Amnesty Hearings

KOKELA JEREMIAH MATJENI: (sworn states)

MR JANSEN: Madam Chair, before I start leading the evidence, there are some preliminary issues that I must deal with and that I must get on record. The first is, the amnesty application which is before you starts, Madam Chair, on page 71 and continues through to page 92. Madam Chair, that is an application that postdates the cutoff date of the Act and I have with me copies of the original application which was contained in what is titled Form 1. Sorry, I have the original application that was served in December 1996, on the TRC. If I may with your permission hand this up. That would be Annexure or Exhibit B.

ADV MOTATA: B in this one.

MR JANSEN: Now Madam Chair, in this document Exhibit B, you will note in paragraph 9(a)(i), on page 2 thereof, that it is stated - the details relating to the applications for amnesty, it is said

"As per my statement which is currently in the possession of the Attorney-General Transvaal."

Madam Chair, just briefly, this applicant together with a number of other applicants who were at that stage part of the Attorney-General's office or in their witness protection programme, fall in the same situation as far as this is concerned. Details were not annexed to their applications.

I have in my possession further, a set of correspondence which I also beg leave to hand up, which just briefly just deals with the correspondence between the attorneys for those witnesses, Messrs Rooth and Wessels and the TRC and more specifically the Amnesty Committee. And I don't wish to go through all the correspondence, save to say that as a summary it was accepted by everybody at that stage, that there will be amplification of the applications at a later stage. Madam Chair, I have discussed with you in chambers and I just wish to place these matters on record and if you are satisfied that we are properly before you, I will then continue with the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, with regard to paragraph 9(a) of Exhibit B, being the application by Mr Matjeni dated the 9th December 1996, am I to assume that one of the incidents that he referred to under paragraph 9(a)(i) was the incident that we now are seized with as the Amnesty Committee?

MR JANSEN: Yes, Madam Chair, and that will in fact be confirmed by Mr Matjeni in evidence now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if that is so, then this matter and his application will be properly before us.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair. I assume the bundle of documents we can make C.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JANSEN: Thank you. Madam Chair, we have the problem with the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Your headphones.

EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Matjeni, you have listened to the evidence yesterday and today in respect of the abduction and the killing of Mr Justice Mbizana, also known as MK Mandla.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Is it correct that this was one of the incidents in respect of which you made a statement, a sworn statement to the Attorney-General?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And is it correct that the essence of that statement is repeated in the statement which is before this Committee, starting on page 86?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now Mr Matjeni, this is the first time that you are testifying before the Amnesty Committee, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: I just briefly want to deal with your background. You joined the South African Police in 1964.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: But it was only in 1983 or '84 that you joined the Security Police.

MR MATJENI: That is in 1984, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Before that you were involved in community policing and in criminal investigations.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Where were you resident at that time, between 1964 and 1984?

MR MATJENI: I was staying in Hammanskraal, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Did you live in the then - did you live on the Bophuthatswana side or on the RSA side of Hammanskraal?

MR MATJENI: In Bophuthatswana, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Of which country were you a citizen?

MR MATJENI: Bophuthatswana, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Did you at that stage support any political party either in South Africa or in Bophuthatswana?

MR MATJENI: I was not a supporter of any political party, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now in your work as a security policeman, how was it that you regarded the ANC, which was an organisation fighting for the liberation and the emancipation of black people, how was it that you as a black person regarded them as your enemy?

MR MATJENI: It is because of my employ because when they were busy with bombs ...(intervention)

MR JANSEN: If I could assist you. Did you have it against their use of violence and their methods?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now you are fairly conversant in Afrikaans, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now you have read this statement of yours recently again, on pages 86 and page 87, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And do you confirm that what you say there is correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now just to deal with a few issues. Did you at any stage assault Mr Mbizana yourself personally?

MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson, there was no stage where I assaulted Mr Mbizana.

MR JANSEN: Now you accept that at Compol building Mr Mbizana was not placed in an ordinary detention cell and the fact that he was being detained was not entered into any register, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: So you knew that his detention at that stage was strictly speaking against the law.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Did you regard that type of unlawful detention as a necessary part of your work as a security policeman?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Sorry, Chair, I'm just struggling with my little earphones here.

And the same is true for the detention of Mr Mbizana at the farm outside Pretoria, this farm Klipdrift?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: What were you tasked to do in respect of Mr Mbizana? What was your job?

MR MATJENI: My duty was to guard him and to cook for him and we gave him food.

MR JANSEN: Then on the one evening you state in your statement that he was assaulted by Capt Crafford, W/O Strydom and Capt van Jaarsveld, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson, before he was burnt.

MR JANSEN: Yes. Now you witnessed up to a certain stage that assault, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And you also knew that that assault was strictly speaking unlawful?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson, because I left that place, then I went to a certain tent.

MR JANSEN: Yes, but the reason why you went to the tent was because of the cruelty of the assault, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: I didn't like the way he was burnt.

MR JANSEN: Yes. Did you know what the reason was for Capt Crafford and the other two gentlemen for interrogating and assaulting Mr Mbizana?

MR MATJENI: I did not know the reason, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Did you regard it as any of your business to know why they had to interrogate him?

MR MATJENI: I knew only that he was interrogated, but I didn't know why, because they discussed about many things about him.

MR JANSEN: Yes. What was your rank at the time?

MR MATJENI: I was a Constable.

MR JANSEN: Did you regard it as part of your work not to talk to anybody about these illegal activities?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Did you know Mr Mbizana in any other capacity other than somebody who was arrested by the police?

MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson, I did not know him, it was for the first time.

MR JANSEN: So is it correct to say that you had nothing personally against Mr Mbizana?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And it's also correct that you did not receive any special remuneration for your involvement in these incidents relating to Mr Mbizana?

MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson, I didn't benefit at all.

MR JANSEN: Now you also - just one thing that must be corrected from your statement in - sorry, Madam Chair, on page 76, the very first paragraph you say

"In 1984 to 1985 I began working at the C-Section of the Security Branch Head Office in Pretoria."

Now it's correct that that reference to headquarters is wrong, it was not C-Section at headquarters, but C-Section at Northern Transvaal where you were working.

MR MATJENI: That's correct, Chairperson, at Compol building.

MR JANSEN: And from who did you normally receive your orders?

MR MATJENI: Mainly it was from Capt Prinsloo, then after that it was Capt Crafford whom I used to receive instructions from.

MR JANSEN: Yes. And in this incident you received your instructions to guard Mr Mbizana from Mr Prinsloo.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And furthermore, as a Constable tasked with the guarding, it was not your ...(intervention)

MR MATJENI: My duty was to guard him.

MR JANSEN: Yes, but it would not be expected of you or you were certainly not in a position to question Mr Crafford, who was the commanding officer of that unit at that stage.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, I have - sorry, no, I do have some other questions. I just want to deal with some of what happened on the evening when Mr Mbizana was seriously assaulted. It was said by Mr Strydom that Mbizana was tied to a tree. What is your comment on that evidence?

MR MATJENI: I'm not sure as to whether it was on the tree or it was on the water tank, because there was a tree and then next door to that there was a water tank. I'm not sure as to whether he was tied on the water tank or on the tree.

MR JANSEN: Alright. But my question relates to what Mr Strydom said he saw when he got there. He said when he got there, when he arrived there Mr Mbizana was already tied to a tree or a water tank.

MR MATJENI: That is not correct, Chairperson. We were busy sitting with him when he arrived. We were busy sitting beside the fire.

MR JANSEN: And did Mbizana at that stage have clothes on?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And what happened then, did somebody order him to stand up or ...?

MR MATJENI: That is correct. I don't remember who, but somebody instructed him or maybe all of them, but he was instructed to take off his clothes.

MR JANSEN: And then, what happened to him then?

MR MATJENI: After that he was tied either on the tree or on the water tank.

MR JANSEN: And is that when the assault took place as you describe in your statement?

MR MATJENI: Yes, that is correct, that is when they started to burn him.

MR JANSEN: There was also some suggestions that the white officers or some of them were drunk that evening, did you see them drinking?

MR MATJENI: I did not see them drinking, but they were drunk. They came drunk.

MR JANSEN: Is the impression that you got that they were under the influence?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, I observed that they were under the influence of alcohol.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. Mr Alberts?

MR ALBERTS: I have no questions, thank you, Madam Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: No questions, thank you, Madam Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Matjeni, is it correct that you cannot say who was responsible for the burning of Mandla with a piece of wood?

MR MATJENI: I don't remember who was responsible.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right. So you can't dispute it if the evidence on his application is that it was Mr Crafford?

MR MATJENI: I would not dispute that, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. Now during that episode where Mandla was assaulted, can you at all remember if Mr Strydom hit him with a bottle over the head?

MR MATJENI: I did not see him, because immediately they started burning him, then I left and went to a tent because ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. And as I understood from your evidence, that was part of the interrogation. The assaults were part of the interrogation.

MR MATJENI: I don't know because I have never seen such kinds of interrogation which includes the burning of a person. It was for the first time.

CHAIRPERSON: Refresh my memory, Mr du Plessis, I don't recall him saying that.

MR DU PLESSIS: I'm sorry, you don't recall?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't recall that kind of evidence.

MR DU PLESSIS: Of Mr Strydom?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I thought you meant Mr Matjeni, because ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: No, the questions were asked by Mr Jansen and I specifically noted it that he asked the questions about the assault together with interrogation, he coupled it in the question and Mr Matjeni didn't dispute that it was part of the interrogation and as a result of that I asked the question. So Mr Matjeni was never asked in evidence-in-chief specifically about this, it was just the way Mr Jansen put the question and that's why I asked it because I wanted to clear it up.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe phrase it in such a way as to elicit whether it is part of his evidence.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Matjeni, when you testified in your evidence-in-chief, you were asked about the assaults during an interrogation, do you agree with that, that the assaults took place during an interrogation?

MR MATJENI: Maybe I don't understand your question, but the assault I observed is when he was burnt.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Well in your experience, would people be assaulted by the Security Police ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr du Plessis, sorry to interrupt you, I think the question is a straightforward one.

When they burnt him, were they also asking him questions?

MR MATJENI: I don't remember well.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right. So you would agree with me that it is possible that they were asking him questions while they were assaulting him?

MR MATJENI: It's possible because I left them there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you. Now Mr Matjeni ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr du Plessis.

The reason why you left was after he had been assaulted, and you left because of the cruelty of the assault. That's your evidence, isn't it?

MR MATJENI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now whilst you were there, did you see any questions being asked of Mr Mbizana by any of the members who were there?

MR MATJENI: I don't remember but faintly they were wrestling with him or they were confronting him in their communication.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they asking questions? Were they talking to him, of they were merely assaulting without asking anything?

MR MATJENI: What I remember is they were talking to him, they used to tell him that "You terrorist, you terrorist".

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you recall being said on that evening prior to your departure?

MR MATJENI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: And would you agree with me that, in the light of your memory, that it is possible also that they could have asked him questions about his involvement as a terrorist?

MR MATJENI: It's possible, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. Now Mr Matjeni, you testified that he was told to take off his clothes and he was thereafter tied either to the tree or the water tank. Is that right?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did you tell that to your legal representative before today?

MR MATJENI: Yes, I did, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you also testified that you didn't see them drinking, but that they were drunk. Can you recall that?

MR MATJENI: I recall that, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you tell that to Mr Jansen before today?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. And as far as I can remember Madam Chair, that wasn't put to Mr Strydom. But I don't think it's necessary to ask the witness that question, unless you want me to ask the question. Maybe I should.

Mr Matjeni, can you explain why Mr Jansen didn't put that part of your evidence to Mr Strydom when he cross-examined him?

MR MATJENI: I don't know, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis. Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Matjeni, you were under the command of Mr Prinsloo.

MR MATJENI: ...(no English interpretation)

ADV PRINSLOO: And this incident took place a long time ago, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And is it possible that you may be mistaken when you say that he was detained for more than one night at Compol, while Mr Prinsloo says he was only detained for one evening? Would you agree with that?

MR MATJENI: I don't - he stayed more than, between two days to three days. It's more than one day.

ADV PRINSLOO: You have heard the evidence of Mr Prinsloo, he said it was only one day. What do you say of that? Are you mistaken?

MR MATJENI: I'm not making a mistake, I know that it's more than one day.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you are aware that Mr Prinsloo had questioned Mr Mbizana in Compol.

MR MATJENI: Yes, he was questioned at Compol building.

ADV PRINSLOO: And is it also your evidence that Mr Prinsloo never assaulted Mr Mbizana in Compol building?

MR MATJENI: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr van Jaarsveld was tasked with black force activities, or do you not know?

MR MATJENI: May you please repeat the question.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr van Jaarsveld was tasked with black force activities, that was his task at the branch at Compol.

MR MATJENI: Yes, he had his own branch.

ADV PRINSLOO: There where Mr Mbizana was detained at the farm where you guarded him, you have heard Mr Prinsloo's evidence that he had said that he questioned him there at the farm as well on his own. Do you agree with that or not?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you are saying in your statement here that Mr Prinsloo was very angry when he discovered that Mr Mbizana had been assaulted in this manner.

MR MATJENI: I'm still stating that he disliked that assault.

ADV PRINSLOO: The same day, I put it to you, that Mr Prinsloo arrived there and discovered that Mr Mbizana had been assaulted, was the same day that the people had withdrawn from there on his instructions. Do you agree with that?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, I was instructed to leave the farm.

ADV PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you, Madam Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.

Sir, my client Mr Kruger, who is behind me, says that you are entirely correct that the person who was assaulted, Mr Mbizana, the morning of the assault he was without clothing and he says that you and Mr Mathebula were present when he released him that morning from the log which he was tied to and he was still naked. Can you recall that?

MR MATJENI: At the time when he was untied I was at the tent, I did not see him.

MS VAN DER WALT: But do you know that at that stage he was still naked, before Mr Kruger had untied him?

MR MATJENI: I don't know who untied him, but I left him there naked.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Madam Chair, as it pleases the Committee.

Sir, do you know who went to put up the tents on the farm?

MR MATJENI: I don't know, Chairperson, it may be Capt Prinsloo.

MR JOUBERT: You can't remember, you can't recall.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And when you returned after being sent home, that's after the assault when you returned to the farm, what happened then?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, we went to the farm the next day.

MR JOUBERT: Yes, and when you got to the farm what transpired?

MR MATJENI: We found Mbizana not present, then we were instructed to de-rig the tent and we returned to the office.

MR JOUBERT: Were you instructed to break the tents down and vacate the property?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Now at Compol building there was interrogation of Mandla, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: Yes, he was questioned there.

MR JOUBERT: Were you present during the whole time that he was questioned or were there certain instances where you were absent?

MR MATJENI: There are times when I was present and there are times when we were absent because we used to go and buy him food.

MR JOUBERT: So am I then correct to state that there may have been assaults on Mandla at Compol while you were possibly not present?

MR MATJENI: That is possible, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: In your application you state that Mandla was at the farm for approximately one to two weeks. Is it possible that it may only have been one week?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it Compol, Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Pardon, Ma'am?

CHAIRPERSON: Compol.

MR JOUBERT: No, at the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: At the farm.

MR MATJENI: That is possible, Chairperson, but I thought it is two weeks.

MR JOUBERT: I have no further questions to this witness, thank you, Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No questions, Madam Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I be afforded the opportunity to ask a question flowing from a statement that was put to this witness by Ms van der Walt? May I just say this. It may become important because the statement was made that Mr Kruger will testify that he saw that he was without clothes and that Matjeni and Mathebula were there when he was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Untied.

MR DU PLESSIS: ... untied, thank you for the word, the next morning. Now that evidence was never put to my client, Mr Strydom and I just want to clear a few things up in respect of that from this witness please.

CHAIRPERSON: But wasn't his evidence that he wasn't there when he was untied? Would your questioning ...(indistinct)

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, my questioning would relate to what he says in his application, where he says

"Later he was brought back to the tent."

And what I want to know is if he was brought in the night or the next morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may put the question.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: May it please you.

Mr Matjeni, can you remember you testified in your application that Mandla was brought back to the tent after these assaults, after you had left and you hadn't seen the assaults again he was brought back to the tent. Was that the next morning or was that still that same night?

MR MATJENI: That is the same night, Chairperson, because after they burnt him they left.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. And when he was brought back to the tent, did he have clothes on or was he naked?

MR MATJENI: I don't remember, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right. Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

MS VAN DER WALT: May I just answer to the comment that I did not put it to Strydom? I could not because this emanated from cross-examination from Mr Jansen that it seemed that the person was naked and without clothes and I took instructions and that is why I did not put it to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for explaining that to us, Ms van der Walt. Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions to put to the witness?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, do you wish to re-examine?

MR JANSEN: No re-examination, thank you Chair.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN

MR MALAN: Mr Matjeni, you say in your statement that the tents were set up on the farm Klipdrift of Mr Pretorius, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is Pretorius' farm.

MR MALAN: Was it the first time you stayed at the farm or were there other times?

MR MATJENI: I think there was an instance where we were at that farm. If I remember well.

MR MALAN: How do you know Mr Pretorius, how do you know what his name is?

MR MATJENI: I knew that it was Mr Pretorius' farm, but I don't know how it came about to know that it's Mr Pretorius.

MR MALAN: Did you know Mr Pretorius himself or did you only know it was his farm?

MR MATJENI: I know him personally.

MR MALAN: Was he a farmer?

MR MATJENI: Yes, he had a livestock and a certain firm in Babaleki, which is called Pretorius, it was his firm.

MR MALAN: He was not an ex-policeman?

MR MATJENI: I don't know, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Matjeni, you are excused as a witness.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Who is the next applicant to be heard in relation to this incident?

MR DU PLESSIS: I think that's Mr Mathebula and Cronje, those are the two witnesses that are left, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert, are you in a position to commence with Mr Mathebula's application? I'm asking this bearing in mind that you were instructed quite late and when you saw us in chambers you indicated that you might require more time to consult before being in a position to lead evidence viva voce.

MR JOUBERT: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. That is indeed the position, but I have obtained the necessary instructions and I think we can proceed at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.