CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. Today is the 10th of November 1999. We shall proceed with the Mahlangu Incident which was made to stand down on the 14th of October after Mr Lamey was through as a legal representative of both Mr Mosiane and Mr Mathebula. At the time of the adjournment of these proceedings on the 14th, Mr Mathebula was still under cross-examination by Ms van der Walt.
SMUTS PHILIMON MATHEBULA: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, are you ready to commence your cross-examination?
MS VAN DER WALT: I'm ready thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: (cont)
Mr Mathebula, just a few aspects with regard to the letter that you testified about that would have come from Swaziland. Do you remember that evidence?
MR MATHEBULA: I do, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know who brought the letter there to the farm?
MR MATHEBULA: That is W/O Putter.
MS VAN DER WALT: You said you did not read the contents of the letter, it was conveyed to you. Is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Are you certain it dealt with Connie Mahlangu and her involvement in the death of Stinky Vuma?
MR MATHEBULA: As I've already testified before this Committee, I said so.
MS VAN DER WALT: Is furthermore correct that this Const Vuma was, two days before you started with the operation on the farm, he was killed two days before this?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember how many days before our operation on the farm.
MS VAN DER WALT: But can you recall that it was briefly before that operation?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember well, Chairperson, how many days. It's possible that it may be three days, but I don't remember.
MS VAN DER WALT: I put it to you that it was two days before the launch of this operation that he had been killed and now I would like to put it to you, you say this letter arrived from Swaziland?
MR MATHEBULA: As I've already explained before this Committee, I heard that it came from Swaziland, I did not read the letter.
MS VAN DER WALT: Now I would like to put it to you that this letter came through the mail and was then intercepted by the police, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: As I've already explained that it has been intercepted, that is possible.
MS VAN DER WALT: It would have taken a few days from Swaziland to mail the letter so that it could arrive in Pretoria and then the letter is intercepted at the post office by the Security Police who sift through all this mail and then it is brought to your office. That is the manner in which it is done, I put it to you. Do you know of this?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, there were people in Compol who'd intercept the post. They would fetch the post at the post office.
MS VAN DER WALT: You see, I put it to you that if Const Vuma was shot two days before you launched the operation or you started the operation, that letter could have never had any contents with regard to the death of Vuma because it would have taken some time for the letter to arrive from Swaziland, to intercept it, take it back to Compol and then go out to the farm. Can you comment?
MR MATHEBULA: I have no comment in that regard, as I have already testified that for us to go to the farm, we were trying to trace Mr Maponya, I've already testified in that regard.
MS VAN DER WALT: So you have no comment on what I have told you with regard to the time period?
MR MATHEBULA: I have no comment Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: For I shall put it to you that Mr Prinsloo has also testified with regard to a Constance, who was also known as Connie Mahlangu who was involved in the Conrad Lukumbe matter, it was a criminal matter, where she was involved with this group and this letter dealt with regard to information about her. Can you comment?
MR MATHEBULA: I only learned that Connie Mahlangu is involved, I did not know exactly the content of that letter because I did not read the letter.
MS VAN DER WALT: And then I shall put it to you that no discussion was ever held with regard to the abduction of Connie Mahlangu.
MR MATHEBULA: I only testified that I heard that they were talking about Connie Mahlangu.
MS VAN DER WALT: And then they brought Patrick Mahlangu there, according to your evidence.
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson, I said so.
MS VAN DER WALT: And did Mr Prinsloo not admonish you because you brought the wrong person there, because the wrong person was brought there? I'm not saying you brought the person there, but that the persons brought the wrong person there. Did he not lose his temper because of this?
MR MATHEBULA: He had no reason to reprimand me because I was not responsible for the abduction of Patrick Mahlangu, he was supposed to reprimand those who abducted him.
MS VAN DER WALT: Who did he admonish?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't know as to whether he reprimanded them or not, but I did not observe that.
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 Greyling, do you have any questions to put to Mr Mathebula?
MR GREYLING: Yes, I do have questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GREYLING: Mr Mathebula, did you receive the instruction at Vlakplaas to go to Soutpan?
MR GREYLING: I beg your pardon, I did not get the translation.
CHAIRPERSON: I think the translator is experiencing some problems, I saw him standing up.
INTERPRETER: Mr Greyling did not have head phones on, that's why he could not get the translation. You can continue now.
MR GREYLING: Can the interpreter repeat the question please?
INTERPRETER: Repeat the question please, Sir.
MR GREYLING: Did you receive the instruction to go to Vlakplaas? Did you receive the instruction to go to Soutpan from Vlakplaas?
MR MATHEBULA: No Chairperson, I was not working at Vlakplaas, I was working at Security Branch Northern Transvaal.
MR GREYLING: When you arrived at Soutpan were the other askaris already there at Soutpan?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR GREYLING: The persons or groups of askaris who were at Soutpan, did you take note of their comings and goings?
MR MATHEBULA: I don't understand your question when you talk about their movements.
MR GREYLING: Maybe I should ask you in another manner. Did you take note of which people left Soutpan and where they went?
MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson, I did not observe. At times we'd go out for petrol so we were going in groups, so I'm not able to testify about the movements of the various people who were there at Soutpan.
MR GREYLING: Could it be that some of the askaris had departed from Soutpan to execute certain orders without your knowledge?
MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.
MR GREYLING: Did you at any stage see Mr Mosiane leaving Soutpan?
MR MATHEBULA: I've already testified that if I remember well, Chris went to Mamelodi. I would not dispute as to whether he went to Mamelodi or not. If I remember well he went to Mamelodi.
MR GREYLING: Do I understand your evidence correctly? You know that Chris Mosiane was at Soutpan, but you do not know whether he left Soutpan at certain stages and indeed if so, where he had gone to?
MR MALAN: No, Mr Greyling the answer was that according to his recollection, he recalls that he went to Soutpan, I beg your pardon to Mamelodi.
MR GREYLING: You do not know specifically what Chris Mosiane went and did in Mamelodi? Would you dispute it if Chris Mosiane testifies that he went to Mamelodi in order to hand over a letter to Connie and that he had to pick up some clothing for Pat Mahlangu?
MR MATHEBULA: I would not dispute that Chairperson.
MR GREYLING: Would you furthermore dispute it that it happened after Pat Mahlangu had already been abducted?
MR MATHEBULA: I would not dispute that Chairperson.
MR GREYLING: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR GREYLING
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Greyling. Mr van Heerden
MR VAN HEERDEN: I have no questions, thank you Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?
MR STEENKAMP: No questions thank you Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?
MR MOTATA: I have no questions Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert, any re-examination?
MR JOUBERT: Thank you Madam Chair, I have some re-examination.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.
MR JOUBERT: Thank you.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Mr Mathebula, during your previous evidence under cross-examination by Ms van der Walt, and I will refer you to page 357 of the record, I'm sorry I've the wrong page Madam Chair, page 364 of the record, more or less in the middle of the page, Ms van der Walt made the following statement to you and I quote, I presume this is the translation of the statement
"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?"
Your response thereto was:
"That is correct, Chairperson."
Could you just clarify this statement of "That is correct, Chairperson"? To what does that refer? Does that refer to the fact that you were represented by the same legal representative or to the fact that you were adjusting your evidence as the shoe fits?
MR MATHEBULA: I was not referring to the shifting but it's due to the fact that we were represented by one legal representative.
MR JOUBERT: From page 365 onwards in the record you were cross-examined regarding the question of Chris Mosiane leaving to Mamelodi. The statement is made on page 365 at line 4 from the top, a statement by 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?"
Now if I understand this statement correctly by Ms van der Walt, it is that you indicated that Chris Mosiane was there. Would that refer to Soutpan the farm, or would that now refer to Mamelodi?
MR MATHEBULA: I was referring to Soutpan, Sir.
MR JOUBERT: Did you at any time change your evidence pertaining to the fact that Mr Mosiane was present at Soutpan during this operation?
MR MATHEBULA: I never changed my evidence.
MR JOUBERT: Further on, from 365 onwards, the cross-examination proceeds with reference to your application that was handed in in which you state that and I will quote now from Ms van der Walt's cross-examination, at the bottom of page 366
"Later Chris Mosiane and if I recall correctly, Mfalapitsa were sent to Mamelodi."
Do you recall that that is in your application form on page 142 there, paragraph 3?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I recall that.
MR JOUBERT: Now during the beginning of your evidence when you were cross-examined by Mr Jansen on page 354, if you'll just bear with me a minute please, Madam Chair. Page 355. Your statement was made in Afrikaans, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct Sir.
MR JOUBERT: And although you are fully conversant in Afrikaans, it is not your home language, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Sir.
MR JOUBERT: Have you at any stage studied or followed any courses in Afrikaans?
MR MATHEBULA: No I never did, Sir.
MR JOUBERT: You were not helped by an interpreter when drafting this application form, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct Sir.
MR JOUBERT: And on page 357 Mr Jansen, in the middle of the page indicates that some leeway must be allowed for the fact that the statement is not in your mother tongue. Now this is an issue which I would like to follow up further with you. Your attorney who represented you in this matter, was he Afrikaans speaking, or English speaking?
MR MATHEBULA: He is English speaking.
MR JOUBERT: Now his statement in paragraph 3 of page 142 of your application and I quote
"Later Chris Mosiane and if I recall correctly, Mfalapitsa were sent to Mamelodi."
The part "and if I recall correctly", does this merely refer to Mfalapitsa, or does this also refer to Chris Mosiane?
MR MATHEBULA: I was referring to both.
MR JOUBERT: Further down, on the same page, the beginning of paragraph 4, the sentence starts with
"After two days they returned to the farm and they brought an unknown black man there."
Is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is what I said in my statement.
MR JOUBERT: Now the implication of that sentence is that upon the return of Chris Mosiane and someone else, this unknown black man was brought with them. Did you witness at any stage that they brought Patrick Mahlangu to Soutpan?
MR MATHEBULA: No, I never witnessed that.
MR JOUBERT: If you go down three lines in the same paragraph you indeed say, and I quote
"But when I saw him, he was in a room in the house."
Is that the first occasion upon which you saw Patrick?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR JOUBERT: Now you have also been questioned pertaining to the information that you heard that Connie Mahlangu was to be abducted. Do you recall that?
MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I recall that.
MR JOUBERT: And your evidence was that you overheard the senior officers discussing this aspect.
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Sir.
MR JOUBERT: Was the detail pertaining to any proposed operation discussed with you at all?
MR MATHEBULA: After having overheard this, nobody spoke to us about those details.
MR JOUBERT: So am I then correct in stating that you merely heard that there was a proposal or a suggestion that this person Connie had to be approached and obtained for questioning?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR JOUBERT: Now the letter under discussion, did this only refer to Connie Mahlangu, or did Patrick Mahlangu's name also feature in that letter?
MR MATHEBULA: I think that Mahlangu's name was also mentioned there.
MR JOUBERT: And you indeed state that on your application form, is that correct? On page 141 at the bottom, the last line of the page and I quote
"Connie's brother, Patrick Mahlangu's names, was also mentioned in the letter apparently."
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Sir.
MR JOUBERT: During cross-examination of yourself, it was put to you that it was not the practice of the senior officers to discuss the abduction or detail of proposed operations with the black members. Is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Sir.
MR JOUBERT: Now, is your evidence that the detail of the proposed operation was discussed with you or merely that you overheard the part that Connie Mahlangu had to be approached?
MR MATHEBULA: I just overheard what they were talking about.
MR JOUBERT: Now you also gave evidence in the matter pertaining to Comrade X which was heard before this same Committee, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.
MR JOUBERT: And is it correct that in that application the evidence was quite clear that black members were instructed to abduct Comrade X?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Sir.
MR JOUBERT: Is it thus correct that the basics of the proposed operation were made known to the black members involved?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: And is it correct that the detail and the proposed actions further on were not made available to you, based on the need-to-know basis?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: Furthermore, I refer you to page 339 of the record. That was at the beginning of your evidence, the second last paragraph. Mr Lamey made the following statement to you and I quote from the middle of that
"Do you confirm your affidavit",
your affidavit would be referring to your application, "subject to further evidence or verbal evidence that you will give in conjunction with this?"
Your response thereto was: "That is correct."
MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: So if I understand correctly, the issues which were not quite clear in your application form, you have clarified by means of your verbal evidence, is that correct?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: And is it furthermore that in your evidence in chief you already indicated upon being lead by Mr Lamey, on page 342 of the record, upon a question of Mr Lamey, that's at the bottom of the page. Furthermore you state that later Chris Mosiane and, if you recall correctly, Mfalapitsa were sent to Mamelodi. Your response thereto was
"In regard to those names, I might have made a mistake but I remember that some of them went to Mamelodi."
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, I stated so.
MR JOUBERT: Am I thus correct in stating that already at the outset of your evidence you indicated that there may be certain issues pertaining to Mosiane and the other askaris that were not quite clear in your memory, but that you would testify in this regard as far as your recollection was?
MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: On page 343 at the top of the page, Mr Lamey makes the statement to you and I quote
"Can you recall that Chris Mosiane was sent to Mamelodi at a certain stage?"
Your response to that is"
"Yes, that is correct. I knew that he was sent to Mamelodi but I am not sure about Mfalapitsa."
Would this refer to being sent to abduct Patrick Mahlangu or would this merely refer to being sent to Mamelodi at some stage?
MR MATHEBULA: Not for the abduction but at any time.
MR JOUBERT: Thank you Madam Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Joubert. We allowed you to re-examine. I must say you seemed to have overstepped the bounds of re-examination, but I understand your dilemma, your counsel was brought in late and you thought probably prudent to highlight issues which I think had been sufficiently dealt with by Mr Mathebula in his evidence-in-chief. Mr Mathebula you are excused as a witness.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Greyling, the next applicant that has not given evidence is Mr Mosiane. Are you in a position to proceed to lead evidence of Mr Mosiane?
MR GREYLING: Yes, Mr Mosiane is ready to proceed.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
