Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

JOE MAMASELA: I don't want to put black and white applicants, an applicant is an applicant as far as I'm concerned, I want to concentrate on the truth.  The truth of the matter is, it is clear in the amnesty application that you must satisfy two categories.  First you must make sure that the crimes you committed were of a political nature and secondly, you were doing it for a particular organisation.
	Now, most of the crimes these people committed were of a criminal nature, not a political nature, so in order to get amnesty they are trying to politicise the criminality and that is where now we get these problems.
That is the gist of my statement, that's where you get different versions.
	Some people they want to say: "Those people they were political giants, they belong to the ANC, we had a duty as security policemen to arrest or to kill them", whilst on the other hand we know for a fact that it's not an ...[indistinct] that those people were not ANC people, they were ordinary residents of Port Elizabeth.  They belonged to PEBCO.  
	They spent their long suffering twin lives in the townships, they never left the country for military training.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mamasela, I'm going to have to stop you there.

MR LAMEY: I want to repeat that question Mr Mamasela because you haven't answered it directly.  Is it your impression that Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole are making attempts to fit the version of the other applicants because they're still instruments and their master's voice and lapdogs ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I will not allow that question to be framed that way because I'm not sure whether Mr Mamasela has heard what the other applicants said.  So you want him to contrast the evidence of Mogoai and Koole with that of Venter and others and I'm not sure whether - I know he wasn't here when the other people testified.
	We can reframe hit and ask him: "Do you think that Koole and Mogoai, or in particular - I don't know, is it Mogoai, could he have come here to try and give evidence which would be in line or the same as that of Colonel Venter and Beeslaar"?

JOE MAMASELA: I will definitely think so Mr Chairman, because they were buddies from many years ago.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, apart now from Mr Venter and Beeslaar, would you also think that they would try and bring it in line with the version of the other applicants from Port Elizabeth?

JOE MAMASELA: I wouldn't know that but my third force experience tells me they will only align themselves with what their masters tell them to.  If their masters say: "Yes, collaborate also those statements", they will do that but if their masters say:  "No, no, no, Port Elizabeth is Port Elizabeth, Pretoria is Pretoria, they will do as their masters please.

MR LAMEY: Now Mr Mamasela, I want to ask you now, what is your comment if I state to you that in contradiction with the evidence of Mr Venter and Beeslaar, both Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai place them on the scene at Post Chalmers from the first evening right throughout the second day up to their departure, that is the departure of you two Askaris and Mr Koole on the 3rd day and they also, in contradiction with the evidence of Venter and Beeslaar, implicate them also in the assaults on Mr Hashe and Mr Godolozi.  Would you be surprised to hear that?

JOE MAMASELA: I wouldn't be surprised to hear that.  I've explained even yesterday about the Klopper/Cloete(?) syndrome of the Kwamakuta.  People can come and play around and create some doubts and create some reasonable doubts of grounds of justifications and just to throw the whole thing into disarray.
	I don't say they are doing that but we mustn't be caught with the same syndrome of the Malan tribe(?).  So I really wouldn't say what was in the mind of an applicant when an applicant applied for amnesty, I'm not God.  It's impossible for me ...[indistinct], to can put myself in the work of God, I'm not God I wouldn't know.  I wouldn't even have a clue.

MR LAMEY: But you Mr Mamasela, has described them still today as being the lapdogs and their master's voice.

JOE MAMASELA: Yes, they are and they know it and they know that I was a lapdog of Cronje.

MR LAMEY: Now if that is so, why would they contradict the evidence of Mr Venter and Mr Beeslaar?

JOE MAMASELA: That's a good question but you are asking it to the wrong person.  Why don't you ask your client why did do they?

ADV SANDI: I'm sorry, Mr Lamey I think we would have to be careful how we go about putting this to the witness.  As I understand him he is not saying the two applicants, that is your clients, have been told what to say in their applications but he says his experience tells him that they most probably tell a story that would sort of coincide with the story of those people whom he has said they are is lapdogs.
	Isn't that what you're saying Mr Mamasela?

JOE MAMASELA: That's absolutely correct Mr Chairman.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, the only aspect - and I won't argue with the witness further and I won't take the point further but the point that I want to elicit from his evidence in which I will argue is apparent, is that he's got a certain perception about Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai, he is biased towards them, he still regards them as their master's voice on no grounds whatsoever and that indicates the attitude of the witness towards the applicants that I represent.  But I won't take the matter further Mr Chairman.

JOE MAMASELA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: No, let's put it to him ...[intervention]

JOE MAMASELA: I want to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Let us put it to him.
	Mr Lamey is putting it to you that you are biased against his client, I think it's Koole and Mogoai and that's why you say certain things about them.

JOE MAMASELA: Mr Chairman with due respect, there is no way I was an Askari can be biased against another Askari, a fellow Askari like Mr Mogoai and I have described them as lapdogs of both Venter and Vermeulen including myself as a lapdog of Cronje, so where is bias there?

CHAIRPERSON: So you are saying you are not biased against them?

JOE MAMASELA: I'm not biased Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And also he is saying that by reason of the fact that you hated - he's saying you hated the system because you had been tortured by the security police of which Mr Koole was part and therefore you had an attitude generally towards the security branch, that is why you would certain things which would harm Mr Koole.

JOE MAMASELA: That is pure nonsense Mr Chairman, to a -in a sense that I have never ...[indistinct] and in a blanket form alleged atrocities to, and attributed them to the security forces per se generally.
	I had always been specific and consistent in all my allegations, that I was with this and this and I was with Vlakplaas.  I don't know generally of other security forces, I only spoke about Vlakplaas and Kompol where I was stationed, where I had my own personal experiences that were never generalised.  
	I know as a matter of fact and I want to put it on record, that 99% of policemen, black and white, are innocent law abiding citizens whose main concern is to serve and to protect innocent people.  It is only us, 1%, less than 1% of people like myself and Mogoai who were the ...[indistinct] in the thorn of the flesh of the forces. 
	Today these poor uniformed policemen are getting killed like flies for crimes they did not commit, people hate them for our crimes.  If that makes me biased so be it.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, yes Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, to come back to Post Chalmers, is your evidence that you were left, you and Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole were left alone with the PEBCO 3 deceased on the first evening to guard them?

JOE MAMASELA: That is a fact.

MR LAMEY: Where were they taken?  Where were they kept overnight?

JOE MAMASELA: They were kept in that shed I described as a long garage and they were chained inside there.