Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-24

UNKNOWN: We have heard evidence at the hearing last year from Miss Ngadimeng about the state Mr Mabotha was in when she saw him after he had been interrogated.  We also  have the evidence of Mr Chappies Klopper in his amnesty application.  We have heard from Mr De Kock's lawyer that he is going to testify that what Mr Klopper said is correct.  So we have three witnesses who actually testify about his state of health and you are the sole witness who says - I think you say you don't know, you can't remember and I would be interested to know which is it.  Whether you can't remember or whether you don't know and then tell me why we should believe you as opposed to three other people, two of whom have applied for amnesty.  There is a further problem, that the Commission has during the last two years received a lot of evidence about people held under section 29 where the so-called legal provisions of the act have not been observed.  Where people have not been booked in because of the extent of their injuries.  Where doctors have not seen them.  So to expect us to believe when you sit here and say well surely a doctor would have seen him, that doesn't wash with us.  We are interested here in getting to the truth.  I have got two questions for you.  Why should we believe you?  Number 1.  And number 2 have you discussed with your lawyer the question of applying for amnesty during the last year?  Did you at all consider that because you have a very serious problem because unfortunately for you we are going to have to make a finding about your evidence as well.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: Mr Chair, I did not assault the person.  If people say that they assaulted him they could have.  I did not.  The question of amnesty one asks for amnesty when you feel that you did something wrong, that you contravened the law.  I don't feel that I did that.

CHAIRPERSON: Just before we ask you to stand down I tried to get a picture in my mind of what happened that day as far as you are concerned.  Because you went to Marble Arch, you have told us that.  You were a part of a group - Marble Hall, I beg your pardon.  You were there with at least five or six of your colleagues.  You actually took the statement.  But from then on there seems to be a blank.  Is it possible that some of your colleagues.  I am saying is it possible.  That some of your colleagues together with the local security police went off somewhere else and left you behind having coffee or sitting in an office or sitting in a car so that you never saw anything more until they came back and then you all went back to Johannesburg.  Is there a gap somewhere because frankly I don't understand how it is possible for you to be part of that interrogation to actually take the statement and for the life of me that other people say that they took part in a further interrogation which involved assault because why on earth would anybody admit to something which wasn't true?  I mean why put themselves in jeopardy, why put themselves up before their families, their friends, as someone who took part in a vicious assault?  Now either you went somewhere else or you genuinely have amnesia.  Please help me.  I can't understand it.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: I do not have amnesia.  I can just not remember what happened that day.   I started during this incident.  I had worked at Soweto for two months then.  It was a lot of strange people.  I had come from the Eastern Transvaal.  All my old friends and colleagues are there.  What happened that day I really cannot remember.  It is possible that I sat at the office and they went off.  But I don't think it is possible that they will just leave a person and travel off in a direction.  What happened that day I enjoyed being back in the Eastern Transvaal because I had only been at Soweto a month and a half when this took place.  I was not involved with assaulting Mr Mabotha.

CHAIRPERSON: So you concede that it was  unlikely that they had gone off leaving you behind for whatever reason, whether you were enjoying the day or whatever.  They wouldn't have done that.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: As I said we were five or six people.  I don't know if Mr Klopper, Mr De Kock, I don't know who went with them or whether they went off some place.  It was their people who were arrested.  I really cannot remember what happened that day.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me put it finally to you that two witnesses at least say that you were actually present.  But you deny that.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: Yes, sir that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: In terms of a document that I have in front of me here, which was a statement or an affidavit signed by Mr Mabotha and taken by yourself, this statement was actually taken in Soweto not in Marble Hall.  So you must have had something to do with Mr Mabotha after that one particular day, even though you say you didn't.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: I said I could not remember whether I dealt with him again.  If the statement was taken in Soweto then it is true that I must have dealt with him again.  But I cannot remember at what stage.  As I say we share offices, it is a long corridor.  In all probability I saw him again, talked to him, it is possible, but I can't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, may I just say that - Yes, the date I remind you was 24th February 1989.

UNKNOWN: You see if this is taken in Soweto then this is obviously when he is brought back from Marble Hall to Protea police station.  You are the person who commissions the affidavit by Mabotha so you must have been in a position to know that the man had been assaulted.  This is on the - I think the date is the 24th February, but he is booked in, according to the register, on the 4th April.  Strange.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: Mr Chair, my opinion is that it is impossible for him to have been detained so long.  Something, something is wrong somewhere.  I do not deny that I took that statement but I can't believe that he was detained somewhere for so long.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, I'm not going to delay you any longer, I'm just going to have to place on record that we will, and this is in no way to make an accusttion against you, in no way but simply for your own benefit to place it on record that we as a commission are not satisfied and we will have to investtigate this matter further and I think it's only fair that I should tell you and tell your legal representative that we have no other alternative but to proceed along the lines that Miss Sooka has mentioned.  Thank you for your presence.  You may stand down.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for a tea break or whatever else break you would like, until 11 o'clock.
HEARING ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Potgieter, you are welcome.  Thank you for your attendance.  Miss Sooka will administer the oath.

JAN DANIEL POTGIETER: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Potgieter.  I understand that we are going to depart a little bit from the normal procedure and that your legal representative will lead you.  Mr Du Plessis I know you appreciate that we have a limited amount of time.  I would like you to try and see if you can complete in about 20 minutes.  I will obviously give some leeway. I don't want to in any way diminish this opportunity.  Mr Prior will be the leader of evidence from the TRC as well as Mr Pigout and I will be as strict with them as I will be with you.  And I would be grateful for your co-operation.  Thank you.  You may proceed.