? It is then that he said: "No, these policemen are doing the right thing by staying with the white people in town, that's what the ANC stands for". Then he was beaten to such - and I don't think that is the reason, they wanted spark to start the beating.

MR LAMEY: Now Mr Mamasela, so the talk about his daughters was prior to his assault?

MR MAMASELA: That's true.

MR LAMEY: Now what did he talk about after reviving his consciousness?

MR MAMASELA: After reviving his consciousness, I put it clear that he talked about 17 AK47's that he stashed at his sister's place, he described his sister's place where the things were stashed, wood floors, a carpet and whatever, that is what he described to us.

And then he started talking about the PEBCO, his organisation, the marches they had, the successful boycotts they had.

MR LAMEY: But he didn't mention any names about ANC people?

MR MAMASELA: Not to the best of my recollection.

MR LAMEY: Now can I refer you to page 14 of your statement?


MR LAMEY: Volume 2 Mr Chairman.

Where you state, and this is now after he mentioned the AK47's:

"Me and Piet Mogoai also had to identify names of ANC members given by the old man"

MR MAMASELA: No, you are quoting the whole thing out of context as usual.

MR LAMEY: No, I'm quoting the context in your statement Mr Mamasela ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: No, let me tell you something, no wait a minute. I say you are quoting it out of context because I said one of our duties of me and Piet Mogoai as Askaris was to be there in order to identify the names that, the possible names of ANC cadres that he might confess to, not that he confessed to, that he might, the old man might confess to. Out duty was to identify those people because we were trained in the ANC, we came from exile.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, here is states clearly:

"Me and Piet Mogoai also had to identify names of ANC members mentioned by the old man"

MR MAMASELA: Yes, but I told you, if he was going to mention those names we had to identify them, that was our duty but he never mentioned the names of ANC people. Name those ANC people that I identified there, name them that I've identified, that the old man said: "These are ANC people".

MR LAMEY: Now, then what prompted the second assault on him?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, the second assault on him whilst I dragged him and I - because he couldn't sit properly, I had to drag him and put him against the wall. As he sat there bleeding Koole asked him a question, I don't know what was the line of the question because it was even in my opinion a stupid question and the old man said: "No, no, no, that's a stupid question you are asking me" and that prompted the second brutal assault that led to his death, in my opinion.

MR LAMEY: So, what did Koole then do?

MR MAMASELA: He started by kicking the old man very hard on the jaw, very hard, and I saw the jaw twisting and being loose and then white foam came out of the old man's mouth and then he stumbled over and then Koole went on his - with the two knees on the old man's chest and he started strangling him. It is then that the beating started again and the while, this time it was with ferocity, the highest ferocity.

ADV SANDI: Mr Lamey, you will agree with me that it is not our task to prescribe to counsel how he should go about asking his questions, but don't you think it would be more productive at this stage if you could put your questions to the witness in such a manner that you contrast the version of your clients with what he has got to say on those issues?

MR LAMEY: I'm coming to that Mr Chairman. I promise you I'll come to that now. I just want to get clarity on this aspect first from the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, proceed.

MR LAMEY: Do I understand you correctly that Mr Koole was quite annoyed with this arrogant remark by Mr Hashe?

MR MAMASELA: To say he was quite annoyed is an understatement, he was furious with it.

MR LAMEY: And he grabbed him on the throat and started to strangle him.

MR MAMASELA: He didn't start by grabbing him, he kicked him first.


MR MAMASELA: On the jaws and as the old man stumbled over he fell over, then he gripped him by, he put his knees on his chest and then he strangled him.

MR LAMEY: He strangled him by using both his hands on his throat?


MR LAMEY: By brute force I assume?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, as usual.

MR LAMEY: In order to kill him?

MR MAMASELA: I don't know what was his intention, you can ask him.

MR LAMEY: And while he was, while Koole was doing this the further assaults started also by other people on Mr Hashe?

MR MAMASELA: With high ferocity, yes.

MR LAMEY: And you testified that this strangling by Koole with this brute force continued for half an hour?

MR MAMASELA: Almost half an hour, yes.

MR LAMEY: And while Koole was doing this Hashe was assaulted?


MR LAMEY: How was he assaulted by the other people?

MR MAMASELA: He was kicked all over the body and to a certain extent, while Koole was holding him like this, he was also hit in the head and some of the blood fell over Koole's face and the upper body.

MR LAMEY: Who hit him over the head?

MR MAMASELA: I've said it on numerous occasions and I say it again, it was Lieutenant Niewoudt.

MR LAMEY: With his iron pipe?

MR MAMASELA: With his usual iron pipe.

MR LAMEY: Well how did it happen that Mr Koole wasn't struck by a blow?

MR MAMASELA: I don't know, ask him not me, how he managed to stay away from the blows. He is the one who can describe it better.

MR LAMEY: Did you participate in this assault at this stage?

MR MAMASELA: No, I did not participate at that stage.

MR LAMEY: Why not?

MR MAMASELA: It was obvious, Koole was sitting there on the old man strangling him, he was no longer screaming, he was lying there helplessly and he was being beaten and the ultimate analysis I could see him, you know his body just shaking and it lay there still while Koole was still holding him. That's when the other people sought to stop assaulting him because he lay still.

MR LAMEY: So he became lifeless while Koole was still strangling him?


MR LAMEY: Do you say that he died as a result of that?

MR MAMASELA: I don't want to commit myself, I'm not a doctor, I cannot determine whether he died as a result of strangling or wounds or whatever, I don't know.

MR LAMEY: Now I want to put it to you Mr Mamasela, that if you look at your statement, that nowhere do you make mention of Lieutenant Niewoudt in particular, assaulting Hashe with his iron bar at this stage.

MR MAMASELA: What did I say then? I said it's only Koole who assaulted him. I said others followed in, they joined and he was assaulted with more ferocity than before. So you are asking me to elaborate that statement, I'm elaborating, you are accusing me now.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, I want to put it to you, not only that it is Mr Koole's version that he did not do this. He did not at any stage strangle Mr Hashe and neither was he the man who kicked him, who broke his jaw, that is not what happened.

MR MAMASELA: So I'm lying. The people are still alive, let them produce the people. Let the people talk for themselves and say: "Mamasela you are lying, you are lies". Where are the people?

CHAIRPERSON: The question is not whether or not people are still alive. I mean, all the applicants agree that they have since died but they say they died in a different way, so they cannot be produced on any bodies version. I think restrict yourself to yes to whether or not you agree with Koole's version or not. If you agree with him say: "Yes", if you disagree with him say: "Well, I do not agree with that".

MR MAMASELA: I think it is absolutely incorrect, his version.

MR LAMEY: Now Mr Mamasela, I want to put it to you further, and I will show this to the Committee by tangible evidence, that Mr Koole as a result of the fact that he sustained a very serious wound and who got injured during a robbery in 1980 when he was stationed in Thabazimbi, his arm was injured to such an extent that he was incapable of strangling a person in the manner that you have described it, by brute force, until he was lifeless.

MR MAMASELA: That's laughable, you can see I'm laughing and I laugh purposely because that statement is preposterous to the extreme. This man got injured, and I think it was a pump gun or something and no bone was broken, he was as fit as anything with us. I know him, I worked with him for many years. It's an old, old little scars on the hand.

He's fit, he can lift his hands, he can walk, he can even arrest. Why didn't he take medically unfit because he was so much of a cripple he cannot work, he then cannot work?

MR LAMEY: Well I can tell you and ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: Why didn't he take ...[inaudible]

MR LAMEY: I can tell you and that is my instructions and we will show it to the Committee, that the power in his arms is restricted to the sense that he's not even capable of shaking a man's hand with a firm grip.

MR MAMASELA: That's a blatant lie, then what did he want in the police force, in the security force for that matter if he can hardly even shake a man's hand. How will he arrest armed insurgents? That's a blatant lie, you can see for yourself he's lying, it's a lie.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I would like to ask Mr Koole to indicate to the Committee the extent of the injury on his arm if you would permit me to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether it's necessary to do that because the witness agrees that the man was injured and he agrees that there is a scar but what they disagree upon, I don't whether we can resolve it.

MR LAMEY: But Mr Chairman, the witness is down-playing the nature of that scar and I would ask Mr Koole to show it to the Committee so that the Committee could see the extent of that because ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, your client should still be cross-examined later I believe, Mr Koole. Perhaps it would be convenient at that stage if he could show us.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

Now Mr Mamasela, your evidence is that these three people ultimately died at Post Chalmers.

MR MAMASELA: To me that is the facts, that is precisely what happened there.

MR LAMEY: Now the evidence of Mr Mogoai and Koole is that they were assaulted, Mr Godolozi and Mr Hashe, but the effect of their evidence is that in the morning on the 3rd day when they left Mr Galela was still screaming out of his cell.

They say that as far as they know, the three people were still alive when they left the morning of the 3rd day back to Glen Conner with you.

MR MAMASELA: Then let them produce them if they left would have left them alive. Let them produce them because they left them alive. I say we left them dead and they are not even here today.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, I want to refer you to Exhibit T which is affidavits which have been produced on evidence by the family of Mr Hashe and Godolozi and Galela in the application that they brought. Do you have it before you?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I have it.

MR LAMEY: According to a witness which made an affidavit in that matter, and I want to refer to page 12, to the statement of Mrs Hashe where she refers in paragraph 7, that a certain witness by the name of Booija saw Mr Godolozi alive at the Algoa Park police station on Friday the 10th of May 1985.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, I don't want to interfere with this but with the knowledge we've had and with the knowledge you have and with your instructions, could that possibly be true? ...[inaudible] I mean, you're putting your version, I suppose, to the witness.

MR LAMEY: It's correct, I'm putting my version, my client's version to the witness.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] on the 10th, the morning of the 10th they were still there at Cradock?

MR LAMEY: Yes, on the morning when they left early Mr Chairman, but this affidavit doesn't state on which particular time of the day at Algoa Park police station. And then we've got further affidavits that state that they were seen in, I think if you look at the evidence of Mrs Jacobs who saw them later and then there's an affidavit by a Mr Nomgoma who saw Mr Godolozi on the 24th of August 1985.

Now I want - that's precisely the point Mr Chairman. If you view - and I want to put that to Mr Mamasela, our client's, Mr Mogoai's version and that of Mr Koole and that of the affidavits which have been produced by the family and witnesses that have seen it, according to those affidavits, then it is not correct what Mr Mamasela is saying in that they died while he was there.

MR MAMASELA: Okay fine, let me answer that one, I have no problems to answer that one. I'll answer it with the same exhibit of yours but you must turn to page 7 and the 1st paragraph where Mrs Hashe says:

"Colonel Strydom said he saw all three bodies of the deceased, were found with upper parts incinerated"

What do you say about that one? Why are you selective with your evidence, why don't you tell the Commissioner of this one.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, the point is that this statement made by people known to the family of the deceased ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: Even Mr Strydom was known to the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute, just a minute. Perhaps this illustrates the futility of this exercise and I'm not sure what we are busy with here.

MR LAMEY: Just a minute Mr Chairman, just let me take instructions here. Mr Chairman, may I just comment on this? We also heard the evidence on the other applicants that a false picture was painted by the security police in their version in those applications. In other words that Mr Mamasela is now referring to a member here of the police when he says that was pointed out to him.

I'm putting to him the version of the family who has witnesses who know these people and who has seen them after that and comparing that with our clients' version that at the stage when they left Post Chalmers they were still alive.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose in these proceedings we sometimes allow questions which in a Court of Law would not have been allowed but well, we will lean back once and allow that line of cross-examination.

Mr Mamasela, what is your comment on the allegation that these people could have been alive on the 10th of May 1985, say after 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock in the evening?

MR MAMASELA: I will say Mr Chairman, without any hesitation, that is blatantly untrue.


MR MAMASELA: It's just that it's hearsay evidence. When a person is desperate and looking for a missing one and a loved one everybody will come and contribute and: "I think I saw them there", this is what happened here. If you read the whole thing it's just an anguish of a woman looking for her husband and gripping at every straw, at every information. That is why all these things we, in a Court of Law, they were turned down with costs.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, thank you.

MR MAMASELA: Because they're not even worth he paper they're written on.


Yes, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: So what you're saying Mr Mamasela, comparing that with your evidence, that these people known to the family have committed perjury when they made these affidavits?

MR MAMASELA: Not really perjury. You know, people can say: "I've seen somebody", you can see even in the statement somebody said: "I saw some people that looked like them because I once saw them addressing the meeting".

It's not somebody who knows these people, it's only Mrs Jacobs who knew these people who said: "Mr Hashe was even reading a newspaper at the police station" you know, let me help you that ...[indistinct] And then there's a man in the whole thing that you deliberately not pointed out, who came nearer to my version.

This man was an employee, I don't have his name here, he was an employee of the airport of Port Elizabeth who claims that he saw these people coming at half past seven and he saw a group of white policemen, I think the - the attorney put that this is the man. He says he saw a group of policemen, white policemen and a black policeman at night.

That was not written today, it was written a long time ago, this thing, 1985.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay Mr Mamasela, you have made your point, thank you.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, ...[intervention]

MR BRINK: I'm sorry to interrupt. Mr Chairman, I understand that Captain de Lange is here and an undertaking was given to him that if he arrived he could be interposed for the purpose of cross-examination by the applicants' representatives. He's very anxious to be heard so that he can get back to official duties in Transkei.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we could only interpose him only after Mr Lamey has finished putting questions to the witness.

MR BRINK: Can Mr Lamey indicate how long expects to be?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, he's not going to be long.

MR LAMEY: No, I'm not going to be long.

Mr Mamasela, was any sack placed over Mr Godolozi's head at a certain stage during his assault?

MR MAMASELA: No, it was at the police station, there were no sacks there, there was nothing. It was not the normal police interrogation, you know the brutal interrogation.

MR LAMEY: To such an extent that he suffocated, you deny that?

MR MAMASELA: No, he did not suffocate from a sack, there was no sack used there. It's just somebody else's figment of fatal imagination.

MR LAMEY: So, that is the figment of the imagination of Mr Mogoai?

MR MAMASELA: Most probably yes, if he's the one who comes with that version.

MR LAMEY: Now can you think of any reason why Mr Mogoai would also describe quite serious and vicious assaults on Mr Hashe and Mr Godolozi by, at a time, which assaults are denied by the Port Elizabeth people and what his motive for that would be?

MR MAMASELA: Piet Mogoai, last week Tuesday I was with him near the offices of his lawyer and he told me that his lawyers wanted him to come here to come and lie and to come and discredit me.


MR MAMASELA: I was with him last week Tuesday at 10a.m.

MR LAMEY: Oh, I see.

MR MAMASELA: And Piet Mogoai told me that he will blatantly refuse, that I'm not surprised that Piet Mogoai is not here.

MR LAMEY: Oh, I see.


MR LAMEY: And how did it happen that you met him Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: You can check the records, I had an appointment with the Attorney General which I made two weeks before and the Attorney General told me that he'll only be available for me on Tuesday at about 10 o'clock. I went to see the Attorney General at about half past ten, when I came out - the office of his attorneys are next to the Attorney General, somebody screamed at me and said: "Joe, Joe, Joe" and when I looked out it was Piet Mogoai with blue overalls.

MR LAMEY: Is that the only motive that you can think of?

MR MAMASELA: No, I don't think of any motive, I'm stating a fact not a motive, not a perception.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, I want to put it to you that what Mr Mogoai has said in this Committee he has also stated in his affidavit to the Attorney General.

MR MAMASELA: I'm not surprised, just look at the date when he did decide to go to the Attorney General, maybe we'll get a clear picture. And if you look at the facts, the records, when did Mamasela come out with the truth alone.

MR LAMEY: Now I want to come back Mr Mamasela, to another aspect which your version differs vastly from that of Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole and that is with regard to the events at the airport.

Am I correct in that you stated that, in your affidavit that:

"Upon arrival of the PEBCO 3 at the airport Mr Godolozi and Mr Galela got out of the vehicle"

MR MAMASELA: That's a fact and it's true.

MR LAMEY: Now where did this vehicle of theirs stop?

MR MAMASELA: I've indicated that they stopped on the pedestrian crossing just opposite the, almost opposite the doors of the airport, the main entrance. And our vehicle was parked next to the entrance door. So when they stopped there they had to come and jump over the main road and pass our vehicle in front. So as they came we saw them and we quickly intercepted them before they could enter the entrance of the airport.

MR LAMEY: Did you wait for them to proceed towards the entrance of the airport?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, because it was going to be foolhardy exercise to try to intercept them when they were coming because they will run away and lose us. So we waited for them to be nearer our bus so that we can grab them.

MR LAMEY: So your intention was just to grab them.

MR MAMASELA: To abduct them and take them away.



MR LAMEY: And why did you produce your appointing certificate?

MR MAMASELA: No, just to neutralise them, just to make them not to be afraid because we were not wearing uniforms, so if we produced our appointment certificates a man relaxes, he thinks he's safe, he's in the hands of the police, that was the ruse.

MR LAMEY: And if that is so, why do you state in your affidavit that you had to grab them and put them quickly into the minibus?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, so that other people, other people mustn't see what is happening. We were afraid to cause unnecessary attention, that was the intention.

MR LAMEY: But that is what I don't understand. If you were afraid to cause unnecessary attention, why do you wait for them to proceed to the entrance of the airport building and produce police appointing certificates which will connect the police to their abduction?

MR MAMASELA: Who will connect that to the abduction? When somebody is near you, you point your "aanstelling" and you quickly grab him and you know he's going to die, who will identify you, that you are Mr so and so, a policeman?

MR LAMEY: And while you were doing that, what was the third person doing?

MR MAMASELA: The third person, I told this Commission on numerous occasions and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: The third person went to go and park the vehicle.

MR MAMASELA: To park the car, yes.

MR LAMEY: How far from the place where you abducted the other two?

MR MAMASELA: I didn't take the measurement but I would say plus minus 15 to 20 metres.

MR LAMEY: And I take it that your evidence is that Mr Hashe who was parking the vehicle didn't witness this, that his other two fellow PEBCO 3 members are now grabbed by someone else?

MR MAMASELA: How could he witness that? It was at night on the 8th of May, it was dark and he was busy manoeuvring his vehicle, looking for parking. How can he possibly see what was happening behind the kombi of ours? It was impossible ...[indistinct] for him to have seen anything.

MR LAMEY: And after this you took time to search the two people that you have now put into the minibus before proceeding to grab Mr Hashe?

MR MAMASELA: Search is one word that suits you. I will say I frisked them, I quickly frisked them. You know there is a difference between search and frisk.

MR LAMEY: Why couldn't that be left over to the other ...[intervention]

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I hesitate to interrupt but hasn't this been covered in detail by cross-examination on Monday on Tuesday?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know, I thought it was and I thought that Mr Lamey was going to, as he said, he was going to put across his clients' version and ask what happened and the like. Maybe he's hoping to elicit some contradictions and good luck to him.

MR LAMEY: Well, let me then put it to you Mr Mamasela, that it didn't happen this way, that both you and Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole were alone in the minibus and that you received, prior to that, directions from Captain Roelf Venter as to where to park and where to wait and that you were not involved physically in the taking of the people from the airport. That they were directed by Captain Roelf Venter with the other Port Elizabeth security people towards the minibus in an apparent normal manner.

MR MAMASELA: That's a long statement, I don't know where to start by answering it but I will say that's a lie, I was there and I took part, I participated in the abduction of the people.

MR LAMEY: Just a minute Mr Chairman. Your evidence is, do I understand you correctly that Mogoai and Koole didn't take part in the grabbing of the people at the airport?

MR MAMASELA: No, I've never said Koole and Mogoai. You read Afrikaans, you're an Afrikaner, read my statement and you'll understand what I said.

MR LAMEY: No, I just want to confirm that ...[intervention]

MR MAMASELA: No, read it, I never said that.

MR LAMEY: That's your evidence.

MR MAMASELA: I've never said that. Read my evidence in Afrikaans.

MR LAMEY: Now I want to put it to you just lastly Mr Mamasela, and I'm going to tell you why, that your version is improbable in caparison to theirs and the reason why it's improbable is that it is improbable that only two people would, as you describe it you and Captain Venter only, attempt to abduct three people who could possibly have resisted viciously and could have escaped.

One would have thought that more people would have been involved or that some other method was used in order to get them into the minibus.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Mamasela.

Did he not say Mr Lamey, those who were sitting in the kombi were waiting there for any resistance to happen and there was some sort of back-up team in the event of resistance?

MR LAMEY: Ja, but that must be compared with the other evidence Mr Chairman, that is there was resistance then this whole thing would have been abandoned because the whole purpose was not to create this attention in front of a public place like an airport and that is why I put it to him that his version is also improbable.

ADV SANDI: But my understanding is that a resistance was one of those things that were contemplated and in

the event of resistance the gentlemen who were sitting in the kombi would just come up and put in some more manpower.

MR MAMASELA: Well Mr Chairman, if that is so, my contention is and I want to put it to you that that is still improbable because such a think would have created consternation in front of a public place like the airport.

That there was another method devised and that was this, as described by Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai in comparison with the version of Herman du Plessis, that these people were fearless, they were merely approached by the security policemen at the airport and they were just directed towards the minibus knowing, them knowing that it's the security police of Port Elizabeth that they're now dealing with.

ADV SANDI: You do not want to reserve that improbability for argument?

MR LAMEY: Yes Mr Chairman, I'll do that also. Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: If you feel strongly about it, pursue it, just pursue it.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

You see Mr Mamasela, and the version of, if you look at the version of Mr Mogoai and Koole, is that these people were just in a sort of apparent normal way directed by the security police towards the minibus and there was evidence by Mr Herman du Plessis that the PEBCO 3 people were fearless of the security police.

And I want to put it to you, what happened there at the airport is, they were set up by a trap, they expected to meet someone at the airport and when they arrived at the airport and at the airport building the security police of Port Elizabeth just told them: "Well, come with us" and probably also showed their appointment certificates to them and said: "Just come with us" and they did that, they did that without resistance because they didn't fear the security police.

MR MAMASELA: That's a very outrageous perception, to think that there is any black political leader who ...[indistinct] did not fear security police during those apartheid years and I find highly improbable for a policeman, a group of policemen to arrest four people without causing a commotion, that to me would be highly improbable if that was to happen the way you wanted it to happen.

I found it quite sound, it's a militaristic approach whereby you use an element of surprise to surprise your adversary and you quickly apprehend him and you are gone, that is precisely what we did. We carried out that operation with military precision.

And then we had some contingence planning in case plan A fails then plan B will be put into operation and plan B was that backing and the backup of backup teams. So fortunately for us Plan A worked because the element of surprise was on our side.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Lamey is also saying and I think that will be the import of his question, would be that surely plan B could not have been executed without causing a huge consternation at the airport and attracting a lot of attention. I mean, with reinforcement coming everybody would see that there was something going on.

MR MAMASELA: There was that possibility and likelihood Mr Chairman, but I think the security police were capable of, if that thing happens they were capable of doing something else. Maybe detaining these people and/or maybe saying that the people were trying to run away, they were fighting with the police and maybe shoot them and leave some AK47's next to them as it was the norm with the so-called Guguletu 7.

I think there were some other ...[indistinct] with the security police of Port Elizabeth because they were also there but they were not part of our contingent, they were standing by. So I don't know what was planned there but I knew there was plan B, backup team was there but fortunately plan A worked.

So I cannot speculate on plan B or what was going to happen because I'm not here to give speculations, I'm here to give facts as I saw them.

MR LAMEY: I want to put it to you further Mr Mamasela, if they were capable of covering their tracks afterwards they could have also just have apprehended them at the airport, take them away, kill them and cover their tracks afterwards.

MR MAMASELA: It's not as easy as you say, security policemen of Port Elizabeth go to the airport, they grab somebody in front of, in full view of the people and then they go and kill them and cover it. It's not as easy as you say because we worked with the security police, particularly the white security policemen.

They worked with the fear of Biko, always they will say: "We don't want to have another Biko, we don't want to have another Biko". Even if they assault a detainee they were always afraid of another Biko scene happening. Even Stanza Bopape, when he died accidentally in their hands at John Vorster, they had dispose of his body and pretend that he escaped because they were afraid of the Biko scenario.

So it's not like they way you put it, that they had a free license to kill ...[indistinct] without any fear, they also feared.

MR LAMEY: Well I want to put it to you further Mr Mamasela that the reason and the only probable reason for the assistance of your Askaris was to be present during interrogation when valuable information could come forward which could be followed up or you could be used to identify and verify the correctness of perhaps MK insurgents that are mentioned because that was your sole purpose to identify these people in Port Elizabeth during your stay here.

MR MAMASELA: I will say that was a very abnormal norm because the usual norm was, if somebody's apprehended as a suspect and they wanted Askaris to identify him we will coverage to that place with a bus or a tour and all Askaris will have a clear view of looking and seeing the suspect and then when they interrogate him we will be helping each other.

They wouldn't just take two Askaris that came from Botswana. Myself and Piet Mogoai we came from Botswana and Mr Hashe and others when they go to exile they didn't go to Botswana, the nearest place was Lesotho. So why take people operating from Botswana to identify Lesotho insurgents, it doesn't make any sense, it devoid of any iota of logic.

MR LAMEY: Were you there more than a week in Port Elizabeth before this happened, the abduction at the airport?

MR MAMASELA: I will probably say, probably we arrived on the 3rd, yes, I will say we took almost a week, I will say we took almost a week.

MR LAMEY: Not more than a week?

MR MAMASELA: I wouldn't say whether it's more or when unless we count, me and you now, we can count because I say probably in my opinion, I may be mistaken, we arrived on the 3rd.

MR LAMEY: But you've got a good memory Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, my good memory has nothing to do with forgetfulness, I'm human. Inside this good memory there's a human being. So I will probably we arrived on the 3rd, on the 4th we interrogated this - we arrived on the 3rd, on the 4th and the 5th we were told to familiarise ourselves with our environment, it's there in my statement in Afrikaans, you can understand it better, and then on the 6th probably and the 7th we helped and the 8th we helped, for 3 days we helped with the interrogation of this Toto Sithole guy.

So it's reasonable, it's about maybe a week, almost a week that we were here and we left.

MR LAMEY: Well I want to put it to you further that the version of Mr Mogoai is that he was never at the security branch, only Mr Koole stated that he came there, that's how he came to know Lieutenant Niewoudt, that you purpose in Port Elizabeth was to do patrols and to try and identify MK insurgents and to assist the P.E. branch in that respect and that they never knew about any kidnapping and that they only discovered that that was happening in the course of - in the time after the taking at the airport and during the course of the events on the way and at Post Chalmers.

MR MAMASELA: I'm tired, I cannot waste the Commission's time with that. I dealt with that on numerous occasions and I've dealt with it in depth.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you disagree with that version?

MR MAMASELA: No, I mean Mr Chairman, we are getting nowhere, we are chasing a wild goose here.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, but he's putting it to you and you disagree so you could only say: "I disagree".

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I disagree because I don't want to waste the Commissions' time commenting on that thing.

MR LAMEY: Who had the radio with him when you were in the minibus?

MR MAMASELA: The two Port Elizabeth security policemen that came into our kombi when we parked at the airport, they were the ones who came with the radio. They were monitoring this.

MR LAMEY: So Venter and Beeslaar, before that, and Mogoai and Koole, you didn't have a radio in the vehicle?

MR MAMASELA: No, we didn't have a radio. We got this radio when we entered the airport. As we entered two of the security policemen there came to us and they started talking to Venter and they jumped in with this radio and then we parked at an emergency vehicle parking near, that was near the automatic doors of the airport and that's where the monitoring of these people took place with that radio. We had the radio for the first time when we arrived at the airport, we never had the radio before we came to the airport.

MR LAMEY: And you say Venter and Beeslaar drove, was the whole time in the vehicle from Glen Conner to the airport and from the airport to Post Chalmers?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, they picked us up at Glen Connor at our base.

MR LAMEY: Well, I want to put it to you further that the evidence of Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole was - and surely they'd know Venter and Beeslaar, that they were not in the vehicle.

MR MAMASELA: I'm not surprised for them to can say that, I'm not surprised. They're still friends of these masters of theirs.

MR LAMEY: Their version is further that from the airport they proceeded to a certain gravel road near the airport, can you recall that?

MR MAMASELA: How can you recall a gravel road near the airport at night?

MR LAMEY: So you deny that?

MR MAMASELA: No, it's a lie.

MR LAMEY: It's a lie?


MR LAMEY: Were these people, the PEBCO 3 were blindfolded, is that also a lie?

MR MAMASELA: They were never blindfolded, they were forced to sleep on their stomachs on the floor with guns trained on their heads. They were never blindfolded, how can you blindfold a men in the middle of the night? What purpose would that serve on tinted windows of a motor vehicle?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I think I've put everything almost, where the versions of my client differs from that of Mr Mamasela and I've got no further questions. I just want to, on the previous question of Advocate Sandi, where he asked whether Mr Mogoai said ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just a minute. Can we have some peace and tranquillity please from the audience, we can't hear what's happening here please.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, just early during the cross-examination Advocate Sandi just asked me a question whether it's not Mr Mogoai's version about the watch that Mr Mamasela took. If I may refer to page 1209 of the transcript of the evidence, it's under the evidence of Mr Koole that that was stated.



MR BRINK: Sorry Mr Chairman, before Mr Nyoka cross-examines, can we have Captain de Lange's evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, sorry I forgot about that.

MR BRINK: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a suggestion that we could hear Captain de Lange, is there any objection? No objection I guess. Then we can listen to him.

Mr Mamasela, you can stand down for a while. Please don't go away because we are not going to be very long with Captain de Lange but we don't foresee that we will come back to you before 2 o'clock so if you could be here at 2 o'clock.