SMUTS PHILIMON MATHEBULA: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Mathebula you have applied for amnesty ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey may I just interrupt you for a second, I just need some clarity from the members of my Committee with regards to one issue then you may proceed.
Thank you for your indulgence Mr Lamey, you may proceed.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Mathebula could you just have a look at the bundle that I have firstly just next to you. You have made, submitted an amnesty application in the form which is on page 112 up to 116 and which you signed during December 1996, is that correct, and this was made initially before one of the investigating officers of the Attorney General's office, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And then after you obtained legal representation a supplemented application was prepared which is found on page 117 in the form up to 122, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And as an annexure to that supplemented application you have applied for amnesty for various incidents including this particular incident which is the - which you describe on page 135, "Die aanhouding en aanranding", sorry the "ontvoering en aanranding op Pat Mahlangu", is that correct, on page 141 up to 145, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson with your leave I have started in English, I don't know why. He testifies in Tswana. I think it's because Mr Roslee was still in my mind. May I proceed just as a matter of convenience in Afrikaans because the body of his statement is in Afrikaans.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to do so Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: Thank you. Mr Mathebula I proceed in Afrikaans. You have had the opportunity to study your statement once again and to discuss the matter with your legal representative, particularly certain pertinent aspects and do you confirm your affidavit subject to further evidence or verbal evidence that you will give in conjunction with this. Do you confirm it as correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct. What appears on my statement is what I remembered. Maybe there are other people which I forgot. I did not remember whether Mr Roslee was present or not.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you still experiencing problems with your microphone?
MR LAMEY: Yes Chairperson I do.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you repeat Mr Interpreter.
INTERPRETER: The witness was saying what appears on the statement is how he remembered it to be and he forgot that other people like Roslee were present.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you now sorted out Mr Lamey? Are you receiving the translation?
MR LAMEY: Yes I am receiving the translation, thank you.
Mr Mathebula please look at paragraph 1 of your amnesty application. The persons whom you mention there are these the persons that you recall being present on the farm near Soutpan?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct. Those are the people that I remembered.
MR LAMEY: And could there also be other people who may have been present that you cannot recall being present there?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Your recollection was that you were particularly searching for a terrorist with the assistance of Vlakplaas members, and that this terrorist was known as Orderele Maponya, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And then you state, is it correct that while you were there at the farm Chris Putte arrived one day with a letter, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Did you yourself see the letter or the content thereof?
MR MATHEBULA: I saw the letter but I did not read the content of the letter.
MR LAMEY: Did you hear or understand what the letter was about?
MR MATHEBULA: I learnt from Captain Prinsloo about the content of the letter.
MR LAMEY: And what did you understand or what were you informed about?
MR MATHEBULA: Captain Prinsloo informed us that the letter was written by a person from Swaziland. It was sent to Connie Mahlangu who was involved in the death of Sergeant Sinki Vuma in Mamelodi.
MR LAMEY: Was any mention made of Patrick Mahlangu?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember well but it seems his name was mentioned but I don't remember well.
MR LAMEY: Very well. When for the first time did you come to hear of Connie Mahlangu?
MR MATHEBULA: It was on the day when we were at the farm in Soutpan.
MR LAMEY: So do I understand from that that you had not heard of her previously or that you had not become aware of her activities when you were at the Northern Transvaal Branch?
MR MATHEBULA: I did not know anything about Connie Mahlangu before that.
MR LAMEY: Very well, shall we proceed.
In paragraph 3 you state that Prinsloo, Ras and some of the other white members planned to abduct Connie and to interrogate her, how do you know this?
MR MATHEBULA: At the time at the farm in that house there there are some rooms and that is when they were discussing that they should try to trace Connie Mahlangu that she should be abducted.
MR LAMEY: Did you hear this yourself?
MR MATHEBULA: That's correct.
MR LAMEY: Furthermore you state that later Chris Mosiane and, if you recall correctly, Mfalapitsa were sent to Mamelodi but you don't know what their order was, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: In regard to those names I might have made a mistake but I remember that some of them went to Mamelodi. There were some of them that were sent to Mamelodi.
MR LAMEY: And when you refer to "them" are you referring to askaris from Vlakplaas?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall that Chris Mosiane was sent to Mamelodi at a certain stage?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, that is correct, I knew that he was sent to Mamelodi, but I am not sure about Mfalapitsa.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Did you know what their order was why they were sent to Mamelodi?
MR MATHEBULA: I did not know Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Then in the next paragraph you state that after two days they returned to the house and they brought an unknown black man with them. The man later told you that he was Patrick Mahlangu. Did you see who the persons were that brought him there? Can you recall this clearly?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't know as to whether it was two days or one day but I knew that there were some people who brought him. Then later he told me that he was Patrick Mahlangu.
MR LAMEY: Very well. And then later you state that you don't know whether he arrived there with his hands bound or blindfolded but that you saw him in a room. When you saw him he was in a room in a house, is it true that you saw him there, this man? That was when you saw him for the first time.
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Did you see yourself when he was brought to the farm or did you simply seem him in the room in the house for the first time?
MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well I saw him inside the room.
MR LAMEY: And then you also state that he told you that he resided in Mamelodi, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That's correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon Chairperson I am leading, but if it is not correct or appropriate at certain points I would like some guidance. I am simply leading so that I can orientate the witness.
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey I am not certain whether it is necessary - I beg your pardon for interrupting. But the statement has been deposed and I understand that Mr Mathebula is familiar with the content of the statement. All of us have read it and really to use this time to place it on record once again via interpretation is really unnecessary.
MR LAMEY: Thank you I appreciate the indication. I will then focus on the relevant aspects.
MR MALAN: Please if there's anything that you wish to highlight go-ahead.
MR LAMEY: Then in paragraph 5 you yourself participated in the interrogation at a certain stage and you assaulted him and you also state that he was struck with a bald fist and kicked.
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: You didn't say that Mr Prinsloo was involved in the assault.
MR MATHEBULA: Yes I took part in the interrogation.
MR LAMEY: I am sorry I didn't hear anything.
CHAIRPERSON: Is the Afrikaans translation not coming through.
MR LAMEY: No.
CHAIRPERSON: There must be a technical problem. His response is "I did not take part"?
MR MATHEBULA: I did.
CHAIRPERSON: "I took part in the interrogation".
MR MATHEBULA: Yes.
MR LAMEY: So you participated in the interrogation. You also participated in the assault, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: But you do not say that Mr Prinsloo participated in the assault itself, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: If I remember Captain Prinsloo did not take part in the assault.
MR LAMEY: Very well. And then in paragraph 5 you also state that his sister, Connie Mahlangu, was an active member of the ANC in Mamelodi. Where did you hear about this? Is this something that emerged during the interrogation as well?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes I learnt that during the interrogation of Patrick Mahlangu that his sister is an active member of the ANC.
MR LAMEY: At that stage you were under the command of Captain Prinsloo and you were a member of his unit, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes.
MR LAMEY: The interrogation that you were involved in, did this enjoy the approval and command of Captain Prinsloo?
MR MATHEBULA: I would say that because he was my commander.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Mr Mathebula do you have any personal knowledge regarding what happened to Mahlangu after that?
MR MATHEBULA: I have no knowledge, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: You do not have any knowledge of any decision to eliminate him? You have no personal knowledge of this, is that correct? And you were also not involved in it?
MR MATHEBULA: I did not hear anything and I did not take part.
MR LAMEY: If we move over from page 143 to the following there you also confirm what you have stated there, paragraph 6, 7 and 8, is that correct, from page 142 to 143?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Very well. And that which you request amnesty for has been set out under paragraph 9(a)(1), is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chair.
MR LAMEY: And then from your perspective the political objective is set out from page 144 to 145, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hattingh?
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you Chair I do have some questions.
Mr Mathebula in what area of Pretoria were you living in 1987? Where was your home?
MR MATHEBULA: In Hammanskraal.
MR JANSEN: Now .....
CHAIRPERSON: Did you say in '87 Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: Ag sorry in '86, at the time of this incident.
MR MATHEBULA: I have already stated I was staying in Hammanskraal.
CHAIRPERSON: You stated you were staying in Hammanskraal in 1987.
MR JANSEN: Now was it a regular thing for you to go to that safe house at Soutpan?
MR MATHEBULA: I was not frequenting that place. It was only there for operational purposes, particularly for Mr Maponya.
MR JANSEN: Was that the first time that you were there, or had you been there previously?
MR MATHEBULA: It was for the first time.
MR JANSEN: In your mind at that time were you aware of the murder of Sergeant Sinki Vuma, at that time?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct. I knew about the death of Sinki Vuma.
MR JANSEN: And did you think that your operation had something specifically to do with the investigation of his murder?
MR MATHEBULA: It was not his death only, and again together with warrant officer Tswane was killed by - group.
MR JANSEN: Did you know of the existence of Mr Patrick Mahlangu before you went to that safe house?
MR MATHEBULA: No Chairperson I did not know a thing about him.
MR JANSEN: So is it correct to say that you were under the impression that you were investigating the murder of some of your colleagues?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct. We were investigating the death of Sergeant Vuma and Sergeant Tswane.
MR JANSEN: And did you think that the,what in your mind was an abduction and an interrogation of Mr Mahlangu had something to do with that investigation?
MR MATHEBULA: For the fact that I heard about the letter written to Connie I thought maybe Pat knew about that.
MR JANSEN: Another thing. Was it the habit of Mr Prinsloo or the other white officers to discuss their plans in your presence?
MR MATHEBULA: As a commander he used to give us information about particular operations.
MR JANSEN: No I will accept that he would give you specific instructions about what he or other people had already decided, but my question is, was it usual for them to discuss possible plans and have general discussions about their possible operations in your presence?
CHAIRPERSON: Who are you referring to by "them" Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: Prinsloo, his commander Prinsloo and also to the other white officers.
CHAIRPERSON: White officers, yes.
MR MATHEBULA: There are times when they discuss on their own. I would not say they would discuss about those things daily with us.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it usual for them to discuss operations without involving you but discussing them openly in your presence?
MR MATHEBULA: I put it this way. At Security Branch there would be people who would be members you would trust, then Captain Prinsloo would not discuss issues with everybody. He would talk to his confidante about particular operations.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I think what Mr Jansen is trying to find out from you, is that in relation to you as black officers and askaris, was it usual for white officers to discuss operations in your presence without involving you in the discussion?
MR MATHEBULA: Like what happened at Soutpan we were listening that there was a letter coming from Swaziland.
CHAIRPERSON: It was usual for them to discuss operations in your presence?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes that is correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Are you saying that these discussions which you refer to in paragraph 3 on page 142 of Prinsloo, Ras and some of the others making plans to abduct Connie Mahlangu, that those discussions were made or were conducted in your presence with the intention that you hear them?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes that is correct. I was present when they were discussing about that issue.
MR JANSEN: And what would have been the purpose of abducting Connie Mahlangu?
MR MATHEBULA: To interrogate her.
MR JANSEN: About what?
MR MATHEBULA: About the letter which was found from Swaziland we spoke about Swaziland.
MR JANSEN: And about any other incidents such as those that we mentioned - the murders of your colleagues were those discussed or not, as a reason or as things which they wanted to question her about?
MR MATHEBULA: They wanted Connie Mahlangu to interrogate her about the letter coming from Swaziland. Not about other issues except the one about this letter from Swaziland.
MR JANSEN: Now I understood in your evidence-in-chief that she was suspected of being involved in the murder of Sinki Vuma.
MR MATHEBULA: That's what I heard. I heard about that.
MR JANSEN: Where did you hear about that?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember whether the letter was read by Prinsloo or any other white member there, but I learnt there when they were reading the letter that she was suspected for taking part in the murder.
CHAIRPERSON: In your affidavit you state that you were informed by Prinsloo.
MR MATHEBULA: Yes I stated in my affidavit that Prinsloo informed us that the letter came from Swaziland, but about the abduction of Connie Mahlangu I don't know as to whom informed us, but Captain Prinsloo told us that the letter came from Swaziland.
MR JANSEN: I just want to make one issue clear about the content of the letter. What according to your recollection was the content of that letter? What was said in it?
MR MATHEBULA: As I have stated before I did not read the letter. I was informed about the content of the letter and it was a short message. I don't know about the real details of the letter.
MR JANSEN: But what was that short message that was conveyed to you?
MR MATHEBULA: As I have already stated before this Committee that in the letter it was stated that Connie was involved in the death of the policemen.
MR JANSEN: Can you remember what the plans were? You say that plans were being made to abduct her. Can you remember what these plans were?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember about those plans.
MR JANSEN: Now in the - when Mr Ras was ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Are you taking up that issue Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: I am still busy with it ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: You are building up to it.
MR JANSEN: Yes I am still busy with this issue but I am still somewhere in the middle of it Chair. I don't know if you want to ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I thought his response was that he does not recall having said that there were any plans to abduct Connie Mahlangu. ...(indistinct) to follow up.
MR JANSEN: Yes I am more or less finished with that aspect as to the content of those discussions. I am now moving to general issues relating to this. I don't know if you want to ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No I don't want to interrupt you whilst you are questioning him.
MR JANSEN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed. I have made arrangements with members of Correctional Service who have kindly acceded to our request to depart here at 4.30, so this should give us sufficient time at least to conclude with your questioning of Mr Mathebula.
MR JANSEN: Thank you. Now Mr Mathebula in what way were you then later on used, what functions were you asked to fulfil in this investigation that you were busy with?
MR MATHEBULA: On a particular day we were instructed to go to the shebeens and the taverns and to look around as to whether we were not able to find people like Tinti Masongo and Mr Maponya and others. Then we left.
MR JANSEN: Now did you travel in that kombi when you did these rounds?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't know what kind of kombi are you talking about.
MR JANSEN: Just a moment. When you were doing these rounds what transport were you using?
MR MATHEBULA: We had kombis from Vlakplaas and then another minibus from Compol building.
MR JANSEN: And were you using these vehicles?
MR MATHEBULA: That's correct.
MR JANSEN: Was there more than one vehicle?
MR MATHEBULA: It's not one kombi. The other one was driven by Mr Mugadi and then the other one is Sergeant Radebe, then Jerry Majini, so I am not able to tell you how many were there, but it was more than one.
MR JANSEN: Will you agree with me that from your statement - or maybe let me just ask you some background about your statement. Your statement was taken down in Afrikaans, that's correct is it?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, it is written in Afrikaans.
MR JANSEN: Right. And on page 145 you seem to have signed this part of your statement on 17 April 1998.
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, that is my signature.
MR JANSEN: But this was obviously an amplification of your original application or am I making a mistake now?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lamey led that evidence before he started with his evidence-in-chief, Mr Jansen.
MR JANSEN: Sorry I must have missed that then. Yes, sorry it's in December '96.
When this statement was taken from you, this one that we are looking at now, was that done with the assistance of your present legal representatives?
MR MATHEBULA: My first statement was made at Brigadier Human. Those come from the Attorney General's office.
MR JANSEN: Were you assisted by an interpreter then?
MR MATHEBULA: Where do you mean - at the Attorney General's office or at Mr Lamey's office?
CHAIRPERSON: At the AG's office.
MR MATHEBULA: I was not helped by an interpreter.
MR JANSEN: How would you describe your own Afrikaans, reasonably good or not so good?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't understand the intention of your question. I know Afrikaans. This is your mother tongue so I want to exercise the right to use my mother tongue, because Afrikaans is your mother tongue. I am very proficient in Afrikaans, so that's your language and Tswana is my language and so I am exercising my right.
MR JANSEN: Don't misunderstand my question. I am not suggesting that you should change the language you are testifying in. I am just trying to ascertain, I am trying to find out how accurate or how correct we should regard your original statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Where is this leading us Mr Jansen? Is there a point to this cross-examination?
MR JANSEN: Certainly. I will have to obviously have to extensively - well I want to ask him what should we make of this statement in paragraph 3 and 4 which leaves us with a clear impression that Mosiane went to Mamelodi and Mosiane was involved in the abduction. And I don't want ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Why don't you do that? What stops you from putting it to him to find out why that's standing there. He was assisted here by his legal representative.
MR JANSEN: I am going to be ending, whether I do that now or whether I do that later it will inevitably at some stage be raised that some leeway must be allowed for the fact that this statement is not in his mother tongue.
CHAIRPERSON: He was assisted her by the legal representative. The statement has been read to him. We want to presume when people come here in preparation for these hearings their legal representative will go through the affidavit together with his client. And this affidavit has already been confirmed by Mr Mathebula just a few minutes ago.
MR JANSEN: It was confirmed that his evidence, I with greatest respect Chair, his evidence was specifically that as far as this issue is concerned might be making a mistake. So he clearly distanced himself from his statement here.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR JANSEN: In a subtle way.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR JANSEN: And maybe even in an express way. So I'm investigating that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what is that to do with whether he was assisted by an interpreter when he made a statement before the Attorney General?
MR JANSEN: Well with the greatest of respect Chair, as cross-examiner I have always been told, and I have always assumed that my work is to be fair to a witness. I cannot jump on a witness and say this is a clear contradiction, explain the contradiction. What you are saying is a lie. I am trying to establish from this witness whether we must take cognisance of the fact that there may have been language problems at the time when he did this - when he made this statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Well he's already responded to that when he has stated that he is fairly conversant with Afrikaans even though it is not his home language.
MR JANSEN: Yes that was his answer to the last question.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes you may proceed.
MR JANSEN: Thank you.
MR MALAN: To be fair to the witness again Mr Jansen, I am sorry, the only - he confirmed the name of Mosiane, he only said that he thinks he might have made a mistake on Mfalapitsa. But he confirmed Mosiane again.
MR JANSEN: Then I understood it incorrectly.
MR MALAN: Yes, he expressly confirmed that Mosiane was one of the people. He does not think anymore that it was Mfalapitsa, it might have been another person.
MR JANSEN: Then I am wrong in what I understood.
Now my instructions from Mr Ras is that it would not have been their practice to discuss such a thing as an abduction of somebody in your presence or in any other person's presence, whether they be black members, askaris or other white officers, unless it was necessary for operational purposes.
MR MATHEBULA: He may say so but I learnt that Connie Mahlangu must be abducted. I heard that on that particular day. Maybe in other days they were not usually doing that but on that particular day they were doing it.
MR JANSEN: So was there any discussions with anybody when the people arrived there with Pat Mahlangu and not Connie Mahlangu?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't understand your question.
MR JANSEN: Let me put it to you this way. You agree that there was a plan to - on your version there was a plan to abduct Connie Mahlangu?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR JANSEN: There was no plan to abduct Pat Mahlangu?
MR MATHEBULA: According to my knowledge the plan was to abduct Connie Mahlangu.
MR JANSEN: You have no knowledge of a plan to abduct Pat Mahlangu at that stage?
MR MATHEBULA: Not at all Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Now my question is, wasn't something said, whether it was surprise that was expressed, unhappiness or anger, when the people arrived with Pat Mahlangu and not Connie Mahlangu?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen are you saying, was there any surprise expressed by white officers?
MR JANSEN: Well specifically by white officers, but it could even be wider, but by any of the white officers.
MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember well because I knew that they wanted Connie Mahlangu, not Pat Mahlangu. But I don't remember as well if they were surprised or not.
MR JANSEN: You see you heard Mr Ras' evidence that he has no knowledge of any plans to abduct Connie Mahlangu at that stage. And I think for formal purposes I must put that to you is there anything else, or is there any comment that you want to give about Mr Ras' evidence in that regard?
MR MATHEBULA: I can't comment about what he says because I only knew that they wanted Connie Mahlangu. I was surprised later when a male came because I knew that they wanted a female person.
MR JANSEN: And I also want to put it to you that it's improbable that the officers would be discussing planning an abduction of Connie Mahlangu and then seemingly have nothing to say about the fact that another person is brought to the farm.
MR MATHEBULA: I don't know. What I am saying is that I heard them talking about the person of Connie Mahlangu.
MR JANSEN: Just a moment Chair. Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius?
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. Mr Mathebula I refer you to your statement on page 142 which is in Afrikaans and I wish to put it to you that Mr Prinsloo's states that you are fluent in Afrikaans as per your evidence, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes he's telling the truth, as I was saying I know Afrikaans very well, but I wanted to use the right to use my mother tongue. He is telling the truth.
MS VAN DER WALT: Then I would like to present to you this portion which you compiled along with Mr Lamey, in this application of yours that I have just referred to. Not the one that you deposed before the Attorney General.
MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon, there is something that I may highlight here. I don't think we can assume that it is not the same as the statement that was made before the Attorney General.
MS VAN DER WALT: No that is not what I said. I am referring to the statement, this statement which was signed long after the cut-off date after the amnesty applications, this was on the 17th of April 1998 and this is the statement that you made with the assistance of Mr Lamey, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: The statement which I made is that at the Attorney General's office, and then thereafter they said they would ...(indistinct) and then they referred us to Mr Lamey, then he asked me about mistakes in that previous statement. Then we corrected that statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt is referring you to a supplementary affidavit as at page 142.
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct. That is the statement I made with Mr Lamey.
MS VAN DER WALT: And I hope the Committee will be patient with me, just this paragraph that I want to read out, paragraph 3.
"Plans were made by Prinsloo, Ras and other whites to figure out a way to abduct and interrogate Connie Mahlangu".
What you see and hear there in your language, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is what I have already stated that I heard that they wanted to abduct Connie Mahlangu.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you have already confirmed that you can no longer recall whether Mfalapitsa went along but that you definitely know that Chris Mosiane went.
MR MATHEBULA: Maybe I am making mistakes about mixing the names, but what I remember is that I don't remember as to whether Mfalapitsa was there, but I may be making mistakes about other names.
CHAIRPERSON: But do you know as a fact that Chris Mosiane was there? You can't be mistaken about Chris Mosiane?
MR MATHEBULA: We were with him at the farm, that's why I am saying maybe I am making a mistake in my memory but I think he went there but I am not sure about Mfalapitsa.
CHAIRPERSON: We have already heard you saying that you are not sure about Mfalapitsa, what we want to know and establish is whether you are sure about Chris Mosiane.
MR MATHEBULA: I don't know, maybe I am making a mistake, but I remember that we were together.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt I am sure you want to proceed.
MS VAN DER WALT: You see I want to put it to you that you are adjusting your evidence as the shoe fits. Because you are being represented by the same legal representative as Mr Mosiane, isn't that so?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you are aware of Mr Mosiane's version and you have sat here listening when the very same legal representative puts that version.
MR MATHEBULA: I did not meet Mosiane at any time. I consulted my lawyer alone, not with Mr Mosiane.
MS VAN DER WALT: But you heard what his version was. You sat there in the back.
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, I heard that.
MS VAN DER WALT: And at the beginning of your evidence you stated pertinently that Chris Mosiane was there, why are you changing this now?
MR MATHEBULA: It might be a mistake, but what I remember is that we were together with Chris at the farm. I don't remember well as to whether they went to Mamelodi or not.
MS VAN DER WALT: Let me read the sentence to you that you compiled here with assistance.
"Later Chris Mosiane and, if I recall correctly, Mfalapitsa".
so you are doubtful with regards to Mfalapitsa....
"....were sent to Mamelodi. I do not know what their order was".
But I continue -
"After two days they returned to the farm and brought an unknown black man there."
Sir you can only refer to Mr Chris Mosiane if you study the context of that paragraph in your application. I put it to you, you can only refer to Chris Mosiane. Do you have anything to say?
MR MATHEBULA: These things happened a long time ago that's why I don't remember well. He may have gone to Mamelodi but I don't remember.
MS VAN DER WALT: But it appears there. Why does it appear there if you cannot recall it? Did someone tell you what to say?
MR MATHEBULA: Nobody told me to say what I said. These things happened in 1986 and the statement was made in 1996. It may happen that I made a mistake in that statement.
MS VAN DER WALT: But you compiled this statement in 1988 along with a previous statement that you deposed before the Attorney General. There were various times that you were in contact with the evidence that you are giving here today. How can you say now that it is possible that it is incorrect?
MR MATHEBULA: If you may look at paragraph 1 I spoke about Jerry Matsea. I did not mention Roslee. That is a mistake which happened because I did not remember Roslee as whether he was present or not. And yesterday I saw him and today I saw him and I remembered that he was present on that particular incident.
MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, I want you to listen to me and then comment and say why you wrote this.
"Later Chris Mosiane, and if I recall correctly, Mfalapitsa were sent to Mamelodi. I do not know what their order was. After two days they returned to the farm and brought an unknown black man with them".
Is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is what I wrote in the statement. As I explained I may be mistaken as I have already explained.
ADV MOTATA: What was just read to you is it correct? That is what the question is all about, as it was read to you they want confirmation from you whether that is correct?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember but - I wrote there but I don't remember as to whether they went to Mamelodi or not.
CHAIRPERSON: Now why can't you remember today if this is what you wrote as at April 1998, that's over a year ago. The facts must have been fresher in your mind than they are today - over one year down the line. You are now changing your statement about issues which are very material to your application.
MR MATHEBULA: I made this statement in 1996. This statement is a modified statement of the statement that I made in 1996 which I made in the Attorney General's office. Maybe I am making a mistake about Chris Mosiane. I don't remember well who went there. He may be party to those who went to Mamelodi. I would not dispute that.
CHAIRPERSON: Why do you think you are making a mistake about Mr Mosiane, why do you think? This is what Ms van der Walt would like you to respond to her question. She is questioning you on why do you think you are making a mistake today when that version is standing in your affidavit which you signed quite earlier when your memory must have been much fresher than it is today. Why should you make a mistake today about the involvement of Chris Mosiane in particular? Leave alone Mfalapitsa for a moment.
MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember well as I have already stated that I did not even remember Mr Roslee but they were present. That's why I say I may be making a mistake again with Mr Mosiane.
CHAIRPERSON: The involvement of Mr Mosiane relates to the discussion. If you talk about the discussion that Mr Prinsloo and some other white officers were planning to do concerning the abduction of Connie Mahlangu, that you then referred to Mr Mosiane and the other person as having been sent to Mamelodi. You didn't know why they were sent there. But later on they came back with this unknown black person who later on identified himself to you as Pat Mahlangu. You see you have been somehow chronologically in the way you have related the involvement of Mr Chris Mosiane. Now why should you think that today you were mistaken in April '98 when you made such - when you deposed to those facts?
MR MATHEBULA: As I have already stated that maybe I am making a mistake about him. He may have gone to Mamelodi but I don't remember.
CHAIRPERSON: So he may have gone to Mamelodi?
MR MATHEBULA: That is possible, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: He may have been involved in the abduction of Mr Patrick Mahlangu.
MR MATHEBULA: There is that possibility, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt.
MS VAN DER WALT: At this point I would like to ask the Honourable Committee, and I see that it is 4.30, I would like to determine from Mr Steenkamp whether or not he is in possession of the actual initial application of this applicant because I think that it is necessary that we have sight into that document, because what is noticeable to me is the formal form, which has been included with this, but not the accompanying statement.
MR MALAN: Mrs van der Walt if I recall correctly only the formal application form was handed in along with the AG's statement. So I think the question is whether or not we are in possession of the original AG affidavit.
MS VAN DER WALT: Yes I would like to see it.
MR STEENKAMP: The position is that the original affidavit as I have it from the witness is in the possession of the AG which forms part of a dossier of the matter which is pending with regards to this case. Access was denied to the case dossier with the exception of possible inspection by certain members. I was not permitted to make any copies of the file and the material appearing in the third bundle is the only material which was available to the Amnesty Committee until yesterday. I was informed by the AG's office that the case dossier is sub judice and pending, so the documents in the dossier will not be made available to the Amnesty Committee.
MR MALAN: Perhaps we can ask Mr Lamey, who has assisted the applicants in this matter whether or not he has had any access to the documents.
MR LAMEY: I will have to return to my own leverarch file which contains the matters of this applicant. I have so many other applicants and it varies quite often. I can assure that the incorporated statements was given to the Amnesty Committee. At times I received computer printouts from the AG's office which appears to be an affidavit, but an unsigned sort-of computer printout of a version on the grounds of which the bundle deposition was compiled. But I will undertake further investigation.
MR MALAN: When you have done this will you liaise with Ms van der Walt.
Mrs van der Walt I want to ask you whether or not it is actually relevant whether the applicant says that he simply knew that Mosiane and Mfalapitsa and perhaps not exactly the two of them went to Mamelodi but that he didn't know what their orders were in either event.
MS VAN DER WALT: It is relevant. I will highlight this later.
MR MALAN: Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe this would be an appropriate time to take an adjournment until tomorrow morning.
Mr Mathebula your cross-examination will stand until tomorrow morning.
MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair just for record purposes, I have had the opportunity to speak to the head of the prison. He was available at 11 o'clock here at the hearing and they will make specific arrangements that Mr de Kock will be here before nine o'clock tomorrow morning. I have raised the question with their legal representatives as well not having proper visiting rights at the prison. That will be addressed as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Steenkamp for timely attending to this matter.
Mr de Kock we hope to see you here at nine o'clock tomorrow. We will just tread on the safe side, nevertheless commence our proceedings at 9:30 to see whether they will actually honour their undertaking.
Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
