MR KOOPEDI: He is ready to be sworn in, Chairperson.
MR SIBANYONI: In which language is he going to give evidence, Mr Koopedi?
MR DIETA: At some stage I will use English if I don't understand well.
CHARLES MARTIN DIETA: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson.
Formalities first, Mr Dieta. Is it correct that you read this application form which is found on page 67 of the bundle of documents until page 73 of this bundle of documents?
MR DIETA: Yes.
MR KOOPEDI: Is it correct that you told me that you understand the contents of this and that you understand what it stands for?
MR DIETA: Correct.
MR KOOPEDI: Now is it also correct that you are here or you are appearing before this Honourable Committee in the matter that involves the interrogation of Mr Mpungose?
MR DIETA: True.
CHAIRPERSON: So you say you understand what the application refers to. Do you swear to the truth of what is set out in that application?
MR DIETA: I swear according to that.
MR KOOPEDI: Now you've heard the evidence of your co-applicant, Mr Ndaba. Would you briefly tell this Honourable Committee that during that time were you a member of a political organisation?
MR DIETA: Yes, I was a member of the African National Congress.
MR KOOPEDI: Mr Ndaba stated that you belonged to his unit, a counter-intelligence unit, is that correct?
MR DIETA: True.
MR KOOPEDI: Now please take this Committee through your role in connection with Mr Mpungose.
MR DIETA: Well in 1987 I met Mr Mpungose in Lusaka for the first time. He was introduced earlier as a person, that is prior to my meeting, as a person who belonged to the structures of the ANC in KwaZulu Natal and that he is suspect of certain irregularities which were taking place against the cadreship of the ANC in that area.
On meeting him for the first time, this was normally, it was a procedure that he should be searched so that he doesn't bring any other thing that may harm the organisation or even ourselves as the security then. His arrival of course it was quite shocking because he was quite an elderly person so one would have expected some kind of a young man somewhere, a mischievous not an elderly person. I was then upon ourselves to request as a procedure that Mr Mpungose write his biography which then would tally with whatever information, that is when you evaluate which suggests what line to take in terms of debriefing you, so you did that. That was the first step
So continuously he was being given this, to answer this one question or these two questions out of what he was writing.
MR KOOPEDI: Now was he ever assaulted in your presence?
MR DIETA: Yes, he was assaulted, there was a time when we took him with a vehicle to Chongele Farm. It was one afternoon or evening if I still recall.
MR KOOPEDI: Now who assaulted him, did you assault him personally?
MR DIETA: Well I am not a person who is violent but I do get angry when someone, you know - so I must have slapped him with claps or with fists as well.
MR KOOPEDI: And do you remember anyone burning him with a candle?
MR DIETA: Not to my memory.
MR KOOPEDI: Do you remember him from being hanged from a tree or something?
MR DIETA: Not that evening when I was there, there was no such. I do recall that that he was beaten by sjamboks or a knopkierie, but hanging, no. It would not have benefited anybody.
MR KOOPEDI: Now when these interrogations took place, would it be the same people that interrogate or you'd at times find different people but belonging to the same unit interrogating him?
MR DIETA: No, we had a unit, myself, Tim, Sphinx and ...(indistinct) where other members were concentrating on other similar ...(intervention)
MR KOOPEDI: Yes, but what I want to know is if supposing there were ten of you in the unit unless you say others would be working on other things, supposing on a particular day you have a particular person or suspect that you're dealing with and there is yourself, Boney-M and Sphinx, does it mean that at another stage on another day, all three of you have to be there or would there be situations where of the three only you and other members would interrogate him or talk to him?
MR DIETA: Well, depending on the situation because the question of the scarcity of resources etc we may have to take - we had only one transport, if I recall, at the time which we were using as a unit. So we wouldn't necessarily be together at a particular point in time, we'd have to select a specific time if we have to go together because we'd have to go to some other places to collect people and so on.
MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: But when you went to the farm you went there all four of you as a unit, didn't you?
MR KOOPEDI: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Not three?
MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, my understanding is that the unit did not have four people.
CHAIRPERSON: Himself, Tim, Sphinx and Boney, wasn't that your unit?
MR DIETA: Correct.
MR KOOPEDI: But now what I was asking, Chairperson, was that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: What you were doing was leaving out Tim whom he said was there?
MR KOOPEDI: No Chairperson, what I was asking and the names I mentioned were an example. I wanted to know if at all times the core interrogators would be together or at times - or at the same time or at times there would be different people. I was not trying to leave out Tim for whatever reason, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: He's told us, hasn't he, there were four of you at the farm with him?
MR DIETA: Correct.
MR KOOPEDI: My further question is and perhaps this will clarify the issue. Do you know how many times was he interrogated, can you recall how many times was he interrogated and by whom?
MR DIETA: No. On this particular day we went to the farm and Tim had to return to the office where we had left so I hear the stress that is being attempted here. Yes, we went together but the process of that evening lay squarely upon us, the three in that he delivered us there and he had to go back.
MR KOOPEDI: Now after the farm, did you have anything further to do with Mr Mpungose?
MR DIETA: No, after the farm there was absolutely nothing we had to do. We wrote our reports and we made our recommendations.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that Tim didn't take part in the interrogation?
MR DIETA: Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON: Why did you say it in your application that you've just confirmed as being true?
MR DIETA: Sorry?
CHAIRPERSON: In your application which you have confirmed as being true, you said the above was interrogated by Boney and myself, Mr Tim Williams, Sphinx, M L Ndaba. Do you see Tim Williams written there?
MR DIETA: Yes Tim Williams is written there because he had delivered us. In the overall picture we have here ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, what you have written there is
"was interrogated by"
Are you changing your story now?
MR DIETA: I'm not changing. I'm not changing at all. All I'm saying is that he had brought us there, perhaps that "by".
CHAIRPERSON: But what you wrote down is I'm pointing out to you again was, "the above was interrogated by" and then you name the people. You don't say "we were brought there by Tim", you don't say "he wasn't there when we interrogated", you put his name down as one of the people who interrogated?
MR DIETA: Yes, I would like to repeat myself here, so I'm not misunderstood. This person has been asked, debriefed by all of us. At certain points it was myself and Sphinx, at certain points myself, Tim and Boney-M. So this statement was made to reflect the participance in terms of the case per se.
MR KOOPEDI: And in fact in the application form you are not stating that this interrogation which includes these names happened on the night he was taken to the farm, is that correct?
MR DIETA: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: No, what you go on to say thereafter is Mr Mpungose who claimed he was working for Mr Botha at C L Swart Police Station, Durban, "was tortured by us by way of beating him in order to extract a confession from the S B activities in that area. That's all part of paragraph 9(a)iv.
MR DIETA: Do you need my response?
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.
MR KOOPEDI: Now as far as you recall, do you think you have - have you told this Honourable Committee the whole truth in terms of your involvement with Mr Mpungose?
MR DIETA: Yes I have except to say that during that process of us handling him in this house, prior to us going to the farm, we were aware of his ailment. He had reflected that he had high blood if I recall it. I don't know whether it was associated with the same that I hear here. So from time to time he would ask for medication and a doctor will be called.
MR KOOPEDI: Other than that is there any other thing you've left out?
MR DIETA: No, I think the content of the matter is here.
MR KOOPEDI: Would you describe your involvement as being politically motivated? Your involvement in the matter, to say this was a political matter or a criminal matter or a social matter?
MR DIETA: No this was a political matter, not for the unit for some insinuations of some kind somewhere, this was a political matter affecting the ANC as an organisation. We were then a counter-intelligence in that regard because we were being infiltrated, not people only just infiltrating the ANC there in the peripheries outside exile but inside and also from within our structures. So the uncovering of this process was a counter-measure so that we inform also the structures when it is necessary that watch out of certain people, they are this, against you and so on. So it was political in that sense that there was on the one hand the ANC fighting for liberation and on the other.
MR KOOPEDI: No finally, did you personally receive anything of material gain for having involved yourself in debriefing and torturing Mr Mpungose?
MR DIETA: There was no material gain at all.
MR KOOPEDI: That's the evidence-in-chief, Chairperson, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Dieta, were you present when he first arrived or were you called when he was already there?
MR DIETA: I was present.
MS MAKHUBELE: How many days did he spend with your group?
MR DIETA: I'll say less than a month.
MS MAKHUBELE: Would it be more than three weeks or two weeks?
MR DIETA: Well my explanation will be less than three weeks.
MS MAKHUBELE: Was he - did this beating start the very same day when he arrived or after some time?
MR DIETA: And I repeat myself, when he arrived we were shocked that he was such an elderly person, that he will be engaged in a mischief.
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes.
MR DIETA: So he was treated and I repeat, he was treated with respect in such a manner that we were, by the way, we were the also the cooks there, I hope he has mentioned that. We were cooking for him as well, we were cooks, we changed pots there, on one day I'll cook, on the other one it would be Tim and so on. We would be feeding him. We respected him when he arrived, we took him from that angle.
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes on the question of respect for elderly people, how did you receive him, did you give him sleeping place, blankets?
MR DIETA: Correct. Correct.
MS MAKHUBELE: And you couldn't really bring yourself to get him to the point where you wanted to interrogate him because you were still very respectful of him?
MR DIETA: From my experience at that time, this one would have been the easiest of people to understand the position in which we were as against that which we were going to ask him. So, that's how, for me he would have been the easiest.
MS MAKHUBELE: Mr Mpungose will tell the Committee if necessary that he gives evidence that from his arrival there he could sense that things were wrong because he was given dirty blankets, rather torn blankets to sleep on which would be contrary to the picture you're trying to pain for us that he ...(intervention)
MR DIETA: That I regard as an insult.
MS MAKHUBELE: I'm still talking. And that then he could also see things were not right because from the time he got there, there was this - he calls this person, he doesn't know his name but a young boy of about 18 and 20 years who was constantly on his side with an AK47 and he was starved for sixteen days. I mean in contrast to the picture you're trying to paint of him having been well received?
MR DIETA: I again repeat, that is an insult.
MS MAKHUBELE: Anyway, let's proceed. And when you took him to Chongele, had he already been assaulted or was that the first assault?
MR DIETA: When we took him to Chongele?
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes.
MR DIETA: We took him to Chongele because that was the only place where we could - because he was too homely where he was and perhaps in some bush or place far away it would make him understand that he was now no longer being begged and we didn't beg him. I'm sure he has said that, we didn't beg him.
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes but my question was had he already been assaulted?
MR DIETA: No, he experienced his assault at Chongele Farm.
MS MAKHUBELE: The first one?
MR DIETA: That's true.
MS MAKHUBELE: According to my instruction that Chongele incident was the last one, was the last of the assault that your group meted on him, the Chongele Farm incident. That was the last incident in whatever period your group had kept him?
MR DIETA: True. True.
CHAIRPERSON: By the use of the word "last" do you mean there had been other assaults before that time?
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes Chairperson, that's what I'm trying to get, that the Chongele incident - he concedes that your group didn't - is not the one that continually assaulted him throughout the 40 - how many days did I say?
MR DIETA: You spoke about 43 months.
MS MAKHUBELE: 43 months, yes. So the initial stages he was in your hands, in your group and that your group last assaulted him at the Chongele Farm?
MR DIETA: Alright. We only took him to Chongele Farm.
MS MAKHUBELE: That there had been prior assaults?
MR DIETA: None. None. You know, let me put you to some little reason here. Where we were staying it was homes. There were neighbours in front, neighbours on the side, what will the Zambian have thought of us to beat somebody in that situation unless he is trying to insinuate we did this also with the authorisation or with the consent of the Zambians? That would not have been, we would not have done that because the Zambians would have notified the screams to the police, he would have been intervened to, so there were no other ...(inaudible), he could have screamed as much as he wanted there, he would not have been heard.
MS MAKHUBELE: He said the Chongele incident is the one that a doctor was called to?
MR DIETA: I had said myself that to my knowledge when he arrived whilst we were still pleading with him, he had mentioned his ailment and he was brought a doctor so it was not the first time he saw a doctor after the Chongele incident. He was seeing the same doctor, not hundreds or whatever. The same doctor.
MS MAKHUBELE: Can I just understand this? This Chongele, it's a farm?
MR DIETA: It's a farm, it's an ANC farm.
MS MAKHUBELE: So you took a doctor along or a doctor was called there?
MR DIETA: No, no. After hour deliberations with him, if you want to call them that way, we took him back to where we stayed and he had to start writing what he had told us about his volumes or whatever they were.
MS MAKHUBELE: How long did you stay with him at Chongele?
MR DIETA: At Chongele, as I said, we went - it was in the afternoon. It was just after 7 I think, it was after 7. The sun there goes down late so it was after 7.
MS MAKHUBELE: Up to when?
MR DIETA: We were there to approximately to 12 or just a little bit after 12 because it was already chilly, you know, it's a farm, there are rivers and dams there, the weather could tell, that is.
MS MAKHUBELE: You testified in your evidence-in-chief, you commented that the only thing you did was to slap him because you are not a violent person?
MR DIETA: Yes.
MS MAKHUBELE: So would you say that because you couldn't bring yourself to apply excessive force because of your nature then you, within your group, you knew who could do the job properly but definitely it wasn't you?
MR DIETA: I said that in the process of his beating I also participated with slaps and probably with fists because he was contradicting himself more and more and if there is any person who could have protected him from that it was myself because during that time I had made him aware that he is contradicting himself, he is not consistent with what he is saying hence this kind of a situation. If there is any person who could have saved him, it was myself.
MS MAKHUBELE: Is there any reason in opinion or whether it was discussed then why Tim Williams should not participate in the assault?
MR DIETA: We had similar projects, we had similar projects which needed to be attended, we couldn't concentrate on this one only.
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, but my instructions are that Tim did assault him. The only time that Tim left was to go back to the house to fetch food but then he would come back and he participated ...(intervention)
MR DIETA: No, I never spoke about fetching food.
MS MAKHUBELE: No, that's his version. I'm not saying you said that. That's my instructions from Mr Mpungose on your version that Tim only brought you to that farm and left. His version that the reason that Tim left was to go and fetch food and came back and be part of the assault on him?
MR DIETA: No. I've made again - of something that is not part of this, that it would not have been possible for us because of the routes into the farm. Even the main management of that farm did not know that we were doing what, that's what I want - so we had to make our package if we go there. So it was not going to be possible for Tim to make up and down, it would have exposed him, it would have made the TG's office to be very angry with our department should they have known that we were having a place somewhere where we were. So it was not knowledgeable to the department concerned which is the TG's office, the Treasurer General's Office.
MS MAKHUBELE: So that was your own decision to assault him, something which you knew that wouldn't be approved by your - the people you reported to?
MR DIETA: Correct, we are officers, we have to take discretionary measures as well. That must be noted.
MS MAKHUBELE: If I may ask your opinion on this matter, or your comments? I have already indicated during my cross-examination of Mr Ndaba that yes, he had a card, an IFP card and for reasons which I also stated, do you think that if that fact was not known that one had to get say a card for a particular organisation to be safe, that he would have travelled to Lusaka with and IFP card?
MR DIETA: Well he was a participant in the political military structure, he was. I was in the security structure and I must tell you, I only learnt after 1991 when I arrived here, that so many people because of the violence that was ravaging the KwaZulu Natal they had - but prior to that I didn't know, so that the distance - now you must be able to see that, the distance between exile and home and that which is happening was not coming through in the same manner. So by that I'm suggesting that I did not know that people were being forced to take IFP or any other party, for that matter, by force in certain areas. So at the time when we were handling him, this was a kind of a motivational factor against him.
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, but then you - before you actually searched him, you didn't suspect that he could be a member of the IFP, your suspicions had been regarding that he had infiltrated the ANC, he was an agent of the Police. So the card was just something you found by coincidence?
MR DIETA: Not a coincidence, I have said when I started it is the procedure, not only the procedure of the ANC security then, it is a procedure when you enter into any camp, into any security environment, you are searched. That is standard, so he had to be searched and he was explained why the searching. It has never happened that you are grappled with and you don't know the reason why.
MS MAKHUBELE: I have already indicated that for those 43 months he was not afforded an opportunity - rather, there was no tribunal. Do you know why
MR DIETA: I will not answer that question but I'll try and assist you to understand. The ANC, because of certain misdemeanours which the leadership was hearing, there in Lusaka, some people are in Angola, some are in Tanzania, etc etc. It then set up what we called then the Stewart Commission. Out of that Stewart Commission then, the questions of how to - not how, the questions were revealed of people being mishandled in whichever manner that they revealed that and those recommendations which that Stewart Commission made were then the basis from where at the time of the gentlemen were coming there were operating from.
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes but you haven't helped me to - I don't understand. In what you have said ...(intervention)
MR DIETA: What I am trying to say is that the ANC leadership had involved itself in unravelling the misdemeanours which they were hearing about that somebody has been tortured, somebody has been beaten, etc etc. So they gave attention, they constituted the Stewart Commission which I say, this Stewart Commission then gave it's recommendations as to what has been happening and what should not be happening. So by the time the gentlemen came the Stewart Commission had already taken place so we would not beat him from the beginning to the end, he would be dead, he had diabetes.
MS MAKHUBELE: He didn't ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: The question as I understood was simply we have been told by the previous applicant that the normal practice was, after your investigations, a tribunal would be set up to consider the question?
MR DIETA: One of the recommendations comes from the very same - on of those recommendations would be found in that Stewart Commission so that that was a foothold wherein regular checks would be then done in the camps and etc.
CHAIRPERSON: It's not regular checks, it's just a tribunal to decide whether the man should be detained at all? But you did not make that decision?
MR DIETA: No.
CHAIRPERSON: You merely enquired into it. You then handed him over with the papers. Somebody then had to make a decision and he should be given an opportunity to explain himself and the question simply is, do you know why this never happened in this case?
MR DIETA: I'm told here that he states 3 years and 7 months, that is 43 months, and he was not given this opportunity, so I did not have any communication with him after he had left Lusaka because then I was assigned elsewhere. So I wouldn't know precisely, without being unfair to your question, precisely why if such a tribunal did not take place.
MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. I just want to find out from you because your co-applicants say that sometimes a tribunal is not necessary, a person can be - you can be - when they realise, when it's realised that you can change then you mix freely with people, you're given responsibilities and I'm just wondering, because when I went through the bundle - I'm sorry, I don't know if you like the previous applicant, you didn't like me to refer to the Matsonyuane report but I'm going to refer to it anyway. It is said that he was released, page 80 of the bundle, the last paragraph
"Mpungose, in April 1991, was released from custody at Dakata and appointed the head of the religious department at the camp."
When I read this, I mean being uninitiated as I am, I thought this must have been a good thing for him but then he explained to me that actually this was a continuation of the torture in the sense that he - the people at the camp are non-believers?
MR DIETA: Yes.
MS MAKHUBELE: People who demonstrate that they are believers actually they're doing so at their own risk and by being appointed head of this religious department in fact is to ridicule him because you'll have a church but no one will come. Is this my correct interpretation?
MR DIETA: I'll tell you my own story. You see, where he said - he didn't tell me where he said he was released to or where the Matsonyuane says he was released to because number one, I was not even called when he was called at the Matsonyuane. I don't why because he happened to have called me with another name so I was not there. So maybe he will explain why Muswaye Piliso was supposed to appear there because Muswaye Piliso was not part of the interrogators. So I was not Muswaye Piliso, I'm Sipho. He was supposed to have known me as Sipho.
Now to come to your question. In the African National Congress, religion has been upheld. I've held funerals myself, I've buried my own comrades with a prayer. But I can tell you also I'm an arch-atheist, so I don't believe his story. This will be untrue. This will be untrue, he will not be - there were religious people, there were religious people who had left the country and where he says he was in Tanzania, there religion even in our school was taken cognisance of.
MS MAKHUBELE: Okay thank you. Lastly, if you may clarify the people's names as they appear here, it's not the way their real names and as you say he may not know your real name. On page 82 of the bundle, are you any one of the nine people mentioned here? The last paragraph where it says
"The Commission finds that the following individuals violated the rights of Goodluck Mpungose."
Are you one of the nine people mentioned there?
MR DIETA: To choose a Portuguese word, "nada" - none.
MS MAKHUBELE: What was your name then?
MR DIETA: I was Sipho Motswana.
MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MAKHUBELE
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr Dieta, who was Tim Williams?
MR DIETA: I'll explain. Tim Williams was what I'll call a unit head.
MR MAPOMA: Yes. That was a code name, was it not?
MR DIETA: Tim Williams, some people use their code names or their names to be code names because he is still Tim Williams.
MR MAPOMA: Where is he now?
MR DIETA: He is with the SAPS.
MR MAPOMA: With the what?
MR DIETA: The SAPS, South African Police Services.
MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson. I've no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA
CHAIRPERSON: I take it he has been notified of the hearing?
MR MAPOMA: I have to verify that, Chairperson, I'm not sure at this point.
JUDGE DE JAGER: It seems as though there were two people known as Piliso because I see they refer - it's not, this is not Mzwandele Piliso, so one was Mzwandele Piliso and the other one, I don't know what his name was. Do you perhaps know?
MR DIETA: There's only one Mzwandele Piliso, he's late. There's no other Piliso.
JUDGE DE JAGER: So there wasn't a Piliso in your unit?
MR DIETA: That's an old man, much greyer than yourself. He's already passed away and he wouldn't participate in such activities. He was of course in the leadership of the security of the African National Congress.
JUDGE DE JAGER: I see.
MR DIETA: But he wouldn't be party to this one.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Would he participate in ordinary interrogations?
MR DIETA: You mean himself?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes.
MR DIETA: No, no, no, no. He wouldn't be, that's why I say he wouldn't be party to this kind of ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: this, to the kind of assaults?
MR DIETA: No, no, he wouldn't, he was quite old already. I'm sure he was in his 60's if I'm not wrong, at that time. He wouldn't.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And you said you took him to the farm and you had to be careful so that he - I think you refer to them as the TJ's or what? He shouldn't see you there or be aware of ...(intervention)
MR DIETA: No, I was saying just for the record that it would not have been possible for us to conduct what we conducted had we made the Treasurer General, the TG, the Treasurer General's office aware that we were going to use his farm in that manner. We would not have gone anywhere, so we had to apply our own, and I repeat, our own discretionary measures and we were soldiers, not just security, you know? And reconnoitre that place and find that place where we were going to work and complete our task. That was all our measures, no leadership involved.
JUDGE DE JAGER: So you say no leadership, not even the leadership, Mr Zuma, they didn't know about this and they wouldn't have approved of that?
MR DIETA: They might have known that we had this kind of a case from KwaZulu Natal and their role would have been to be giving reports so that they know whether the results are good or bad. But as to how we were taking our initiatives, no, I don't think they would - and I would also want to put it straight here, that given, you know that time, given that situation at the time, it was not only that situation. As I was trying to say, it was not the question of infiltration of the liberation movement inside the country, it was also the question of infiltration of the ANC outside. So the mind set must also here be taken into account.
JUDGE DE JAGER: You see what I - because we know informers in the country could be killed?
MR DIETA: Correct.
JUDGE DE JAGER: That was part of the policy. Now why shouldn't it be outside the same?
MR DIETA: Yes, you see there it couldn't be because also, don't say I'm too knowledgeable, also the African National Congress, if you check in its records, if it's applied to certain international norms and conventions, that is why it wouldn't have allowed itself to be dragged whilst internationally it is leading the struggle against apartheid and then again be dragged down. So it had participated in certain conventions, it was part already of certain conventions.
JUDGE DE JAGER: So it could never have been approved by them, a killing outside the country, a killing of an informer outside the country?
MR DIETA: You see, that is why I said you must distinguish between a security structure and that which is political military. If you are a threat and you are inside the country, the political military will see how to deal with that situation otherwise we would not have had the Glubies and so on. That is the political and military balance, otherwise we shouldn't have had the Glubies and others.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Can I just clear up something that's confusing me somewhat arising from my colleague's questioning and this is this question of Piliso, you say there was only one Piliso, and old man?
MR DIETA: That's the Piliso I know.
CHAIRPERSON: You see because in the Matsonyuane Commission Report, page 79, page 95 of the report, they say
"In Lusaka, Mpungose was interrogated and tortured by four members of the security department, including Floyd Huna, also known as Sphinx, Tim Williams and a young man named Piliso."
And then footnote:
"This is not Zwandele Piliso."
So they clearly knew of another Piliso, a young man who took part in interrogation with Sphinx and Tim Williams?
MR DIETA: I should have been in that place, it should have been Sipho. I should have been in that place. Hence you can read that document. Nowhere I couldn't even appear then because there was a different name. This Piliso name barred me from even going there. I couldn't go because they wanted somebody else. That should have been myself.
MR SIBANYONI: Were you visibly young at that stage?
MR DIETA: Oh probably there were too many vegetables at that time and meat sometimes, unlike you.
MR SIBANYONI: When did the suspicion arise against Mr Mpungose? At what stage was he suspected, was he when he was with you in Zambia or when did this suspicion arise.
MR DIETA: Well, as I said in the beginning is that Mr Mpungose, if he was coming, probably as he was coming from Zimbabwe, we were aware of a person who was coming who had created bad situations in KwaZulu Natal. So we were already informed that we had a person who we had to debrief whilst he was already, as I say probably in Zimbabwe because a week or so after that we were informed about his arrival, that he has arrived and that we should be alert.
MR SIBANYONI: Now when you said you were looking for him, the people who were staying with him, was it just a mere pretext, you already had a suspicion against him?
MR DIETA: No, let me help you. I'll talk about Mr Mpungose. The nearer to the system they are, the greedier they became. He was not the only one ...(indistinct) outside, inside the country to outside. We have heard the Proti group, we were very keen to come and collect weapons, etc etc. So they will simply come, just like flies, like that and they wouldn't come back. So that's one example. So in this case, a similar situation had to be created that would not create a suspicion with the handlers but a person could come so that access - so I don't know if the question of Zuma alone was the only luring thing. Some other methods might also have been used, I don't know.
MR SIBANYONI: The discovery of the IFP card, did it worsen his situation or what impact did it have?
MR DIETA: I said to you whilst we were in exile there was a situation which you wouldn't read properly. For example the situation, which I said myself, when I arrived here in 1991, I found that lots and lots of people when they were explaining their situation had actually applied for the IFP card. Whether forcefully or what but they had done so because of their ...(intervention)
MR SIBANYONI: Environment.
MR DIETA: Environment at the time. But this is what I discovered when I arrived. But then when you take me in 1987, it was a different situation. I would not have believed you, I would not have believed him because of, you know, the news and media and all the things that reached us about the situation in that province and elsewhere anyway, so that I would not have wanted to accept his explanation as given earlier as true. I would have been blocked completely, this would be impossible for a member of the African National Congress working in the underground structures, working with MK and to be associated with - it would have been an impossibility in my mind at the time.
MR SIBANYONI: But if a person would give you an explanation that "I took this card in order to protect myself because of the environment in which I found myself in KwaZulu Natal". Would you have accepted that explanation?
MR DIETA: Sincerely speaking, I'd reason with that, I would reason. But I'm saying even reasoning with that, the way in which, you know, the blockages where in terms of understanding the real situation on the ground locked that but I would reason with that explanation because then somebody is trying to say I am using this card because I don't want to be attacked, I don't want to be, you know, it gives me a cover or something like that.
MR SIBANYONI: You are talking about Mr Mpungose being backed to divulge information and then during the interrogation, was this violent confrontation only at the farm?
MR DIETA: No, the violent confrontation was at the farm.
MR SIBANYONI: Not prior to that?
MR DIETA: Not prior to that. In that house it would have created a very bad situation. As I said it was in the location where this house of ours and office was and where ...(indistinct) and something whatever.
MR SIBANYONI: Now if there was any assault or torturing on him, that would be first of all at the farm and then thereafter subsequently when he was transferred or transported to Angola?
MR DIETA: I don't know what happened in Angola, I'm not going to speak on behalf of Angola.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?
MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-examination, thank you Chairperson.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR KOOPEDI: That concludes his evidence and we're calling no further witnesses, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Well, you just have to make up your mind about that...(inaudible)
MR KOOPEDI: Unfortunately, I do not have a watch Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: It is precisely 4 o'clock. Gentlemen, I don't know where you're all coming from tomorrow morning. If any of you have got any strong feelings about starting we thought at about 9 o'clock. Sorry, lady and gentlemen.
MR MAKUBELE: I have no objection to being called a gentleman. Nine will be fine with me, yes.
MR KOOPEDI: Nine is okay, Chairperson, and I may also indicate now that most of the applicants have been found and some of them are in the hall so we would be very eager to start as soon as possible to be able to go through all the applications.
CHAIRPERSON: Well we put on record now that you say most of the applicants have been found and are in the hall and we appreciate your eagerness to continue but we appreciate also the problem that you may not have been able to consult with all of them before so you're going to do a lot of extra work so that we can continue. Thank you, we're obliged to you.
We'll now adjourn till 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
