Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-24

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Thank you.  The statement says here that Charles - Ninela was the arresting person, that he was present at C R Swart, no reference is made to Goodwill.  Ninela says Goodwill was with him.  Here it says
"Later on I came to hear that Ninela was not alone"
He makes it hearsay.  And I'm saying, Ninela is saying both were present when Capt Botha came there to Charles Ndaba.  The only difference is that Goodwill is dead so he can't make a statement.

MR VISSER: You say, based on what you've just told the Committee, you drew the intention that Botha was concealing the fact that Ninela was part of the arrest, is that what you're saying?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: No, he was concealing that Goodwill, because Goodwill eventually got killed by the Eugene de Kock unit on the basis that Eugene de Kock is saying he was asked to kill Goodwill because Goodwill was going to reveal about the treatment of Charles.

MR VISSER: Are you saying that Botha concealed the fact that Goodwill Sekakane was part of the arrest because of what is stated in paragraph 17?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: He concealed the fact that Goodwill was present at the time that he got to C R Swart.

MR VISSER: Yes.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Because Goodwill is dead and he wants to distance himself from the death of Goodwill.

MR VISSER: Would you turn to paragraph 59 please?  Page 12 of Exhibit D.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Exhibit D, paragraph 59.  Yes, Sir.

MR VISSER: Your evidence was, if I remember it correctly, that this clearly shows a concocted story.  Your words were something to the effect of, were they not, "this is a give-away of a cover-up, a conspiracy" and you said "Ndaba left in 1988.  What communications could there have been between Botha and him," or words to that effect, and then you went on to say that Botha himself said that there was no contact and therefore you say paragraph 59 is a conspiracy, is that what you say?  Is that your evidence?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Paragraph 59 shows, testifies to the conspiracy.

MR VISSER: Yes, alright.  Now you see, none of this was ever put to Botha when he gave evidence.  Do you agree?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: I was here for part of Mr Botha's cross-examination, I was not here for the rest.

MR VISSER: Mr Maharaj, did you not obtain a copy of Mr Botha's evidence before he gave evidence?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: I obtained his evidence, yes, but I'm saying I was not present at the cross-examination.  You are asking me, none of this was put to him.

MR VISSER: Did you tell either Mr Wills or Ms Poswa that you disagreed with that and that you think that is a concoction?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: No, that didn't arise in the time that we had for our discussions.

MR VISSER: So you didn't consult about that?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: No.

MR VISSER: I see.  You see because my attorney spoke to Botha last night about this and he said, had it been asked of him in cross-examination he would have told the Committee what the situation was and I'm going to tell you now what he says it is.  He says that when Ndaba left for Zambia, he gave, had given him, or gave him at the time, not sure when, the name and address and a telephone number of a person in Malawi as a contact person/courier.  Can you deny that?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: No, I can't, but the name of a person doesn't give an infrastructure.

MR VISSER: And also the name and telephone number of a person, contact person, in Swaziland.  Can you deny it?  That was something that was used by Mr Ndaba, or could be used by Mr Ndaba or could be used by him while he was still in Swaziland.  He was aware of a name and a telephone number of a contact person in Swaziland, can you deny that?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: No, and I presume that the name would be a codename.

MR VISSER: Botha says that it wasn't only Ndaba who made use of these two contact persons, but other informers as well. Can you deny that?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: No.

MR VISSER: So once you can't deny any of that, how can you deny the contents of paragraph 59?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: The contents of paragraph 51, Sir.

MR VISSER: 59.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: 59, does not say that he knew the telephone numbers and the codenames of one person in Swaziland and one person in Malawi.  It says he knew the infrastructure of communications and logistics in Zambia and in Swaziland.  The name of a person in Malawi is not in Zambia.

MR VISSER: I see.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Hold on, the second point he says is that this communications and logistical network, not contact point, was known, was used by others.  A telephone number and a name, is a far more different thing from what you call sophisticatedly an infrastructure.

MR VISSER: Yes. alright, so the difference is a semantic difference, you say its the difference between saying a network and giving the name of a person.  I understand ...(intervention)

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: If semantics is interpreted to mean that by using the word infrastructure, he was magnifying the dangers here.

MR VISSER: Yes, alright.  Now, I want to refer you then to paragraph 8 of Exhibit D.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Yes, Sir.

MR VISSER: Now, 8 and 9 in fact read together.  Now you say that Mr Charles Ndaba didn't have this information, all of it and therefore that Botha says he got all of this from Charles Ndaba, he's lying.  Now there are two permutations of possibilities here.  One is that you are right, that Botha is incorrect when he supposes that he heard all of this at the time from Ndaba, that's the one possibility, the one that you're advancing, but isn't there also another possibility and that is that Botha is correct, because after all, with the information he got from Ndaba he smashed Operation Vula?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: I am saying that the rules of the underground in such a top secret operation would be following very, very strictly to the rules and I am saying there is no way that Charles Ndaba knew of the communications system, absolutely none.

MR VISSER: Alright.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Hold on.  I'm saying, no cadre was sent into the country on the basis, you are going for a long-term project.  The rules were, you are going into the country, you will be met, you'll perform your duties according to what instructions you would receive on the ground.  I'm saying that the purpose of Vula as described in paragraph 8 was never given to anybody, it is still the subject of commentator writing articles and books to try and work it out.  I'm also saying that the identities of the top leadership would not be made known as Charles Ndaba and Botha has claimed that this information was given to him at the first meeting of Charles Ndaba and Botha within the country, 4 to 6 weeks before July the 7th and I'm saying that when they heard that so-called terrorists was crossing from Swaziland, they would set up an ambush and kill you at Piet Retief.  They wouldn't say to Mac Maharaj and Siphiwe Nyanda, "no let them carry on, we'll just watch", they would have wiped us out.

MR VISSER: Next question.  Do you agree that paragraph 8 and 9 set out the position regarding Operation Vula, basically correctly?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: You put a loaded word, basically.

MR VISSER: Yes, I'm not going to say that he was absolutely perfectly correct with everything he says here.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: No, it's described as a "Volks opstand" insurrection, it did not feature in the strategic objectives of Vula.

MR VISSER: Not at all.