Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, we want to start. It is for the record, Wednesday, 30 June 1999 and we are continuing with the amnesty applications in respect of the Simelane incident.

MOHAPI LAZARUS SELAMOLELA: (s.u.o)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, have you got any further questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)

A few, thank you, good morning Mr Chairman. Mr Selamolela, yesterday when I commenced my questions to you, will you remember, you will remember that I asked you whether Mr Veyi was present when you discussed the facts of the incident with your Attorney, Mr Lamey, do you remember that?

MR SELAMOLELA: I remember sir.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, I am waiting for the answer to come and it doesn't. I am sorry Chairperson. I am sorry Mr Interpreter, good morning.

INTERPRETER: Good morning.

MR VISSER: What is the reply?

INTERPRETER: The answer is "I do remember". Channel 2, the answer is "I do remember."

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, hopefully we will get going now. I unfortunately, I didn't take notes, can you just refresh our memories, what was your reply to that question?

MR SELAMOLELA: I said to Mr Visser in regard to the question that when I saw Veyi at Mr Lamey's office, I was not aware that Mr Lamey had an appointment with Mr Veyi. I was at the reception and then I was waiting for Mr Lamey.

INTERPRETER: It seems the applicant is on channel 2.

MR VISSER: Pardon?

INTERPRETER: It seems the applicant is on channel 2.

MR SELAMOLELA: When I saw Sergeant Veyi at Mr Lamey's office - I will start again. When I met with Sergeant Veyi at Mr Lamey's office, I did not know that Mr Lamey had an appointment with Sergeant Veyi. I waited for Mr Lamey at the reception and then they phoned Mr Lamey, then after some time, Mr Lamey came to me, after ten minutes, but I was not aware that Mr Veyi was in his office. When I arrived at Mr Lamey's office, I saw Mr Veyi and then we greeted each other only, because Sergeant Veyi was through. We sat about two to three minutes together and then we did not even discuss about the Simelane incident. Sergeant Veyi left and then we took a long time without seeing each other. I don't know as to whether I answered your question correctly.

MR VISSER: Yes, indeed, thank you. Yesterday I had a recollection that Mr Veyi said that he was present when you discussed the incident of Simelane with Mr Lamey and without the support of even the Interpreter, Mr Chairperson, I found it. It is at page 571 and it is at the bottom of the page, I want to read it to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that on your record Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: That is on my record Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

MS THABETHE: If I can assist the Committee, on our record it is page 551, right at the end.

MR VISSER: I will leave out some words Chairperson, it is half way down the page

"Mr Visser: well, did you speak to Mr Selamolela about the time that this lady was kept at Norwood? Mr Veyi, what I did when I was with Mr Lamey, he told me that Selamolela was also present. After taking my statement, he would take Mr Selamolela's statement."

If I may pause there Chairperson. Mr Selamolela, thus far it seems to be the same as what you have just told us, I am not going to come back to that. If I may continue with the quotation-

"... Selamolela then came and I greeted him and we haven't been seeing each other for more than five years. We didn't discuss about Simelane's case."

So what he is saying is he didn't discuss Simelane's case with you, which is the same as you said? Do you understand?

MR SELAMOLELA: I do.

MR VISSER: Then

"Mr Visser: Did you listen while Mr Selamolela was telling Mr Lamey what he remembered about this incident?

Mr Veyi, I was present, I was there."

Now, that is entirely different from what you have just told us, Mr Selamolela, now who is correct, you or Mr Veyi?

MR SELAMOLELA: The statement which Mr Visser has just read, is from Mr Veyi, but I am stating what I remember. I have made a statement long before I met Mr Veyi at Mr Lamey's office, so there is nothing which has been changed.

MR VISSER: Mr Selamolela, the simple truth is that both of you can't be right, only one can be correct. Either he did sit in, in the consultation or he didn't, what do you say, who is right and who is wrong?

MR SELAMOLELA: I will only testify about my personal knowledge, I made my statement long before and I did not even know that Sergeant Veyi was in Mr Lamey's office or that they had an appointment.

MR VISSER: So in fact what you are saying is you are correct and Mr Veyi is wrong?

MR SELAMOLELA: I am not saying he is wrong, I am only stating what I remember about that particular day.

MR VISSER: But how can he be correct if you are correct? How can he be right, surely Mr Selamolela, only one of the two of you can be correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know or I don't remember as to whether when did Sergeant Veyi make a statement at Mr Lamey's office. I made my statement long before I met Mr Veyi at Mr Lamey's office.

MR VISSER: All right, so you say you are correct and he is wrong, is that what you are saying?

MR SELAMOLELA: I am saying I am right, but I am not saying Sergeant Veyi is wrong.

MR VISSER: All right.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, on this aspect, I just want to refer the Committee also to what is stated on page 572, I don't know what the corresponding number is, but I just want to put on record, that is not the final word that Mr Veyi has spoken of this aspect, as it pleases you, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Again Mr Chairman, my learned friend will have his opportunity in re-examination. I don't understand why he insists on interrupting.

MR LAMEY: I am putting this because I don't think it is fair to quote only the portion that suits Mr Visser when he is asking a question to Mr Selamolela.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and we trust you will deal with the fuller context in re-examination Mr Lamey, because I note what you say in general, you have obviously not referred us specifically to the portion that you rely on, but this is obviously material for re-examination.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. You told us yesterday about the brown uniform that Simelane was made to wear, do you remember that?

MR SELAMOLELA: I spoke about a brown overall.

MR VISSER: No less than six times in your evidence. I want to ask you Mr Selamolela, what is the significance of the brown overall to you? Do you want to make any point of it, because I don't understand what the significance of it is.

MR SELAMOLELA: The brown overall I am talking about is the one which was worn by Ms Simelane, there is nothing in addition or any importance about that overall.

MR VISSER: Yes, there was nothing wrong with it, was there?

MR SELAMOLELA: It was not her clothes, but that overall did not belong to her, it was given to her.

MR VISSER: You also said yesterday, I am sorry did Commissioner Gcabashe want to ask something? I thought you were going for your microphone. You also said yesterday that the reason why you thought or one of the reasons why you thought that Veyi was at Norwood Quarters, was because he was not present at the office, do you remember that?

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry Mr Visser, he was at Norwood Quarters because he wasn't present ...?

MR VISSER: At the office, at their offices Mr Chairperson. I am sorry, I didn't hear your answer Mr Selamolela?

MR SELAMOLELA: Are you talking about the first occasion or the second occasion at Norwood?

MR VISSER: I am talking about the fact that you said that you were there on the Saturday and the Monday and I am not going to go into that again, but you said thereafter Mr Veyi was not at the office and therefore he was at Norwood Quarters, can you remember that?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I said so. Veyi came either on Monday or Tuesday at Norwood to relieve us. That is why I was sure that he was present in the second occasion at Norwood.

MR VISSER: Yes, but after the second occasion when you were there together with him at Norwood, you told this Committee, unless you want to change that, that Mr Veyi was there after that second occasion on two further days, and you said so because he wasn't at the office. You said because if he was not at the office, he was at Norwood or have I got it wrong?

MR SELAMOLELA: I said so that he was at Norwood.

MR VISSER: Because he wasn't at the office?

MR SELAMOLELA: I knew that he was at Norwood, because we were collecting informers' reports and hand them over to Warrant Officer Coetzee and then the car which was used by Sergeant Sefuthi and Veyi was at the Norwood Quarters, so it was no secret that they were there, I was sure that they were at Norwood.

MR VISSER: All right. Did you go up after the second occasion, to hand in reports to Coetzee, is that what you are now saying?

MR SELAMOLELA: Are you talking about where Simelane was kept, in the room where Simelane was kept?

MR VISSER: That is exactly what we are talking about.

MR SELAMOLELA: I did not hand over the reports at that particular room, but I took them to Warrant Officer Coetzee's flat, but I knew that Sergeant Veyi was there at Norwood.

MR VISSER: Yes, well all right, did the fact that he wasn't at the office then play no role in your knowledge that he was there after you were there the second occasion?

MR SELAMOLELA: I said Veyi stayed perhaps two days on the second occasion, when he left Norwood, he went to the office, so he stated that he was at Norwood guarding Ms Simelane, so it was not a secret.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right, well, I am just putting it to you that you are changing your evidence from yesterday. On that point of your evidence of yesterday, I want to put to you what Mr Veyi said at page 520 of the record. He said this

"Mr Veyi: As we were working, we would take instructions from the office, because we would not be there at the office most of the time."

Is that a correct statement by Mr Veyi?

MR SELAMOLELA: At that time, we would go to the office, we will go early in the morning to the office, then we would disperse thereafter.

MR VISSER: Yes, and the fact that Veyi was not at the office for two days, for the whole of the two days, did not necessarily mean that he was at Norwood Quarters, would you agree with me?

MR SELAMOLELA: I don't agree with you because I am stating that I was sure that Veyi was at Norwood after the second occasion.

MR VISSER: When the whites were away from the farm, and there were only black members with Simelane, did you remove her cuffs?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, we removed her cuffs.

MR VISSER: Both the foot, the ankle and the wrist cuffs?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct, I remember that we removed both the hands and the leg cuffs.

MR VISSER: The pump that you spoke about, I know in your language from my experience from the farm, that pump may mean something else. When you talk about a pump, are you talking about a tap?

MR SELAMOLELA: I am talking about the tap.

MR VISSER: Thank you. Are you conceding or are you denying that Simelane was provided with toiletries, soap and a comb and such matters?

MR SELAMOLELA: In the first occasion and in the second occasion, I don't remember seeing any toiletries in Simelane's person.

MR VISSER: Can you deny that she did receive it?

MR SELAMOLELA: If she was given, I as absent, that is why I say I did not see that.

MR VISSER: And as far as medication is concerned, is it possible that she received medication without you knowing about it?

MR SELAMOLELA: Just a minute, just a minute. My reply is that if she was given toiletries and medication, I could have seen them, because that room was too small and she did not have a bag.

MR VISSER: So you in fact are denying that she received it, is that what you are saying?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I deny that.

MR VISSER: You said in your application that you erected a tent, do you remember that?

MR SELAMOLELA: I remember, but we did not erect, we did not erect that tent. When we arrived there, we were supposed to erect a tent, but we did not erect that tent, we were supposed to erect a tent.

MR VISSER: So when you said you erected a tent, that is incorrect?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is incorrect, then I rectified that with my legal Counsel.

MR VISSER: Were you aware that the Security Police of Soweto had safehouses in 1983?

MR SELAMOLELA: I would not say they were safehouses, because I am not sure as to whether they were safehouses. I don't know how to describe them.

MR VISSER: Yes, you see that is exactly what I want to ask you.

INTERPRETER: He wants to continue with his reply.

MR SELAMOLELA: We had houses that belonged to the Security Police, they were used by people of Portuguese origin, I would not say that they were safehouses, but there were times when the informers were taken to that particular houses, to take statements from them, so they belonged to the Police Service.

MR VISSER: Yes, they belonged to the Police, to the South African Police, is that what you have just said?

MR SELAMOLELA: I believe so because at times we were using those houses.

MR VISSER: But there were people staying in those houses, living in those houses?

MR SELAMOLELA: The people who were staying in those houses, are of Portuguese origin as I stated yesterday and it was not surprising because they were part of our Unit.

MR VISSER: Yes, exactly. And it was Strongman and Immanuel that stayed there?

MR SELAMOLELA: Strongman and Immanuel were staying in another house and there were other houses in Klipspruit.

MR VISSER: You stated yesterday that you don't remember seeing Simelane make notes or handing notes or documents to Coetzee, do you remember that?

MR SELAMOLELA: I said so that if I was present at the farm in the first and second occasion, I did not see her making notes or handing over any document to Mr Coetzee.

MR VISSER: But you don't deny that she could have done so without your knowledge?

MR SELAMOLELA: I did not know as to whether she made a statement in my absence, but in my presence I did not see that.

MR VISSER: You yesterday said that attempts were made to recruit Simelane, do you remember that?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I stated so.

MR VISSER: How were these attempts made?

MR SELAMOLELA: Warrant Officer Coetzee informed us that we should talk to her, maybe she would agree to work with us, and then she was promised that she would be taken to University and she stated that because she finished her University studies, there is no need for her to work with us.

MR VISSER: In other words you actually participated in the recruitment?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, all of us were given that instruction that we should talk to her nicely, but she denied and said she did not know anything.

MR VISSER: Well, let me tell you what the reason for that was, Simelane was concerned about the number of black members that were on the farm and she requested Coetzee to keep it a secret from you that she agreed to work with Coetzee as an informer. Can you deny that?

MR SELAMOLELA: I would dispute that because Ms Simelane was used to us as blacks more than white Police, if she wanted to work with the Police, she would tell us first. We were the ones who would be informed first.

MR VISSER: Yes, well that is what you think you see, but she was doubtful about the blacks because she didn't trust them obviously?

MR SELAMOLELA: The way I explained to Mr Visser is that she was more free when she was with us as compared to when she was with the white Police.

MR VISSER: You said that you were eating ration packs, is that correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Were everybody there getting the same food, Simelane as well as the members, every day?

MR SELAMOLELA: The ration packs I am talking about, there was a box, if you wanted to eat, you just go to that box and pick your share. If we don't want to eat those packs, we would go to the shops and buy our own food.

MR VISSER: There was nothing wrong with the food that you or Simelane got on the farm, was there?

MR SELAMOLELA: There was nothing wrong with those ration packs, but you won't be able to eat them every day.

MR VISSER: Yes, you get tired of them, yes of course. With whose money did you buy the food at the shop, did Coetzee give you money?

MR SELAMOLELA: We were used to our own money and then even Warrant Officer Coetzee would bring money from the office and then we were using that money.

MR VISSER: Yes, and giving it to you? And giving it to you?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Yes. If you will grant me a second please, Mr Chairman. Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Van den Berg, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Just a few, Mr Chairperson. Mr Selamolela, the motor vehicle that you drove from the Carlton Centre back to Norwood, what sort of motor vehicle was it?

MR SELAMOLELA: If I remember well, it is a Honda Ballade, I am not saying it is a Honda Ballade, I am saying if I remember well that is the car I drove.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And the vehicle that was at the disposal of Veyi and Sefuthi, what vehicle was that, what make was it?

MR SELAMOLELA: The car which was used by Sefuthi, I don't remember what make was that, I don't remember the make of that car.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You said ...

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, Mr Van den Berg, you asked him the car that Sefuthi and Veyi drove, did they use the same car or did Sefuthi have a car and Veyi have a car?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, as I understood the record, there was a car which was shared by Veyi and Sefuthi, but maybe I should clarify that. Can we just come back to that then Mr Selamolela, did Mr Veyi have his own motor vehicle?

MR SELAMOLELA: At that time I did not know as to whether he was driving, but I knew was that Sefuthi was the driver, but I don't know what car Sefuthi used.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I asked you the question this way, did they each have their own motor vehicle or was there a vehicle that they shared?

MR SELAMOLELA: All of us did not have cars, but I had a particular car which I used.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And that was the Honda Ballade which you described?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And that was a Police motor vehicle?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then was there another Police motor vehicle which Sefuthi used?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct, that is the car which I stated that I don't know the model.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And apart from those two motor vehicles, was there another vehicle which Veyi used?

MR SELAMOLELA: As I have already explained that I don't remember as to whether at that particular time, Veyi had a driver's license because I received my driver's license before Veyi.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Selamolela, you said on several occasions yesterday and I am not sure whether it is what you meant to convey or whether it was the way it was translated, but you said on several occasions that Ms Simelane was recruited. Was she in fact recruited, did she agree to work with the Police or not?

MR SELAMOLELA: She did not agree to work with the Police.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understood your evidence correctly, even up to till the second occasion which was about the fourth week that you were at Northum, she was still uncooperative, is that correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The description of her mission in South Africa, the fact, that is the version that is put up by some of your co-applicants, the fact that she gave instructions for power stations to be sabotaged, was that information conveyed to you by Ms Simelane or was it conveyed to you by Warrant Officer Coetzee or Sergeant Pretorius?

MR SELAMOLELA: Warrant Officer Coetzee and Sergeant Pretorius in regard to the sabotage of the power stations, they did not inform me about those, but according to my knowledge the sabotage of the power stations was not related to Simelane, but it was the instructions from the ANC outside, to Frank Lange. Frank Lange was involved in the sabotage of the power stations.

ADV GCABASHE : Mr Selamolela, I did not catch, who told you about that?

MR SELAMOLELA: Frank Lange informed me about the issue of the power stations, so that is, Ms Simelane is not involved in that information.

ADV GCABASHE : Who told her to participate in the setting up of the different explosions?

MR SELAMOLELA: Let me put it this way, I did not plant the bombs but I was present when they were planted, we were there as a group.

ADV GCABASHE : Okay, who asked you to go along with the group?

MR SELAMOLELA: Warrant Officer Coetzee told me that we should meet on that particular night.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. The power stations, those attacks, was it before or after or during the time that Ms Simelane was in detention?

MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember as to whether it is after or before the detention of Ms Simelane, but it did not relate to Ms Simelane.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you recall the date, or let me put it to you this way, can you dispute that Justice Ngedi was arrested on the 25th of May 1984?

MR SELAMOLELA: I agree with Mr Van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And we have heard evidence that he was detained on two occasions and if my, if I understand my instructions correctly, that was the first occasion that he was detained?

MR SELAMOLELA: I only know that he was detained, I was not present when he was detained for the second time.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The time that you participated in his arrest, was the informer SWT66 present?

MR SELAMOLELA: The arrest of Justice Ngedi was brought, the information was brought by W66, so that is the one who made it possible that Justice Ngedi should be arrested.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understood your evidence correctly, he was arrested when he crossed over from Swaziland into South Africa, do I remember correctly?

MR SELAMOLELA: Let me explain it this way, there informer whom I am talking about had a contact with Justice Ngedi in Swaziland so Warrant Officer Coetzee arranged with that particular informer that we should go to Swaziland because a week before he was arrested, SWT66 went to Swaziland and when he came back, he informed Warrant Officer that Justice Ngedi wanted to come to South Africa. Then Warrant Officer Coetzee arranged that I should accompany that informer in Swaziland and then when we returned, we came with Justice Ngedi, that is when he was arrested at the border.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Let us just try and understand what you have told us, you say that Coetzee had received information from SWT66 that Ngedi wished to come into South Africa, do I understand that portion correctly?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And this was about a week before the arrest? Yes, I am not asking you if it is exactly a week, I am asking you plus minus?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, approximately a week.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And did I understand your evidence correctly then that you said you went to Swaziland where you were introduced to Ngedi and you came back, out of Swaziland, with Ngedi?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you introduced to Ngedi by SWT66?

MR SELAMOLELA: That informer was staying in Swaziland, he is from Swaziland but he was staying in South Africa, and when we went to Swaziland, we went to his home. He again had an appointment with Justice, then Justice arrived at his home, then he introduced me to Justice, then from there, we arranged that we were going to leave the following day, to leave Swaziland for South Africa.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I am assuming and you must correct me if I am wrong, that in that process, you pretended that you were somebody who wished to join the ANC or who wished to assist the ANC?

MR SELAMOLELA: We did not discuss about that issue, but I was offering that informer transport to go to Swaziland to go and fetch Justice and come back. I did not pretend to join the ANC or to help them.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened with Ngedi once he was arrested?

MR SELAMOLELA: After he was arrested at the border, we brought him to Protea in Soweto, Protea Police station in Soweto.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you participate in his interrogation there?

MR SELAMOLELA: When we arrived at Protea, until he escaped, I did not see him, I was not present when he was interrogated.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Then the final aspect that I still need some clarification on is you described the assault on Simelane as the first of its kind, did you see an assault of a similar nature subsequent to the assault of Simelane?

MR SELAMOLELA: Will you please repeat your question sir?

MR VAN DEN BERG: You described the assault of Simelane in your evidence, you said it was the first of its kind, indicating I think in response to Mr Visser, that it was the first assault of such a severe nature, which you had participated in and had witnessed. Did you see a similar type assault later on in your Police career?

MR SELAMOLELA: I did not experience an assault of that kind subsequently.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van den Berg. Ms Thabethe, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you Chairperson, I do have a few questions. Mr Selamolela, I just want to find out on the two occasions that you were at the farm, did Ms Simelane wash herself, did you see her wash herself or was she provided with the facility to wash herself?

MR SELAMOLELA: When I was present, I don't remember seeing her washing or being given toiletries.

MS THABETHE: You indicated that you would go to the farm to guard her, did you stay inside her room when you guarded her or outside?

MR SELAMOLELA: The room where she was staying was a small room, so it was summer, there would be times when we would stay outside and then she would stay inside the room.

MS THABETHE: Would there be times when you would stay inside the room with her?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.

MS THABETHE: You have also indicated that you tried to recruit her as black members on the farm, what I want to find out is during the recruitment, what would you say to her?

MR SELAMOLELA: We were saying to her that if there is anything she knows which Warrant Officer Coetzee wants to know, she should reveal that and then the assault would stop and then she told us that she did not know anything. Then she was not even enticed that the Security Police would help her with her studies.

MS THABETHE: How long would you try to recruit her for?

MR SELAMOLELA: I am not able to state the duration, but we used to talk to her regularly because we were trying to avoid that the assault would continue. Then there would be times when we would talk with her generally.

MS THABETHE: This is just for interest sake, when you talk to her inside the room, would she be seated down somewhere or exactly what was the arrangement, would you be standing, would you all be sitting down? Can you just give us a picture?

MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember that there was a chair, but always she was sitting on a stretcher, all the time when we were discussing with her.

MS THABETHE: Besides the stretcher, was there any other furniture in the room?

MR SELAMOLELA: If I remember well, there was no furniture in the room. We have only the stretchers which we brought, if I remember well, but I don't remember anything about furniture.

MS THABETHE: Did she used to sleep on the stretcher?

MR SELAMOLELA: All of us were sleeping on the stretchers and we were sleeping on the stretchers and sleeping bags.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Selamolela, you had indicated that during your last visit, your second visit to the farm, Ms Simelane was weak.

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to ask you was she eating at that time?

MR SELAMOLELA: As I stated that after we bought food, we would buy her food, but her favourite at that time was to drink juice, her favourite drink was juice. She was weak physically.

CHAIRPERSON: So, she showed a liking for juice, would you then buy, when you go to the shop, would you then buy her juice, fruit juice, I assume fruit juice?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct, yes, that is orange juice.

CHAIRPERSON: And would she drink that?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct, she would finish that juice.

CHAIRPERSON: Would she also eat of the food that you bought from the shop?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct, but she did not like the ration packs, she was not eating those ... (tape ends) ...

CHAIRPERSON: Did she eat of that at all or what was the position with regard to the ration packs?

MR SELAMOLELA: She would eat a bit of it because if you don't like something, you would just eat a little bit of it, but she was not interested in the food packs.

CHAIRPERSON: She seems to have been eating and she seems to have been drinking the orange juice. From your observations, what caused her to be weak at that point?

MR SELAMOLELA: I think it is because of the assault and then I would say being worried emotionally or spiritually. She was not emotionally stable and then again because her face was swollen.

CHAIRPERSON: So would we understand it correctly that physically she was weak because of the assault?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct. She was not the same as the first occasion, she had changed, I would say she lost weight.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the physical side of things, and then emotionally speaking, she was upset, she wasn't normal, she wasn't ...

MR SELAMOLELA: I would say she was depressed.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, these conditions that you are describing here, being physically weak, being emotionally depressed, were those quite evident, would it have been evident to all of your Police who were on that farm with her?

MR SELAMOLELA: I think so because it was so evident.

CHAIRPERSON: So for example the fact that her face was swollen, that would have been evident to everybody?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: In spite of all this, do you say that the assaults continued even during that last visit of yours to the farm?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, there was no change, it was still the same.

CHAIRPERSON: Did she persist throughout the time that you were present on the farm, with the denials to the questions of the interrogators?

MR SELAMOLELA: Since she denied from the beginning, she continued denying.

CHAIRPERSON: You bought the food from the shop, you said in the absence, when the white members were not present on the farm?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you do that?

MR SELAMOLELA: At the time when they were present at the farm, she would not be able to drink the juice in their presence, so we would buy them, we would buy the food in their absence.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was it that she couldn't take the juice while the white members were present on the farm?

MR SELAMOLELA: I am talking about the juice and the food which we bought from the shop, so we did not know about their reactions, so we did not want to take a chance.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that you were not sure how they would have responded or reacted if you had given her the food and the juice to have whilst they were present there?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct. We thought maybe they would think that we sympathise with her and that we are not co-operating with them.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you of the view that these white members would not have approved of what you were doing in giving Ms Simelane food that you bought from the shop, and juice to drink?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, we had that suspicion. That is how I saw it.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever tell them about this?

MR SELAMOLELA: It was our secret.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Selamolela. Have you got any other questions?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Simelane, there is one thing that I am not so sure about. You told us that at the stage soon after her arrest or her kidnapping at the Carlton, whilst she was staying at Norwood, you did not know whether Veyi had a licence to drive a motor car and whether he was driving a car at that stage, is that correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And you told us that you didn't know what model Sefuthi drove, is that correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: But you would recognise Sefuthi's car or can't you recognise it?

MR SELAMOLELA: I knew that car, but I don't remember as to whether it was a Honda Ballade or what, what model was it. I got my licence in 1982 and then I think Veyi got his licence, if I remember well either late 1983, but he got his licence, driver's licence after me.

ADV DE JAGER: You also told us that during that period, you saw Veyi's car at Norwood and you assumed or you knew that he was there and he was with the woman, with Ms Simelane?

MR SELAMOLELA: I stated so, I said that the car which was used by Sefuthi and Veyi was at Norwood, because Sergeant Veyi was either going with me or with Sefuthi.

ADV DE JAGER: So it could have been Sefuthi that was there at Norwood?

MR SELAMOLELA: At the second occasion Veyi came with Sefuthi when they were coming to relieve me, Veyi came with Sergeant Sefuthi. When he returned to the office, he told us that he was at Norwood. The fact that he was at Norwood, or who was at Norwood at a particular time, was not a secret.

ADV DE JAGER: So your reference to Veyi's car was actually, should actually be seen as a reference to Sefuthi's car?

MR SELAMOLELA: It was the car used by both Sefuthi and Veyi at that particular time.

ADV DE JAGER: While trying to recruit Ms Simelane, you were told by Coetzee to speak nicely to her, according to your evidence, is that right?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, why were you afraid then to give her for instance juice or a drink or food?

MR SELAMOLELA: Because we were eating the ration packs, when they were present, they were giving her ration packs, but we did not know their reaction when they can see us giving her food and drinks because Warrant Officer Coetzee did not instruct us to go and buy food at the shops and give them to the lady.

ADV DE JAGER: Wouldn't that also influence her to perhaps be recruited?

MR SELAMOLELA: To give a person food and to give a person money, but if a person is not willing, that would not help.

ADV DE JAGER: I can understand that. Mr Veyi told us that whilst he was there, they brought her water to wash whilst the whites were not present, didn't you see that?

MR SELAMOLELA: I did not see that because I went two occasions and then Veyi went there three times. Maybe he is talking about the time when I was absent.

ADV DE JAGER: This tap, was it near the room?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, it was near that room.

ADV DE JAGER: And you, did you wash your face for instance there with the water from that tap?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And was that water also used for drinking purposes?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you make tea or coffee or anything there?

MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember as to whether we were making tea or coffee because there was no stove. I don't know as to whether we were drinking tea there or coffee there.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you make a fire, there is plenty of wood there, isn't there?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct, we were making a fire.

ADV DE JAGER: So you could boil water on a fire?

MR SELAMOLELA: The reason for that fire was to warm up the ration packs because those tins needed to be warmed before we eat.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, like the "boelie beef" and all the substances in the ration packs?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: What kind of liquids or mix for liquids were provided in the packs, the ration packs?

MR SELAMOLELA: They have cheese, biscuits, coffee and tea but I am not able to remember as to whether we drank tea or coffee and the taste of the juice in that ration pack, was not tasty as compared to the juice that we would buy at the shops. Even the cheese was not of the same quality.

ADV DE JAGER: So there was juice in the ration, but it wasn't of a nice taste?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: But you never tested the coffee or the tea in the ration packs, what the taste of the tea and coffee would be?

MR SELAMOLELA: The tea and coffee which were in the ration packs, before we went to the farm, I knew the taste of that coffee and tea, that is why even at the farm, I did not want to taste that or drink that, because I knew the taste and I am not a person who is addicted to tea or coffee.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you see anybody else drinking tea or coffee?

MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember as to whether we had pots there.

ADV DE JAGER: With these ration packs, aren't you provided with a holder, a tin holder?

MR SELAMOLELA: There were tins, but you cannot find anything like a plate.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but those, the Police and the soldiers were provided by a, I don't know what they called it, but it is a tin holder which would include the food and you could even have soup in it, isn't that so?

MR SELAMOLELA: The ration packs I am talking about, did not have a plate or anything unless you bring your own container like for example a cup or a plate.

ADV DE JAGER: Were there any cups?

MR SELAMOLELA: As I have explained that I don't remember as to whether cooking utensils or plates or cups were there, as I have said, you cannot eat them for a long time. That is why we had to buy our own food.

ADV DE JAGER: You have warmed up the contents of the ration packs, how did you do that without putting it into a container?

MR SELAMOLELA: You would take a tin, open it and then warm it up and then eat it from that particular tin.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything else? Thank you. Mr Lamey, have you got any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson. During cross-examination of Mr Visser it was, I think the very last question, you mentioned something, I didn't hear your answer clearly that, I thought I understood it that Coetzee would give you money for the food that you bought at the farm, is that what you testified?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I said so.

MR LAMEY: Now, was that to refund you because you have paid for the food out of your pocket?

MR SELAMOLELA: The money which he used to give to us, we had the right to receive that money because there is something called a "standing advance" if you are going out for a week, then you should be given that "standing advance", therefore we had that right to receive that money.

MR LAMEY: The advance money, was it given before you went to Northum or was it sort of refunded to you after you had been there?

MR SELAMOLELA: I do not remember whether he gave us that money immediately we arrived at Northum.

MR LAMEY: Am I assuming correct that when the money was given by Coetzee for the food, you didn't tell him that the food was because you bought it for Simelane, he thought it was food that you bought for yourself, is that correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct because we would not say that we were buying also for Ms Simelane, because they did not give us that instruction to buy food for her.

MR LAMEY: When you say that you don't remember about the tea or the coffee, are you talking about yourself and you don't exclude the possibility that some other members could have made tea or coffee, or what is your answer in that regard?

MR SELAMOLELA: I am saying that I don't remember us making tea or coffee, I don't remember us making tea or coffee.

MR LAMEY: You say you don't remember, is it that it is possible that it happened, but you cannot recall it exactly?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: During cross-examination you were asked about, now I am talking about Norwood, the position where the car was parked, the car in which boot Simelane was kept. Now, the question was I think it was around the words "out of sight", could you just pause for a moment and describe sort of the Norwood Quarters, the building as such? What type of building is it?

MR SELAMOLELA: When you enter through the main entrance, you find the first block.

MR LAMEY: If you talk about the main entrance, are you talking about sort of a gate of an area on which the building is or are you talking about the door entrance to the building as such or the lift entrance to the building as such, let us just get clarity on what you talk about the main entrance.

MR SELAMOLELA: There was no gate and there was no wall at the front when you enter, when you enter, it would be the first block and it would be the second block, I would say it is block A and block B.

MR LAMEY: Can I just stop you there, if you talk about a block A and block B, what type of a building is it? Just physically describe the general nature of the building.

MR SELAMOLELA: I would say they were flats, there were two flats.

MR LAMEY: Is it like these flats that one find here in the city in Arcadia and in Sunnyside, upright, multiple-storey flats?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct, it was a 12-storey building.

MR LAMEY: Now what is the main entrance that you talk about?

MR SELAMOLELA: There is no gate, but when you enter, you firstly you would see block A, then when you proceed, you would go to block B, then from Carlton Centre, the cars were parked on the first block, that is block A.

MR LAMEY: All right, does this building have - I haven't been to the place and I don't know about any of the other, certainly the Committee not, and I just want to try and visualise the building as such, but these normal flats that I have in my mind, you have an entrance in a particular block where you have sort of a stairway and lifts where you - the inhabitants of the flats go in and out, was that also the situation in Norwood?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And with these flats normally, you also have normally at the back, sort of parking areas, some of them you know are perhaps open or some of them are under the building as such, some of them have got lock-up garages and some of these buildings also have sort of what you call a fire-staircase at the back where the parking areas are, which are used by people coming, alighting from the vehicles. What was the situation with Norwood or I want really to get a description from you, if you can recall, if you can at all recall, the area where this car was parked.

MR SELAMOLELA: From Carlton Centre, the cars were parked at block A, then each and every flat, you would find a parking area under, it is not a garage, then there is an open parking where anybody can park. We parked at block A, there would be a space where cars would be parked, and even that is an open parking, but it a little bit at the back.

MR LAMEY: It would have been, if any inhabitant of the flat would notice that a person is taken out of a boot of a car, that would have been an unusual situation, it could have alerted someone, is that correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, it would surprise people if any person could have observed that.

MR LAMEY: Right, now Simelane was taken at a certain stage out of the boot of the car, that we all know, is that correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: How was, what provision were made in order that nobody observed that?

MR SELAMOLELA: We waited until it was dark, then from there where we parked, we went to block B, that is where, that is in that building where she was taken to, to the 12th floor, to the particular room, so she was taken next to the steps at the beginning of block B and then you would find the staircases and the car was parked there. It was dark.

MR LAMEY: Can I just stop you there, was the car moved in other words to a particular point next to the staircase? Is that what you are saying?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Okay. I just want to get more clarity also on this, when you were not at Norwood and when you carried on with your normal tasks, you mentioned that you took reports to Coetzee, is that correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Where did you take these reports?

MR SELAMOLELA: He was staying at block A and if there is any report which we need to take, we would take it to him, to his flat.

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, it is eleven o'clock.

MR LAMEY: I have heard, the Interpreter has just drawn my attention, that it is eleven o'clock, Mr Chairman, shall we adjourn?

CHAIRPERSON: How much have you got left Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I've got ...

CHAIRPERSON: We won't interrupt you too much if we were to break now?

MR LAMEY: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Because if you are wrapping up, then I would rather wait for you to do that.

MR LAMEY: I've got a few more questions, not very much, but I've got a few, I suggest it will be a convenient time to break.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well, you've got the support of the Interpreters. We will adjourn for 15 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MOHAPI LAZARUS SELAMOLELA: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey, any further re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Selamolela, you were also asked about whether you discussed this incident, I am talking now in general, about the kidnapping and detention of Simelane at Northum, with other members, also black members of your Unit and my recollection of what you stated in your evidence was you didn't do that, you did not trust each other and you said further that it is not that you did not trust each other as a person but from your work as a Security Policeman, you did not trust each other. Can you just explain more a bit, this aspect that you could not or did not trust each other, just to make that more clear?

MR SELAMOLELA: When I explained that we did not trust one another, I was saying that after the second occasion, after I had left Northum, I did not discuss with other members about Ms Simelane because I did not know her whereabouts at that time and I did not ask any person about the whereabouts of her, after I left for the last time.

MR LAMEY: No, I understand that, but you said the reason for that was that you did not or could not trust the other members. I just want to ask you just to clarify this aspect and just to explain this a bit more about the trust aspect.

MR SELAMOLELA: There is what we call a "need to know basis", that is how I can put it.

MR LAMEY: Okay, what is the meaning of that?

MR SELAMOLELA: The last time when I saw Ms Simelane, I did not tell anybody or I did not discuss this incident with anybody because I did not know what happened to her.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but the "need to know basis", what does that mean?

MR SELAMOLELA: I explained that to give an example, if Sergeant Veyi was not present the day before, I did not see a reason why should I ask him where he was, I did not see a need or a reason to ask him where he was. It is up to him to tell me where he was and what he was doing.

MR LAMEY: Okay, what would your superiors if it would come to their knowledge that you are asking questions and you want to get more information as to what happened with her and you start discussing in your Unit the Simelane incident, what in your mind would you think, if that comes to the knowledge of your superiors, how would they see that?

MR SELAMOLELA: According to me, my life would be in danger because they would think that I was sympathising with Ms Simelane.

MR LAMEY: Did you also work under secrecy?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Okay. So if you started talking about this, would that jeopardise the secret conditions under which you worked?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I would put my life at risk because my life was my priority.

MR LAMEY: You said that informers were interviewed at these houses where the Portuguese people stayed, is that correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Why would they not be interviewed at the Police station?

MR SELAMOLELA: The identity of the informer usually should be a secret, that is why there were houses where we used to meet with them, because at the Police station, they would be easily identified. We had to hide, we had to hide their identity.

MR LAMEY: Would it be correct to say that it would be unsafe to interview, to get information from informers at the Police Units, at Soweto Security Branch and so on?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct. Their lives would be in danger.

MR LAMEY: Mr Selamolela, this statement of yours in the Bundle was signed and sworn to you, is that correct, if you look at page 564?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: On the 27th of May 1997, is that correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Prior to you signing this statement of yours, did you see Mr Veyi at the offices of your Attorney?

MR SELAMOLELA: Before I, after I had made the statement and signed the statement, I did not see him before, I saw him after I signed the statement.

MR LAMEY: When was this that you saw Mr Veyi at the offices of your Attorneys?

MR SELAMOLELA: If I remember well, I saw him this year before the amnesty hearing in Johannesburg, that was for the first time that I saw Mr Veyi at Mr Lamey's office.

MR LAMEY: Now, I just want to put to you what Mr Veyi has, on the record I am referring to page 571 to 572, Mr Chairman, of my Bundle, I don't know what the corresponding number would be, I think the 571 had a corresponding number of ...

CHAIRPERSON: 552, yes.

MR LAMEY: 552, so it must be just the page thereafter, or possibly on the same page. I just want to tell you also what Mr Veyi has said further on, Mr Visser said, I am referring on the top of page 572

"... yes, and you heard him say that Simelane was kept at Norwood for approximately a week?"

Page 567 Chairperson, Bundle 3, sorry Mr Chairman.

MS THABETHE: Page 552.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR LAMEY: Mr Visser says

"... yes, and you heard him say that Simelane was kept at Norwood for approximately a week?"

And then Mr Visser refers to the Bundle of documents. Mr Veyi's answer is -

"... Mr Lamey only wanted to know whether I know the story of Simelane and Selamolela, whether I was present in this case and then I agreed I was present during the Nokuthula incident. Then I don't remember anything else."

INTERPRETER: May you please slow down.

MR LAMEY: Sorry. Must I repeat?

"Mr Veyi: Mr Lamey only wanted to know whether I know the story of Simelane and Selamolela, whether I was present in this case and then I agreed I was present during the Nokuthula incident. Then I don't remember anything else.

Mr Visser: You are avoiding the question, did you hear Selamolela tell Mr Lamey that this lady was kept at Norwood for approximately a week, it is a simple question?

Mr Veyi: No, I didn't hear him.

Mr Visser: Well, I suggest to you that is exactly where you heard about the week and that is the reason why you changed your original statement from the more or less correct situation of one day, it is in fact two days, but one day after her arrest, to a week after her arrest, that is the reason why you changed it, I put it to you. What do you say to that?

Mr Veyi: What I am saying is I did not change, I just added to what I have forgotten after I had consulted with Mr Lamey."

Now, I think the - to ask you this Mr Selamolela, did you discuss the details of this incident, referring specifically to the duration of the period either before with Mr Veyi or at the time when you were at the office of your Attorneys, can you recall anything in that regard?

MR SELAMOLELA: We did not discuss about the statement with Mr Lamey in the presence of Sergeant Veyi. I have already explained that when I arrived at Mr Lamey's office, that is when Veyi was getting out, then we only greeted each other and then we only talked about within the period of two minutes, then he left.

MR LAMEY: What was the period that you and Veyi, is it correct that you arrived at the offices at the reception first?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you were then later brought to my office, is that correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And Mr Veyi was at that stage still in my office, is that correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: What was the duration of your and Veyi together in my office?

MR SELAMOLELA: As I have already explained that it is possible that we stayed together in that office for two minutes because Mr Veyi was through with the interview with Mr Lamey, then that was my appointment, and he left.

MR LAMEY: Now, about the - you were also asked questions about whether you were present at the crossing, the Fochville/Carltonville crossing to which Mr Veyi has testified and am I correct that you say you were not there present and if it, you would have recalled if you saw Simelane in the boot of the car of Coetzee at that stage, is that correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you always travel with Veyi together or was there times that you did not travel together?

MR SELAMOLELA: There was, there were times ... (tape ends).

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I just want to refer now also to a page of my record, page 702, the re-examination of Mr Veyi on this aspect. I am in the hands of the Evidence Leader perhaps, to just find the corresponding page of the Committee, page 702 of my Bundle, the re-examination, where the re-examination starts of Mr Veyi.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, is it day 15, the re-examination by Mr Lamey, oh, it says continues. I am looking at page 685 on our record, what is that page, how does it start?

MS THABETHE: Page 591, it is page 591.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 591?

MS THABETHE: Re-examination by Mr Lamey.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us have a look at that.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, it is very close to "No further questions by Mr Lamey". No, no, sorry I think it is the commencement of "further re-examination", I apologise Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Commencement of further re-examination? Is it at the beginning of a new day's proceedings?

MR LAMEY: No Mr Chairman, I don't find in my Bundle the beginning of a further day, but ...

ADV DE JAGER: Could you give us the first sentence perhaps?

MR LAMEY: On my page, "Chairperson, yes - no, it is fine Mr Lamey, go ahead." Then re-examination by Mr Lamey - "Mr Veyi, you testified about this trip to Potchefstroom ..."

MS THABETHE: Page 692?

CHAIRPERSON: Let's have a look, 692?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, towards the middle, "re-examination"?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it seems to be page 692, in the middle of the page. We seem to have that, thank you Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: May I just read then from the record. Mr Selamolela, Mr Veyi said in re-examination

"... Mr Veyi you testified about this trip to Potchefstroom, you saw Coetzee in the car and you saw Nokuthula Simelane also in the boot of the car. The question, can you remember clearly who the person was that was with you?

Mr Veyi: If I still remember well, I was with Selamolela."

Now I asked him -

"... are you dead certain about that, completely certain?"

Then Mr Visser objects -

"... Mr Chairman, really, really Mr Chairman, this is not the kind of question you ask in re-examination or of your own witness?

Chairperson: Yes, I think he has already also said if he can remember.

Mr Lamey: What I just want to clarify is exactly the phrase "if I do remember", there is something that senses a sort of qualification. I just want to get exact clarity on that.

Chairperson: Yes, well, he doesn't seem to be giving us a definite answer on that one, committing himself and saying it was definitely Selamolela, he is qualifying in a sense, 'if my memory serves me correctly', you know, that is what I understand him to say."

And then the further questioning was sort of just left there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairperson, I wanted to take this opportunity in re-examination, but I think the record in this regard speaks for itself, I will rather leave it then to argument, as to really go further in on this aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think so. Perhaps it is a wise decision Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: But Mr Selamolela, may I just put this, Mr Selamolela, in all fairness to you as to what has been put to you further, it would appear, the impression is left here that Mr Veyi is not exactly certain also whether you were present, I just want to put that to you. Now, when you were at the farm at Northum and you received instructions from Coetzee, when they left, that you had to talk to Simelane, was the instruction that you must continue in the same manner as to when the white Officers were present, in other words what I am talking about, what sort of, was there a difference in approach that was sort of indicated to you by Coetzee when they left and your members had to talk further to her in attempts to recruit her?

MR SELAMOLELA: Let me explain it this way, when they left, the instructions they gave us was that we should try to recruit her and to show her the album and then again to promise her about funding her studies. But we tried and we failed because she was not willing.

MR LAMEY: The manner in which these questioning took place and the interrogation by the black members when they left, was the manner of that different from when the, the occasions when they were present, I am referring now to the white Officers?

MR SELAMOLELA: If we were by ourselves only, the manner was not the same as when they were present. When we were with her in the absence of whites, we would talk with her nicely and then she would respond positively.

CHAIRPERSON: Was she assaulted during those occasions?

MR SELAMOLELA: When they were absent, she was free and she was not assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: If you say she responded positively, what do you mean by that?

MR SELAMOLELA: She was speaking positively in the sense that she, she was free and then she was not afraid and then she was responding by saying that she is not willing and she doesn't know anything.

MR LAMEY: Despite also her change, do I understand you correctly, her more positive or free speaking, she did not divulge any further information or indicated a willingness to be recruited, is that correct?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, she did not even want to hear that statement of saying she should be co-operating with the Police.

ADV DE JAGER: Did she admit that she was an MK member?

MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember saying, I don't remember hearing her saying that she was a member of MK, I only heard that from Mr Coetzee.

MR LAMEY: You also talked about the submerging, when she was put into the dam. Now, you have referred to three types of instances when that happened, you said the one instance was that she was put into the dam after she soiled herself after she was given electrical shocks, the other incident was when she, after suffocation with the bag and the other incident was, it was sort of during interrogation that Coetzee said that she must be taken to the dam. Now, you talked about submerging, can you recall, how would she, during the occasion that she soiled herself after the electrical shock, how would she be put into the dam?

MR SELAMOLELA: Sergeant Radebe would pick her up, then he would hold her on the waist and on the neck and then put her on the water.

MR LAMEY: But what part of her body would go into the water on that occasion? Can you recall exactly?

MR SELAMOLELA: The whole body was submerged into the water, he would put her in and put her out again, and put her in and take her out again.

MR LAMEY: For what - but if you talk about her whole body, do you include the head also?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did the same thing happen when she was put into the dam to regain her breath after the suffocating with the bag?

MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, the same method was used.

MR LAMEY: After the or during the interrogation, was it also the same type of method?

MR SELAMOLELA: It was still the same method.

MR LAMEY: If you say submerge, how long was she submerged under the water?

MR SELAMOLELA: I think it is about seconds, we will submerge her into the water in seconds and take her out, and put her in again.

MR LAMEY: All right, thank you. Mr Chairman, that concludes my re-examination, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, sorry, there is just one aspect I apologise, Mr Chairman, I yesterday asked the evidence leader to assist me in an attempt to get a portion of the Afrikaans transcription of cross-examination on Mr Coetzee, it is the portion, on my Bundle, it is the English translation is, the English translation in my Bundle is page 64 and 65, it is there where Mr Visser cross-examined Mr Selamolela about what was stated on Selamolela's behalf and the record reflects, I don't know what the corresponding number of ...

ADV DE JAGER: He is cross-examining who? Mr Visser is cross-examining ...

MR LAMEY: No.

CHAIRPERSON: No, yesterday.

MR LAMEY: No, yesterday Mr Visser cross-examined Mr Selamolela on this portion, the portion reflects versions that were put on behalf of Selamolela in the English.

CHAIRPERSON: To Coetzee?

MR LAMEY: To Coetzee, yes.

MS THABETHE: Sorry, would it be a cross-examination by you to Coetzee?

MR LAMEY: Coetzee, yes. My Bundle is page 64.

MS THABETHE: The sentence?

MR LAMEY: The sentence is "Mr Lamey: Mr Selamolela will say that ..." and then it goes on and then Mr Lamey down further "... and he will also give evidence that from time to time, he had to, his participation was more than holding on to her during interrogation, he slapped her, he can recall kicking her and it prima facie appears from the record." It refers also to Selamolela on the English version.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we had that reference in our record as well, I am just trying to pick it up.

MS THABETHE: Page 28?

CHAIRPERSON: Page number?

MS THABETHE: Page 28.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are right, it is page 28 in our record, this is the English version, you say you've got the Afrikaans, the original version of the cross-examination?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Your cross-examination of Mr Coetzee?

MR LAMEY: Yes. Mr Chairman, yesterday I couldn't refute what the record stated here, but it was bothering me because I hadn't had, I couldn't for a moment think that it was my instructions from Mr Selamolela in this regard as to that he, that it was his version that he slapped her and recalled kicking her and I asked the Evidence Leader to make an attempt to obtain the Afrikaans translation because Mr Coetzee was cross-examined in Afrikaans and it has just arrived shortly now before we commenced after the adjournment. Mr Chairman, I think we will have to make copies, but I just want to put on record here that the English translation appears to be incorrect.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you give us the Afrikaans?

MR LAMEY: The Afrikaans version is ...

CHAIRPERSON: Just that relevant portion.

MR LAMEY: That relevant portion

"Mr Lamey: Veyi will give evidence from time to time, that he from time to time had to participate in the assault more than just holding back. In the assault perhaps a slap, I can also remember that he may have kicked her."

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe a slapping, is that the word?

MR LAMEY: Yes, slapping.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps a slapping and what further?

MR LAMEY: He can also remember that he may have kicked her. Then on the next page, page 65

"Mr Lamey: Mr Selamolela, it is my instructions that she - he was not actually an active participant, he was more of an interpreter."

CHAIRPERSON: He was more of an interpreter?

MR LAMEY: Yes, he wasn't actually such an active participant in the assault, except that he held her back and had to guard her as well. Coetzee's answer is

"... it is possible Mr Chairperson."

I see the English to that is more or less the same, but the essence what I want to put here is I think we had on a crucial aspect, not a correct translation in the English version and I would request that copies be made and distributed to the Committee of the Afrikaans of this portion.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, if I may say something, I don't believe that we ever put that it was Selamolela who did the first thing, there reason why we referred to this page as far as Mr Selamolela was concerned was because it was never put by Mr Lamey that he put the hood over his head? That was the point. That was the point why we referred to this page.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it seems as if Mr Lamey is referring to the accuracy to this, the English version of what he had put in regard to the kicking and the slapping. He seems to be making a slightly different point.

MR VISSER: I accept that that was Mr Veyi, I have no argument with that. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of that matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Unless the Afrikaans version now will say that Mr Selamolela put a hood over her head, because then that would make a difference.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is your point, yes, so your point is a slightly different one. Yes Mr Lamey, Mr Visser seems to have put his position on record, you are concerned about the accuracy of this version of what Mr Selamolela is alleged to have done during the assault.

MR LAMEY: Yes, I understand what Mr Visser said but you know, when he referred to this portion, I saw also that and it would appear that there was a version put on behalf of Mr Selamolela and I don't want to debate this issue or make a point of it, I just wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to this aspect and then that portion of the record is incorrect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, could you just assist me here, I find the second sentence, Mr Selamolela, that he did not actually be an active member, but the one that you say where Mr Selamolela's name was mentioned where it should have been Veyi's, how far above or beneath that portion is that, the wrong one?

MR SELAMOLELA: Mr Chairman ...

MR VISSER: Nine lines, Mr Chairperson, eight or nine.

ADV DE JAGER: Above?

MR VISSER: Where it says "and he", that should be Veyi.

MR LAMEY: Yes, in the English "and he will also give evidence that from time to time, he had to, his participation was more than on holding her, he slapped her and kicking her."

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but the previous lines?

MR LAMEY: The previous lines, slightly above, if I can just count this ...

ADV DE JAGER: "... Mr Selamolela will say that he and I, and he will agree with you in the major part with regard to the assault", is that the one.

MR LAMEY: Yes, it starts off there.

ADV DE JAGER: So he would agree with Coetzee because you are asking it from Coetzee?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And Coetzee did not say that Simelane assaulted in kicking or whatever, or did he?

MR LAMEY: I am at a loss now, I don't remember that, I will have to check the rest of the record to say that, I haven’t looked at the remainder of the context. The point that I want to make is from the English version it would appear that there is a starting point of the version of Mr Selamolela where Mr Selamolela will say that and he will agree, then it continues downwards and the English versions would appear that where it further down says "and he will also give evidence", that it still refers to Selamolela, but the Afrikaans version reflects that that portion reflects to the statement of Veyi.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so the English version conflicts what you were putting separately on behalf of Veyi with what you had been putting on behalf of Selamolela?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is clear.

MR LAMEY: That is that aspect that I asked the Afrikaans record, we don't have the remainder of the Afrikaans record, but that is on this aspect that I wanted to get clarity.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because it was a apparent contradiction, what was put here according to the English, was an apparent contradiction to the version of Mr Selamolela?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, I understand.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I am through.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, perhaps you should just make a ruling that the word "he" after the word "and" should be struck out and substituted by "Veyi", then there is absolutely no problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. In fact we will to the extent that it is necessary, because the Afrikaans version of the record is obviously the official one in this case because that was the original sort of language, but to the extent that it is necessary, we will correct the English version of this record and substitute the word "he" where it appears in the context that we have discussed now, by the word "Veyi", and that should then reflect properly what was put to Mr Coetzee by Mr Lamey. Would that satisfy your requirements Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Yes Mr Chairman, that will do. I just would like then to have a further look at the remainder of the Afrikaans version also, what the Evidence Leader has, I haven't yet persuaded everything of that portion that she has, but if there is anything else, I will draw that to the attention of the Committee. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we can deal with it if there is anything further. For the moment, we will then excuse Mr Selamolela.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything else, any further witnesses that you will be calling.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I think Mr Selamolela would just want to say something else of his own accord.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

MR SELAMOLELA: I want to thank the Committee for giving me this opportunity to say something, I am directing my words to the Simelane family. I would like to say to the family please forgive me for playing a role or to be involved in this incident, in the incident of Nokuthula Simelane. My participation from Carlton Centre to Northum where she was taken, I am saying this incident about Nokuthula has taught me that I should not take orders which would lead to injury, pain, torture as it happened about your child. I am saying that thing would never happen. When we joined the Police Force, I said, I committed myself to apply law and order, protect and serve the community, but in regard to your child, that did not happen. We failed as a Unit who was involved in this incident, we failed. The duty of the Police was to protect, so we failed in regard to Nokuthula to protect her. Instead for her to be arrested and charged, we took her to various places and we did not have a right to take her to the farm in Northum, that is why I say the instructions we received, were not lawful, they were not lawful instructions. That showed that the management within the Police Services, they lacked leadership qualities. That is what I observed. We were not taught that we did not respect Ms Simelane, we did not respect her life, that is why I say I understand the pain that you experience, which you had from 1983, looking and searching even today, you are still in the dark. You are still in the dark because in all the applicants which have testified before this Commission, there is no one which has satisfied what the family wanted to know. I know that you are tired to hear that she was assaulted and kicked, what you want to know is where is she. I am saying as applicants, I am telling the truth about what I know and somebody comes with a different version, we are pointing fingers among ourselves within the Unit and we were co-workers, but today we are pointing fingers to one another, then we blame one another. It is a pity that these two people who have died, that is Sergeant Matiba and Frank Langa have died, maybe they could have come up with a light above the evidence I have given before this Commission. In those words I am saying to the family it was not the intention to do what we did to your child, we followed unjustified orders. Instead of protecting, we were harassing as we have created hatred, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Selamolela, you will then be excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, have you got any further witnesses?

MR LAMEY: No Mr Chairman, I've got no further evidence to be led. That is then the case for the applicants that I represent, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Van den Berg, have you got any witnesses that you wish to call?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson, there is a witness that I wish to call. Unfortunately during the concluding statement by Mr Selamolela, a number of the family members left. I think that they particularly wanted to hear the evidence of the witness I call.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I would ask for a short adjournment until they return, the person I want to call is Mr Thwala, he is the only witness I want to call.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I assumed that that would be the position. We will stand down just for a brief moment, to allow the family members to be able to return to the venue and then we will reconvene and hear your witness.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We will stand down.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: You say it is Mr Thwala?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson, he is across the room from me rather than next to me, because already I am peering around the corner to see Commissioner De Jager and I didn't want him to have to do the same thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we should all be in the open.

MR VAN DEN BERG: He will testify in English.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Just switch on and then please just rise and give your full names for the record please?

MR THWALA: I am Gilbert Thwala.

GILBERT THWALA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.

MR THWALA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van den Berg.

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Just by way of a bit of background Mr Thwala, where and when were you born?

MR THWALA: I was born in Newcastle in 1959.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And is it correct then that during 1976 you left South Africa, you joined the ANC and received military training?

MR THWALA: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then from about 1982 you were deployed in Swaziland, is that correct?

MR THWALA: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: In what capacity or capacities were you deployed, what were your responsibilities in respect of the ANC in Swaziland?

MR THWALA: I was the Chief of Staff of the Transvaal Urban Machinery, I was responsible for communications and operations in Swaziland and South Africa of the Transvaal Urban Machinery.

ADV GCABASHE : Sorry Mr Thwala, you will have to go just a bit slower, I didn't get that, responsible for what?

MR THWALA: Communications and operations.

MR VAN DEN BERG: To whom did you report?

MR THWALA: I was reporting to Siphiwe Nyanda.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What was your MK name?

MR THWALA: Mpho.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The Committee has heard evidence about a Duma Nkosi, do you know him?

MR THWALA: Yes, I know him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: How do you know him?

MR THWALA: We were staying in the same location in Soweto, and we were also attending the same high school. He also belonged to one of my Units, the cell in which he operated in Soweto.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What was Mr Nkosi's role and responsibilities in that cell?

MR THWALA: He was the leader of the cell, then he was our link with the group of people in that particular sector. He is the person who would recruit and make sure that they abided by the code of conduct and do everything that the ANC and MK will expect of them.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did he serve any other purpose for the ANC?

MR THWALA: Well, there are other tasks that we would assign him outside the Unit.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you give us an example or examples?

MR THWALA: In case of emergencies, he had prepared certain places where we can have our people hiding and also he was the chain with Swaziland because he had relations in Swaziland and he had studied in Swaziland, so for him it would be easier to travel at any time, because he can justify why he goes to Swaziland.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The applicants here seek amnesty for the kidnapping, abduction and assault of Nokuthula Simelane, did you know her?

MR THWALA: Yes, I did.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When did you first meet her?

MR THWALA: The first time was in 1979 when I met her.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Where was that?

MR THWALA: It was in Swaziland.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What was the nature of your relationship with Ms Simelane?

MR THWALA: In 1982, later on when I was deployed officially in Swaziland permanently, she then belonged to our Unit as the people who were assisting our Machinery, assisting it meant that those were the people who would be of hand in terms of arranging houses in Swaziland and also being a student at the University, she was within a group which would accommodate the people that were coming either from South Africa or from Maputo going to South Africa. She also was handling a Unit that was operating in the Vaal Triangle. The Unit we used to call Vaal 1, she was a courier of that Unit.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When you describe somebody as a courier, what are their roles?

MR THWALA: Basically a courier, it is a person who normally liaise between the Unit that would be operating in South Africa and the command structure in Swaziland. She was the person who would then make sure that the communication between the two, do happen, would link up with the Unit in terms of the mechanisms that we used, like the Dead Letter Boxes, etc, etc. But with the Vaal Unit, we had upgraded her status, she was responsible not only a courier and the reason for that was that it was evident during that period, that we will have to move into South Africa, all of us, and if we do move into South Africa, all of us, we needed reliable people in Swaziland who would be able to link us with Maputo and Lusaka and those people should be preferably people who were residing in Swaziland.

MR VAN DEN BERG: We have heard evidence that Ms Simelane had a meeting with Mr Mkhonza in Johannesburg, did you know Mkhonza?

MR THWALA: I knew about the Unit, there was two people, Scotch and Frank. I normally don't know who is Mkhonza and who is Langa. Yes, she was supposed to have had a meeting on a Saturday, I think at eleven o'clock at Carlton Centre with one of the two, I think Scotch.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What was the purpose of the meeting? Sorry, can I take one step back, I apologise Mr Chairperson. Did you send her?

MR THWALA: Yes, I did.

MR VAN DEN BERG: For that meeting?

MR THWALA: Yes, I did send her for that meeting.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What was the purpose of that meeting?

MR THWALA: She was supposed to pick up the details of communications with the Unit. The Unit was instructed through Cheche that they must prepared detailed communications with the command structure in Swaziland because we don't want them to come to Swaziland any more, so she was supposed to pick up that communication details from Scotch and bring it over to us.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You mentioned the name of Cheche, is that Justice Ngedi?

MR THWALA: Yes, that is Justice Ngedi.

MR VAN DEN BERG: This Unit that she was supposed to liaise with, you referred to them as Scotch and Frank, had you met either of those two people?

MR THWALA: I met one of them, Scotch I think, once in Swaziland.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you remember who introduced him to you?

MR THWALA: As far as I know, when he came to Swaziland the person who was handling him, Cheche or Justice Ngedi, was not available in Swaziland and I was told that there was such a person, so I went to meet him. If I am not mistaken, I went to a house, one of the central houses, I went there, I found him and the person told me there is a man who wants to see you. But knowing him, I knew him through Justice Ngedi.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you recall when Ms Simelane left Swaziland, can you recall an exact date or an approximate date?

MR THWALA: It was in September, if I am not mistaken the 8th or around there, on a Wednesday or Thursday, 1983.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Where was she to go?

MR THWALA: She was supposed, okay, to use the normal public transport to Soweto and she was to go to Duma's place in Soweto in Slawani.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You refer to Duma, is that Duma Nkosi?

MR THWALA: Duma Nkosi, yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And from Nkosi's place?

MR THWALA: From Nkosi's place, the legend was arranged that, because Duma was a student in Swaziland that he's got a visitor, Nokuthula was going to be the visitor and the following day, she was supposed to go and find the place where they were supposed to meet with this person to pick up the communication and on Saturday to go for the meeting and proceed to her place, home, in Mzinoni, to pass through Mzinoni and come to Swaziland again.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now, we have heard evidence that she was abducted by members of the South African Police, when did you realise that there was a problem?

MR THWALA: Saturday evening I realised that there was a problem.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Why?

MR THWALA: The arrangement was that after the meeting, we are going to communicate. When I did phone, Duma was there, she wasn't there and Duma said she left in the morning, going for the meeting and she has not come back. I asked her if the clothes were still there and she yes, she didn't take her clothing, the clothing was still there. Then I phoned her home to find out if she is there, they told me that she is in Swaziland. I said no, but she is coming over there for a pair of shoes and they said no, she hasn't come. They said, but she is in Swaziland and I said no, she did, she is coming for a pair of shoes. If I can give a background to the pair of shoes, Nokuthula was supposed to graduate officially soon thereafter, and I think the parents, through communication, they had bought her whatever she wanted including the pair of shoes, no arrangement that she was going to pass home, so the parents contacted the uncle or somebody else in Swaziland, (indistinct) that she did go home, so as to cover any (indistinct) as to where did she go between the three or four days when she wasn't in Swaziland.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You have made several references to her home, where was that?

MR THWALA: In Mzinoni.

MR VAN DEN BERG: That is in Mpumalanga?

MR THWALA: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The Eastern Transvaal then?

MR THWALA: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You realised that there was a problem, what did you do about it, you have told us about a telephone call to her family, what else did you do?

MR THWALA: When I got to know that she had not arrived at home, I told Duma to remove what material she had at her place and she should notify also the members of his Unit to disband and stop activities until we tell them to do so. I also informed the Unit in the Vaal, I tried to find out if she did contact them and they said no, she didn't, then I told them to stop all operations and that no communication should be done unless I say they should do that. Then I alerted our Unit in Swaziland that Nokuthula seems to have disappeared, that was on a Saturday evening, but we were saying we will give her a bit of time in case she is still on her way, whatever may have happened after the Carlton Centre.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Apart from contacting her parents, did you take any other steps to attempt to locate her or did you initiate steps to try and locate her?

MR THWALA: When?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Once you realised that she had disappeared, I am sorry?

MR THWALA: Okay, after that I did, after a day, Sunday evening, I did confirm that the people must stay as I have told them, they must not do any other things, the people that she had contact with. Then the Machinery, it became clear to us that something has happened to Nokuthula, so there are certain things that we needed to have done, to be cautious because she was also renting, I think one or two of our houses in Swaziland. We made sure that we do not frequent those houses any longer and we posted people to make sure if there is anybody who is looking at those houses. I also communicated then with the family, telling them that Nokuthula has disappeared and she said she is in Swaziland and I said no, she did, she went to South Africa, she was supposed to go to Johannesburg and she didn't come back on a particular day, her clothing are at that particular place. Initially the family did not want to take the story because as far as they knew, Nokuthula wasn't supposed to be in South Africa for studies, but these were some of the steps which we took.

MR VAN DEN BERG: There was a photograph handed around at the first hearing, of a person identified at the back of the photograph as Impo, I showed you that photograph and at the time you said to me you didn't recognise the person. Have you made subsequent enquiries as to who that person might be?

MR THWALA: Yes, I did.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Who is it?

MR THWALA: His pseudonym was Curtis, he belonged to our Unit, they were operating from around Eikenhof area, there was a Unit of two. The person who helped me to identify him was Duma Nkosi. Duma Nkosi subsequently was on trial with him later on, in 1984.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you know his real name?

MR THWALA: I tried to find the name and also the record of his arrest with the Minister of Justice, but I couldn't.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you have any personal knowledge in respect of Impo or Curtis' arrest or how that came to take place?

MR THWALA: Yes, I know.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you tell the Committee what you do know.

MR THWALA: After Justice Ngedi was arrested, who knew that Curtis and his colleague were in South Africa, they were able to trace Curtis through the person who brought them into the country, so the first person to be arrested was the person who brought them into the country, through Justice Ngedi. His name is Richard Nhlapo and then they were able to trace him and they arrested him. What had happened after the arrest of Justice Ngedi, he identified people who were inside the country, so that is how they got to know him, through the person who brought them inside the country.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The record also makes mention of a Jabu Ngubezi, do you know him?

MR THWALA: Yes, I know him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: He was also arrested, do you know any details about his arrest?

MR THWALA: Yes, I do.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What do you know about it?

MR THWALA: First of all Jabu was the person who was bringing in our material, that is weapons, limpet mines, whatever we were using, he was bring that stuff into the country. After the arrest of Ngedi and other people who were arrested as a result of Justice Ngedi, they called in Swaziland and they said they can't find the spot where he had deposited the hardware, he should come in and show them where the spot, the exact spot is. He came into the country and he was arrested when he contacted them, trying to go and show them where exactly he deposited the material.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You have referred to material and you have referred to hardware, are you referring to arms, ammunition, limpet mines, that kind of thing?

MR THWALA: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were either Jabu Ngubezi or this person Impo Curtis known to Ms Simelane?

MR THWALA: No, none of them were known to Nokuthula.

MR VAN DEN BERG: We also know about the arrest of Justice Ngedi, was he known to Ms Simelane?

MR THWALA: Yes, they knew each other. Maybe if I may expand on that one, Justice Ngedi didn't know that Nokuthula had prior to her disappearance, that Nokuthula had come to South Africa, the people who knew that Nokuthula had come to South Africa, it was myself, Duma, the person she used to stay with, Wendy Mbama. What she knew was that she was going home before graduation, but myself and Duma, we knew that Nokuthula was going to go to that meeting. Justice Ngedi only got to know that after I told him that Nokuthula had disappeared. If I may further point out that maybe confirm some of the evidence that has been led, that Justice Ngedi was arrested as a result of what they call SWT66, Nokuthula Simelane.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you receive confirmation or not about the meeting at the Carlton Centre, whether it had taken place or did you receive any other information about it?

MR THWALA: No, I didn't receive any information about this. Up to the appearance of the story in the Sowetan, we didn't know what transpired after Carlton Centre, what we knew as that she went to Carlton Centre.

MR VAN DEN BERG: After her disappearance, did you have contact either directly or indirectly with the people you referred to as Scotch and Frank, Mkhonza and Langa?

MR THWALA: Yes, indirectly I did.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What was the nature of the contact?

MR THWALA: One weekend I was informed that one of them was in Swaziland, then I said to them, we would like to talk to him. In fact I said to them, we must keep this person because this is the person who can tell us what happened to Nokuthula. The Unit, our Unit felt that we cannot confirm if they were responsible for it, and if I am not mistaken moreover they said they had some task for them to undertake inside the country and should anything happen beyond that, they will know if they were genuine or not.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Some of the applicants have said that Ms Simelane was turned, that she became a Security Police informer and that she returned to Swaziland, can you comment on that?

MR THWALA: If Nokuthula was turned, certain things would have happened. Nokuthula would have told them her tasks and operations inside the country, Vaal 1 Unit would have been exposed, secondly Duma's activities would have then been exposed as well, thirdly our Machinery in Swaziland, I think would have been destroyed if not weakened, because she would know, she knew certain houses that we were renting and after some time, we did use those houses. Those Units continued, the Vaal Unit continued to operate after I think a month after her disappearance. Duma only got arrested after Justice Ngedi, so if Nokuthula, any information was of use to the Security Police, these are some of the things that would have happened. I don't think some of us, including Siphiwe Nyanda, would have lived if Nokuthula had co-operated.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The suggestion was made by some of the applicants that the ANC was responsible for her death or her ultimate disappearance, do you want to comment on that?

MR THWALA: If for instance they say by working for the ANC, Nokuthula and being arrested by the Security Police, then the ANC being responsible for getting her onto the Security Police, that is one thing, but as far as the ANC is concerned is that Nokuthula disappeared at the meeting at Carlton Centre and it has come out that she has arrested by the Security Police and we think anything that happened thereafter is either she was killed by the Security Police, that will be the only logic, because normally if a person is arrested, if the person turns, normally some of them would be sent back to us. When they are sent back to us, some of them would confess and say yes, under duress I agreed to work for the Security Police and then a process will take place with those. Some would come in and continue working as if nothing has happened and wherever they are exposed, then a certain process would also take place. As it has been suggested that we are sent back to the ANC, then I would have been in the centre of that, because I was the person who knew exactly what happened to her. The processes that I have just made mention of, it means the person would be interviewed, we would want to find out what information did that person give and what damage did that information have on the Machinery, and therefore charges would be formulated and this person would go through a tribunal, a military tribunal, in a sense a sentence would be passed. If this person is exposed while she didn't, it means the charges, the fact that he continued after duress, after he agreed to work for the Security Police under duress, he didn't inform the organisation that he did turn, and also that would be an additional charge to this person. I think there are people who are back in the country today, who went through that process. Normally that is what would happen in cases where a person is turned or he comes back to the ANC.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then the ANC is on record as having provided a list of some people who were executed by them, are you aware of that?

MR THWALA: Yes, there is a list of people that were charged, convicted and some of them, they were sentenced to the firing squad, some of them were sentenced to serve certain terms in prison, some of them were sent to serve certain terms on the farms that the ANC used to have where they were producing food. There is that record and Nokuthula's name doesn't appear on those records, and nothing would have happened without my involvement in those processes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Other than your telephone call to the family at around the time that Ms Simelane disappeared, did you have any other contact with the family?

MR THWALA: Yes, we did, I think we had three contacts in Swaziland. Before that, among other things that we tried to do with Duma Nkosi after her disappearance, towards the graduation ceremony, I came in with Duma, we tried to ask the International Aid and Defence Fund to apply for an interdict that Nokuthula should be released so that she attends the graduation ceremony, but our problem was that nobody would admit that Nokuthula was ever arrested, so we couldn't proceed with that venture. I think the weekend before the graduation, the family came to Swaziland, they went to the University to ask the colleagues of Nokuthula as to her whereabouts and then they went to the uncle's place, I think in Luiyanco. I came to the University, I was told that they had come, they were looking for Nokuthula, I drove to Luiyanco, the uncle's place and I was told that they are driving to Mbabane. I asked them what type of vehicle they were using and they told me, I drove to Mbabane. I met them, I found the car at Lubamba, an area where the Parliament, the Swazi Parliament is. I flicked the car, they went off the road, I parked and I came out. Barney Molokwane was in that car, so Barney Molokwane came out, Mr Simelane came out, we stood outside the car and then we did discuss the incident and I explained to them as to what has happened so far and what we are tying to do. That was the first encounter with the family. The mother was in the car, she didn't come out and I think the uncle was there as well. That was the first meeting we had. The second time, they came again, that is when I told them to go and fetch clothing, Nokuthula's clothing at Duma's place because it was still there, and also liaise with Duma in his search as to the whereabouts of Nokuthula. I think that is when they went to Duma's family and picked up the clothing that was left there. The second time they came, they went to Wendy Mbama's, the friend who used to stay with her, the mother I think, the father was not there. Wendy found me, I think after some time, and I came to talk to them again. The other encounters I had had was with the uncle who was based in Swaziland. That was up to the period 1985.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You are aware that the family made other enquiries and that they made enquiries at the ANC in Botswana, do you know anything about that?

MR THWALA: Yes, the family did make enquiries, not only in Botswana, among other things that they did, they hired a lawyer, I think in Middelburg, a Mr De Klerk, to try and trace Nokuthula, to find out exactly what happened to Nokuthula. This lawyer ultimately came back to them and said Nokuthula I think first of all, didn't cross the border, secondly was that she is with the ANC and I think that is why the family at the end, went to Botswana. In Botswana they met one of the persons who was operating in Botswana, I think his name was Oupa. Oupa went to Lusaka to find out as to there is a family that is looking for a student from the University of Swaziland. In Lusaka they told this person that Nokuthula must be at school somewhere because they've got information that there is a person who was arrested in South Africa, at the border and got bail and skipped the bail and she was studying somewhere. The person they were referring to was one Buhme who was working with a Natal Unit, who managed to skip bail and therefore was somewhere in Kenya or London. At that time, I think that the understanding was that then Nokuthula must have been with the ANC.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When was the last time that you saw Ms Simelane?

MR THWALA: Nokuthula?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Nokuthula, yes?

MR THWALA: I think it was the day before she left, that must have been the Tuesday, the 7th.

MR VAN DEN BERG: That was in September 1983?

MR THWALA: 1983, yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van den Berg. Yes, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, it is one o'clock?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I assumed you would have questions?

MR VISSER: Well, I am totally taken by surprise here by a lot of this stuff Mr Chairperson, I will have to discuss with my Attorney what we are going to have to do now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will take the lunch adjournment and we will reconvene at two o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

GILBERT THWALA: (s.u.o)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, have you got any questions?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we find ourselves in the unfortunate position that we are compelled to ask you for this matter to be postponed. Mr Chairman, we did not receive a prior statement of this witness, who was apparently available at the last hearing, to enable us to learn what he was going to come and say. We knew obviously that it would have relevance to the question of whether or not Ms Simelane was replaced in Swaziland, but the detail of his evidence has taken us by complete surprise. We have as you can well imagine, no instructions on what he has stated here today. I must tell you that my Attorney and myself found it difficult to note down all of his evidence and particularly names that were mentioned by him. We feel Chairperson, that it would be irresponsible if we did not obtain a record and consider his evidence, digest it, and take instructions and perhaps seek for evidence to contradict his evidence.

Well, that is basically all I want to say Chairperson, we find ourselves in a position where it is not possible for me to cross-examine, because I have no instructions. We did consider seriously whether the matter could be salvaged by standing down for a day or perhaps even two, but we have come to the conclusion that that is not feasible, that won't give us sufficient time to do or to attempt to do what we wish to do. Chairperson, my Attorney has spoken to the other representatives here, they have no objection to the matter being postponed.

I realise that it is a matter of inconvenience and certainly a matter of difficulty in getting the same Committee members together again, when there is an application, when there is a postponement, but Chairperson we find ourselves in this position not through the making of our own and we would ask you to consider that, bear that in mind and that you will postpone the matter for a day to be arranged where we could reconvene and then hopefully finish the matter. We don't believe that this matter should take up more than a maximum of a further three days, we think that it should be less than that. We would therefore ask the Committee to postpone the matter for these reasons.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, considering the likelihood of your getting instructions in regard to this, the evidence of this witness, and possibly the likelihood that whatever instructions you get, might not materially affect the evidence of this witness, have you fully considered the necessity for asking for a postponement, would it assist you if the matter was to stand down for a day or so or are you convinced that doing, following that course, wouldn't assist and that there is really no other option but to postpone?

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, as I have said before, we have considered very seriously this matter, I may tell you that it is in our interest to finish today, I can assure you of that. In fact, we were ready if this novus actus interveniens had not intervened, to have been able to finish today. We have given very serious consideration to the question of whether a day or two could not salvage the situation.

I may mention to you Chairperson, that my Attorney spoke to Mr Pretorius, he couldn't get hold of Mr Coetzee, and his reaction was "we need time in order to get the evidence", so on your first question what the likelihood is, as I sit here, I don't know, but I won't know until I have tried. Certainly there seems to be some suggestion from Pretorius that there might be such evidence available and well, the evidence may confirm the evidence of this witness or it may contradict it, but as you know, that is the minefield in which lawyers walk. We don't know, but we won't know unless we have tried. But certainly not only for the sake of obtaining the record, but for other reasons as well, such as I have just mentioned, there is an absolute necessity yes, Mr Chairperson, that the matter be postponed.

ADV DE JAGER: It is not only a matter of getting the same panel together, what about the representatives, would they be available if we for instance could manage to get the panel together on short notice, because that would be short notice, because we wouldn't know whether we are available, we are fully booked now until the end of November.

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, those are the logistical problems which we have, and certainly as much as I would like to do something about it, there is nothing I can do about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It is a difficulty Mr Visser, you know, it is not just the availability, the tenure of office of some of the panel members, it is a real difficulty and you know, we understand of course that we must weigh up all these considerations, and we must make it possible for you clients to present their case fully to us.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is all of those things that concern us.

MR VISSER: Yes, certainly, yes of course. Chairperson, I can take the matter no further, except to tell you that there is no way in which I am ready to proceed with cross-examining this witness, in fact my Attorney says I would be irresponsible if I tried.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that might be a very weighty factor. Mr Lamey, what is your position?

MR LAMEY: I don't have an objection, but regarding a possible date, we had a provisional discussion also about that, we haven't discussed it with Mr Van den Berg, but there is a possibility about the week of the 26th of July until the 30th of July and hopefully we could get more certainty about that within the next day or two.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just say Mr Lamey, really, we would appreciate any effort to get this matter back on the roll as speedily as possible and with the full assistance of everybody involved because you know, you like every body, it is just very, very, very difficult to get into a matter of this nature if you have a long delay, you know, as my colleague has indicated. You know the schedule of the Committee at this stage points towards the very, very end of the queue if this thing were to be pushed out, so you know, it is really a concern if you have to pick up the case whenever, so if there is any possibility of squeezing it in somewhere, it would really come in very handy.

MR LAMEY: I just wanted to raise that also before the Evidence Leader so that we could look at that possibility, if there is an opening.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Perhaps before my learned friend, Mr Van den Berg, addresses you, my Attorney mentions to me something which appears to be an obvious answer to the problem, and that is if this Committee is intended to sit together in any cluster, this matter could simply be enrolled with that cluster and we could wait until the end of that cluster, or be fitted in at a convenient stage in that cluster, that seems to be an eminently reasonable way of looking at it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there are all sorts of possibilities, we might need to poach some of the panel members from elsewhere, from other panels in order to get them together and so on, we are really going to have to be creative if this matter were to be postponed, so we have been trying to think in the short while now, about all these possibilities, so if we get everybody's co-operation, perhaps we are able to you know, at least make it easier to get the matter back on the roll. Mr Van den Berg, what is your position?

MR VAN DEN BERG: I can just confirm what Mr Visser has said, I have no objection to the matter being postponed, I am not sure what sort of evidence his clients would be able to lay their hands on, my only concern is that it may get us involved in all sorts of collateral issues and lead to further witnesses and so on and so forth, but I suppose we can only deal with that when we see what we get. In so far as Mr Lamey's suggestion is concerned that week of the 26th, from the middle of the week would certainly suit me, I am booked for an arbitration in Northern Natal at the beginning of that week, but thereafter I certainly would be available. That is the position.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van den Berg. Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: I am entirely in the hands of the Commission, I am available if it suits the parties.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, that is a very positive attitude. As I have indicated, you know, this creates all sorts of difficulties and it is the kind of matter that is going to call for the co-operation of everybody. Just give me a minute.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it appears that in the circumstances, as inconvenient as it would be, that it would be fair and equitable to allow the applicants an opportunity to consider the evidence of Mr Thwala and to consider whether there are any instructions that might be forthcoming to deal with here, with the testimony that has been presented. In the circumstances, it seems to be inevitable that we will have to postpone the matter, but before I do so, as I have indicated earlier, it is the kind of matter where we would have to rely on the co-operation of all of the parties here and where we would have to ensure that at the next session, that we are really indeed in a position to dispose of the matter. There is obviously going to be some or other delay between now and when we are going to get back to the matter, so as a panel, we would want to prevail upon you to ensure that at that next sitting, you are able to assist us with Heads of argument, perhaps as full as possible, particularly with reference to the record, because we have already had considerable difficulty in following some of the many issues that had arisen in regard to the record. We anticipate it is going to be difficult enough to get back into the matter so to speak, after some delay, so we would then perhaps just hear your comments first on the possibility of your ensuring that we would be presented with Heads of argument of such a nature that would assist us at least in finding our way through the evidence and the various points of contention that had already arisen.

Mr Visser, is there a possibility that we could perhaps do it on that sort of basis where after hearing whatever else might be forthcoming or if nothing is forthcoming, possibly have Heads of argument that would assist us at least in being able to deal with the record and the evidence and the points of contention and so on?

MR VISSER: Yes Chairperson, I am happy to report that we have already drafted full Heads, which we have gone into some depth in to the evidence relating to the facts for the very reason which you have just mentioned. We must also say that we appreciate the co-operation of the Evidence Leader, Ms Thabethe, because I finished this at half past, a little later than that, but say half past eleven last night and we didn't have time to reproduce it, and she very kindly arranged that for us. We could hand this to you now, but I don't believe that there would be much point in that for two reasons, one, you are not going to read it now and two, depending on what is going to happen, some of this might change, so we will hold onto it, but yes, certainly, by the time we gather again, you will have a full set of argument from us.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that is quite encouraging, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: It would assist us if they could hand it, say all of them, a week before the next hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, can we ask you for that special arrangement to be made?

MR VISSER: There is absolutely no problem with that Chairperson, because a week before, assuming it is going to be the end of the month, the end of July, a week before is going to present no problem because by that time we will know one way or the other, what we've got.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it will facilitate the proceedings, you know, so it would be appreciated.

MR VISSER: Yes, it won't necessarily be the final document.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, of course.

MR VISSER: But you will have the basics, yes certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you would obviously have to deal with whatever happens further in terms of evidence, cross-examination and so on, but at least it would take us up to this point.

MR VISSER: Yes absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Lamey, what is your response?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, firstly assuming that we continue during that week of the 26th to the 30th of July, I was preparing to give oral evidence, I am not in the same position as Mr Visser, but I will also be in a position at least at the hearing, or at the end of the evidence, to give Heads of argument, but I am going to have difficulty before that in view of involvement also in other matters, to give it at least a week before that, unfortunately. Then secondly, while we have this opportunity now that the matter is adjourned, I would wish to request that we perhaps be provided with more, further portions of the Afrikaans version of the record of the clients of Mr Visser. I have for example picked up a further lacuna in the English translation on this very same page, page 64 on a word that has been omitted in the English translation and which appears in the Afrikaans translation and which from my clients' point of view, could be material. If that is so, one would like to compare also the Afrikaans version and it will be very useful if I could get that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I am sure that is not a problem, but just coming back to the Heads of argument, Mr Lamey, it appears at least to be possible to submit to writing the argument that you had prepared for this session here and you obviously must have been in a position to argue, at least the outline of your case. It would assist us to have at least the outline, you know, you obviously, obviously we can't get a full set of Heads of argument beforehand, even Mr Visser's will have to be supplemented and so on.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, on that basis, you know, if short Heads of argument won't be a problem, provided that I could you know, submit more Heads.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, you would have been prepared to argue this afternoon?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, if we had completed the evidence this afternoon, I was intended to request that we argue tomorrow, I still wanted to look at certain things.

ADV DE JAGER: Then you would have been in a position to argue tomorrow?

MR LAMEY: Yes Mr Chairman, but I don't have, I haven't prepared ...

ADV DE JAGER: Well, could you then kindly proceed and be prepared and argue tomorrow and use tomorrow to put it in writing. We are not taking any of your other time, we are only taking the time that you have already allotted to this case.

MR LAMEY: As I said, I will endeavour to do what I can, but I just say that I haven't prepared complete Heads as I have seen Mr Visser's Heads just from a distance, it is quite, quite lengthy.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: I haven't prepared Heads to that extent.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you don't necessarily have to follow the example of Mr Visser.

MR LAMEY: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, but obviously it is subject to the understanding that it is obviously not your final argument, it is just a way of assisting us.

MR LAMEY: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, it is not your full and final argument, you wouldn't be held to it but at least it is an indication which direction you are taking, at least it helps us to be more prepared to deal with it when we come to it.

MR LAMEY: Yes, I will endeavour to do that, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will appreciate that Mr Lamey, thank you. Mr Van den Berg, is your position any worse or any better?

MR VAN DEN BERG: I've got to the point where I have written out my Heads, so to reduce that to writing and to supplement it, shouldn't be a difficulty. In this discussion about postponement and possible dates, the only person that hasn't been considered is the witness, he is employed by the South African Airways and he indicated to me sort of across the room, that he might have a difficulty with that date, but I will ascertain from him, you know, if he is going to be out of the country or something to that effect, as to what his availability is.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well if he is inside the country and in view of the reputation of the SAA, he would be a few seconds early.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Thabethe, you are in our hands? You indicated that you are in our hands?

MS THABETHE: Definitely Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so you will have written argument a week before the time?

MS THABETHE: If necessary Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much. Yes, as we have indicated, we have made special arrangements to have this matter set down for this week, but obviously there are always unforeseen circumstances that do arise in matters of this nature. The issues are grave and important and the consequences of an application of this nature, are always heavy and profound and therefore to the extent that it is necessary, we have to ensure that the proceedings and the process is fair towards all of the parties and that everybody gets an appropriate and proper opportunity to present their case to us. Under those circumstances we would unfortunately have to postpone the matter to a date to be arranged between the parties, whereafter we will where it is necessary, notify all of the interested parties, to the extent that that might be necessary and in the hope that all of the parties, as they have committed themselves to do, would endeavour to have the matter in fact finalised on that further sitting with the assistance already undertaken by the legal representatives to present us with the necessary Heads of argument to assist us in dealing with the addresses when those are forthcoming to us. We would then under those circumstances, postpone the matter to a date to be arranged between the parties. Does that take care of the business Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Certainly Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that would conclude the sitting of the Committee here. It just remains for us to express our gratitude to everybody who have as usual exerted themselves in making it possible for us to have this hearing. As we constantly indicate it is no easy matter to arrange a hearing of this nature and we are always grateful to our staff and to all the other many people who assist us in having hearings of this nature. Also to the public for their interest because you know, that is a very important aspect of the work of the Committee and of the Commission as a whole, that there should be some or other form of public participation in the proceedings. Also our gratitude to the legal representatives, Mr Lamey, Mr Visser, Mr Van den Berg, Ms Thabethe for your assistance and in anticipation, for your further assistance in this matter, and then to my colleagues on the panel with me, for their assistance as well. We are adjourned. I am reminded that I have forgotten to mention the Interpreters, specifically. I am doing that, you are always, your services are always appreciated, thank you. We are adjourned.

HEARING ADJOURNS