Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

MR VISSER: But once again this is not the question that I put to you.   I'm asking you, have you used the shock device in the past, not that you have knowledge of it, did you use it?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I have already answered you, I said yes, and I said that even as early as that stage, I had knowledge of it.

MR VISSER: Were any charges ever made against you by people who you have shocked?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Do you refer to a specific instance or is it in general?

MR VISSER: Were there any charges made against you by a person that you have shocked?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I accept that there may have been complaints, charges.

MR VISSER: Don't you have knowledge of it, you only think it?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: There were charges made, yes, there were, not now, but then.

MR VISSER: By whom?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: By some of the detainees.

MR VISSER: What happened to that?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I was never charged.

MR VISSER: Why was that the case?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: It depends on the investigation that was done.

MR VISSER: And as I understand it, John Vorster didn't even have its own shock device?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: John Vorster had such a device.

MR VISSER: Why didn't you use it on the day with Mr Bopape?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: At that stage one wasn't available.

MR VISSER: I have no further questions, chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, concerning this issue that Mr Visser was busy with, with regard to the extent to which assaults occurred and where charges were made, am I correct in saying that these assaults about which people complained, this frequently occurred in the courts, for example in an internal court where there was reference made to an admission?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Would I be correct if I say that some of these charges in these hearings and trials, some of them weren't made voluntarily, and some of it, what was made, was true and some was false, is that correct?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And this whole issue with regard to the assaults came to the fore more in these internal trials than with the departmental investigation?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I would say that it came more to the fore in these internal trials than in investigation.

MR RAUTENBACH: Perhaps I just have to put it correct, I am referring to a situation where admissions or confessions are made and it is now tested by means of an internal trial and some of those allegations, some were the truth and some were false, that's basically how it happened, is that correct?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Perhaps you also just misunderstood it, I'm referring to internal investigations, that would be within the police itself, such as a disciplinary investigation in your unit, these assaults were usually, came to the fore and they were discussed and evidence was given and it didn't appear that much in internal investigations in your unit, am I correct?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Specifically in Johannesburg, a specific officer was appointed to investigate allegations where a policemen had assaulted people and they were now charged.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's take it a step further, would I be correct, if one looks at the amount of times, the number of times that assaults were reflected in admissions in the courts, that in most cases those people did not complain at the police but it only came to the fore in the court?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I would not say most of the times, but often, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: I want to take you to, you dealt with a statement of Mbeki Nkosi, Mr Prinsloo went shortly through it, briefly through it, this statement starts on 642, it's in bundle 3.   If you look at the statement, you will see that it starts with an introduction, who the person was, that he was arrested, and then I want to take you to paragraph 4 and 5, paragraph 4 and 5, Nkosi refers to a telephone call that was received in the flat and he refers to two calls.   There isn't anything in these paragraphs 4 and 5 that you would dispute, is that correct?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, that is what had happened.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then if we have a look at paragraph 7, I would just like to read this to you.   He says
"Minutes later we heard a hard knock on the door.  Bopape awoke and got up.   About 20 men jumped into the room with bulletproof vests, bush knives and guns.   One concentrated on me and told me to stand still.   Bopape was standing in the passage and about three policemen concentrated on him.  Bopape was facing the door."
Am I correct, and this is a paragraph that you are contesting, you referred to the word "jumped", is that correct?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: You referred to the 20 and you said those would be too much?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I said there weren't 20 within the flat.

MR RAUTENBACH: That is correct.   With regard to the bush knives, I think in Afrikaans the word is "kapmesse", which words were used?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Both words were used, "kapmesse" as well as bush knives.

MR RAUTENBACH: What do you understand with a bush knife, what did you read it as?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I don't know what you're referring to?

MR RAUTENBACH: Could I tell you, with regard to the uniform that was used by the unrest police, they usually had on the leg, something next to the leg, I can't remember it was the right or left leg, that looked like a knife, have you ever seen that?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: My instruction is that this is what is being referred to, it's something that looks like a knife, it was tied to the leg at the bottom.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No, I have never seen one of the unrest people wearing something like that, and then in the same paragraph, I can just point you to another aspect, if we return to paragraph 5, then you'll see that Mr Bopape phoned a lady, no, it's paragraph 6, and five minutes later it was said that there was a knock on the door, Bopape woke up, in other words it means that he slept, is that what you're referring to?

MR RAUTENBACH: That it was said that he would have read, what are you referring to?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: He answered, in paragraph 5, paragraph 6, it is said
"Bopape then telephoned another place and spoke to a woman.   The telephone was cut off."
And then five minutes later he says:-
"There was a knock on the door and Bopape woke up."

MR RAUTENBACH: What is the point you're trying to get at?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I'm saying something is wrong, the one moment he's talking to someone and five minutes later he's woken up, so one moment he's talking to someone and five minutes later he's sleeping, then he's woken up because of a knock.

MR RAUTENBACH: I don't understand, what is strange?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: What is strange for me is that Mr Mbeki was busy trying to cover something, his facts aren't correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: What's not correct?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Why would he talk to someone and five minutes later he was busy sleeping?

MR RAUTENBACH: Is it strange, in other words he should have fallen asleep and then he would have woken up?   Well let's leave it, it's not strange, I don't find it strange, let's continue.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I find it quite strange.

MS GCABASHE: If I may just point out as well, it depends on the language that was used when the statement was taken.   I'm sure that can be dealt with, but do bear that in mind.

MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you very much for making the point, because that is what happens quite often in our testimony, that the use of the language usually, then there's a dispute, and then we are taken to task about the language dispute.   Thank you very much.   If you read further on, you will see in paragraph 8 he describes you as the leader of the group, I think that would be quite accurate?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.