HELD AT: TZANEEN

NAME: MUTHEIWANA GABRIEL RAMUSHWANA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon everybody. I apologise for the delay in the start of this matter, had certain logistical problems. One of the applicants required a legal representation and Mr van Rensburg has very kindly, on short notice, stepped in, for which we are grateful indeed.

Before we start, I would just like to introduce the panel to you. On my right is Judge Khampepe. Judge Khampepe is a member of the Amnesty Committee and she is attached to the Cape Court. On my left is Advocate Bosman, also a member of the Amnesty Committee, also from the Cape, and I am Selwyn Miller, Judge from the Eastern Cape attached to the Transkei Division of the High Court.

These proceedings will be simultaneously translated, and in order to benefit from the translation you have to be in possession of one of these devices. They are available from the sound technician in front, so if you wish to benefit from the translation, please make sure you have one of these devices. Translation will be English and Venda. Is that correct?

I would like to at this stage ask the legal representatives please to place themselves on record.

MR MEYER: Mr Chairman, the surname is Meyer B.H. I am practising from the Pretoria Bar and have been instructed by the firm Booyens, du Preez and Boshof, in Pietersburg, and I represent the first four applicants, if I can call it that: General Ramushwana, Director Ramaligela, Mr Nesamari and Mr Magana. Managa, I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Meyer. Mr Janse van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. My name is van Rensburg S.J., from Kriek & Van Rensburg Attorneys, Tzaneen, and I act on behalf of the State Attorney, Pretoria, and I represent the fifth applicant, Mr Carlson Netshivale.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson. My name is Lula Mtanga, the Evidence Leader for the Truth Commission. I will also be assisting the victims in this matter. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Mtanga. Right Mr Meyer are you ...?

MR MEYER: I'm ready to proceed, Mr Chairman. As my first applicant I call General Gabriel Ramushwana.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramushwana, do you have any objection to taking the oath?

MUTHEIWANA GABRIEL RAMUSHWANA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: It's very hot here in Tzaneen, please if you wish to remove your jackets, feel free to do so. Mr Meyer?

EXAMINATION BY MR MEYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. General Ramushwana, if we can start off first by, if you can just put on record your current occupation and where you live.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Mr Chairman, I'm at the moment retired. I'm a farmer, and I am resident in Messina.

MR MEYER: General Ramushwana during the early 1980's you were a member of the Venda National Force. Is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: That's quite correct Mr Chair.

MR MEYER: And what was your position there?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I was then the Deputy Commander of the Security Branch, with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

MR MEYER: At that stage the previous homeland of Venda was still independent. Is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Quite right. It obtained independence during 1979.

MR MEYER: What was the political situation like during the early 1980's and more specifically around 1981 and '82?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Between '79 '82 things were reasonably peaceful in the former homeland, although there was obviously a large group of people who were against Venda opting for independence.

MR MEYER: Was there pre-political movement in the sense that the previous liberation movements for instance the ANC, Azapo etc. were they allowed in the country?

MR RAMUSHWANA: The homeland had not abolished the existence of the liberation movements but had adopted laws which were forbidding the activities of liberation movements in South Africa.

MR MEYER: Now you at some stage received information that there was a possibility of police stations being attacked by the liberation movements. Is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes we had received information from our counterparts in South Africa then that there was a possibility of attacks by the members of the military wing of either the ANC or PAC.

MR MEYER: And is it correct that on the 22nd sorry, the 26th of October 1981, at the police station in the town of Sibasa came under attack.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes the police station was attacked at about 22h00 hours. There was a massive explosion, a subsequent fire in which a large part of the police station was destroyed.

MR MEYER: Can you describe to the committee how the attack was performed?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Mr Chair it is going to be a bit difficult for me to have a vivid recollection of what actually transpired but the report that I received then was that there were three armed men who arrived at the police station at that time, at 22h00 hours, and one pretended to have been injured or attacked by other people because he had bandages all around his head and arm, left arm, and he had an overcoat. And then he told the policeman at the gate that he wanted to report a case and then the policeman opened the gate.

At that time if I could just explain to the Commission the entire police force was actually warned that all members of the police force at that particular time should keep all their gates and doors of the police stations securely locked. So at the time when this person arrived the gate was locked, and at the request of this person the policeman opened the gate and this person entered into the police station and then when he was inside the police station he told the sergeant, the charge office sergeant behind the counter, that he was assaulted by someone. Now when the sergeant wanted to obtain a statement from him he then opened his coat, unbuttoned his coat and then took out an AK47 and started shooting at the police station, at the policemen.

Two policemen were fatally wounded there and then the gas bottles in the charge office which caught fire, and some dockets which were lying in the storeroom also caught fire and then the whole charge office was engulfed in fire.

One policeman who was outside was shot at by two other people who were also armed with AK47's. And then he was also fatally wounded. He eventually left the police force because he was medically unfit to perform his duties. Those two other policemen were burnt to ashes inside the charge office. An RPG7 was used too, to finish up the charge office.

MR MEYER: If we can just get it clear, is it correct that two policemen died and the third one was severely injured?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And this RPG37 you referred is that some sort of rocket launcher?

MR RAMUSHWANA: It was a rocket launcher, there was a rocket launcher there, the RPG7 rocket.

MR MEYER: What was the reaction of the then government of Venda to this attack?

MR RAMUSHWANA: The then president, it was the late President Mpepi summoned all the senior officers and the Commissioner of Police and then told us all that we must go out and find the people who were responsible for the attack on the police station.

MR MEYER: Where you directly involved in the investigation of this case?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Originally no, I was not in charge of the case. There was one Captain Sifuwa, he has since died, he is the person who was charged with the investigation. I came in at a later stage towards the end, I think it was the beginning of '82. I only kept constant observation, constant checks, on the investigations which Captain Ramaligela then, and Captain Sifuwa were doing.

MR MEYER: As you took charge of the investigation who was the other, if I can call them team members, of the investigation team?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay, we had the then Captain Ramaligela, Warrant Officer Managa.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you spell Captain who was there?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Ramaligela, he is now a director there.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you spell that please? Is that the person who appears as being the fourth applicant? Okay.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Right and then Warrant Officer Managa and ...(intervention)

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Is that M-A-N-A-G-A ?

MR RAMUSHWANA: That's right. It is pronounced Managa in Venda. With a dot on top of the 'N'. The first 'N'.

MR MEYER: So it was Captain Ramaligela, Warrant Officer Managa and who else?

MR RAMUSHWANA: And Nesamari, and then Captain Sifuwa who has since died.

MR MEYER: Now during your investigation what information did you receive with regard to the persons that might have been involved in the attack?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I interpose Mr Meyer? Wasn't Mr Netshivale a part of the investigating team?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I am now referring to the senior persons who were actually forming the investigation unit in respect of that particular case unit.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes.

MR RAMUSHWANA: But then you had other subordinates who were lower than the rank of Warrant Officer of which I can not call them, I cannot, they cannot form part of the investigation. They are only from time to time called in to assist.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Okay. What was the rank of Sifuwa?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Sifuwa was a Captain.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You may proceed Mr Meyer.

MR MEYER: Thank you Judge Khampepe.

MR RAMUSHWANA: During our investigation we found out that persons who had physically carried out the attack were one Mmbengeni Kone, David Malada, John Mwendamutsu Mamabolo ...(intervention)

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Could you spell ...(indistinct)

MR RAMUSHWANA: I could do that. I don't know whether I should use the military terminology to spell them or should I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just use the alphabet.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay fine thank you. Mmbengeni is M-M-B-E-N-G-E-N-I; Kone K-O-N-E - that's the surname; David Malada M-A-L-A-D-A and John Mwendamutsu, Mwendamutsu is M-W-E-N-D-A-M-U-T-S-U Mamabolo - M-A-M-A-B-O-L-O.

Now investigation revealed that these three men had infiltrated South Africa from Zimbabwe after receiving some training in weapons outside the country. Investigations revealed that Kone and Malada had already visited the Lutheran Church Centre at Busto which is plus minus seven kilometres from Sibasa during April 1981.

MR MEYER: General if I can just take you back a bit. The persons who were arrested which are listed in your application in paragraph 50, several pastors of the Lutheran Church, page 31 of the bundle of documents, now those people were arrested by yourself or your team, your subordinates, on what basis were they arrested?

MR RAMUSHWANA: We had received information that the van belonging to the Lutheran Church Centre at Busto had been used to convey the three armed men to attack as well as the vehicle of Isaac Sipiwa to attack the police station. We also learned that a certain Mahope had been seen at the scene of the attack, so that prompted the arrest of these people.

MR MEYER: Generally speaking the pastors or the people who were involved with the Lutheran Church, can you tell us something about their political viewpoints at the time?

MR RAMUSHWANA: It is known to everyone, even in South Africa is then because we had the independent homeland Venda, but in all parts of South Africa the clergy was known to support the liberation movement and all other supportive activities. We then decided to detain and question these people.

MR MEYER: All right, carry on what happened then?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Now, as I said earlier during the investigation we found that the persons responsible for the attack are those names, are the names that I have given, the three names that I have given and then that the people who had assisted those three people were then rounded up.

MR MEYER: You're talking about the people who are listed in paragraph 50?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Paragraph 50.

MR MEYER: If you say they were rounded up, were they arrested all of them at once or were there time periods between the arrest that took place?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes, I can't remember the timing, but these people were arrested almost in a fortnight together or three weeks time. I can't remember, I can't recall very well.

MR MEYER: The three people that you found out that were responsible for the attack, the names that you just spelled a while ago, did you ever, were you ever able to arrest them?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No, no Mr Chair.

MR MEYER: Now General, after the people who are listed in paragraph 15 were arrested, they were detained and they were interrogated. Is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Meyer, just before you proceed if I may interrupt, General if you take a look at 15.6 and 15.7 that's Messrs Mahumela and Ravele, were they also linked to the Lutheran Church because they are described as being respectively a prosecutor and a security guard?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay, then, they were actually friends of the other five. And then investigations revealed that they also - these number 15.6 was used as recce, you know to go and find out what, how the situation was like at the police station, whether it was safe for those men who was to attack the police station to come and attack.

And then the 15.7, this person was we found out later on that he conveyed these people by a vehicle, a kombi which he rented from someone and then took them, took the three people who attacked the police station out of the country. I'll say not exactly taken them out of the country but moved them out of Venda as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Meyer let's proceed.

MR MEYER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Now after as I have said after these people had been arrested they were detained and they were questioned, they were interrogated and they were also assaulted, tortured etc. Is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR MEYER: You as the head of the team, if I can call it a team, were you aware of the fact that detainees generally and these people more specifically that certain methods were used during interrogations which constituted gross human violations?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes I was aware Mr Chair I think it has been - it was tendency throughout South Africa, especially from the Security Branch and other law enforcement agencies who were actually specialising in security matters to make use of certain methods in order to make the suspect, the suspects confess or reveal what they had done.

MR MEYER: Can you tell us what those methods entailed?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Well I think everything differs from one policeman to another. There are various methods that we used, others used bags, or a hood, others used water and others used methods of a where you asked the suspects to undress and then remain with underwear only and then you humiliate him by using words which are unbecoming so that he eventually can break or crack.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Who had been trusted to know the methods that you personally used, you were the Deputy Commander isn't it?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I did not use any of the methods I am talking about except use my hand after I had lost my temper.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, Mr Meyer what direction are we taking by the question that you have just posed to Mr Ramushwana?

MR MEYER: I am just trying to get a background of what the violations were that were committed and the methods of questioning that were used because those are the exact things that the applicants are asking amnesty for.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Well won't you try and connect that to the incidents in question so that we don't become broad in the evidence that has been presented and confine ourselves to the specifics.

MR MEYER: I will attempt to do so.

General, you have heard the comment that was made now. With regard to these specific detainees can you tell us what methods was used during their interrogation?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay, it will be difficult for me to say exactly what methods were used against whom, but I think it will be better off if this question could be asked to those people who were doing the interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, do you know if any methods were used on these particular detainees, the ones referred in paragraph 15 of your supplementary affidavit, of your own knowledge and if so if you could describe them to us. If you don't know, then you don't know.

MR RAMUSHWANA: That is what I am saying I don't know what methods were actually used on different victims but I think members themselves are in a position to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not present yourself personally at interrogations of any of the detained persons.

MR RAMUSHWANA: No, no.

MR MEYER: General, you specifically, and we are not talking about knowledge that you have of other persons, did you at anytime use assaults or anything of that kind with regard to any one of these people mentioned in paragraph 15?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay, I remember there was a time where Mdangeneni Petros Poswana, 15.3, who had gone out with the investigating team and then he had told them that he was going to show them where he hid some of the arms and ammunition and then they went out, he came back he could not show them the place where he had hidden these arms which he alleges he hid them; and then he went out again and showing them different spots and then eventually ending up getting nothing. I was waiting for them at the office, at my office and when they came back it was late and I had waited there, and when they came back and told me that Mr Poswana he says he cannot show them the place where he had hidden them. Then I got so angry and I asked him why did you not tell us from the beginning that you don't have any arms that are hidden anywhere else? So I slapped him in the face with my right arm.

CHAIRPERSON: With your right open hand.

MR RAMUSHANA: Open hand.

MR MEYER: How many times did you hit him?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Once, and I felt sorry thereafter because I didn't want to use any of these methods myself.

MR MEYER: Do you know what the result was of that strike you gave him?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No, I don't know. I don't know what happened to him, because they took him away. I never saw him again.

MR MEYER: Did he fall down?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No. He did not fall down.

MR MEYER: And with regard to these people that are mentioned paragraph 15, is that the only physical assault that you yourself committed?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see any of those detainees that are referred to in paragraph 15 at any stage to be injured, see any physical sign that they may have been assaulted?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes although it will be difficult for me to explain exactly what I saw but I could see these people that they were not feeling well, especially you know after a struggle or something like that. You could see that this person has received a little bit of a hiding, or if I could call it that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Are you saying that you were never present when the people that you have mentioned in paragraph 15, were assaulted or interrogated?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No, when they were interrogated, no. These people were only brought to my office to make, to write a statement or to make a confession of which I would refer them to the Magistrate.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. In this case with regard to the Poswana incident, he wasn't brought in to make a confession was he?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No, no, no, like I indicated Mr Chair that I lost my temper. This man had gone out. It was about half past, 4 o'clock when he left, if my recollection doesn't fail me, and then they went out to go, he wanted to go and show them where he had hidden some of the arms that were used. That's what I was told by my men, and then I said okay I will wait for you until you come back. So I waited, they came back, then they said no, he says it's no longer at that particular spot, it's at a different spot. I said okay then don't come back to me, go along and find out where the place is. So they went, then they came back late. I was alone in the office waiting for these people. Now when they came back, they said he's the person. He doesn't want to show us where he had hidden all these arms. Then I asked him why didn't you tell us long ago that there are no weapons? Then I lost my temper and hit him.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. I understand that. My question was simply to ascertain whether you were never present when the people that you've mentioned under paragraph 15 were interrogated by your subordinate.

MR RAMUSHWANA: You mean each and everyone of them?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, yes.

MR RAMUSHWANA: There is time that I came in, maybe I could hear someone screaming, and then I would go and try and find out what was happening.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But you were never part of the interrogation of the people that you have mentioned?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No, no, no.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You have already said you only are admitting to assaulting one person?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And that's Mr Poswana?

MR RAMUSHWANA: That's Poswana, yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. What did you mean in paragraph 34 when you talked of suspects that you assaulted?

MR RAMUSHWANA: 34.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You only intended to mean Poswana and none of the other people. It seems at paragraph 34, you say -

MR RAMUSHWANA: No. I think this was just a proforma, I don't know, I think everyone, everyone of us has got this...

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes.

MR RAMUSHWANA: But now, I indicated that Posiwa he was never assaulted by me. Mahamba never assaulted by me, Farisani. Poswana I told, I said I slapped him in the face. Ravele I never assaulted and Chikororo I never assault him. Mahumela I never assaulted him.

CHAIRPERSON: And General, so with the people that were doing the interrogation of these detainees, were they aware of the fact that you would not have reprimanded them, or brought them to book, if they assaulted the people they were interrogating? You sort of condoned that....

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes I would say so.

CHAIRPERSON: You were aware that they were being assaulted. The interrogators were aware that you were aware....

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes, I just condoned ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And so you basically condoned, approved it by your silence type thing and regarded it as a method to be used in those circumstances?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes that's right. But then if they did it excessively I would actually reprimand them and tell them, "look you shouldn't do that, don't exceed the bounds."

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Ramushwana I want to ask you, when you heard these people screaming, did you make enquiries as to the methods which they had used?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I would go there and then ask, even in the presence of the victim as to who is screaming here, and the victim would not say it is me, and the interrogators too would not tell me who was screaming, and then I will then say, 'look, I heard the scream', but okay I went back to my office, although I knew exactly who was screaming. It was either one of the victims.

ADV BOSMAN: But my question is really did you establish what methods were being used?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I didn't want to establish the methods, because, remember if I condone all these methods, it was not necessary for me to find out what methods were used.

ADV BOSMAN: I don't know whether I have misunderstood you here, but, you said that you know that if there were excesses, you would tell them not to exceed the bounds.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: So what I'm asking is, did you make enquiries as to whether it fell within the bounds set by you?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes. If it did not fall within the bounds then I wouldn't have gone back without having called one of the senior men there and say, 'look, it seems you are now exceeding the bounds.' But in this case, Mr Chair, I did not see the methods used.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you define to them the bounds, or was that just as an unsaid, what the bounds were? What did you yourself believe the bounds to be?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No it was unsaid. You know it's for a reasonable person to identify or to define excessive methods. I think it's easy for him to understand which one is excessive, which is not excessive.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have an electric shock device available at the place where they were being interrogated?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Ja. If I remember very well, yes we had a telephone - I don't know what, it's a sort of a telephone instrument, you know the one you use to dial.

CHAIRPERSON: The one with the crank dial?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I don't understand you. I'm not on the same page with your evidence so far. Are you saying you authorised certain methods to be used in order to extract information on the people that were arrested by you? Did you authorise any method to your underlings to use on those detainees?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Mr Chair, I didn't say I authorised my subordinates to use any methods. The methods were left at the discretion of the interrogators, but if they were excessive, obviously I would see in the face of the suspect that obviously excessive methods was used. Then I had to find out what method was used so that we are able to get this person to the hospital or somewhere.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You are aware that your underlings were using unconventional methods in extracting information from detainees?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You condoned those methods?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes I did.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, so you were aware of all those methods?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I was aware, yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And you say if there were excesses you would intervene, and the excesses would be determined by looking at the face of a detainee?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: What do you mean by that?

MR RAMUSHWANA: What I'm trying to say is, I was not all the time available or present during the interrogations, so it was going to be difficult for me to say whether the methods that they were using, if I'm physically there, are acceptable or excessive. But if I'm not there and I hear someone screaming, okay obviously that could be, it will mean this person is enduring a lot of pain or something like that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Then I'll rush there and find out what is happening.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So a scream to you would indicate that the methods used were being excessive is that what you are saying?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I mean that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You never defined to your underlings the bounds beyond which they were not to go in interrogation when applying certain methods?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No, no, because of one thing the interrogation staff was not trained by me. They were trained by our South African counterparts.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, but they were operating under your command, is it not so?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes, under my command, but not all the time under my command. Like I indicated, these people, the victims, were interrogated when I was not attached to the investigation itself. Only at a later stage did I come in.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I'm talking about when you were in charge of this investigation.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes. When I was in charge of the investigation I know of some screams that I heard, and I went to find out what was all about it, why did the, would someone scream, then I will go and look at what is happening. Now I would also ask the victim, and ask him who was screaming, what is the problem? Then if he doesn't tell me what the problem is then obviously I wouldn't know what kind of methods was used.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you at any stage see any of the detainees involved as referred to in paragraph 15 to be in such a state that they required, in your opinion, medical attention?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes. I think I know of one, I know of one - 15.4, Dean Farisani.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you see regarding him?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I can't recall very clearly, I mean it's long ago, its about 18 years or so ago. But okay I could see the signs that he was actually assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Meyer.

MR MEYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. General, to get right to the point, is it correct that you were aware of the fact that your subordinates were assaulting and torturing some of these detainees?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes Mr Chair.

MR MEYER: Were you in the position to order them to stop with those methods of interrogation?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I did not have all the rights to do it. I was the Deputy Chief of Security. I had a Chief above me and then I had a Commissioner above me, I had the President above me. And to indicate to you how difficult it was going to be for me to tell my subordinates to stop using the methods on the suspects, I think it could have cost me my job. Although I did not mention it because it was not relevant, but now that it is becoming relevant I had at the previous year apprehended, not in actually myself apprehended but the our branch apprehended one of the three members, the three men that I indicated just below the list of those victims, that is the last name, John Mwendamutse Mamabolo, he's my cousin, and then I released him because I could not prefer a charge against him. It was before he was involved in this incident. And why I reasoned because I could not charge him with any offence. He was busy moving around placing stickers on vehicles with the emblem, the Battle of Isandhlwana. And then when he was arrested then I could not prefer charges against him, I said he should be released, not because he was because my cousin but because there was no charge I could lay against him. So I was told if you do that again you will find yourself at the central Matachi Prison, or you will find yourself without job.

So it was difficult for me to say no don't do that and do that, although outside here it appeared that we had control over the whole Security Branch.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Are you satisfied Mr Meyer with the answer given by Mr Ramushwana to your question? I don't know he seems to have deviated from what you actually wanted him to respond to. Your question, as I recall was whether he was in a position to have stopped his underlings from continuing with the methods they were using.

MR MEYER: That is indeed my question. As I understand the General he is trying to convey to the Panel that although he was theoretically in charge of the investigation, he was under some sort of pressure to bring the perpetrators of the attack to book by his seniors, and under more pressure because of this previous incident of his cousin where he was threatened that he might lose his job because this person was released without being charged.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I mean who was giving him pressure? Shouldn't he tell us that. Where did this pressure come from?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I think I indicated earlier Mr Chair, that I had my Chief above me, I had the Commissioner of Police above me and I had the State President above me. I indicated that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Who in particular put pressure to bear on you?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay from the President downwards, because as members of the Security we had access to the President and then we were given instructions from his office.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So are you saying that the President was aware of the methods that were being used?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes Mr Chair.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And he actually encouraged the use of those methods?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes, Mr Chair.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, continue Mr Meyer.

MR MEYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. If I can just go back to where we were before you spoke about the pressure that you had and so on. The fact is that you were in charge of the investigation and you knew that methods were being used in the interrogation that were not proper, that involved assaults and torture etc, and as you have already ...(tape 1a ends)

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MR MEYER: Regarding the pressure that you spoke about and you don't have to go into detail, except if the Panel wants more detail, but you have already spoken about the President and your seniors. Let's talk about this specific incident with the attack on the police station. What was their reaction and their attitude with regard to the performance or bringing the people who were responsible for the attack to justice?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay we were actually told to report progress on an hourly base and we were also instructed that you should leave no stone unturned, and if you had problems with vehicles or anything just shout we provide. We even used the Commissioner's vehicle in order to alleviate shortage of vehicles that were attached to the Security Branch, and we were told never play with the suspects, you should deal with them severely.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You were told by who?

MR RAMUSHWANA: We were told by the President. I said we were told that every hour we should report progress to the President.

ADV BOSMAN: At this stage may I just ask you who told you that if, you know after the release of Mamabolo, who told you that if something like that would happen again you would find yourself out of a job or in a prison?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I was told by the President. Okay the Louis Trichardt branch of the Security Branch of SAP then came to Sibasa looking for that person, Mamabolo, and when they heard that he was released then they went to the advisor, the chief advisor of the Security Branch who came from South Africa, and they reported this matter. The matter was then reported to the President. Then I was called by the President.

CHAIRPERSON: So, sorry just to get this clear Mr Meyer are you now applying for amnesty because you slapped a man 18 years ago in a moment of anger with an open hand across the face, or are you applying for amnesty in that you accept responsibility for what those under your control did to these people? What is the position?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Both, both.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: It doesn't appear from the application when you say both Mr Meyer, does it? The application before me only refers to an incident with regard to the assault on a number of suspects including Mr Poswana? That's the basis for which you are giving amnesty.

MR MEYER: Yes on the application on the papers itself it would seem to be the case that it is only for the assault on Reverend Poswana.

However I think it is also specifically mentioned that the General was in charge of the investigation team, in paragraph 13 where he said that he took charge of the investigation and it is my submission that that would entail that he was also responsible for the, to a large extent for the acts of his subordinates.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But shouldn't you have brought that to our attention before you commenced giving evidence- in-chief of Mr Ramushwana so that we should know exactly what incident we have to hear Mr Ramushwana for his amnesty application?

MR MEYER: Yes, Mr Chairman I suppose it might have been helpful if I told you about it before hand.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Not helpful, procedural.

MR MEYER: Yes indeed. I submit however that the application itself deals with not only with regard to General Ramushwana himself, it deals only with Reverend Poswana with regard to specific acts done by himself but he also talks about other persons being assaulted, for instance in paragraph 43, the purpose of the assault was to extract information which could lead to further arrests and to instil fear and fatigue so that the suspects, more than one, would give the information needed to make further arrests.

For instance also paragraph 33 where he was talking about Ravele which was assaulted by some members of the mobile unit etc.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, continue Mr Meyer.

MR MEYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. General what eventually happened to the people that were originally detained? Do you know?

MR RAMUSHWANA: There are some of the people who were charged before the court and found guilty, others cases were withdrawn. I cannot remember which ones but I know, I think Reverend Poswana was charged and he got a suspended sentence. He was convicted.

MR MEYER: So okay, is it correct that you don't know exactly who, what happened to which one of the detainees.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Ja, ja.

MR MEYER: With regard to this specific incident. The policemen that were killed and injured during the attack did you know them personally?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I did not know them personally but I used to see them at the police station. I think both of them were married and they had children, their mothers are, I could say their parents - that some of them are still alive and that's that.

MR MEYER: General, we have already covered the fact you were aware that assaults and torture methods were used during the interrogation, you were aware of that, you condoned it, you assaulted Mr Poswana personally, why did you use these methods of interrogation?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Obviously it was to try and find out and get information from the suspects so that we are able to come to the end of the investigation.

CHAIRPERSON: And you would classify that the type of case that you were investigating as being a political case?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MR MEYER: And how do you feel today General about the fact that you personally assaulted one of them and that you knew that the rest of them were being assaulted and tortured and you did not do anything about it?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes, look, I indicated that when I slapped the Reverend Poswana I felt sorry the same day when they took him away, but looking at the overall picture I think I feel more guilty than the interrogators themselves, there is no use you know trying to blame, push or shift blame to someone else. I personally had a moral obligation to see to either the suspects or the victims should be properly handled by the interrogators.

My failure I think has also contributed a lot to the conditions in which these people found themselves during the interrogation and I am deeply sorry that I allowed these thing to carry on like that, and I also physically assaulted one of these victims.

You know looking at what happened to me after that I think people would be able to realise how deeply sorry I was.

Mr Chair, I was the Deputy Commander of the Security Branch until I was transferred on the instruction of the President then, President Mpepu to go and be Chief of Staff of the Venda Defence Force in 1985, and then I went through a number of courses in the defence force. Eventually I ended up as the appointed Chief of Defence Force, the Deputy Chief of Defence Force and I has to proceed again on other courses until in 1990 with the release of Mandela, President Mandela, and that I also got involved in a military coup d'etat in Venda. I took over Venda and I tried everything at my disposal then to reconcile the people of Venda with those who were the enemies of Venda. I built the Venda people and united them and brought in the spirit of reconciliation.

When we were due to represent Venda at Codesa and later on at multi-party conference I made sure that all people from all spheres of life, especially those in Venda, are nominated to sit with me at Codesa and multi-party talks. I took, amongst the victims here, Dean Farisani, he was one of my delegation. To me this is a sign of reconciliation. It is a sign that says forget about the past, let's build a new South Africa together. I am the first homeland leader to host the first internal conference of MK. We were fighting against MK in 1981 and '79 backwards. But I found it necessary to gather them to come to Venda and host a conference, the MK conference.

I brought the various groupings within South Africa and Venda to come and discuss about quo vadis TBVC. To look at what is going to happen to the TBVC States, because the future of these states were in the hands of who comes into power in the new South Africa, so I held a conference to discuss the future of these TBVC.

I was the first homeland leader to visit the MK headquarters in Lusaka. The first conference of the TBVC, MK, SANDF was attended by me.

I was responsible for bringing about, for brokering the conference on enmity between the South African Defence Force, South African Police and APLA in Harare.

Now I can name a number of things that indicates you know, the change of attitude, the change of approach, the deepest felt apology that one could bring across.

MR MEYER: General if I can just interrupt you there, is there anything that you would like say to the victims of those assaults and tortured?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Well, to the victims I would like to say to you, I am very, very sorry for what has happened. Forgive me. And I know especially the families of those people, the victims. They were hurt then especially then when they saw their loved ones they were coming out of the dungeon, coming from the ruthless torture of my men. I am very sorry about it. Forgive them too.

And I also would like to make a calling upon all those other people who were involved in the attack on the police station that they should come and say sorry, to the parents and children of those two policemen who were burned to ashes at Sibasa police station.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I hope Mr Ramushwana you are aware that we are dealing with your amnesty application. We would appreciate it if you could confine your evidence to what is required for you to present in terms of satisfying the requirements of the Act that we have to decide upon whether we grant you amnesty or not.

MR MEYER: General, if there is one other aspect in your application you also mention that you ask for amnesty with regard to perjury. Is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MR MEYER: Is it correct that as a result of the assaults on some of the detainees some of them instituted civil proceedings against the police at that stage?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MR MEYER: And is it also correct that for the purpose of those proceedings that were instituted you were required to make statements with regard to whether or not the people were assaulted?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MR MEYER: And is it correct further that you made false statements with regard to that fact?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes Mr Chair.

MR MEYER: Mr Chairman I am referring to page 106 of the bundle. If I can just show you the statement General, the more important part is the last paragraph where you say that:

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MR MEYER: Is that a statement you made?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MR MEYER: And you know that this statement was false?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes Mr Chair.

MR MEYER: And this is with regard to the Reverend Posiwa. Is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes Mr Chair.

MR MEYER: What was the reason that you made a false statement in this regard?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Firstly the statement, if I had written a different statement from that one it will mean that I had supporting evidence from he medical report, but then there was no medical report to support that statement.

MR MEYER: If I can just have a minute Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it be "defeating the ends of justice" that, Mr Meyer, sorry if I am just looking at page 27 where he is asking for assault, defeating ends of justice and perjury. Defeating the ends of justice is that also relating to these civil proceedings that you've just referred to?

MR MEYER: Indeed so Mr Chairman. That is correct. I have no further questions at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Meyer. Mr van Rensburg, do you have any questions to ask this applicant?

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Indeed I have a few questions to the applicant. General as you know I am representing the 5th applicant in today's proceedings, that is Captain Carlson Netshivale and perhaps I can start off by asking you do you know this person?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes Mr Chair.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Can you please tell us how you know him and where did you meet him?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I knew him as a serving member of the then Venda Defence, Venda National Force.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Police Force.

MR RAMUSHWANA: It was then National Force, not police force.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I see.

MR RAMUSHWANA: And then he was attached to the Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just for my information, you had a Venda National Force, just one National Force.

MR RAMUSHWANA: With branches.

CHAIRPERSON: With branches, what were those - army ...(intervention)

MR RAMUSHWANA: Army....

CHAIRPERSON: Police....

MR RAMUSHWANA: Police, prison and traffic.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so you didn't actually have a stand alone police force? It was a branch of the National Force of which the Commissioner was the head of that branch. And then within the police you had a security branch or was that a stand alone?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: ....Security branch for the military as well?

MR RAMUSHWANA: It was under the police element, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Part of the police. Yes thank you, sorry Mr van Rensburg.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. And you, just to recap, you met the fifth applicant when he was a member of the Security Branch at Sibasa. Is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes Mr Chair.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Was it round about the time of 1981 '82.

MR RAMUSHWANA: I think it was before that. He was attached to branch maybe I cannot recollect properly but okay in the 80's.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now you've testified that immediately after attack on the police station there was an investigation team or as you call it an interrogation team formed which consisted largely of officers. Is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Now my question is was the fifth applicant part of that investigation of interrogators team?

MR RAMUSHWANA: As I said earlier on I only had officers and Warrant Officer, that was the lowest rank that I could ...

CHAIRPERSON: At that stage what was the rank of the fifth applicant, Mr van Rensburg has referred to him as Captain, I don't know if that is present status.

MR RAMUSHWANA: He was a constable. If he was not a constable he was a sergeant. I can't recall.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. My instructions are at that stage he was in fact a sergeant. You agree with that?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I may agree, I can't recall everything now.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I see. So if we then accept that he was a sergeant and you say that core mainly consist or are exclusively consist of policemen with the rank of warrant officer, so he was in fact excluded from that interrogation team or investigation team. Is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Mr Chair, not necessarily I think that depends upon the performance of a particular member. If he is good at investigations even if he is a constable he would be what I could refer to - delegated to serve under the supervision of the investigation team.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the question put to you by Mr van Rensburg is do you know whether he part of that team whether he was delegated or used, do you know whether he participated? Let's put it this was, make it a bit broader. Do you know personally whether the fifth applicant who was then a sergeant, was used in the investigation and/or interrogation involving the detainees referred to in paragraph 15 of your supplementary application?

MR RAMUSHWANA: This thing took place long ago I can't recall it really. This guy was a constable, he was a sergeant. Now today he is a Captain, if you go back and you try and think whether he was ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, no the question is merely do you can you tell us now?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I can't recall.

CHAIRPERSON: You can't recall, okay.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. Have you ever personally witnessed the fifth applicant assaulting any of the detainees?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Who is the fifth applicant?

CHAIRPERSON: Sergeant, then Sergeant Netshivale.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Not in my presence.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you for the assistance Mr Chairman.

You testified at some occasions when you heard screams during the time of the interrogation you would actually intervene and kind of caution your officers to take it easy. Is that a correct summation?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No I didn't say that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay, perhaps I should rephrase that. You at a stage during the interrogation when you heard certain screams would intervene to make sure that the bounds of the interrogation are not exceeded. That is your evidence. Is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I didn't say that. I said if I heard screams I would go and to try and find out what was going on.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Are you denying that you said something to the effect that you had to make sure and the reason why you intervened was to make sure that the bounds of the interrogation were not exceeded. Are you denying that?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Mr Chair, I don't know. I don't know. I didn't say that.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't get the feeling that Mr van Rensburg is trying to trick you into anything.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes, but what I am trying to say, okay, but what he is saying is not what I said. If you could read what I said from the transcript I would really appreciate it.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I think basically what you have said was that if they did it excessively, you would intervene. I am trying to be closer to what you've said. I can't be verbatim. That was your evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I think maybe you didn't use the word "intervene". You would go and see for yourself to find out what was happening there.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes that's what I said.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But you did use the word "intervene".

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg ..

MR VAN RENSBURG: And you also, and I have to be specific - you have to be as specific about this, you also used the phrase, "exceed the bounds".

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is my question. What bounds?

MR RAMUSHWANA: The bounds of assaulting.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And those bounds were set by yourself, is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I didn't say that.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I'm asking you.

MR RAMUSHWANA: No I didn't set the bounds.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Okay. Let's take it a bit further. You said during the time you experienced extreme pressure from your superiors, the Commissioner and also the President to produce results in this investigation. Is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Would I be correct to make the deduction that you also then in turn exerted that same pressure downwards to your, towards the other officers responsible?

MR RAMUSHWANA: You are quite correct Mr Chair.

MR VAN RENSBURG: And also that you received instructions, I think you said directly from the President, that you should deal severely with suspects and never play with them.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You also made sure that your officers underneath you understood that principle very well.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And by saying "yes" you would mean the officers that you would have communicated that too would be Ramaligela, Managa, Nesamari and Sifuwa?

MR RAMUSHWANA: And Sifuwa.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, and no other person other than those.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Thank you.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Would I then be further correct to say that these warrant officers, let's call it that, responsible for the investigation expected the lower ranking officers to behave in a certain way, in an aggressive way towards the suspects?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes. Maybe yes and no, I don't know. I think that depends upon the individual officer who deals with those subordinates of his. But I will tend to agree that obviously you have to take instructions or you know examples from his officers.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Fine. Can you perhaps tell us what requirements a policeman had to meet during that stage to actually become a member of the Security Branch?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Requirements, are you now referring to qualifications or what?

CHAIRPERSON: Special qualities, qualifications whatever ...

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay. Obviously academically he should at least have a Standard 10 and he should be physically fit. He should undergo fitness tests and he should be good in languages, be able to communicate in Afrikaans, English and in other black languages, and he should be a person who is dedicated to his work. He should be a person who has high discipline and his wife too should be a person who is prepared to sacrifice time that this man can spend outside his house or his home.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you General. What about security clearance?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay. Security clearance firstly is number one priority. But that is also done with the Security Branch itself and not by uniform branch, and no policeman can join the police force without having got this clearance.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Was there any investigation done into a person's, or let's call it an applicant, for the Security Branch political views and attitudes?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No. I think most of the members of the Security Branch were identified by those people responsible for the training. Maybe I could say two-thirds of the Security Branch of the then Venda National Force was selected by the South African Police, Security Branch. The training was also conducted by them.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes that is not exactly answering my question. I want to know if there was any kind of political screening before a person could join the Security Branch?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Not that I know of. But I know of security screening that is done, not political screening, because we believe in that the police serve the government of the day. The government of the day is served by the police. Whether the police force is 100 years old or what, the new government comes to power within two days is then served by that police force. So there was no political screening.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But you wouldn't know Mr Ramushwana you were not involved in the screening of - you merely are speculating.

MR RAMUSHWANA: But I would know Mr Chair, because I was the Deputy Chief of Security and then political screening would obviously have to be charged to me because I was doing the investigating. The Chief of Security did not do the investigating, the Commissioner did not do it. But at the same time we didn't have a watchdog looking at how the, what the police thought about the government. That's why I said there was no political screening.

CHAIRPERSON: But wouldn't - I don't actually know what political screening is. If you are screening somebody for security, security screening, wouldn't you look at the person's political affiliations, which way he thinks, which way he votes?

MR RAMUSHWANA: But it's not that easy to get that information.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but I mean wouldn't it be included in that?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Or do you, or was there such a thing as a political screening as opposed to a security screening?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I have never dealt with those you know, type of things.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But haven't you just said you were responsible for that?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I was responsible for the screening of the Security Branch, not political, not screening politically.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Now the security clearance that you were involved in, did it not entail having to look at somebody's political involvement or affiliation or such other related matters?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No, no, no, I would have said that I really I don't know even that form, I think it's, I don't know if it is available now, I would actually produces it and you look at it, it doesn't have those requirements.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, let's proceed Mr van Rensburg.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman.

So you were actually only looking for a person before you let him or appoint him to the Security Branch for a very dedicated policeman who is doing his job better than most others. Is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van Rensburg. Ms Mtanga, do you have any questions you would like to put to the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Yes I do Mr Chairperson, thank you. Mr Ramushwana, I would like to know if did you know any of the victims mentioned paragraph 15?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Personally?

MS MTANGA: Personally.

MR RAMUSHWANA: No.

MS MTANGA: Did you know of ...

MR RAMUSHWANA: ...excuse me, I think the person I knew personally was, because I used to meet him at the Venda Sun, is Bengeni John Ravele, and I understand he has passed away.

MS MTANGA: Did you know of the church involvement before the bombing?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay I knew the Reverend Alfred Mahamba. I knew Dean Farisani. I knew Raman Chikororo; I knew Chifewa Mahumela, and I knew but Phinias ...(indistinct) Posiwa I didn't know.

MS MTANGA: So you are saying you knew Mr, Reverend Mahamba personally?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Not personally, just to know him ...(intervention)

MS MTANGA: That he was involved in the church - that's Mr Mahamba. Mr Poswana?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I didn't know him.

MS MTANGA: You knew Mr Farisani.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MS MTANGA: Mr Mahumela and Mr Ravele you also knew.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MS MTANGA: When did you first become aware of their political activities?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I knew Dean Farisani from years back, in the 70's when I was still in the Security Branch at Messina.

MS MTANGA: What exactly did you know about him then?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I just know that he was active in these organisations, political organisations.

MS MTANGA: At the time they were arrested for their attack on the police station, what information did you have that linked them to that attack?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay, he was not arrested by me, but at the time the information was that he was, he had actual ...(intervention)

MS MTANGA: Excuse Mr Ramushwana, I am referring to all of them.

MR RAMUSHWANA: All of them?

MS MTANGA: Yes. What information did you have on each one of them?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay, at that Reverend Mahamba was visited by two armed men, that Posiwa was responsible for, he was in the van that took those three men to go and attack the police station and then Petros Poswana was also one of them. About Farisani I didn't know anything. About Chikororo he was involved in conveying these people from the place attack to their final destination, or hide-out. And then Chifewa Mahumela I don't know, except that he was used, he was apparently used as a recce to go and look at the place before the attacking team came. And then Bengeni John Ravele I only know that he conveyed these people from Venda, out of Venda. And then that he was also found in possession of an AK47 or any other type of firearm.

MS MTANGA: When you say regarding Dr Farisani you knew of no link to this matter, does it mean you can't recall the link to this, to the bombing or at the time you arrested him you had no information linking him to this bombing at the police station?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No, all I know I heard about, it was a report I got from my subordinates that the investigation that they conducted was that Dean Farisani, two people came looking for him, looking for Dean Farisani, and that these people went to Mahamba's house and then Posiwa took them to Dean Farisani, or they were looking for Dean Farisani, something like that.

So I can't recall very clearly, but as I said these had something to do with the people who were looking, who came looking for the Dean and people, and other people who were conveyed by the others in the list.

MS MTANGA: To correct you Mr Ramushwana, the visitors were said to have been looking for Mr Mahamba and were taken by Mr Posiwa to Mr Mahamba's house. But were not looking for Dean Farisani.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes, it could be like that. I am not saying it was exactly like that, like I said it's long, this thing happened 18 years ago. I can't recall everything in detail as it ...

MS MTANGA: Was there basis for arresting Mr Farisani?

MR RAMUSHWANA: The basis for arresting Mr Farisani I don't know, because I didn't authorise his arrest.

MS MTANGA: Mr Ramushwana I would like you to help me understand here, when a person is arrested and he gives an alibi, do you check out that alibi, do you carry on investigation on their alibi given by the person?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Obviously yes.

MS MTANGA: Can you recall what was Dr Farisani's alibi at the time of his arrest?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I think what I can recall he said something that, something like when the police station was attacked he was not there. And it was true, he was not there.

MS MTANGA: Where was he Mr Ramushwana? Where was he?

MR RAMUSHWANA: He wasn't ..

CHAIRPERSON: Is it necessary that we know where he was? What has this got to do with the torture of him afterwards. If we can just get to it. We don't need to know all details of a person's alibi etc etc. This in not relevant to this hearing.

MS MTANGA: Thank you Mr Chairperson. The instruction I have from Dr Farisani are that on the day of the bombing he had left the area and had gone to Johannesburg for a church council meeting, and the Security Branch police were aware of this. Do you refute this Mr Ramushwana?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I think I also told Dean Farisani that I know, I told him if he can quote those words that I know "you were not present when the police station was attacked." I told him that.

MS MTANGA: When did you tell him this?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Long ago. Eighteen years ago.

MS MTANGA: After the arrest, then after the tortures?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes. During the arrest I think.

MS MTANGA: You told him when, during the arrest?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes, when he was still detained I think.

MS MTANGA: But why was he tortured when you were aware that wasn't around?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I didn't torture him.

MS MTANGA: But you ...(intervention)

MR RAMUSHWANA: I didn't instruct my men to torture him.

MS MTANGA: So who instructed them to torture Dr Farisani?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Look, I think made it very clear from the beginning that what happened in my absence and my men were interrogating, I was not part and parcel. Except that I carry responsibility now because they were working under me. I didn't instruct them to torture Farisani. I didn't tell them to torture Farisani. But the point is I went to see Farisani and then I said to him, Dean, I said this in Venda to him "Dean, I know that you never, you were not here when the police station was attacked".

MS MTANGA: Were you aware that he was being tortured by your subordinates?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I only went to see him when I heard some screams.

MS MTANGA: What did you do about it Mr Ramushwana?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I said on that particular issue particularly that. I told to my men, I said "Look, don't ill treat the Dean" I told them that in his presence.

MS MTANGA: Mr Chairperson, I leave this to the evidence of Dr Farisani.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I just take up one or two things emanating from your responses to questions put by Ms Mtanga? You've evidenced that you didn't authorised Mr Farisani's arrest. Do you know who might have authorised his arrest?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No I think Ramaligela could have authorised it, he was doing the investigation.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Now you were the Deputy Commander and you are responsible for this investigation.

MR RAMUSHWANA: At that time I was not.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You were not?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No I came in later. The man who in charge of the investigation at that time ...

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Was Sifuwa

MR RAMUSHWANA: Sifuwa yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Now that would clear my little confusion, because I was getting a little worried why a person responsible for the investigation would not be aware of the arrest of a suspect when he is in charge of that investigation.

MR RAMUSHWANA: And these people were not arrested at the same time..

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes I am aware. I have read the statements of the victims when they appeared before the Human Rights Violations Committee.

ADV BOSMAN: Can I just clarify one small point. When the Chairperson asked you about any people who may have needed medical attention I recall that you mentioned the name of Dr Farisani. Did you obtain any medical attention for him?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes, I think he was sent to hospital.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you finished?

MS MTANGA: Mr Ramushwana, I'll just make a follow up to the question asked by Advocate Bosman. In your application you have said that the assaults on the victims were not so serious as such they didn't need, they didn't require medical attention.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes, I might have said that. This statement I think everyone of us has made the same statement, but I think here we are looking at individual submission and I think here there was some mistake, I don't know if I am right.

MS MTANGA: If I may ask you, you have seen Dr Farisani and you have seen the extent of his injuries how did he appear, what made you seek medical attention for him?

MR RAMUSHWANA: He complained to me that he was not feeling well, and I could see that he was bruised.

MS MTANGA: Can you recall how bruised, how bad were the bruises on his body or where exactly were the bruises?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I know his face was swollen.

MS MTANGA: Alright, I'll leave that question.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Ramushwana you are saying the reason why you have alleged that none of the people that were assaulted by you or you underlings ever received serious wounds or had to get medical treatment was because you all had to complete one, one application, but surely these are applications completed by your lawyers at your instruction. Is it not so?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes, but the point is we were trying to recollect information eighteen years ago and we were trying to put these facts together one ...(indistinct).

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, eighteen years ago you remembered that Mr Farisani had been arrested and is one the few who needed medical attention. Didn't you know that?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes. The problem is we are looking at who assaulted who. Now when it came to that I assaulted Farisani, I couldn't actually indicate that I assaulted Farisani and that I referred him to the hospital. I couldn't say that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, but why couldn't you have said that? You intimated to command of the investigating team, and whatever the investigating team did, did under your command. Why would it have been so difficult for you to have disclosed that some of the people that were subjected under some kind of assault by you, ultimately needed to have medical attention?

MR RAMUSHWANA: But I think I am saying it now, but what I did not say here is because the question was 'Whom did you assault? Did you assault...' Now I must write down the name person I have assaulted and I must indicate who. The person I assaulted and what happened to him, did I take him to hospital or did he receive medical attention. There is no person whom I assaulted that required medical attention. That is why I could not include it in my statement.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But you are aware of the people who are assaulted by you underlings that required medical attention.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes, of which I authorised them to be hospitalised.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You were aware when you gave instructions to your attorney at that stage, you were aware of that.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes I was aware of that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yet you did not disclose.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay, maybe I am getting confused now. I was told that I must make a statement indicating why I need to apply for amnesty, and also indicating in your amnesty whom did you assault, whom did you kill, whom did you maim and so forth and then sign. So I did exactly the same. I did not touch Farisani, I did not assault him, but I made sure seeing that I was the second in charge, I made sure that he should be referred to hospital.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: When Mr Farisani was taken to hospital, were you in charge of the operation then, had you replaced Mr Sifuwa?

MR RAMUSHWANA: At that time, I can't remember. Because I was based at Head Office. I used to go and attend to my subordinates activities, find out what was happening and then go back. But when Sifuwa was removed from there I took charge. Then I had an office next to the Ramaligela's offices and that is where I could hear the screams and then I would then go and find out what was happening there.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You haven't responded to my simple question. At the time when Mr Farisani was taken to hospital for medical attention, had you replaced Mr Sifuwa?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No I don't think so. I can't remember.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you. You may proceed Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Ramushwana I would like to know when people were under interrogation. When it appeared that they needed, they required medical attention. Who would authorise that medical, that they go and see doctors?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Normally the investigation officer, the interrogation officer will make arrangements.

MS MTANGA: So you would ...

MR RAMUSHWANA: ... or the branch commander then.

MS MTANGA: You would never get involved in those decisions?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No, I was based at Head Quarters.

MS MTANGA: Alright, thank you. Earlier on we were discussing the information, the basis for the arrest of the victims and you had indicated that according to your source some of the, after Mr Reverend Mahamba was visited by these comrades and the rest of the people had conveyed those people to the scene of the attack. What was the source of information that you relied on?

MR RAMUSHWANA: The information was regarding the, the attack on the police station if I am not wrong.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You are correct. Can you then give an indication to what she probably wants to ask you? What was the basis or who was the source of that information or on what grounds did you believe that information?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay, the information I am not in a position to divulge that except the then investigation officer, but he is not here, but Director Ramaligela is in the position to explain as to how, where, from whom did they get this information and so forth. I was not physically involved. This is a, what I see here is a report that was given to me from Ramaligela.

MS MTANGA: If I may just briefly question you on the contents of the brief, of the report that you received did the report indicate that the church people were involved and that they received this ...(indistinct) and then they also participated by providing transport and conveying these people. Is that the basis of the report you received?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay, there was information that was received which was later on confirmed that Reverend Poswana, Reverend Sifuwa were responsible for conveying these people and keeping observation at the police station before it was attacked and that one Ramani Chikororo made his kombi available to take these people away from the police station after the attack.

MS MTANGA: Mr Ramushwana I accept that is the basis of your report. If that is the situation, didn't you get the names of the three people that had visited Mr Mahamba and who could have been also involved in this attack? Didn't you have information on the actual people involved in the attack?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No, I can not remember seeing the names of those people. I don't know whether they are the same three people who attacked the police station I don't know. But that could be, you could find out from the people who were doing the investigation.

MS MTANGA: What information did you want to get from the victims?

MR RAMUSHWANA: We wanted to confirm what we heard about the two reverends being available and making themselves available to convey these people or to keep guard at the police station where these three armed men attacked the police station and then this was confirmed by Reverend Posiwa. He confirmed that yes it's true he was there with Poswana and the like. Ramani Chikororo also actually confirmed that indeed his kombi was used to convey these three to Makonde. That's how we got to the end of the...

MS MTANGA: Is it not true that all the victims who gave confession had given a different version and they were beaten up and tortured badly until they had to change their version and suit what the police wanted all of them?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I don't know, I don't know, but then at that time what we believed in was that their story tallied. The other one was detained elsewhere and the other one somewhere else. They couldn't actually say the same account of what happened on the day of the attack, because it was exactly, the registration number of the vehicle, the ...(indistinct) providing, the Kombi was used and everything. There was no disputing their evidence although they gave everything apart.

MS MTANGA: Mr Ramushwana if these are victims that have given confessions, why were they not charged based on their confessions which indicated that they were indeed involved in this bombing?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay, I think to be honest enough, why they were not charged is because these people were thoroughly assaulted. We withdrew the case against them on the basis of assault.

MS MTANGA: Is it your evidence that when you are interrogating people and if you had assaulted them you wouldn't take them, you wouldn't prosecute them because they have been assaulted.

MR RAMUSHWANA: No, it was just that, it was decided by the hierarchy that we do see that these people were badly assaulted. If we are going to charge them what's going to happen, they were going to, we'll lose the case and then again would then have civil claim. So it was decided that we should not charge them.

MS MTANGA: How did you obtain information about their actual attackers, that is Kone and Mamabolo and the other gentlemen. How did you obtain that information?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it necessary for us to know that, how they got that? We are not going to make any finding regarding the firing or setting on fire of the police station.

MS MTANGA: Mr Chairperson, the evidence of the victim is that when the Police while tortured them they knew they were not involved and they may have had their suspects.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if you can just put it to him, but we don't have find out every single detail about the attack on the policemen, we'll never finish this matter.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I think basically what you are contending is that there was no reasonable basis for effecting an arrest. Won't you just put it to him as your instructions indicate.

MS MTANGA: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Ramushwana, it is, may I put it to you that it is the position of the victims that at the time you arrested them you had no reasonable grounds or belief or suspicion that they were linked to the bombing of the police station because they were indeed not involved. Not in any way.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Not all of them Mr Chairman. We have people who have admitted, some of them under duress indeed but others without any duress and that was the basis for arrest because even after we have arrested some of them the other two confessed and said "Indeed".

MS MTANGA: My following question is, were you ever present or did you ever observe or see besides Dr Farisani's, were you ever present when the other victims were being interrogated beside Dr Farisani, did you see any of those victims being interrogated.

MR RAMUSHWANA: I can't recall very well, but seeing that I use to go from time to time you know go in and peep and see whether everything is okay or maybe call someone there to have a chat with him, it is difficult to say when and how, under what circumstances. You see why I can remember Dean Farisani is because I knew him before, he was a top clergy in Venda and I did not know the others, but I wanted make sure that he was at home. So from time to time I went to see whether he was okay.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Ms Mtanga, what are your instruction. Are your instructions that he was present at any given time when the suspects were interrogated?

MS MTANGA: My instructions are Mr Chairperson, that Mr Ramushwana's office was right next door from the interrogation room and what I want to observe from him is, if he kept going into the room, and he had said, he had given evidence to the effect that he would respond or he would intervene when he heard the screams. He was only one room away from the interrogation room. So what I would want to put to him is how many times did he hear those screams and how many times did he intervene.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Oh, several times.

MS MTANGA: Did you intervene in any of the interrogation of the victims that we are dealing with here?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Like I said, in most cases when I went there and I wanted to find out who was screaming what is going on here, nobody would answer, even the victim would not tell.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Really Mr Ramushwana, did you expect the victims who were at the hands and mercy of your underlings to be in a position to give any reasonable answer to that question?

MR RAMUSHWANA: But I am trying to say exactly what happened.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But did you expect them to be able to say anything in front of the people who you knew had been condoned to use unconventional methods of extracting information?

MR RAMUSHWANA: But Mr Chair, I think I am trying to answer the question as it comes to me. I am not trying to add feelings. I am trying to answer as ...(indistinct). Whether I intervened and I am saying 'Yes' I would go there and say "What is going on here?" and then nobody would answer. And I think I have answered the question. But now if it comes down to the feelings or my expectations whether I expected the victim to say yes or no, I don't know whether I will be answering the question.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I just ask a direct question? When you ask that kind of a question, what kind of response were you reasonably expecting from the victims?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Not necessarily the victim alone. Even the interrogators because one interrogator would say "Oh no, this guy he fell down" - something like that, or he is having hallucinations or something like that. But then, I would understand obviously why a victim would not answer. But I don't think whether that is what she wanted me to answer.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You simply asked the question for the sake of asking the question. You never expected anything tangible to come out of that question.

MR RAMUSHWANA: You could be right.

MS MTANGA: Mr Ramushwana, you walked into a room filled by your police officers, your subordinates were carrying out a interrogation on these people and there was only one person being interrogated there. Who would have screamed in that situation? Who would have screamed in that situation under those circumstances, why would you ask a question who was screaming, who would have screamed in that situation?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Well, the Commander would have said 'Okay, so and so is screaming' and then I'll say 'Why is he screaming'.

MS MTANGA: In your evidence you gave methods that were used by the police officers in interrogating suspects and you mentioned that they used their hands, used water. Can you indicate and explain to this committee how were their hands used and how was the water used?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Okay, I think this I will have to leave it to the interrogation team, I was not part of the interrogation team.

CHAIRPERSON: I think if you know if any methods were used on these particular detainees, if you could explain those, we don't want to hear your knowledge of the various torture methods that aren't relevant to this particular incident. If you know water was used on one of those persons mentioned in paragraph 15, then you can explain it to us, but I don't think there is any point in us getting a detailed explanation of all the possible forms of torture that there may be in existence.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Mr Chair, thank you, I think, like I said a number of methods were used. Okay, water was poured over a hood, the electric shock from the telephone and then bare hands, or maybe a fist, because if you look at the faces of some people who were swollen, I did not think they could use anything other than the fist or something like that, I don't know, but the interrogation team are in a better position to give you details on that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But you, you were the commander, you must remember Mr Ramushwana, you are giving evidences as the commando of the investigating team and to the extent that you are the commander and to the extent that you condoned some of these methods, we would like to know which methods you condoned.

MR RAMUSHWANA: If I saw them doing it, the problem is I was not there when they did this. If I was there I would tell you exactly okay, I condoned this and this. But now I know there are so many methods like where, like I was saying our men were trained by the South African Security Branch and so forth, some of the methods I don't know. But, that is given to the interrogation team. I personally cannot tell you, but I know some of them like I said okay, a hood and water, electric shock, maybe booted feet, open hands, fists - but then I wouldn't know what methods they used if I came there because someone screamed.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever on the one of the many occasions that you went from your office into the interrogation room, when you heard a scream, did you ever see any electric device attached to the person being interrogated or present in the room that might have led you to believe that this person was now being given the electric shock treatment.

MR RAMUSHWANA: No no no, what normally happens is, if someone screamed and then I would leave my office, they will hear my footsteps and then obviously they will unplug everything and then I ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, but that is not what I am saying, did you see an electric, because these electric shock devices you've got to attach to parts of the body and it's got to be there. It is a physical thing that can be seen. What I am saying is: Did you ever see one there?

MR RAMUSHWANA: No, I think I saw one, not on this case. Not on this case.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Didn't you at any given time make enquiries from your underlings as to the kinds of methods they are using, to obtain or extract information from the suspects as a commanding officer?

MR RAMUSHWANA: The methods that they would tell me of would be really what I said now like the hood, but they wouldn't tell me about the shock thing and the like and then they will also tell me about you know, getting someone to stand on his head, you know, those things and maybe try and suffocate someone with a bag or a hood. You know, those things.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Now why would they not tell you about the electric shocks.

MR RAMUSHWANA: I think they know I would not allow that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So it wasn't part of something that you would have condoned.

MR RAMUSHWANA: If I had seen it I would obviously ...

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes ...

MR RAMUSHWANA: ...I would not have condoned it,

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, thank you.

MS MTANGA: Mr Ramushwana, were you ever compelled to intervene in the interrogation of those victims because you felt it was excessive?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I don't know I can't remember now, but I think somewhere I would say enough is enough, leave this man alone, something like that, something like that.

MS MTANGA: The victims Mr Ramushwana will put it to you that the confessions made by Mr Posiwa and Mr Poswana were unlawfully obtained from them, because they were tortured and were not the truth, but were the version put to them by the police. Would you dispute this in anyway?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I wouldn't dispute that.

MS MTANGA: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: That is why you are applying for amnesty.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Meyer, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MEYER. Just a few questions Mr Chairman.

General, you were asked by my colleague Mr van Rensburg about bounds that you spoke about. Am I correct in assuming that there were no sharply defined bounds, for instance that you would tell you subordinates you may only kick the detainees three times a day or something to that effect.

MR RAMUSHWANA: True.

MR MEYER: So when you talk about bounds it is not about a sharply defined boundary that you placed on the interrogators.

MR RAMUSHWANA: It is true.

MR MEYER: From the people that are listed in paragraph 15, do I understand you correctly that only one of them that you knew personally was number seven there Mr Ravele.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MR MEYER: The others you just knew about. Is that correct?

MR RAMUSHWANA: I also knew like I said Dean Farisani.

MR MEYER: What was his position in the Lutheran Church?

MR RAMUSHWANA: He was a dean there.

MR MEYER: Does that mean he was the head of the Lutheran Church in Venda.

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes.

MR MEYER: The people you were trying to bring or get before court eventually, were you only looking for the people who were physically involved in the physical attack of the police station as such, in other words, people who fired shots and fired rockets and those sort of things or were you also looking for people who was involved to the extent that they aided and abetted maybe the actual perpetrators?

MR RAMUSHWANA: We were looking for all, perpetrators, those who assisted them, those who conveyed them, those who harboured them, all that.

MR MEYER: Just regard to your, to the written statements which you made, is it correct that they were signed on the 7th of January 1998?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes Mr Chair.

MR MEYER: Is it correct also that since that date which is more than a year ago you've had a number of further consultations with your legal representatives and also discussed this matter with your colleagues and made sure that details came to light?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Yes Mr Chair.

MR MEYER: Of the people who were arrested you've already testified that you only came aboard, if I can call it that, later than the actual investigation started. Can you remember how many of the people that were arrested, were already arrested before you became the head of the investigation?

MR RAMUSHWANA: That I can't remember really.

MR MEYER: You cannot tell us which exactly of the detainees had been arrested before you started heading the investigation?

MR RAMUSHWANA: Difficult to say really.

MR MEYER: Okay.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Is there any evidence that he was part of the investigation prior to him assuming command?

MR MEYER: No, there's no, there's no such evidence. I have nothing further, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you have any questions Judge Khampepe? Advocate Bosman? Thank you General, that concludes your testimony. You may stand down. Mr Meyer?

WITNESS EXCUSED

______________________________________________________

MR MEYER: Mr Chairman my, the next applicant is Director Ramaligela.

CHAIRPERSON: I call a person who's name is on the list here as number four. Mr Ramaligela do you have any objection to taking the oath.

MR MEYER: If I can just interrupt Mr Chairman, Mr Ramaligela would like to make use of the interpreter.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. Would you put on the device? Mr Ramaligela do you have any, do you have any objection to taking the oath?

MR RAMALIGELA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Meyer?

EXAMINATION BY MR MEYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Director Ramaligela would you just state for the record your current occupation and where do you reside.

MR RAMALIGELA: I am currently working in the Provincial, as a Provincial Inspector. I am residing at Darwana, meanwhile I am based in Pietersburg.

MR MEYER: Are you a member of the South African Police services this stage.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

MR MEYER: Now, Director is it correct that during 1981 you were a member of the Venda National Force?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

MR MEYER: And which branch of the Venda National Force were you with?

MR RAMALIGELA: Security Branch.

MR MEYER: You mean to say the Security Branch of the police department.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

MR MEYER: Is it correct that you were involved in the investigation of the Sibasa police station that took place in October 1981?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

MR MEYER: What was your rank at that stage?

MR RAMALIGELA: I was a Captain.

MR MEYER: Now we already have evidence on record that the police station was attacked on the 26th of October 1981, who originally was in charge of the investigation of that attack?

MR RAMALIGELA: It was Captain Sifuwa who was in charge, I was also personally in charge.

MR MEYER: Is it correct that Warrant Officer Managa and Constable Nesamari was also involved?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

MR MEYER: You say that both you and the captain you referred to were in charge. Just explain to us what you mean by that.

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, all that I want to say is that I just want to present the Chairperson with this information that the late Sifuwa was the one who was quite responsible and I was working under him.

MR MEYER: Was it correct that you were responsible for the arrests of the detainees which are listed also in your statement in paragraph 15, page 62 of the bundle.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

MR MEYER: Were you involved in the investigation of the attack from the beginning?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

MR MEYER: Now, it is common cause really that most of the people listed in paragraph 15 were members or employees of the Lutheran Church except for the last two. How, why were these people arrested and detained?

MR RAMALIGELA: As we were busy investigating we discovered that there was quite a good evidence that these people were responsible in helping in moving or transporting these people who bombed the police station. And also to take them, convey them to their next destination.

MR MEYER: What information did you have regarding the people listed in 15.6 and 15.7, Mamela and Ravele?

MR RAMALIGELA: 15.6 we discovered that Mr Mamela was one, he was a prosecutor and on the same day that we heard that it was discovered that he went there and he went there to investigate just to see as to how many people were in the police station, the policemen.

MR MEYER: And with regard to Ravele?

MR RAMALIGELA: Mr Ravele started off by saying he personally presented himself to the late Sifuwa and gave him the detonator of a hand grenade and said that he found it from the mountain, from the people who helped him.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I interpose Mr Meyer? Are you saying that you knew about Mr Ravele’s alleged involvement prior to him being detained by you? Or this is information which came to light after his arrest and detention?

MR RAMALIGELA: That was before the arrest that we didn't know anything about him. It was he himself personally who came to us as somebody who was presenting information to us.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You say he volunteered this information to the police?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Without having been arrested at all.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: When was this?

MR RAMALIGELA: That was after the bombing of the police station. As matters were still just like that we heard that on the other side where Ravele stayed there was a gun explosion. I personally together with Mr Managa went to this man's place. On arrival we found him and took him from his home towards the office just to prove that he was personally volunteering to work with us. On questioning him and looking at him we suspected that he could have been the one who was responsible but he denied that he did, we could realise that he had a scar or a mark, a burning mark on the arm. That was when we wanted to ask further more. It came to my realisation that it was him who knew exactly where the gun exploded and the mark was a direct evidence of the gun.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: How did it come to your realisation that he was the one that was involved? Is that what he volunteered to you? Is that what you mean when you say he volunteered this information when he had been taken from his home to the police station and was being questioned by you?

MR RAMALIGELA: It was immediately after we had taken him to the police station and we knew that he was ready to help us and he could tell us, lead us into the evidence and we didn't want to interrogate him from his home, because everybody will be able to see that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: How did you know that he was ready to help you?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well I can't recall vividly because he just showed that he was ready as Mr Mmbengeni he only brought the detonator and he showed that he had that willingness to commit himself to bring that detonator to us. As such that we could just conclude that he was ready to help us.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You may proceed Mr Meyer.

MR RAMALIGELA: Immediately after that we realised that he was now, he wasn't ready to co-operate with us and I personally...

MR MEYER: If I can interrupt you Director. I don't think it is necessary to give us the whole background of Mr Ravele’s arrest. Let's go back to the people of the church. What was you information regarding the political affiliation or sympathy of these people?

MR RAMALIGELA: With regard to the church people I didn't personally know where they were politically affiliated, however, as I checked from the Security Branch I realised that there were files on what we were doing, but I did not know them personally except Mr Mahamba whom I stayed with at ...(indistinct). The arrest while I couldn't personally say exactly I only read from the office because I went in 1979 there the Security Branch and I was able to discover that they were involved, especially Dean Farisani's file Posiwa. I couldn't see much from Posiwa’s file. Or I couldn't see a file from Posiwa’s side. From then as we were investigating we discovered that there were some two people who went to Mr Posiwa’s place who wanted some kind of help with regard to transport to the bombing of the police station. Mr Posiwa then took them to Mr Mahamba at Kwendo area, from there they arranged to have a meeting and a van was provided to convey these people to the police station and it was also arranged furthermore that Mr Chikororo would be able to help with his kombi. And as we discovered we realised that it was actually very true that Mr Chikororo's kombi was responsible and also Mr Ravele was responsible in helping, so was the case with Mr Poswana, he was involved with arrangement. As regard to Mr Dean Farisani it is true that I saw Dean Farisani at Louis Trichardt on the day that the incident took place. We even greeted each other and we exchanged words to the effect that he said he was going to Johannesburg. However as we were investigating or interrogating, these people confirmed that Dean Farisani knew about it, although on the day of the bombing of the police station he wasn't around. He knew something about it, about the arrangement of the helping the freedom fighters. It was then, in fact I can say that these people were arrested on different occasions. What I can say just to add on that adding to the list from 15.1 Mr Mahamba was arrested and sent to Tzanani, I can't recall the dates exactly as to when was a particular person arrested. Mr Mahamba was never charged as we know that he is a cripple. As regards to 15.2 Phineas Mboleni Posiwa I personally assaulted him very much.

MR MEYER: Before we get to that, were you involved personally in the arrests of all these seven people, or only some of them?

MR RAMALIGELA: It's only 15.5 and 15.6 that I wasn't responsible in the arrest. However, the rest I was.

MR MEYER: Now after they had been arrested what happened to them?

MR RAMALIGELA: We interrogated them there and then.

MR MEYER: What was the aim of you interrogation?

MR RAMALIGELA: We wanted to ascertain much information on what exactly happened so that we should charge them and they must be sent to court in regard to what they did.

MR MEYER: Did you want to extract confessions from them?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes. We wanted them to confess so that they could be sent to the magistrate, so that there should be a written of oath, there should be a confession rather. The two did write the confession in statement, namely Mr Posiwa and Mr Poswana.

MR MEYER: Alright, we'll get to that in a while. Now with regard to the interrogations, were you personally involved with the interrogations of all the detainees?

MR RAMALIGELA: I wasn't actually involved in all of them. I was involved in as far as Mr Mahamba, Posiwa, Poswana and Mr...(indistinct) and Ravele ...(indistinct).

MR MEYER: Could you just mention those, you said you were involved with Mahamba, Posiwa ...

MR RAMALIGELA: 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4 and 15.7.

MR MEYER: Now during the interrogations you used methods which are, to call it unconventional might be a bit of an understatement, what took place during these interrogations and what did you do that you are asking amnesty for?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Meyer, maybe to make it easier for your client shouldn't you just request him to relate what kind of assault he committed in respect of those he is admitting to have assaulted? Probably would be much easier, then he can give a description of what he did to that particular person.

MR MEYER: I'll do so Mr Chairman. Alright, Director let's start with Mr Mahamba, number 15.1. Can you explain to the panel what methods you used. Did you torture him, did you assault him etc?

MR RAMALIGELA: With regard to 15.1, Mr Mahamba, there was no particular method that we use in regard to torture. We only talked to him about, you normally say to us this ...(indistinct) and all those things, we do agree.

With regard to 15.2, Mr Posiwa, I used one particular method of him standing for quite a long time without sitting down. I assaulted him, I hit him, using the open hand. I used my fist on his stomach.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Used you fist where?

CHAIRPERSON: Stomach.

MR RAMALIGELA: On stomach, yes.

MR MEYER: You mention in you application that you made him do frog-jumps. Can you explain to the panel what that means?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes. From there I also used the bag full of water and put it on his head. On that bag I....

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: He's not answering your question. You must listen to what your counsel is saying. What do you mean when you say you made him to frog-jump? That's what he wants you to explain to us.

MR RAMALIGELA: With regard to frog-jump, you know one would squat down with hands above, jumping forward and leaping forward. Do you want me to demonstrate perhaps?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes.

MR RAMALIGELA: This is how I did. This is how they would do it for quite a long time.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Now when you say for quite a long time can you give an approximation of how many minutes it took for you to order him to do that? I mean how long he had to do those frog-jumps?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well I can't really tell you exactly how many minutes, because I wasn't actually looking at the watch, but I could see that it was quite a long time, which could not be less that five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Just for the record, the witness demonstrated a frog-jump by getting down in a squatting position with both his hands above his head and then keeping the legs bent jumping up and down on the same spot keeping both hands extended above his head.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes for the record, thank you.

MR MEYER: You were busy also testifying about water and the hood that you placed over his head and so on.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes. Well I put water, you know put the bag on him and put some water on him.

MR MEYER: Just explain to the panel, what was the aim of putting the hood over his face? What was it made of, and how exactly did you go about using that as a method.

MR RAMALIGELA: That bag, I will normally put that bag in water and just hold on the neck, just to suffocate them, so that they will come to the truth.

MR MEYER: Am I correct, do I understand you correctly then, that when you put this hood over the person's head that he is unable to breath?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes. It was difficult to breath. One will suffocate.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Are you saying that you put the bag over one's face and you then put the hood, or you mean a hood?

MR MEYER: Yes. It is not a bag first and then a hood. It's referred to as a hood, but it is in a form of a bag.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Is it what is commonly known among the Security Branch circles as a white-bag method? Is it similar?

MR MEYER: I didn't catch that word, excuse me.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: The white-bag method.

MR MEYER: I'm uncertain. I don't know the term myself.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: If Mr Ramaligela you could just explain to us how this bag method was used. Would you put water - would you submerge it in the water first before putting over somebody's face?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well normally that was the situation. One will put water after putting on the head, or alternatively, the other way round. However, in this particular case, I put it on his head and put water on top.

CHAIRPERSON: This is a material bag, made out of material, or is it plastic or leather?

MR RAMALIGELA: It is just made out of cotton. It is just an ordinary cotton - made out of cotton.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Meyer?

MR MEYER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR RAMALIGELA: Furthermore, the very same Mr Posiwa, I used an electricity shock, which shocked him on his ears and then I made winding, sort of like winding it. Well, he then requested that I should really leave him because he was going to say the truth.

MR MEYER: I just want you to explain in a bit more detail about how this shock treatment was done. Were the electrodes attached to which parts of his body were they attached and how exactly then did you then apply the electricity to his body?

MR RAMALIGELA: It was attached to the ears and is just like a pegs form, two pegs, which are attached to the ears, and then I will really wind.

CHAIRPERSON: When you were doing this were the other members of the investigation team present, some or all of them? Or were you alone, one on one, just you and Mr Posiwa?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, I was doing that with Mr Managa and Mr Nesamari. There were three.

MR MEYER: Before you continue with any of the other victims, can you remember clearly how often these assaults and torture methods took place and when you applied these methods to which of the victims, or not?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, I can't really recall as to how often. However, with regard to particular people, especially when we are looking for absolute truth, it will also depend on what the person was saying, we will really insist kicking the person, doing all sorts of things.

CHAIRPERSON: I notice, Director if you take a look at page 63 of your documents, paragraph 35 particularly of your application, when you're describing what you did to the various victims. Referring to Mr Posiwa, you say you slapped him with open hands, punched him with fists, he was also kicked, mostly I made him stand up for long periods, and he was also ordered to do frog-jumps', but you make no mention of the electric shock method. Is there any reason for that omission, or can you explain the omission?

MR RAMALIGELA: With regard to ... It is true I wrote it the way it was, but when it comes to electric shock, it just slipped my mind. I just don't want to leave anything, I want to say everything that I did.

ADV BOSMAN: How about the water over the head, that's also not mentioned in 35?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, that is why I am admitting that I didn't say that I could have forgotten that. However, as it happened a long time ago, I just want to say everything in detail as to every person was involved.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you just saying that the admission is just because at the time of making the statement you didn't recall it and you have recalled it subsequently?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes, I recall subsequently.

MR MEYER: Thank you Director. The next person you dealt with then is Mr Mahamba.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Meyer, may I interpose? Are you now sure over having taken some time to think about this incident? You have now recollected and your recollection is much better.....

(Problems with the sound system)

CHAIRPERSON: I think if we could just have a five-minutes adjournment, and I've also had a request from someone to have an adjournment. If they could just take a look at the sound system.

CHAIRPERSON: .... Khampepe when we adjourned was putting something to the witness or asking a question of the witness.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Ramaligela, have I pronounced it properly?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I want to take it that you have had time to recollect the events properly, pertinently with regard to the assault on Mr Posiwa?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: The assault that you omitted in your written application you've now been able to cover when you give your viva voce evidence, shortly before we adjourned, am I correct in assuming so?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: What I want to find out is what would be your response if evidence was to surface through Ms Mtanga, or that you might have used electrodes not only on the earlobes of Mr Posiwa, but also on his private parts, would you dispute that?

MR RAMALIGELA: There in the private parts, I don't agree, what I know that I used them, I used electricity in the ears and in the toes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are saying the ears and the toes?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes, in the toes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: See you had not mentioned the toes before. You only made mention of the earlobes. It is important for us to know the ... (Mr Ramaligela interjects) ... Just wait for me to finish. It is important for us - this is the important aspect of your evidence. It is important for us to know exactly how you assaulted Mr Posiwa for you to be able to satisfy the requirement of full disclosure.

So, you are now saying you also used electrodes on the toes as well but not on his private parts?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did you at any stage put irons on his hands, thereby hand-cuffing him during the application of the bag method?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes. I thought I'm still continuing to explain what I did in Mr Posiwa. I've not yet finished.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Oh, the reason why I was asking this was because I thought you were now proceeding to give an explanation on Mr Poswana. That's what Mr Meyer was about to ask you. That's when I requested for an interposition. If that is so then, I may have made a mistake and I will allow you to proceed to give a full explanation on how you assaulted Mr Posiwa.

MR RAMALIGELA: I thank you. As I continue, this Mr Posiwa, I hand-cuffed him by iron in the hand and in the legs and I insert a broom-stick with two table, others in the front and then we hold it together and then we put him on top of the table.

?: Is that the so-called helicopter method.

MR RAMALIGELA: I'm not sure of the name. It is some of the things that we've used, but I don't know it's name.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: When you say you inserted a broom-stick, where did you insert it?

MR RAMALIGELA: Between the hands and the legs where we have hand cuffed with irons, and then we insert the broom-stick inside.

We then hang him pouring water on his head so that he can tell the truth of what we were searching for. He then said to me he understands, he wants to tell me the truth. Is then that we take him down and take him to Mr Ramushwana to say this man is now prepared to tell the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you at any stage ask him or instruct him to say things that you wanted him to say? In other words to make a statement that is more your statement, or partly your statement rather than his own statement?

MR RAMALIGELA: I don't remember that incident where I asked him to go and tell Mr Ramushwana this or that, but what was investigating was for him to tell what he did, and I didn't advise him to say anything.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Now over a period of how long did this torture as you have now explained continue?

MR RAMALIGELA: It might have took, but normally I didn't check the watch, but his assault should have taken about two-and-a-half hours.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So, was this done in one day, or when you say two-and-a-half hours you are actually adding up all the many minutes in the many days that the assault or torture took place?

MR RAMALIGELA: In Mr Posiwa, we questioned him for about two days. In everyday, in each day there could be two-and-a-half hours.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes you may continue.

MR RAMALIGELA: What he talked with Mr Ramushwana I didn't know. I can only continue with Mr Poswana.

MR MEYER: Before you do that Director, not only with regard to Mr Posiwa, the detainees that were arrested and detained, were they detained in one place all the time or were they moved around?

MR RAMALIGELA: They were normally not put in the same place, but they were not put in a group. One should be arrested and placed in Guyani and the other one placed in Vuyani and in Sibasa, and sometimes we used to take them and come and interrogate them in our office.

MR MEYER: Was there a specific reason why they were moved around?

MR RAMALIGELA: The idea of putting them to different places was to make sure that when we ask another person the other person mustn't relate the same story to make that we didn't get the truth. We tried to find information from a person at Chitali and find information from another person in Vuyani, but look into them they were the same to confirm that they are telling the truth.

MR MEYER: With regard to - you have now spoken about the fact that the detainees were held in different centres. But with regard to each individual detainee, was such a person also kept in one place since the day of his arrest or was he also moved from one place to another?

MR RAMALIGELA: We don't let the person to stay in one place the same time, but we used to take him to other places with the idea that where he is be removed from other place might assist him in his mind to tell the truth because he is being transferred now and again.

MR MEYER: So are you saying that it was also with the idea of, let's call it to disrupt this detainee also with the idea of getting him to co-operate?

MR RAMALIGELA: In looking into that it was a matter of assaulting or torturing.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You are basically saying it was some kind of emotional torture, just moving him around and getting him to be interrogated by different people, is not so?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes, it's true.

MR MEYER: Director you were on the point of moving on to the next detainee who was assaulted by you. Which one of them are you going to testify about?

MR RAMALIGELA: It's 15.3, Mdangani Petrus Poswana.

MR MEYER: In your statement you mentioned that he was assaulted in a similar fashion as Posiwa. Is that correct?

MR RAMALIGELA: It's true. He was arrested by myself and then I assault and detained him, and I have tortured him just like Mr Posiwa.

MR MEYER: Did you use the same methods exactly as you used with Mr Posiwa? Did you maybe not use some of the methods that you used on Mr Posiwa, or did you add anything that you hadn't done to Mr Posiwa, or was it generally the same treatment?

MR RAMALIGELA: In Mr Posiwa, it was different because of time, but the ways I've used were the same. With Mr Poswana, time was longer because he was refusing that he didn't do anything. Then we tortured him now and again, beating him thoroughly.

MR MEYER: And just to make it complete that you also used the shock treatment on him and the hood and the broom-stick methods?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes, broom-stick was also used.

MR MEYER: Did you use electric shock treatment on him.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

MR MEYER: Did you use the method where you put the hood over his head and where you put water over him?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

MR MEYER: With regard to Reverend or Dean Farisani, what methods of interrogation did you use as far as he is concerned?

MR RAMALIGELA: In Mr Farisani, we started by, we started as Masisi. We arrested him. I went there with Mr Managa, and we interrogated him and he said he knows nothing. We started to hit him by fist. Then in the office where we were interrogating him, there was a hood and then I push him in his chest and then he got knocked with the wall and then I hit him at the back. From there we kept on beating him. He fell down, we kicked him and we found that it's better to take him and then we ask, we'll take him next to us so that we can interrogate him, and then we take him to my office.

On our arrival, the next day, we call him to interrogate him. Dean refused that of course he knew nothing, but of course I saw him in Louis Trichardt and then we exchanged words there. As we continue there, I realised that it's better to intimidate him, because there was a boiling kettle, we pour water and then it was red boiling and then I said I want to pour water through is anus. And then he said, "No don't do that, I will tell you the truth." Then he continued to deny, and then I shocked him with electricity, winding all over his body. But where I can ask something I'm now telling the honest truth. There is no incident in which we took electricity shock to the private parts.

Torturing of Dean was different from the others because we intimidate him by the boiling kettle and hitting him by the stick. The rest which I mentioned to Posiwa and Poswana also happened to Dean.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry before you proceed Mr Meyer, just to get back with Mr Poswana you said with Mr Posiwa there were just the three of you present when he was tortured. With Mr Poswana who was present besides yourself if anybody. With Mr Poswana and once you have told that, then if you could say who was present with the Dean Farisani when he was tortured.

MR RAMALIGELA: I was with Mr Managa and Mr Nesamari. CHAIRPERSON: Was that with Mr Poswana when you were torturing?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes, I was still with those two men I have mentioned, Mr Managa and Mr Nesamari.

CHAIRPERSON: And with the Dean Farisani?

MR RAMALIGELA: They were present. Apart from at Masisi, Mr Nesamari was not there.

MR MEYER: Just to take you back, sorry to interrupt your thought, you said with regard to Mr Posiwa the questioning or you questioned him for about two days. Is that correct?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes, with regard to Mr Posiwa it took about two days, with regard to Posiwa it was a similar period of time because there was no agreement.

MR MEYER: Are you referring to Poswana that was also two days.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes, the same happened to Posiwa and Poswana, it was two days each.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Didn't you say in your evidence before that you tortured Poswana much longer because you couldn't extract the information.

MR RAMALIGELA: What I said that with regard to Mr Poswana there was a similar time because there was no, not much information that was extracted.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Meaning therefor that you tortured him for longer than two days? I mean, more than two and a half hours a day.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But you still tortured him within two days.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

MR MEYER: Can you tell us how long in the case of Mr Poswana, how long per day did you use, approximately if you can remember.

MR RAMALIGELA: Well I can't recall as to how long from the morning up to what time, but I can remember that it was two days and as we were torturing Mr Poswana there was quite a bit of a lengthy period of time.

MR MEYER: And with regard to Dean Farisani? Can you tell us if you can remember how long his interrogation took?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, approximately when we were at Masisi we started around after lunch up to around four o'clock or five o'clock and then subsequently approximately three hours. Then we went straight away in the evening to an area which is quite close to us and I think with regard to time it was a very long period of time. I can't tell exactly how different it was with regard to, in comparison to Poswana’s time.

MR MEYER: With regard to Dean Farisani, was it also over a period of more that one day that he was interrogated, or did it all happen on one day?

MR RAMALIGELA: With regard to Dean Farisani it was three days because we started at Masisi, then we went straight away to our offices in Sibasa and then back to the cell and then we took him again on the following day. It was three days with regard to Mr Farisani.

MR MEYER: Still with Dean Farisani, there was evidence led before the, a different committee, the Gross Human Rights Violations Committee, that he was made to stand on his head. Do you remember anything of that sort?

MR RAMALIGELA: Oh yes, I can recall that. We made him to stand on his head when were at Masisi, again we asked him to do the frog-jumping, but this is exactly what I instructed him to do.

MR MEYER: Did you use electric shock treatment on him?

MR RAMALIGELA: Oh yes.

MR MEYER: And the method of the water and the hood over his head?

MR RAMALIGELA: That method too.

MR MEYER: And the method where you put the broom-sticks through the cuff's, did you use that on Dean Farisani?

MR RAMALIGELA: Only once and the stick just got broken and we couldn't continue with this kind of method.

MR MEYER: Then if we can move on to the next point....

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Meyer just before you move on, do you know whether Dean Farisani was taken for medical treatment?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well I heard about that. The fact that he was taken ...(indistinct) hospital.

CHAIRPERSON: And did General Ramushwana speak to you at all in regard to Dean Farisani, to say 'lay off him' or 'hold back on him, don't hurt him'?

MR RAMALIGELA: He said that after he had already been taken to the hospital, we were told that no we should not continue with the deed.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Flowing from that, during your interrogation of Mr Farisani, did you make Mr Ramushwana aware of the methods you were applying, during your interrogation?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, we could not communicate that to him, because it was our own discretion.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You did not discuss the methods you were using on any of the suspects with your superiors.

MR RAMALIGELA: I can't recall telling him exactly as to how we were dealing with the suspects. However what I knew is that he wouldn't agree to that kind of methodology.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You say he would have agreed had he know.

MR RAMALIGELA: I can't tell exactly if he will agree but I think with regard to our etiquette if one is doing such a false or wrong etiquette, one wouldn't really consult a senior.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask, while you were torturing any of these three victims, did the General enter the office where you were doing the torturing at all?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, he will frequently come around as we're interrogating.

ADV BOSMAN: Can you remember what he saw? Can you remember what you were doing at the times when he was present?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, the office, there were windows and we would be able to see that he was coming and then we could just suspend what we were doing.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, you may continue.

MR MEYER: Thank you. If we can move then on to Mr Ravele. You also said in your statement that he was assaulted in the same manner as Mr Posiwa. Can you expand on that, what methods did you use on him?

MR RAMALIGELA: With regard to Mr Ravele, there was no difference up to the time when we went to his place. With regard to the matters, we use the same ideology of threatening just to hit him we're using our bare hands and fist, and we also hanged him using some kind irons and broom-stick. With regard to electrifying shock we couldn't use in Mr Ravele’s case because he confessed immediately and he took us to the place where there was an AK47. We were able to dig it up.

MR MEYER: Did you in fact find an AK47?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes, he was able and there were bullets as well and also magazines for missiles.

MR MEYER: Where did you find that?

MR RAMALIGELA: Right in his own house, it was still a new house. He was able to dig and then extract those things.

MR MEYER: Can you remember in the case of Mr Ravele you said that he co-operated immediately. How long were you busy with him before he gave his co-operation? Can you remember if, if you can't remember just say so.

MR RAMALIGELA: What I can recall that he said to us, after we had beaten him, but he said he didn't want to be tortured continuously, it is better for him to be taken to the place where there were, this other ammunition or gun. Then I arranged with the mobile police, and we went to the mountain. We found some 'doppies' of the hand grenade, while he did say that no, these things were no longer there, they could have been taken. From there we took him back and just charge him from the charge, the court. That was on the basis of him being found in possession of those AK47's just to help the freedom fighters.

MR MEYER: Okay, let's move on then to Mr Chikororo. You said in your statement that you never assaulted him. Is that in fact so?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well it is true I didn't really charged Mr Mamela and Mr Chikororo.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I find out if you never charged Mr Chikororo and Mr Mamela, why you even mentioned them in your application? Why was there need for you to say something about them?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, let me say with regard to Dean Farisani, Mr Mamela, Mr Chikororo and Mr Poswana. They were not charged. I am quite sure that Mr Ramushwana did explain that these people had already been beaten and we could see taking them to court, it was going to really disappoint us. But I don't think really, I think I might have forgotten that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You may proceed Mr Meyer.

MR MEYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. When after the police station had been bombed, the people you were trying to find, to arrest, were they only the people who were directly involved in the attack, in other words, the people who shot the firearms and shot rockets etc. or were you also trying to find anyone who was involved?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well we were looking for people who helped the in bombers and those who bombed. We were looking for both those kind of categories.

MR MEYER: What was your instructions from your seniors with regard to the solving, if I can call it that, of this attack on the police station.

MR RAMALIGELA: The instruction came, well I didn't really have a direct access to the President, that it came directly from Mr Ramushwana that you know people wanted these people to be brought to books. The old man referring to the late President Mr Mpepu.

MR MEYER: You said in your statement in paragraph 42 you mentioned that, 'I can safely say that no person was ever seriously assaulted, no person ever had serious wounds inflicted or even medical treatment.' Could you just explain to us why you made such an allegation in that statement?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well these information that is in my statement, well I couldn't say much on the people who were taken to the hospital or who had, however today after I have submitted a statement I realised that I lied, it is better for me today before this committee just to say exactly what I did on these people.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Why did you have to say that in your application form knowing that you are applying for amnesty and the primary condition for satisfying the amnesty, the granting of amnesty is that you must tell the truth. Why did you think that you have not seriously assaulted the people when you knew then, that you had assaulted them in the manner that you have described to this committee, which cannot be described as just serious, I mean minor injuries that was sustained by the victims which were under your hands.

MR RAMALIGELA: Chairperson, I think on my own I just want to again apologise for having omitted the few things in my statement. However what I want to say now even if it is not written in the statement is exactly how I did it, and that is why I am apologising and I am sorry for not having mentioned it.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I know. I want to know why, why did you do that knowing that telling the truth of your participation in these assaults were important. Why did you do that?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, I didn't do it deliberately. I just forgot about it and also, you know it happened a long time ago. However it came subsequently as I was thinking that I had to mention everything.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I don't know whether you understand my question. My question is why should you ascribe the assaults that you committed on the victims as being minor when you yourself must have know that these were serious assaults?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, somehow you know, maybe it is also because personally these people were really frightened of us and they couldn't really tell us exactly where they were hurt.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Didn't you see blood flowing from some of the victims during the assault on them by amongst others yourself? In the case of Mr Farisani was he not hurt to an extent that he had to be taken to hospital, wasn't that information within your knowledge at the time when you completed this application form?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, I at the time when I was filling in my application form I had forgotten, but now it came to my mind again when I was filling in this form, no there was not much I didn't have a representative who was guiding me as to how serious the case was. Up to the time when I got this representative who is currently here who explained to us that now this is how things work. Well, I am just an ordinary person who was not quite aware as to how many, how things are done.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: The statement that appears on page 64, paragraph 42, where you say 'I can safely say that no person was ever seriously assaulted, no person ever had serious wounds inflicted or even needed medical treatment. Wasn't that statement told to the attorney who subsequently prepared this document?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, some of these things were taken before the legal representative. This application was done before our knowledge of the legal representative.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Was this not prepared by a lawyer? What I am reading to you, was this not prepared by a lawyer?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, after we had written these things before we got somebody to guide us and our legal representative wrote these things, anyway it is true that he is the one who wrote these things.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, you were therefor legally assisted. Is it not so? That is why the state is paying for your legal representation so that you can be able to comply with the requirements of the act. You went on if you check, paragraph 49, you say 'I respectfully submit that none of the assaults were at all serious.' Now you are not speculating here, you are saying this as a fact as something that you know, that you remembered quite well. As mentioned before you proceed in paragraph 44, 'there was never any blood, serious injuries or necessity to receive medical treatment. I respectfully submit that there was no gross violation of human right'. Did you not say this? Are you saying your attorney put something that you never instructed him to put in your application form? This is a supplementary affidavit that was prepared by your attorney, Mr Ramaligela. You can't say that you were not legally advised. By this time when you completed this supplementary affidavit when you deposed to the supplementary affidavit, you had the benefit of a lawyer.

MR RAMALIGELA: It is true, there was legal help. I admit that some of the things that I mentioned here were not enough that is why I am able to commit myself and also to correct what is written here, that it is not actually true, I am just trying to add on what happened subsequently as I did explain today.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Why did you not say that people received medical attention if something that was within you at the time when you consulted with your lawyer?

MR RAMALIGELA: Let's say that Chairperson, well it could have just come to my attention at the time, however what I am explaining today is exactly what I did.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You are not responding to my question. At the time when you completed this application form, at the time when you deposed to this documentary affidavit, you must have been told that the condition of being granted amnesty is full disclosure.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes, I was told about that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You had a time to reflect on what you had completed when you previously completed your written application form, which appears on the previous pages. Am I correct in assuming that? You completed this on the 9th of November 1996. Subsequently, your attorney's caused a supplementary affidavit, a supplementary affidavit to be completed, on your behalf. As a result let me remind you, as a result of enquiries that came from our office they requested for further particulars.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Now why did you then lie and say there was never any blood, nor serious injuries that necessitated medical treatment when you must have know then that people who were tortured by you did suffer serious injuries, that people who were tortured by you, ultimately had to go for medical treatment?

MR RAMALIGELA: I admit that I didn't write these things and also my attorney told us that we should speak the truth. As a person I do realise that it is wrong, I shouldn't have said the way I said it and I do understand, Chairperson, that what I am explaining now is, with regard to the statement I did a serious omission, did make a serious omission.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: In your having to lie to your lawyer.

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, perhaps I don't understand exactly what you, I am not saying I did lie, maybe it was just a serious omission somehow.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You may proceed Mr Meyer.

MR MEYER: Is it correct Mr Ramaligela that after you had deposed to this affidavit, signed in December 1997, if I am correct, did you have further consultations with your legal representative and your co-applicants?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes I do consult with the person who is next to me. In the first incidence I was consulting the person next to him. In their document I explained that this principle I mentioned I explained to them why I assaulted them and how I tortured them. On Friday I was with them, explained to them that there is something which we have omitted and I will explain that to the commission, and I explained to them which things were that and then is this that I am explaining here in front of this Commission.

MR MEYER: Would you tell us what was your objective when you committed these assaults and tortures on the detainees.

MR RAMALIGELA: My idea to assault these people was only to find the truth as to whether they involved themselves in the bombing of the police station.

MR MEYER: Do you know what happened to the detainees later on after, or can you tell us which one of them were charged criminally and what was the outcome of those proceedings?

MR RAMALIGELA: Some of them, except Reverend Posiwa -there are cases where we have drawn Posiwa went to court and he was found guilty by the court. Then further on Reverend Posiwa and Reverend Poswana and Dean Farisani and others who are appearing in 15.1 to 15.7, also make a civil charge against the government that they were assaulted and then we didn't appear before the court to give evidence, but we issued statements to say we know nothing about that, which is something which I feel I must also apply for amnesty for that, because I submitted a statement which is saying that I know nothing, but now I'm telling the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: So is that civil litigation concluded, is it finished? Do you know? Do you know what happened with it - that case that the victims sued the government for damages?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes, it was completed, and in our ...(indistinct) as a government we didn't go to court. It was settled outside the court.

MR MEYER: The statement you were referring to, is that the one appearing at page 102 of the bundle?

MR RAMALIGELA: This is the statement I'm referring to.

MR MEYER: And more specifically the part, the paragraph just above your signature or the one above that, the second last paragraph, 'Posiwa was not at any stage during his interrogation assaulted or ill-treated by anyone of us.'

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

MR MEYER: What was the reason that you made the false statement?

MR RAMALIGELA: The idea was that we will go to court and refuse that we assaulted them while we were interrogating them, and doing civil claim.

MR MEYER: So do I understand you correctly, you wanted to defeat the civil claim at this stage already saying that they were not tortured or assaulted or ill-treated.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

MR MEYER: Now Director if you, you have now testified before the panel on the acts that you committed and it's clear that you seriously assaulted the detainees, some of them, you tortured them. How do you feel about what you did as you sit here today?

MR RAMALIGELA: From my heart, myself, as I'm now telling the truth, I am feeling that I have tortured other people severely, to such an extent that to all that I've mentioned and their families, I'm requesting that they let them forgive me. There was nothing that I was doing because I was intending to gain personally, but it was because of the deeds of the Government of the day.

Coming to Dr Farisani, I'm quite sure that truly he will forgive me, because I still remember that last week Tuesday he requested me to stand up while we were burying my brother that to tell in the public that I was being used by the previous government. Today, as he was speaking today, he said, 'we will be forgiving each other in Tzaneen on the 4th and 5th.'

MR MEYER: Is there anything else you would like to say to the victims of the tortures and assaults?

MR RAMALIGELA: There is nothing which I could say.

MR MEYER: Nothing further at this stage. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Meyer. Mr van Rensburg are there any questions you would like to ask this applicant?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have no questions to this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van Rensburg. Ms Mtanga, are there any questions you would like to ask this application?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MTANGA: Yes, Chairperson. Thank you. Mr Ramaligela, I would like to ask a question regarding your torture of Mr Poswana, Reverend Poswana. Reverend Poswana has indicated that if a person walked into the interrogation room when you were interrogating him and torturing him, they would have found blood on his body and blood on the floor and hair on the floor. Where would that hair have come from?

MR RAMALIGELA: I cannot understand your question properly. You said one person entered my room in which we were interrogating people, blood and hairs were found on the floor or this he came and found them in the office. I can't understand your question clearly.

MS MTANGA: If a person walked in while you were interrogating Mr Poswana, the person would have found his blood, his hair on the floor, so I'm asking where would that hair have come from, because you haven't indicated here that you did anything to his hair?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well I can't recall exactly what was discovered, but anyway we used to beat them in that room. It is quite possible that the blood could have been evident.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what he is getting at here, is it going to be put, Ms Mtanga, that Reverend Poswana had hair removed, bodily hair, either shaved or taken out of his body and it was lying on the ground, not just one little piece of hair, but a substantial amount of hair. Do you know anything about that? Was hair taken off his body either by shaving or pulling it or cutting it, do you know anything about the removal of hair from the body of Reverend Poswana during the course of the torturing?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes. Pardon me for that, yes we did pull his hair and we were just throwing them down. It is true.

MS MTANGA: Where did you pull the hair from?

MR RAMALIGELA: From the head. The top of his head or on the head.

MS MTANGA: Mr Ramaligela, did you only pull the hair from his head only?

MR RAMALIGELA: (Replied in Venda - no translation)

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: How was this hair pull out of his head? Can you explain?

MR RAMALIGELA: He had long hair and we were just pulling and the beards were very long, and we just pulled, and struck, pushed him down.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: What did you use? Did you your hand?

MR RAMALIGELA: We would use our hands.

MS MTANGA: Would you agree that the same method of pulling hair was used on Mr Posiwa, and it has left a scar on his head?

MR RAMALIGELA: I can't deny that, because I can't recall everything. We would use anything, any object that was quite closer to us just to torture them.

MS MTANGA: You have also testified that Mr Poswana was interrogated and tortured for two days and on each day it was a maximum of two-and-a-half hours torture.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he said it was longer than two-and-a-half. Posiwa was two-and-a-half and he said that the torturing of Reverend Farisani was longer than two-and-a-half, but also over two days, but longer sessions. He said he can't remember the exact length but it was longer.

MS MTANGA: Your description of 'longer' for Mr Poswana’s torture, could it have been the whole day and partly the evening because that's his evidence he is going to be put to you?

MR RAMALIGELA: We started in the morning and we had a break in the middle and then we went on after lunch, but I don't think it went up to four o'clock in the evening, I can't tell you exactly how many hours, because we were not making use of the watch then. I'm just speculating.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you in a position to dispute what Reverend Poswana might say about the duration of the torture he received?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well I don't want to dispute that. What I do agree that he may say a different version, this is just what I did exactly on him.

MS MTANGA: Mr Ramaligela, in your evidence regarding the applying of electrical shocks on the victims' bodies, you have denied that you used the shocks on their private parts. Do you still maintain this?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, on private parts I didn't use anything in that regard, but we could use that on other side of the body. With regard to private parts, that is quite respectful. Even though we knew that is quite a torture we respected that.

MS MTANGA: You respected their private parts?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

MS MTANGA: Do you deny that when you were torturing Dr Farisani you may him lie on his back with his hands up and legs up and you kicked him on his private parts, do you deny that?

MR RAMALIGELA: With regard to Dean Farisani, yes, I kicked him on his ribs. Not on the private parts, I can't recall. Personally I am saying exactly what I did on my own.

CHAIRPERSON: But it is being put to you now that Dean Farisani was made to lie on his back with his hands in the air and he was kicked in his private parts. That is being put to you. That is the instructions that Ms Mtanga has received from Dean Farisani who she is representing as a victim. Now what she is saying is, are her instructions correct? Do you deny that? Do you say "Well, I can't remember, I may have done that" or do you agree and say "yes I did do that"?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, I do remember, but I can't remember exactly that I went further towards to the private part. Yes I remember I did kick him, but I don't think really I remember very well.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You have previously remembered that you kicked him on his back. Is it possible that you could have kicked him somewhere else other than his back, like his private parts?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, that is possible. It could have happened.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: How is it possible that you are able to recall certain things and are unable to recall others?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, as it happened, as I said it happened a long time ago and in those days when one was working under pressure one couldn't just really remember everything because there was pressure behind us. We were really asked as to what we were doing. I can't really locate this and say this is how happened chronologically as somebody who is relaxed.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: This was an important incident at the time, is it not so? The bomb being at Sibasa police station, it was one of the very first incident of violence as it were in this region. Is it not?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So much so that there was pressure as usual alleged in your papers, to put to bear on you to leave no stone unturned in your investigation?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And you recall exactly what you did to certain people in order to try and extract the information that was necessary for you to proceed with the charges that you wanted to prefer against them. In order to impress the authorities that you were effective. Is it not so?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Therefor it would be something that one would expect you to remember if you hit somebody in his private parts, unless it is something that you would do ordinarily.

MR RAMALIGELA: With regard to the private part dealing, well yes, I can't say I did kick him or that, I can't remember exactly or which side of the body. I can't remember exactly.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Was kicking someone in his private parts a method that you would use ordinarily during your interrogation of suspects?

MR RAMALIGELA: No.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Therefor if you had done it in this instance, it is something that you would have remembered.

MR RAMALIGELA: I am not seriously denying that I did kick him, I might have kicked him even then, because one was cross you know, there was a onward progress report which was required at Thohoyandou and you know that was quite confusing.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Proceed Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Ramaligela in your evidence you have omitted the most important thing, about the tortures that you carried out on these victims, on this people, that when you effected, for each method you used there was a desired effect and you haven't explained to this committee what is it that would happen to the person and that would make him fear or get tired, especially the electric shock are being applied on people. Can you explain to this committee what was the effect of it on the body of the person being tortured?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, what we actually wanted was certain was that these people had to admit that they knew something so that we could charge them in court. The methods that we used was anybody at our disposal whether fists or bare hand, even the electricity, or electric shock.

MS MTANGA: Mr Ramaligela I want you to explain to the committee the effect of the electrical shock on one's body when applied.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you use the electric method rather than the helicopter method or the wet bag method? What effect does the electric method have? That is what she wants to know.

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, with regard to electric shock one realises that it does shock a person so that one realise that life is going and as such you know one comes with the correct evidence other than you know the ordinary helicopter method.

CHAIRPERSON: The electric shock method as applied by yourself, did one person crank the handle and hold the device while another person move the electrodes over the body of the victim or did you attach the electrodes and then one person then just turns the handle? How did you do it?

MR RAMALIGELA: We will just put it on the earlobes before winding. We can't put them on the - one would put them on the earlobe and the one will be on that side and then wind.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you cover the electrodes with a wet cloth or did you just stick the electrodes on and then wind and if you didn't cover it, did it leave burn marks?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, we will cover with a wet cloth and put it on the earlobes even on other parts of the body we will the same.

CHAIRPERSON: That's to stop the burn marks.

MR RAMALIGELA: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: And then did you put water else there to increase the flow of the current? Was the other water used? Did you wet the body, make him put his feet in water or something like that?

MR RAMALIGELA: We normally used to have a bucket full of water.

MS MTANGA: Can you tell this committee how many people did it require to carry out this electrical shock on a person, on one person, how many people did you require to assist you?

MR RAMALIGELA: Even one person was enough because no it wasn't difficult to attach that and just to do the actual application of that.

MS MTANGA: Mr Ramaligela I am putting it you that the victims, on all the victims went through this electrical shock on all, on their bodies and including their private parts and it is their evidence that once the shocks were applied on their bodies they would, the bodies would jerk so strongly that one person could never be able to hold them and even three people, so you had to have had a team of people around you and indeed, there were more than six people present in the torturing of these gentlemen and their names you have not given to this committee. Do you refute this?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, with the regard to the names I can't remember so vividly as to who else was in except the late Sifuwa, who perhaps could have been the fifth person, I can't remember the other person.

CHAIRPERSON: You have said it was yourself and then Managa and Nesamari and maybe the deceased Sifuwa. So that is one, two, three and yourself is four. Now you are talking about five people. Do you know who the fifth one would have been.

MR RAMALIGELA: I can't remember as to who the person was.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I interpose. You seem to have been the chief investigator, so to speak, with regard to the investigation relating to the bombing of the Sibasa police station.

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, I was the second in charge. The person who was officiated was Captain Sifuwa who was later, later General Ramushwana took over.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But you seem to have been the one who conducted the investigations quite extensively and did extensive interrogations in relation to this incident. That's the Sibasa bombing incident. Is that correct?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Now you, and only you would be in a better position than General Ramushwana to place us in a better picture as to who was involved or who constituted the investigating team, who was doing the interrogations. Is it not so?

MR RAMALIGELA: It is true.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Who did you work with in relation to the Sibasa bombing was interrogating the suspects that you have mentioned in paragraph 15.

MR RAMALIGELA: I had Mr Managa, Mr Nesamari and we were three.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Managa and Mr Nesamari. That's all? Now it has been put to you that it would be impossible to administer this electric shock method unless there were more than six persons. Is that true?

MR RAMALIGELA: With regard to electricity, I am saying one could implement this as an individual because you know, it is just a matter of standing on the other side and wind.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you don't agree. Do you dispute what is being put to you? Are you saying you could conduct that electric shock method with only two people assisting you?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, I just want to put it clearly to the Chairperson that even one person will administer that, however we were three.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, I just want you to respond to what has been put to you because you haven't responded.

MR RAMALIGELA: Well it is true I can't remember exactly who the other people were, the ones that were co-operating with me because we are told that it is something that could be done by at least six people. Well, then I can't remember who the other people were.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But if you can't remember who would, you would know whether it would require six persons or not. Are you saying it is possible that there were more than three people who had been involved when the electric shock method was applied on the victims.

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, there could have been other people but I can't remember. I can't remember exactly who the people were because normally we will do these things while being only three, Managa, Nesamari and myself.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Was there any occasion when you were joined by other policemen during such interrogations?

MR RAMALIGELA: No. In the particular office we were only three except that the late Mr Sifuwa who will come just to make sure that the report is handed to Thohoyandou office. And if Mr Ramushwana was able to hear what was happening he'll come around as well.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Ramaligela, Mr Chikororo and Mr Mahumela will give evidence that you are the person in charge of their interrogation and you are the person who tortured them the most. Do you deny this?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, I can't deny that I tortured them so much or extensively, however what I can not agree on what they are saying is that personally I didn't really touch them personally on my own. I can't remember touching them. Well yes, they were tortured, because they were arrested and I was also part of the people who ...(indistinct) them. We did deprive them of their rights. We detained them and some of them were not really properly functioning at our works, and some of their businesses were not operating as normal as it would appear. (The mike is not on)

MS MTANGA: If you say you did not torture Mr Chikororo and Mr Mahumela, who are the persons who tortured them?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Hasn't he said he can't deny?

MS MTANGA: He said he didn't touch them, he can't deny but...

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Well it is a little confusing because on the one hand he can't deny but also from his previous evidence he hasn't touched them.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know who tortured Chikororo and Mahumela? Those two victims.

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, I am quite sure that he, as far as the people who are going to speak they will be able to explain who tortured Mr Chikororo.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am asking you. Do you who tortured Mr Chikororo and the other gentleman, Mr Mahumela? If you can't remember, say so. If you can remember who did it, please tell us. It is a simple question.

MR RAMALIGELA: But I can remember with regard to Mr Chikororo, he was tortured by Mr Nesamari.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: The question that has been put to you by Ms Mtanga is that Mr Chikororo will come here and give evidence that you personally tortured him.

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, I can't deny that as well, that I did torture them, that is why I am trying to explain that I can't remember vividly. The fact that he was one of the arrested or detained, yes I do remember that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: In your evidence in chief you were explicit on this issue. You said you didn't touch Mr Chikororo and Mr Mahumela. How can you now say during cross-examination that you can't deny that you tortured Mr Chikororo and Mr Mahumela, when you were initially were very very explicit, you were firm. You knew you had never touched them.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes it is true. I am trying to explain that these people were tortured. I was part of the people who were torturing the two, the detainees. However personally I don't remember touching Mr Chikororo and Mr Mahumela.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: What Miss Mtanga is saying is that Mr Chikororo will come and say you, and only you, tortured him and Mr Mahumela will also come and say the same thing, that you and not anyone else, that you personally tortured him. You would dispute that, is it not so?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, I can't remember vividly touching them on my own or personally. However, if they are saying...

CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember vaguely whether you ...

MR RAMALIGELA: No, not the least.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: That is not the impression that I personally heard during your evidence in chief. You were crystal clear on this issue that you never touched them. I just want to remind you of your evidence in chief.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: The victims will be giving evidence on the extent of their injuries, especially the visible ones. Are you able to tell this committee how seriously wounded were these people that you were torturing, at the end of your torturing session? How seriously wounded were they?

MR RAMALIGELA: With regard to this case I think I did explain to the committee that it is true that I tortured people, I assaulted them, I kicked them. I did everything that I mentioned on these people. That I am also able to realise I was really torturing people, so much that I am not saying that any person who may come and say contrary to I am saying, however what I have explained is that the people that I work with directly were...

(break in recording)

MR RAMALIGELA: That's true.

MS MTANGA: Mr Ramaligela it is the victims view that the way you present your evidence regarding the extent of the tortures on them, you are under playing the seriousness of the wounds they incurred as a result of your torturing. What do you say to this?

MR RAMALIGELA: With regard to the seriousness of the wounds, I can't tell exactly how big they were, because on our own, they couldn't tell us exactly how badly injured they were because I couldn't see any evidence, or anything coming from the hospital and I am not saying I am disputing that this people had, I couldn't see anything visible or written by the doctor that this is how they were injured.

MS MTANGA: Mr Ramaligela, Dr Farisani whom you have testified that you seriously beat him more than all the victims that you are applying for, he had blood coming out of his ears. Do you dispute this?

MR RAMALIGELA: No I don't dispute it.

MS MTANGA: Can I be given a second, Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MS MTANGA: Dr Farisani will also testify to the effect that his torture went on for two days and it was two full days. The fourth and the fifth of January 1982. Do you dispute this?

MR RAMALIGELA: No I don't dispute that. I did say that in my evidence initially.

MS MTANGA: I have also been asked by Dr Farisani to ask you what was the basis of his arrest? What was the grounds for arresting him?

MR RAMALIGELA: Dr Farisani was arrested because we received information that during the time of the plan of the police station bombing, he was told about it and he was quite aware and that there were some two people who were looking for him whom we thought they were the same people who bombed the police station. That is why he was arrested.

MS MTANGA: Thank you Mr Chairperson. No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Mtanga. Mr Meyer, do you have any re-examination?

MR MEYER: Nothing, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Khampepe, do you have any questions.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Sir, you've just, Mr Ramaligela, just stated now that the reason why Mr Farisani was arrested was because you received information that connected him to the planning of the attack at Sibasa police station. When did you receive information that connected him to the attack?

MR RAMALIGELA: It was after we had arrested these other people who had link with the Dean.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, you arrested him on the basis of the information that was obtained by you when you were interrogating these suspects, some of the suspects that you have alluded to under paragraph 15. Is it not so?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Which information was obviously obtained when you had administered the various methods, unconventional methods of torture as you have testified to before us.

MR RAMALIGELA: Well I, could you just repeat the question please?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You received information that connected Mr Farisani to the planning on the Sibasa police station attack and that information was obtained from the suspects that you had interrogated and subjected them to torture.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did you rely on the information that was obtained, or extracted under torture and use that as the only basis for arresting Farisani?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well there was nothing else that we could see or do other finding out from himself after hearing from these other people who were detained, other than taking Dr Farisani and hear from him.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Have you had cause to go through with you legal representative on the evidence that was tendered by Mr Farisani amongst, others before the Human Rights Violations Committee, which is an annexure before the bundle that your legal representative must have. Did he go through the evidence that was tendered by some of the suspects that you tortured when they gave evidence before the Human Rights Violations Committee?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well I am quite sure they read all these things.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did they go through that evidence with you?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Were you for instance told Mr Farisani says amongst others, that you made him to do press-ups? Were you told of that?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes, I was told. I did forget to mention that in my evidence, in my initial evidence, while I was quite aware that it use to take place in our offices.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You forgot to mention that in your evidence.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes. This is something that happened a long time ago. After so many years it is easy for these things to be forgotten. Well, it is just an omission, it does happen.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You see you are being legally represented and they have explained to you an important requirement for amnesty, that you have to satisfy full disclosure. I am quite aware that these things happened 18 years ago and it is for that reason that I wanted to find out if you were told of what the victims had said before another standing committee of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Because what this process is about is to try and have a full picture of what happened. In your case you've got to disclose precisely what you did and why you did it in order to qualify for amnesty. Were you also told that Mr Farisani had said that you threw him up and made him to fall down onto the concrete cement?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well I can't dispute that. Yes, we tortured him extremely. One will remember all these other things. We did torture him extremely.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, that the other means of torture that you applied was to dance up and down on his body while boxing him also in karate and, with karate or judo or....

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You were made aware of all these things.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes. Well I was quite aware, again it was another serious omission and as I was explaining how I tortured him.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And that at one stage you clapped him until his eyes was visibly swollen?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well yes I did that, but anyway, I can't remember, I only realised on the following day - that he was swollen on the following day and I recall that it was myself who did it.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Was there a time when you took him to Park station and there administered the wet bag method of torture and then applied electric shocks on his body?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes I did explain, even in my initial evidence that I did shock him electronically.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, I am talking about the electric shock that was administered in Park Station. Do you know of that incident?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, I am quite sure that when he personally Mr Dean talked about Park Station I think he is referring to the office in which we used to administer, because we didn't have a jurisdiction to go to Johannesburg.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You never took him to Johannesburg?

MR RAMALIGELA: No.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: There was also one thing which I wanted to have clarified.

You have made reference to a certain date, the 10th of November 1981 and you say that, that was when Mr Ramushwana assumed office as a Commander of the investigating team. Are you sure of that date?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes. I can remember the date very well because I, you know it was just between two days, only two between then Mr Ramushwana came in.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, and by that time Mr Farisani had already been arrested, when Mr Ramushwana took over the command of the investigating team.

MR RAMALIGELA: By then he wasn't arrested yet. He was only arrested thereafter.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I think it will assist us because Mr Ramushwana didn't know exactly when he assumed command. You have also testified that you used these various methods, and that Mr Ramushwana never came personally to be aware of them when you would hear him approaching you would then immediately stop whatever torture you were in the process of doing. You remember?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes I remember.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Now why did you stop, why wouldn't you want him to see how you were being effective in trying to extract information?

MR RAMALIGELA: What I didn't explain in this commission about you know our etiquette does not really allow one person to assault the other person before one's senior. Mr Ramushwana was my senior and it was not personally allowed, I mean officially allowed.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you were aware when you were administering all these methods of torture that they were being done without Mr Ramushwana's approval?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes, we were not even supposed to tell him exactly - tell him how it was, but we could use our own discretion in using any object for anything.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Who told you that you could use a discretion when administering such methods when you knew your senior was not aware and would not approve of you using those methods?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well he personally, he had access to the President and then he will say to us: "Look, the President is really worried". And he is saying "please use some other means". But he couldn't say exactly how we could administer. It was just my own discretion that this was how I could use that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But he never gave you any reason to believe that you could use the methods that you used. He never gave you any reason for you to believe that you could use such methods.

MR RAMALIGELA: No.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman, do you have any questions that you would like to ask the witness?

ADV BOSMAN: Just one question, thank you Chairperson. I didn't quite follow your reply to the one question. You said "he would say please use some other methods or other means" apropos what did he say that? What elicited that remark from him, when he said "please use some other means"?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well personally, I don't know exactly, because he couldn't say exactly, he just said just use some means to extract information. He didn't say shock people or kick people of just you know, stand on top their bellies or whatever.

ADV BOSMAN: But what I don't follow is the use of the word "other means". In other words there must have been some means which he was referring to.

MR RAMALIGELA: Well he wasn't clear. He didn't tell us directly as to what to use. Maybe he knew other methods. But I don't remember him saying a particular method or prescribing another method.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you understand him when he said that -to be giving you the go-ahead to use, which Mr Meyer has referred to before as 'unconventional methods', that he would condone the use of methods that shouldn't be used, such as beating up people with hands and helicopter method, electric shock etc. etc?

MR RAMALIGELA: Well, I think it is difficult really to be answerable exactly. I don't how, but I didn't him to realise that we were unconventional methods.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You have earlier on indicated quite clearly that the reason why you didn't want him to see you using those methods and that you would stop as soon you heard him approaching was because you knew he wouldn't approve of you using those methods.

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes it is true, I know he wouldn't really approve of what we were doing, because that is why we used stop doing what we were doing, but we work under pressure.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it in your standing orders or in your code of conduct or in you rules and regulations whatever you want to call them, that the police should not assault persons arrested?

MR RAMALIGELA: Yes, we did sign all those undertakings that we do not have to beat people.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Meyer, do you have questions arising from questions that have been put by members of the panel.

MR MEYER: Nothing thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: No further questions Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much. Thank you Director, that concludes your evidence you may stand now.

CHAIRPERSON: I think this is a convenient although a late time to adjourn. Would you be available to start tomorrow at nine o'clock.

MR MEYER: Anytime Mr Chairman, no problem.

CHAIRPERSON: You mentioned that you had some sort of problem tomorrow. You were called in at late notice. Have you managed to make any arrangements?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, thank you Chairman, I did manage to make some arrangements. I will be here at nine o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Would that be suitable Ms Mtanga.

MS MTANGA: Yes that suits me fine.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I would like to thank the people for working a bit of overtime this evening. We'll now adjourn and resume with this hearing tomorrow morning in the same venue, the 5th of May at 9 o'clock. Thank you.