Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-18

MR RHEEDER: Mr Dyasi, as difficult as it is, we will have to just make a distinction between the first incident that happened at the community hall in the street itself, and the second incident, the second shot that you heard whilst you were at the police station.
	According to all the evidence, your son was mortally wounded the second time, that was after you saw him in the house.  At that second time and the mortal wound, according to the expert witness, he said that your son was not shot at close range, that is his opinion, that your son was not shot at close range.  Do you accept Mr Luff's testimony?

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: Sir, I don't accept Mr Luff's testimony because Mr Luff as he testified here today, he said that he was a big and hefty man, a strong man, so I don't understand why such a strong man could lose the wounded person, when he was grabbing or holding him, how could that happen?
	That is why I don't accept that evidence.  How could he have escaped from him?

MR RHEEDER: Mr Dyasi, again, as difficult as this is, you know, unfortunately I have to ask you the question again, just dealing with the aspect of the distance that your son was away from the person who shot him, I am now talking about the distance between the person who shot him and your son himself, and I understand that you were not there, you don't know specifically, what I am putting to you is that the expert witness is of the opinion or the expert witness at the death inquest is of the opinion that it was not a shot at close range.
	Mr Luff testified and only dealing with that point, Mr Luff testified that it was not at close range.  Do you accept that, that specific point as the truth or not?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rheeder, how does that help us?  What is the relevance of putting this to a lay person to respond to who told you that he was not present at the scene, he does not know how the shooting happened?
	Does this take this case any further?

MR RHEEDER: Honourable Chairperson, Mr Dyasi indicated that he does not believe Mr Luff and what he testified.  There is a specific point where we've got further, or there is clear evidence that supports Mr Luff on that one point, the point that I am trying to make is that Mr Dyasi does not believe that point, he will not believe Mr Luff at all.  It is a question of trying to elicit the response in the sense that if he believes him, how can I put it, he - if he does not believe that point, if he does not in himself believe that as the truth, if he believes that his son was shot at close range, he will not believe anything else that Mr Luff says and his belief as to the truth, cannot then be taken into account, because his belief in what he believes is the truth, does not correspond with expert witnesses and expert testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand the argument, I understand the purpose possibly of putting this to Mr Dyasi in view of your client's apology and so on, but how does it help us to decide this, if you elicit, whatever you elicit from Mr Dyasi in this regard, whether he says he believes you or he does not believe you or he believes Dr Knobel or he does not believe Dr Knobel, I mean it does not help us at all, it does not assist us to decide the matter.

MR RHEEDER: I will leave it at that honourable Chairperson, I will leave it open for argument.  Can I just get a moment with my client?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RHEEDER: Thank you.
	Honourable Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RHEEDER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rheeder.  Have you got any re-examination Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you honourable Chairperson, I will be brief.  Mr Dyasi, when you went to the police station to report the matter, there was a certain Mr Pieter Theron who was in charge of the police station at Zweletemba, do you recall that or do you not remember his name, but his name is definitely Theron?

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: I don't remember, but I found a white policeman in the police station.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, for the record, I gather my information from page 82 of the Bundle, in which a certain portion of Mr Theron's statement, which we do not have in our possession, is in fact put to Lt Frost and the portion that is put to him states
"... I told him (that is Mr Dyasi) that he should go to the Worcester charge office."
	That is what he told the father, he said he was the Sergeant.  The father arrived and said that there was a shooting."
	Then we look at Theron's statement and it says -
"... I then told him that he should go to Worcester and he should make enquiries there because I was aware of a person who had been shot in the previous period and who had been taken to hospital."

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: No, I don't remember that.  At that time there was, it was only one white policeman, I didn't see the policeman that you are referring to and he was not at the police station.

MS PATEL: Can you however recall that you were told to wait there or to go to the Worcester police station?  Can you remember this at all?

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: No.  Nobody told me to go to the Worcester police station.

MS PATEL: Thank you honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Patel.  Mr Dyasi, thank you very much, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any other evidence that you intend to tender, Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: No honourable Chairperson, Mrs Hardy is present, but she is a 74 year old woman, I do not intend to subject her to these proceedings or to cross-examination, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  Mr Rheeder, have you got anything else that you are going to present?

MR RHEEDER: No further evidence Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rheeder, have you got any submissions on the merits of the application?