MR JOUBERT: Mr Mathebula will testify in Tswana.
ADV MOTATA: Your full names?
SMUTS PHILEMON MATHEBULA: (sworn states)
MR JOUBERT: Madam Chair, just an issue which I have not addressed, it's the position as set out by my learned friend, Mr Jansen. I understand that Mr Mathebula has testified before the Committee prior to this and I have not raised the issue pertaining to his application which was also dated, if I may refer you to page ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Page 122.
MR JOUBERT: ... 122 and further. That is similar to the matter as with Mr Matjeni and then a further application was then amplified. These arrangements were made and at that stage Mr Mathebula was also represented by the firm Rooth and Wessels. I am not aware, but I do think that the correspondence which was handed up also refers to Mr Mathebula's situation.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is our understanding. We are sitting with two applications, one at page 122 and the other one, it's signed - I think it's on page 116. The one on page 116 was signed on the 9th of December '96 and this one was a further amplification.
MR JOUBERT: That is the amplification indeed. I just want to submit that I respectfully am of the opinion that the application is properly before the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR JOUBERT: I will not address you further in detail, my learned friend has covered all the aspects in this regard.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Mr Mathebula, you have testified before the Committee prior to this hearing, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: So the full particulars pertaining to your history and your experience and involvement with the South African Police has been dealt with.
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: Okay. For expediency purposes I will not cover those aspects again at this stage and just concentrate on the issue at hand.
Mr Matjeni, your application in this matter is contained on page 117 to 141 of bundle 1 and the incident specifically that is being heard is contained on pages 135 to 141. Do you confirm the content of your application in this regard?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: Now you have heard the evidence that has been led so far. I would like to start with the incident at Compol.
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I heard the evidence.
MR JOUBERT: At Compol there was a measure of interrogation, were you involved in this interrogation?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: And was there any assaults that took place during this interrogation?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: What did the assault consist of?
MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well we were clapping him, we were slapping, about 15 to 20 minutes.
MR JOUBERT: It wasn't a serious assault, it was just a light assault during the questioning of Mandla?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, it was not a serious assault.
MR JOUBERT: Can you recall who was present ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Joubert.
Were you slapping and clapping him for a period of 10 continuous minutes?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember who put a tube on the head and then he squeezed it and then left him for about seconds, then after that he was slapped for about 15 to 20 minutes. It was not continuous.
MR JOUBERT: So apart from the slaps a tube was also placed around his head, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: Was there any other form of assault that took place in your presence?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: Is it true that you cannot recall exactly who was present during this incident of the assault on Mandla?
MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well, Capt Prinsloo was present.
MR JOUBERT: In your application you state on page 135 thereof, paragraph 3 at the bottom
"During the interrogation he was slapped, kicked and smothered with an inner tube. I participated in this. I think Jerry assisted in holding him down, but I am not sure."
Am I correct in stating that you are not sure whether Jerry was there at that stage at all?
MR MATHEBULA: It is possible that he was not present.
MR JOUBERT: What was the movements of the members of the Security Branch, would they be moving in and out during this interrogation, or what was the exact position?
MR MATHEBULA: There were those who were entering and those who were going out, because it was at W/O Dos Santos' office.
MR JOUBERT: Can you recall what period of time Mandla was kept at Compol?
MR MATHEBULA: If I'm not mistaken it's three days.
MR JOUBERT: And thereafter he was moved to the farm, Klipdrift, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: When you left for the farm Klipdrift, did you find a camp which had already been erected, or were you sent to the farm prior to taking Mandla to the farm?
MV MATHEBULA: If I remember well we were sent there before to erect the tent, then from there we returned to our office in Compol.
MR JOUBERT: Your instructions at the farm, was that merely to attend to the guarding of Mandla for the period that he was detained there?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: At the farm did you participate in any assaults on Mandla?
MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: Did you participate in any interrogation of Mandla?
MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson, I did not take part.
MR JOUBERT: Now you have heard the evidence of Mr Matjeni, that there was an incident when Mr Mandla was severely assaulted and burnt, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: Can you recall where Mr Mandla was - well apparently he was tied to either a tree or some other object. Can you recall to what he was tied?
MR MATHEBULA: If I remember it was at the water tank which was provided by the farmer. We made fire then he was tied on the water tank.
MR JOUBERT: And then the assault, there was an assault that took place upon him there, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR JOUBERT: What did you do at that stage, did you stay at the fire or did you leave for the tent or what were your actions?
MR MATHEBULA: I stayed beside the fire with Mr Mtjali and then we were observing the incident of assault.
MR JOUBERT: At that stage your rank was that of Constable, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: And the people who were participating in the assault were senior officers or much senior to you in rank, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: Were you in a position to question them at all?
MR MATHEBULA: Not at all, Chairperson, not at the Security Branch.
MR JOUBERT: Now the evidence was, or the statement was made that after this assault Mr Mandla was brought back to the tent, can you recall when he was brought back to the tent?
MR MATHEBULA: After he was burnt and after he was assaulted I remember who untied him, then he was taken to the tent because he was sleeping together with me and Mr Mtjali in the same tent.
MR JOUBERT: Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. Who untied him?
MR MATHEBULA: I stated that I don't remember who untied him, it might be me or Jerry or one of them. I don't remember.
MR JOUBERT: Or somebody else?
MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: Then after the assault the following day Capt Prinsloo arrived, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: And he was very upset with what had happened and on that same day he sent all the members away, some on certain missions and some were sent home, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson, he was angry.
MR JOUBERT: You left after being instructed to do so and then only returned the following morning, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: And when you arrived back at the farm on that following morning, did you find Mandla there?
MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: Were you informed about what had happened to him? Was it mentioned or anything to this effect?
MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well, Capt Prinsloo informed us that
"I handed Mandla over to the Bophuthatswana Police, due to the fact that they wanted him for the murder of Brig Malope."
MR JOUBERT: Mr Mathebula, during this whole process that you were now involved with Mandla, with his detention etc., were you under the orders of Capt Prinsloo?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: And am I correct in saying that you acted in accordance with those orders and that you were under the impression that that was in the performance of your duties with the Police Force at that stage?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: Did you know Mandla apart from this incident at all?
MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson, I did not know him.
MR JOUBERT: Did you have any personal grudges against Mandla?
MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: And did you receive any gain for the actions or the part that you took in the possible assault and illegal detention of Mandla?
MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson, I did not benefit at all.
MR JOUBERT: Now the detention of Mandla, was that the way that the Security Police operated at that stage, to keep him away or to prevent his arrest becoming known to the public? In other words was it standard practice to arrest a person and keep him detained in this manner?
MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson, according to me he could have been detained, then he could have been taken to the cells or to the police stations in Pretoria.
MR JOUBERT: Just bear with me for a second please, Madam Chair.
Am I correct then in saying furthermore that you are now applying for amnesty pertaining to the assault which took place at Compol on Mr Mandla?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: As well as to a possible charge of abduction? Sorry, Madam Chair, a charge of abduction.
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: I have no further questions at this stage, thank you, Madam Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr Alberts?
MR ALBERTS: Nothing, thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha?
MR BOTHA: Nothing, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Mathebula, in how many interrogations were you involved during your time at the Security Police? Were you used for interrogations? Let me ask the question that way.
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: ...(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON: Did you hear the question, Mr Mathebula?
MR MATHEBULA: No, I did not, Chairperson.
INTERPRETER: We are ready, you can continue.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chairperson.
Were you frequently utilised in interrogations? - frequently.
MR MATHEBULA: I would not say always, but there were occasions where Capt Prinsloo used me during interrogations.
MR DU PLESSIS: And were you involved in any other interrogations which were done unlawfully, apart from this one, where people were assaulted?
MR MATHEBULA: There is one which is pending to be heard by the Amnesty Committee.
MR DU PLESSIS: And did you know at that time of all the incidents and interrogations that people like Col Roelf Venter, W/O van Vuuren, Capt Hechter and people like that were involved in? Did you know anything about that?
MR MATHEBULA: I'd be telling a lie if I may mention anything in regard to Venter.
MR DU PLESSIS: They testified frequently before the Truth Commission about various assaults and about the fact that was standard practice of the Security Police to exercise force during interrogations and that was the standard practice. Now do you still say that, maintain your evidence and your position that it wasn't standard practice to assault people during interrogations?
MR MATHEBULA: That is why I'm saying those people who were in Section B, because I was not part of Section B, I did not know what they were doing and I did not know as to whether it was standard practice for them or not.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see you're not in a position to really say what the standard practice of the Security Police was pertaining to interrogations, are you?
CHAIRPERSON: With regard to detention, Mr du Plessis. That's his evidence.
MR DU PLESSIS: I understood to relate to assaults, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: It's precisely with regard to detention and nothing more.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, then I'll leave it there.
Mr Mathebula, do you still stand by your written version of your application, do you still say this is correct?
MR MATHEBULA: I would say it correct, even if there might be some other issues which I forgot, but generally I would say it's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. And you were there at the farm the whole time, from the beginning to the end when Mandla was there, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you also then would know who came to interrogate Mandla during that period, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And who was that, who came to interrogate him?
MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well, Capt Prinsloo came, we took him from the tent, then he had a discussion with him, I think for an hour or less.
MR DU PLESSIS: When was this now, right when he was taken to the farm, right at the beginning?
MR MATHEBULA: I'm talking about what happened at the farm. Capt Prinsloo used to come at the farm, he would take Mr Prinsloo from the tent, then he would have a discussion with him and leave.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you remember who the first person was who interrogated him at the farm?
MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well it's Capt Prinsloo.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you testified about the one incident about Mr Crafford and Mr Strydom and where they burnt him with a piece of wood. Can you remember if Crafford of Strydom or anybody else, apart from that incident, ever interrogated Mandla? - apart from Prinsloo now.
MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember them coming to interrogate him except on that particular day when he was burnt.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. So that was the only time when you saw Crafford and Strydom there where they had anything to do with Mandla, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. You see why I'm asking you this is on page 137 of your application you say, actually on 136 you say
"On the farm Prinsloo gave Matjeni and I the order to sleep in the tent with the man and to guard him. We bound him to the camp bed. After this Prinsloo drove back to Pretoria. I think that Sgt de Pino and W/O Mtjali remained with us."
And then you say -
"The following morning Capt Sakkie Crafford, Capt van Jaarsveld, W/O Strydom, Chris Putter and Capt Prinsloo arrived there. The man was once again interrogated regarding the aforementioned murders."
And then you carry on with that paragraph and then in paragraph 8 you say -
"One afternoon, it was very cold, we decided to make a fire."
And then you tell us about the incident where he was burnt with the piece of wood. Now why I'm putting this to you is when I read your application, it seems that you say Capt Crafford was involved and Mr Strydom was involved in more than one occasion at the farm to interrogate him. Can you comment on that?
MR MATHEBULA: The person I remember coming to the farm to interrogate Mandla is Capt Prinsloo, I don't remember others interrogating him.
MR DU PLESSIS: The only other time that you remember an interrogation where Prinsloo wasn't, where somebody else was involved was the time when they burnt him with the piece of wood, is that correct
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct yes, that is when he was burnt with ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: So what you say in your application here, paragraph 7, that Capt Crafford came on the first morning when he was there, together with Strydom and van Jaarsveld and Putter and that he was - and Prinsloo, and he was interrogated at that time, that that is then not correct? Should it be only Prinsloo?
MR MATHEBULA: What I'm saying is that Capt Prinsloo was the one who was interpreting, or was interrogating. If I stated that, that means that Capt Prinsloo is the one who is interrogating. He was that kind of a person who doesn't want to be crowded when he is interrogating a person.
MR DU PLESSIS: So it would be incorrect to read that paragraph as that all those people were involved in the interrogation on that first morning?
MR MATHEBULA: I only remember about Capt Prinsloo. He may have come with them, but I don't remember them interrogating him.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. Now Mr Mathebula, Mr van Jaarsveld said in an affidavit that he wasn't involved in any interrogation, I think he also says that he wasn't at the farm. I'm not hundred percent sure. But he wasn't involved in the interrogation, is that correct? Captain van Jaarsveld, he wasn't involved in the interrogation?
MR MATHEBULA: That is why I'm saying the person who interrogated Mandla is Capt Prinsloo. Even the time when he was burnt it was because they were drunk.
MR DU PLESSIS: Who was drunk?
MR MATHEBULA: Capt Crafford, Capt van Jaarsveld and Strydom, they were drunk. They were drunk.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Did you see them drinking?
MR MATHEBULA: Oom Struis had a J&B bottle.
CHAIRPERSON: By Oom Struis do you mean Mr Strydom?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Strydom, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, we used to call him Oom Struis.
CHAIRPERSON: When you say Oom Struis ...(indistinct - no microphone)
When you say you are certain that Oom Struis was drunk, really drunk, I think that's the word you used in Sotho, what do you mean? How could you establish that he was very drunk?
MR MATHEBULA: Because of my observation because I was sitting beside the fire. All those things they did to Mandla were not necessary, you could see that it is because of the influence of alcohol.
CHAIRPERSON: What did you observe from their conduct, particularly Oom Struis' conduct? I mean did you hear him speaking with a slurred speech, could he not walk properly? What created an impression in your mind that he was very drunk, other than what they did to Mr Mbizana?
MR MATHEBULA: According to my observations they were not able to move properly. They had a J&B Whisky. At the very time when they were assaulting him they were drinking at the same time.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now did you see them drinking?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. And did they speak to Mandla?
MR MATHEBULA: Oom Struis used to say "You terrorist, you terrorist". They were talking things like that to him.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did they ask him questions?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, they were asking him questions, but mainly they used to say "You terrorist, you terrorist".
MR DU PLESSIS: I'm asking were they asking him questions and you say yes.
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, they were asking questions, though I don't remember which questions.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. So you can't dispute it if Mr Strydom's evidence is that that was an interrogation and that they were asking him questions?
MR MATHEBULA: I was the first time seeing that kind of an interrogation.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now do you know what answers Mandla gave?
MR MATHEBULA: He was not able to respond because he was crying. You cannot cry if you are burnt, so he was crying all the time. (sic)
MR DU PLESSIS: Are you saying that he didn't respond at all to the questions?
MR MATHEBULA: He was not able to answer or respond to their questions. There's no way you can answer questions if you are burnt.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because there is evidence of Mr Strydom that he did answer questions and that he did give information. Are you saying he's lying?
MR MATHEBULA: I would say he's lying because he was burnt on his testis.
MR DU PLESSIS: Where was he burnt?
ADV MOTATA: May I interpose, Mr ... I think we should put it in perspective. That he said they interrogated him whilst he was taking notes and they left to buy food and when they burnt him I don't think they interrogated him. I don't recall that kind of evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: He did, he did.
ADV MOTATA: He did?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV MOTATA: Oh, thank you. Sorry about that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you.
Yes, about the testicles, I'm very interested. This is the first time I hear about this, just tell us a bit more. Is there more evidence that you want to give us that you haven't told us before, that you didn't put in your application? Please, I'm interested.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr du Plessis, I mean he has mentioned in his affidavit, that's page 137, paragraph 8, that they burnt this man's private parts. Did you want him to specify that they burnt one testicle ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON: ... they burnt the penis. Isn't that sufficient?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, I'm sorry, I missed that, I missed that. I will withdraw that question.
Now Mr Mathebula, the evidence of Mr Strydom and Mr Crafford, if you read the applications, their evidence is that Mr Crafford burnt him with the piece of wood. Do you dispute that?
MR MATHEBULA: The three of them burnt Mr Mandla. The person who left there is Jerry, because he didn't like what was happening, but I was there observing the whole scene.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. Now who do you say was burning him? Come again.
MR MATHEBULA: Oom Struis, Capt Crafford, Capt van Jaarsveld.
MR DU PLESSIS: And van Jaarsveld.
MR MATHEBULA: Ja.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you remember that clearly now?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, I remember that well, because it was for the first time seeing a person treated that way.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because on page 137 of your application, right at the bottom of the page, you don't mention Capt van Jaarsveld and Mr Crafford, there you were apparently not certain because you said "ander persone".
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MR DU PLESSIS: The bottom part, page 137.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) he mentions them, second line, paragraph eight.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but he doesn't say there that these people were involved in the burning, in the physical burning. Then he says later on
"Oom Struis had a hot log from the fire and burnt the man on his private parts and legs."
There he says "ander persone", but he doesn't name them specifically and that's the only reason why I'm asking the question.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Mathebula, do you see there you don't say there Mr Crafford or Mr van Jaarsveld, you just say "ander persone". Have you become more clear now in your mind or why is it that when you did this application you couldn't remember that?
MR MATHEBULA: As I've already mentioned their names, the person who was compiling this statement was the person who made a mistake, because I mentioned them. The person who wrote or compiled this statement is the one who made a mistake.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now you wouldn't know why Mr Crafford would have been interested in interrogating this man, would you? Why he would have had an interest.
MR MATHEBULA: I told you that that was not interrogation.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Mathebula, we can talk about that. You also said to me that you saw them asking questions and you don't know what questions they asked. Or do you want to change that evidence?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't want to change my evidence, I've already stated that according to me it was for the first time seeing that kind of interrogation. I don't believe that there is any other person who can interrogate a person in that way. They were doing that because of the influence of alcohol.
MR DU PLESSIS: You don't like Mr Strydom.
MR MATHEBULA: I have no problem with Mr Strydom. Even some weeks back I was with him at his place.
MR DU PLESSIS: I'm asking why and how can you dispute that that was an interrogation, and an interrogation means asking of questions, when you testified that questions were asked to this person during this period and you don't know what questions were asked.
MR MALAN: Mr du Plessis, I think that that was conceded, that questions were asked. The witness on several occasions said he wouldn't describe that as an interrogation.
MR DU PLESSIS: I will leave it there.
What I want to put to you is something that I have looked at again, which I perhaps should have asked Mr Strydom and the previous witnesses. Mr Crafford said on page 496 of his application, the second last paragraph, he said -
"Mandla also mentioned that he had obtained the addresses of two police officers as well as other details from a man whom he had recruited, one Ernest Ramango, who was also apparently an informer for the Security Branch. It was very valuable information seeing as I was the handler of Ramango at that stage and had suspected that he was a double-agent."
You don't know anything about that do you?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember him being asked that question or making that kind of statements.
MR DU PLESSIS: But the point I'm trying to make is - what I'm putting to you, Mr Mathebula, I'm putting to you that that clearly was the interest of Mr Crafford in the interrogation of this person.
MR MATHEBULA: I don't believe so.
CHAIRPERSON: You wouldn't know Mr Mathebula.
MR MATHEBULA: I would not know.
MR MALAN: May I just be certain, Mr du Plessis. Is it your suggestion that the paragraph that you have read out refers to the information which was obtained when the log was used to burn the subject? That session of interrogation?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, as I have read it, it would appear to me that the information was obtained previously. The only point that I wish to make, and I will argue about this later, because Mr Crafford isn't present, the point is that his interest with Mandla had to do with Ramango apparently, and the facts surrounding Ramango, and for that reason he had a motive to interrogate him.
CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't it stand out, Mr du Plessis, when you read page 496 until 197, that the information that was obtained with regard to Ernest Ramango must have been obtained prior to the burning with a log incident?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, it looks like it.
CHAIRPERSON: It is quite clear, it doesn't look like to me. He says he then again questioned him.
MR DU PLESSIS: He says
"... one evening I interrogated him again"
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, the only point - we can't ask Capt Crafford obviously, so we'll have to argue on the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And it's also unfair to ask Mr Mathebula this question.
MR DU PLESSIS: I know. The reason why I'm pointing this out, Madam Chair, is I should have asked this previously and I didn't do so and I want to bring it under your attention now at this point in time. May I just while I'm busy with this, also point out that Capt van Jaarsveld also corroborates this evidence in his affidavit. In the last paragraph, paragraph 6 he says - "Ek bevestig my betrokkenheid by Ernest Ramango, soos in Crafford se aansoek uiteengesit. Ramango is as bron deur my aan Crafford oorgedra, aangesien ek destyds uit die Veiligheidstak verplaas is."
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you. Chairperson, if you'll just bear with me please.
Now Mr Mathebula, did you tell your current legal representative everything about this matter when you consulted with him?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see when he cross-examined Mr Strydom he did not mention to Mr Strydom that questions were asked, in fact he insinuated during the cross-examination of Mr Strydom, that this whole incident of the burning with the piece of wood was simply just for the fun of it. Now I find it strange that he would put that in cross-examination without also putting the fact that questions were asked in the same vein. Do you have any explanation for that?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't follow your question, Sir.
MR DU PLESSIS: You see what concerns me is your legal representative did not put your whole version pertaining to that incident, he put that that incident was simply for the fun of it, and what concerns me about that is two things. The one thing is he did not put that questions were asked during that incident and also that specific fact that he put that it was only for the fun of it, does not appear in your application. Do you have any comment on that?
MR MATHEBULA: I have no comment, maybe my legal counsel will comment on that.
MR DU PLESSIS: No you see, what I will argue is that that's a recent fabrication and that for some reason or another you are trying to make Mr Strydom's application for amnesty as difficult as possible. That's what I'm going to argue.
MR MATHEBULA: All these people who are here and others, all of us are here to apply for amnesty. We did those things and it's history now. It's not because we had any grudge or something, because all of us are here to tell the truth and to apply for amnesty.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Mathebula. I have no further questions, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis. Mr Jansen?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair.
Mr Mathebula, I see that you were - I'm referring to page 118 of your application, you joined the Police Force in 1978 and from 1980 you were at Ovamboland. I assume that since 1980 you had - your work was mainly with the Security Branch of the South African Police.
MR MATHEBULA: I went to the Security Branch in 1984.
MR JANSEN: No, I accept that. But the people who were - the South African Police that were stationed in Ovamboland were mainly policemen from the Security Branch, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: Do you mean mainly the Security Branch? Because they would take each and every person. If only you had a course from Maleeuskop(?) you go to the borders. I don't understand your question as to whether you mean particularly Security Branch or not.
MR JANSEN: Let me put it this way. The training that you received at Maleeuskop, that related to security training. It related to National Security, it was not ordinary training of crime investigation or policing.
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, it was for National Security.
MR JANSEN: Now by 1987 I assume that you must have been present at a number of interrogations of persons who had been detained, whether lawfully or unlawfully.
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR JANSEN: And would it be correct to say that you were probably involved in so many of them that you probably wouldn't be able to tell this Committee how many of them, or how many of such interrogations you were present at or involved in?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, it's impossible to state how many.
MR JANSEN: Now I just formally want to state to you, I mean you've heard the evidence that Mr Matjeni denies being involved in any assault at the Compol building. Do you wish to make any comment on that?
MR MATHEBULA: It may be true that he was not present.
MR JANSEN: And you will exceed that to the extent that your evidence and that of Mr Matjeni differs on minor detail or on individuals present at various stages of this incident, that it could be a mistake that either you or Mr Matjeni is making because of the lapse of time.
MR MATHEBULA: It is possible, Chairperson, because I'm not able to state who was where and when.
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. Mr Prinsloo?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Mathebula, briefly, according to your evidence if I understand your evidence correctly, this assault in Compol was very brief.
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV PRINSLOO: And you are saying if you recall correctly Capt Prinsloo was present, so it seems that you are not sure if he was present. Is that correct, Mr Mathebula?
MR MATHEBULA: As I stated in my statement that - as I've stated already that if I remember well, Capt Prinsloo was present.
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Mathebula, is it possible that you are mistaken, that he was not present during such an assault? You have heard his evidence, he says in his presence there was no assault, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: Mainly Capt Prinsloo would not allow anyone to do anything without his authorisation. You would not do anything to any detainee without his authorisation.
ADV PRINSLOO: The question that I asked you, Mr Mathebula, is that Capt Prinsloo said in his evidence that he was not present at Compol, in his presence, where Mandla was assaulted. He did not see any assault. Would you differ from that?
MR MATHEBULA: Maybe I am mistaken, but if I remember well he was present.
ADV PRINSLOO: And according to Capt Prinsloo, Mr Dos Santos did not assist him in the interrogation of Mandla, but he was tasked with the other group, Obet Masina and his group.
MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well, Dos Santos was present there, because where we were it was just in front of his office.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Prinsloo.
Your evidence-in-chief or during cross-examination by Mr du Plessis, elicited that the interrogation of Mandla at Compol took place in Mr Dos Santos' office. Now you are saying it took place just in front of his office. Was it inside his office or just outside the office?
MR MATHEBULA: It was in front of Dos Santos' office. There were some steps, that is where - it was just in front of Dos Santos' office, not inside.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
ADV PRINSLOO: May I proceed, Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Mathebula, you have also heard the evidence of Capt Prinsloo, the interrogation which he undertook took place in his office. Can you recall that?
MR MATHEBULA: Maybe at the night when Mr Mbizana was brought, that's when he interrogated him in his office. I cannot testify to that.
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Mathebula, just on that point. According to Capt Prinsloo, Mandla was only kept at Compol for one evening and thereafter he was moved the morning to the farm, to which you have also referred in your evidence. Are you possibly confused about this?
MR MATHEBULA: No, I'm not confusing facts, I did not say Mandla was there for a night, I stated that he stayed there for two or three nights. I don't remember as to whether what day of the week was it. We took him to wash at the fourth floor where blacks used to wash, where Capt Prinsloo stated that it is for the first time he washed a terrorist.
ADV PRINSLOO: You have heard Capt Prinsloo's evidence and Capt Prinsloo denies that he was involved in any of this. Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt?
MR MATHEBULA: He may have forgotten because this thing happened a long time ago. He's a normal person like any other person.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Ms van der Walt.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.
Mr Mathebula, I would just like to place on record, I have discussed it with Mr Steenkamp before this application, and that is that I actually also represent Mr Dos Santos, him being an implicated person. He is also my client. I have informed Mr Steenkamp of this.
MR STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I was under the impression Adv Prinsloo is appearing for Mr Dos Santos, because I discussed the Dos Santos matter with him yesterday, but I may be mistaken. I'm sure Mrs van der Walt was aware of the fact that Mr Dos Santos was notified of this hearing as an implicated party. Thank you, Madam Chair.
ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, that is correct, I just stood in for Louisa van der Walt yesterday in her absence as far as Dos Santos is concerned.
CHAIRPERSON: So who will be appearing for Mr Dos Santos, as an implicated person? - to the extent of his implication.
MS VAN DER WALT: I do, thank you.
Mr Mathebula, I would just like to put to you that Mr Dos Santos - you mention, but in your evidence-in-chief you said you may be mistaken that he was present. I would just like to put to you that in this instance he was not present. Can you dispute that?
MR MATHEBULA: I may not dispute that.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you have also heard what I have said to Mr Matjeni, that Mr Kruger will testify that the morning after the assault on the deceased, early that morning he untied Mandla and he was still unclothed. Can you comment?
MR MATHEBULA: The way I remember, Mandla was not fastened there the whole night, he was untied at some stage and was taken back into the tent. That's what I remember.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson, no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: No questions, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?
ADV MOTATA: None.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to re-examine, Mr Joubert?
MR JOUBERT: No re-examination, thank you Madam Chair.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mathebula, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Do you think it will be an appropriate time to lead Mr Kruger's evidence-in-chief, or maybe an appropriate time to adjourn until tomorrow morning?
NO FURTHER RECORDING
