Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-10-31

UNKNOWN: No, no, but we've had, Mr Chairman, with 
respect, we've had statements which is not evidence, photographs 
which is also not evidence being put to witnesses.  I am putting it to 
him for his comment, to be fair, he can tell me whether he agrees 
with it or not.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Arendse, is it not because that is just a 
summary of facts as the basis on which the State will found its case 
and doesn't necessarily have to state everything?

UNKNOWN: Well exactly, the point is one would have 
thought that the summariser will presumably ...

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)

UNKNOWN: I don't want to take that any further.  The point 
is just, and it is maybe something more appropriately raised in 
argument.

JUDGE WILSON: We know there were 48 cartridge cases 
scattered around inside the Tavern.  There must have been people 
inside there, mustn't there?

UNKNOWN: Well, the applicant, one of the applicants 
Madasi, says he was inside there.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, the fact that it is not in some summary 
shows that the Prosecutor forgot to say it.

UNKNOWN: Well, he also then forgot to say that there were 
two or five or two or more attackers inside the Tavern.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't think we can take that matter further 
as to what the Prosecutor said in his statement.
	Mr Cornelius, lastly, I want to ask you these applicants have 
come before the Committee, you've heard them, you've been sitting 
here all the time, you've heard them say that they are responsible for 
what happened.  They attacked the Tavern on orders, they killed the 
deceased, they injured you.  Is there any reason that you can think 
of why they wouldn't want to say or except for the applicant Madasi, 
is there any reason that you can think of why Mabala and Gqomfa 
would deny or wouldn't say that they were inside the Tavern?
	They have been found guilty, they have been sentenced, you 
know that.  They are in jail for 27 years, they are here at the 
amnesty, this is the only, it is not the last opportunity, it is their 
only opportunity to get out of jail.  Is there any reason that you can 
think of why they wouldn't want to make full disclosure including 
saying but we were inside the Tavern, we shot and killed these 
people?

MR CORNELIUS: I do not see any reason why Gqomfa or Mabala 
should hide it, but why don't they tell us where the sixth person 
was?

UNKNOWN: Thank you Mr Cornelius, I've got no further 
questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Prior?

MR PRIOR: Thank you.  You indicated 
where you were seated and where some of the deceased were seated, 
your companions.  And you were asked a short while ago can you 
think of any reason why they wouldn't make full disclosure.
	There has been evidence led and it has been suggested that 
this was a Bar or a Tavern frequented by military personnel.  As far 
as you were aware on that evening, were there anyone that 
resembled military personnel in uniforms or the like?

MR CORNELIUS: As far as I can remember, not one.

MR PRIOR: How were the people dressed on that occasion?

MR CORNELIUS: It was as if we were holiday makers, which I 
was at the time, dressed in shorts, T-shirts, sandals, caps on, leisure 
wear.

MR PRIOR: And if someone, we heard from I think Mr Madasi, 
who indicated that the lighting, there was sufficient lighting to see 
people?

MR CORNELIUS: There was.

MR PRIOR: A person could see clearly who was enjoying 
themselves in the Tavern?

MR CORNELIUS: Correct.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Had you been there before?

MR CORNELIUS: No, Judge.  That was the first time I had been 
there.

JUDGE WILSON: And what door did you use to get in?

MR CORNELIUS: On the sketch it is marked by "h".

JUDGE WILSON: Now, the door that is marked "g" on this sketch, 
I don't know if you remember it, it is a double door with glass, was 
that door open?

MR CORNELIUS: No.  It was locked and bolted from the inside.  
And I specifically remember even looking at it, it seemed to be just a 
feature, it hadn't been opened for years.  That is certainly the 
impression I had when I arrived because it is the first time I had 
been there, and I looked at the place.  
	It was as if that was an old door, never used, and locked just 
as a feature, it was completely painted closed.

ADV SANDI: Mr Cornelius, you say there was or there were no 
members of the Security Forces in that Tavern, did I heard you 
correctly?

MR CORNELIUS: To my knowledge, I couldn't identify anybody 
by their dress, as military people or Security Forces, for that matter.

ADV SANDI: Save for uniform, is there any other way in which 
one could have identified any such members at the Tavern?

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, the only way I think you could 
maybe have identified them is if they openly wore weapons on them, 
and I certainly and I was never in that frame of mind, to even look 
at things like that.

UNKNOWN: Mr 
Chairman, just one question.  Were you going to ask a question?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

UNKNOWN: Just arising from Adv Sandi's question.  We 
know now that Ciska du Plessis was in the Tavern and she I think 
still is a member of the South African Police.  So there was one 
member of the Security Forces in the Tavern.

MR CORNELIUS: I believe there was, and I believe she is a PRO, 
working in the Police Force.  I don't believe that she is an 
operational person, but she works in the Police Force and she is a 
Public Relations Officer.

UNKNOWN: Then also following on that, at that time of the 
night, would one expect members of the Security Forces to be in 
uniform unless it is at the army barracks or at a military base which 
clearly this wasn't?

MR CORNELIUS: Security Forces in my opinion include 
Policemen and if we are led to believe that this venue was chosen 
because it was frequented by Security Personnel, on that basis, I 
would certainly expect that it would at least be at least maybe 30 or 
40 percent of the people inside would be Policemen, whether they 
were off duty or not, whether they were clothed in Police clothes or 
not, I believe there was only one person in there, amongst a packed  
place full of students.

UNKNOWN: No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  You are excused from further 
attendance.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
WITNESS EXCUSED.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I call Michael January.  The witness' 
submissions are made at item 1 on the submissions by victims, pages 
1 to 25.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

MICHAEL JANUARY: (sworn states)

MR PRIOR: Mr January, how old are you 
at present?

MR JANUARY: At present I am 30 years old.

MR PRIOR: Are you married?

MR JANUARY: No, I am not married.

MR PRIOR: Is it correct that you were injured at the Heidelberg 
Tavern during the attack by the applicants, on the night of the 30th 
of December 1993?

MR JANUARY: I was injured in the Heidelberg Tavern on the 
night of the 30th of December 1993.

MR PRIOR: Is it correct that you have compiled your own 
submissions together with certain annexures supporting your claim 
for compensation?

MR JANUARY: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: And it has been explained to you that we will not deal 
in any detail with the claim for compensation but this will on your 
request, be referred to the Reparations Committee?

MR JANUARY: That is what I understand, yes.

MR PRIOR: You indicated to me as well, that you wanted to read 
out onto the record, to the Committee your submissions as you had 
prepared them, is that correct?

MR JANUARY: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: Would you please proceed?