Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-09-03

MR RAMAWELE: I would say what is crystal clear is that after the shooting of the activists, according to the evidence of Mr de Kock, he was the Commander in Durban, he was the Commander, he was in charge, but according to his evidence, after the shooting, after this shooting, he cannot tell the Hearing as to what the Security Police officers who remained in Durban, the small band of Security Police officers who remained in Durban, what they did.  In other words, you know, there is no evidence as to what they did  and anyway about 40 of them had already left, so the question arises, why did they leave for Pretoria because they had a specific task to come to Durban to undertake. Now they left for Pretoria in large numbers, so that should be, one is - it will be fair and reasonable to draw a conclusion that they had already accomplished their mission because if they didn't, as Mr de Kock says, they  will never ...(indistinct) at doing anything.  Now if Chesterville was a boiling point and they haven't accomplished their mission and it is Vlakplaas, you know they never hesitate to do anything, they are trained, now they should have remained there to resolve their problem.  They never did so and we are talking about a unit which is specifically trained to deal with opponents in a very vicious way.  So if they go back, then my conclusion is that they had accomplished what they went for to do.
	I will also further say that that document which was handed in relating to the fact that, which was Nortje applying for a firearm, that document is very suspect.  It's a very suspect document because it was issued on the 3rd of June and they only went there on the 20th of June.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any significance in the dispute between your client's version and that of Mr de Kock about Mr de Kock's presence on the scene, in other words at the bridge?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, Mr Chairman, the significance is that my client says that he was, firstly he was told by Mr de Kock that people were going to get shot at and also that Mr de Kock was at the bridge.  The significance lies in the fact that, should the evidence point that Mr de Kock was at the bridge, in fact then that will actually mean that Mr de Kock also knew about what was going on and what was going to happen in Chesterville and that is the significance, as far as I see it and when looking at that particular point, I think one should also consider the background of Mr de Kock himself, his position, he was a Commander, he had a lot of experience, he was involved in a lot of illegal activities at that time and now, if you look at his background, you look at the number of people who went to Durban and you look at the fact that he was in Durban and Chesterville was a boiling point, the comrades were in control of Chesterville, as he put it, it was a liberated area,  when you look at that particular situation and you look at the evidence of Mr de Kock that he was asleep, it doesn't make sense.  It doesn't make sense.  Here was a man who was in charge, who was a Commander, he was very dedicated to his cause and the place is in turmoil, the comrades are in control, but yet he goes to sleep.  He doesn't even know when people go into Chesterville, he doesn't know it.  When an AK47 is given, he hasn't seen it and if you look at his background and what he was doing at the time, it is my submission that it is not really consistent with what he was doing at that time as a Commander at Vlakplaas, it is not consistent.

CHAIRPERSON: Then one other thing is, you know all of the other people that testified deny that your client was even at the scene at all.  They say he wasn't part of this operation.  Now what do we do about that?  What is your submission about that?

MR RAMAWELE: Mr Chairman, it is the version of Mr Nofomela that indeed he was there and the problem that we sit with is the fact that you are sitting with Mr Vermeulen, you are sitting with Mr Radebe and Mr de Kock who say that Mr Nofomela was not there.  If you look at Mr Vermeulen himself, you look at his evidence in order to see whether you can believe his version that Mr Nofomela was not at the bridge.  If you look at Mr Vermeulen's version, Mr Vermeulen, with due respect to him, he says you know they went to, they drove to the bridge and at the bridge they were waiting at the bridge and upon being asked he says, no they wanted to assist the people who had gone into Chesterville by vehicle but according to Mr Vermeulen, he did not know where they had gone into, he did not know how far they had gone into, they didn't even know Chesterville. So according to his own testimony, Mr Vermeulen, you know he wouldn't have been able to assist them because he didn't know where they had gone to and his own testimony, he doesn't - it is not clear, there is no reason whatsoever why they were at the bridge, because they couldn't offer assistance to those guys.  Those guys had gone there with the car, so his own testimony as to why they were at the bridge doesn't make sense.  He was just at the bridge.  He couldn't say why he was at the bridge.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you help - oh, are you still?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, I was just saying that his testimony as to why they were at the bridge, fails to give an answer as to why they were stationed there.  Therefore, it is my submission that when a lot of Security Police officers are at a bridge, surely a person of Mr Vermeulen's position should know why he was there.  He should know.  If he doesn't know why he was waiting there, then there is something wrong with his evidence.  That is Mr Vermeulen.
	Mr Radebe is the same position.  He says they went there - firstly, Mr Radebe, he says they went there to infiltrate but he doesn't know, after infiltrating, what they were supposed to do.  You see, you must remember, the Hearing should consider the fact that they went to the UDF activists to infiltrate them, according to Mr Radebe and if you take the background that the comrades were in control, police officers were killed etc, now they would infiltrate the UDF.  After infiltrating them, what then?  What they were supposed to do?  Are we to believe that a specialised unit from Vlakplaas will send people into Chesterville to infiltrate the UDF without telling them what they were supposed to do after succeeding, succeeding to infiltrate them?  Are you infiltrating and do nothing?  It's a boiling point.  You have taken the whole contingent to Durban, now you instruct people to infiltrate but you don't tell them what to do.  Does it make sense?  It doesn't make sense.  His own version again about the fact that, I know he's not an applicant but his own version about the fact that he was acting in self-defence, also it doesn't make any sense.  Even if we take his own version, we don't take the version of the survivor, he says that only one shot was fired and then they emptied all their ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: What about his version about the arrest?  First of all the reason for the arrest, which is very hard to understand, but the method of the arrest.  I don't know how, I don't pretend to know exactly how arrests are effected, but I'm quite sure that if you want to arrest people, you must make contact with them, you can't move away from - move out of the room to arrest people who are inside the room.

MR RAMAWELE: Like the survivor says, the survivor says they were unarmed and Mr Radebe's own testimony is that nobody told them that the inmates were armed, so the version of the survivor that they were not armed is more probable because even the police officers who were at the scene, never mentioned that those people were armed but at the same time, the way the arrest was supposed to be effected, it leaves much to be desired.

ADV DE JAGER: Let's assume that we accept your argument.  Mr Nofomela wasn't a member of the group who killed the people.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, Mr Chairman.