CHAIRMAN: It is the 4th of July 1997, we are continuing of the matter of Sehlwana, Erwee and others. Mr Black?
MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, today I will be leading the evidence of the relatives of three of the deceased. Mr Mogashoa will testify first. His wife is accompanying him.
He has elected to address the Committee in English. They are on stage.
(INDISTINCT) MOGASHOA: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Mr Mogashoa, you are the father of one of the deceased. Could you tell the Committee the full name of your son?
MR MOGASHOA: The full names of my son are Hlabani Ranto Mpayi Mogashoa.
MR BLACK: Now, your son left the country at some stage, when did your son leave South Africa?
MR MOGASHOA: He left South Africa in November 1984.
MR BLACK: And the next time you saw your son was when you had to identify his body at the mortuary at Louis Trichardt, is that correct?
MR MOGASHOA: That is correct.
MR BLACK: Yes. And what were you told about how your son died?
MR MOGASHOA: I beg your pardon?
MR BLACK: What were you told about how your son as to how he died, when you went to Louis Trichardt.
MR MOGASHOA: I was told that he died somewhere, he was shot at Pontdrift.
MR BLACK: Pontdrift, yes. Now, would you like to address the Committee and tell them something about your son and the evidence which you've heard during the course of this week?
MR MOGASHOA: Well, my son left the country at the age of 20 from Attridgeville. He didn't tell us where he was getting to, but a month later I learnt that he was somewhere in Botswana.
Then January the following year, that was 1985, I tried to locate him, but on getting there, I couldn't find him. Then I have never heard of him, until the day when the police reported his death.
MR BLACK: Now, you were here during the course of the week. You've heard the evidence given by the applicants, the police about circumstances surrounding the death of your son and is there anything you would like to say to the Committee about that evidence?
MR MOGASHOA: Well, the evidence Mr Chairman as I heard from Monday up to yesterday, it was similar but different. Every time it started by that, according to my hearing first is that they were sort of lured from Botswana into South Africa, according to the evidence as I heard from the first witness and that they attempted on many occasions to try and get those people coming here, although they were talking of the three and the six.
But the main witness, the first witness started off, spoke of six people and from that I made a deduction that they went to get them from the other side. They on their own, did not decide to come into South Africa and from there again, I heard from the other witnesses that the intention was to arrest them.
But now, according to the circumstances under which they died, according to their own evidence, they were shot at and they were, they had so planned that they should be destroyed, if I may put it that way.
Because in the first instance they spoke of a combi that had been removed, a rear right window and the removal of the rear right window, the intention being to throw in a teargas and once it threw in a teargas, it may confuse the people, it may cause them to be unable to see and as such, they wouldn't be active or attacking anybody, because once you don't see well, who would you attack and how?
But now, and again the first witness stated that all the shots he heard were from the casspir side and again according to the deploy, the deployment as they were saying, whatever you call it, they were on all angles of the combi except the direction where Sehlwana ran to, so that he could be saved.
And then there was no chance of those people doing anything, therefore the whole thing and the arrest could have been easily done after throwing in the teargas into the combi and they could suffocate because people who are about more then ten paces away from the scene, from the combi, could suffer the effects of the teargas.
Now, what more of the people in the combi, that would be worse? So they couldn't escape, they could have been easily arrested. So far as the whole evidence is concerned, I could just come to a conclusion that the intention was to destroy them, so there shouldn't be any evidence and yet had they arrested them, they would be able to answer for themselves.
Now, all deductions I have made, I could make, it was from the people who destroyed them and nobody else and the worst thing as South African Police was sent from this side to go and fetch them from the other country.
MR BLACK: You understand Mr Mogashoa, that the applicants who testified are applying for amnesty. Perhaps, before I get there, the factor that I possibly omitted to put to you earlier on, is that after your son had left the country, did you have any dealings with the Security Police?
Did the police ever come to you, your family?
MR MOGASHOA: In connection with him, with his disappearance?
MR BLACK: Yes.
MR MOGASHOA: No, only after his death.
MR BLACK: Only after his death? Okay. Now, you've heard that they are asking for amnesty, what is your attitude towards that?
MR MOGASHOA: Well, Mr Chairman, if I could get a clear meaning of amnesty, what does it entail? If you could give me the clear meaning of amnesty, then I could be able to reply what the applicants for amnesty?
MR BLACK: Well, it has been explained to you that they are asking that there be no further prosecutions and civil actions against them in respect of any actions which they have testified about.
MR MOGASHOA: If that be the meaning of amnesty, then I would say I oppose that one, because in the sense that in the shooting, almost over 90 cartridges were shot at the combi and it was just shot from all angles.
And that is not how people can be arrested, although I have never been a policeman.
MR BLACK: Yes. Is there anything further you wish to say to the Committee.
MR MOGASHOA: I don't.
MR BLACK: About this issue?
MR MOGASHOA: Well, Mr Chairman, I think that is all.
MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Mogashoa.
MR MOGASHOA: Oh, I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, maybe there is something. In the whole evidence there was a name of Mabena mentioned. So the name of Mabena as I took it, Sehlwana was used as sort of fully employed by the SAP, but at the same time as a link between those people and the SAP, and was working as such was sort of an informant on the other hand he had his informant across the border, but that Mabena was never, never appeared.
It is just everything Mabena and Mabena has never been here to say anything and now I am just putting it, is it possible for the Committee to arrange that Mabena should be coming to give evidence in his own living voice. Because the evidence we heard here, was only from one side and the people who made all the plans and everything and executed them according to how they planned. That is all.
MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Mogashoa.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK: .
CHAIRMAN: Can I just make a quick remark about what Mr Mogashoa is saying about Mr Mabena. The complicating factor here Mr Mogashoa about Mabena may very well be that, you know he is in a foreign country, he is in another country.
Our capacities in that regard are severely limited because you know we are just in South Africa and it could be a very complicated thing.
MR MOGASHOA: I understand Mr Chairman, thank you.
CHAIRMAN: I assume that people from the TRC office in Johannesburg have or will talk to you about other things such as possible compensation, funeral expenses, coffins and the like.
I saw somebody from the, representative from those offices here and I assume that he must have, oh, there he is, I am sorry, I apologise. You have been sitting over there this whole week, so I was looking in the wrong direction.
Need I take it any further, I don't have to.
TRC REPRESENTATIVE: I have explained to the families how they can go about getting reparation.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MS KHAMPEPE: Joe, I think what the Chairperson wanted to find out is if the necessary details and particulars have been taken?
TRC REPRESENTATIVE: ; Yes, Mr Chairperson. We have also taken a statement from all the families, so that will also assist a great deal.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
MR MOGASHOA: Mr Chairman, may I ask one thing with your permission? Through the hearings, I have never heard the witnesses heard that so and so was the code name and then we were shown photo's yesterday and then those photo's I could identify that this is my son and they were sort of numbered, but they didn't give a reference to the number, nor the code name that was used on the ID's they have alleged to have found in their possession, which had their photo's but not correct numbers.
CHAIRMAN: So you need the information to know for example your son's code name or the false name that was attached to him?
MR MOGASHOA: Yes, attached to him, so that during the whole evidence they were just referred to as six people coming from there as terrorists, as insurgents, but they were code names, already after getting that, it should have been proper.
They have mentioned the code names or whatever.
CHAIRMAN: We would try to see if we can get that kind of information.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Visser?
ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, in view of the fact in our submission that most of what Mr Mogashoa said, really comprises argument, there is no sense in us asking any questions in cross-examination. You've heard the evidence, we can't take it further now.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV VISSER: .
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Mogashoa, thank you very much.
