Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — UNKNOWN

NORMAN ARENDSE: Well I don't think it would be fair for me to allege - I did say that I know Mr Segal as a very able, the late Mr Segal, as a very able and competent investigating officer who did his job well, sometimes more than well, but I would be surprised that Mr Segal wouldn't have extracted a photograph of Mr Ntsebeza somewhere after he had been linked to the white Audi and put it in front of Mr Sibaya who was so very sure that it is him.  Do you want to comment Mr Sibaya?

MR SIBAYA: I don't know where Mr Segal comes in in this case.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Segal was the investigating officer in the case.  Mr Segal we know instructed Mr Etsebeth to take a statement from you.  Mr Segal is the one who told you, according to your evidence, that you are no longer needed because you are incoherent, that's what you said, that's what he thought of what you said.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the question?

NORMAN ARENDSE: It's a response to him saying where does Mr Segal fit into the picture.  I just want to remind him that Mr Segal was the investigating officer, and I also want to remind him of what he said, what Segal said to him about his statement.  Do you want to comment on that or shall we move on Mr Sibaya?

MR SIBAYA: You can continue.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Why has it taken you so long to point out the person whom you say you saw that evening?

CHAIRPERSON: Well now why do you say that?

NORMAN ARENDSE: I say that because the police investigated this matter on the basis of his first statement in 1994.  The Investigative Unit of the Commission investigated this matter ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you are talking about pointing him out  here today.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You say why did it take him so long to point him out here today?

NORMAN ARENDSE: Including the pointing out today ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just be a little more specific.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Sorry Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Why has it taken ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Are you in fact putting to him why didn't he point him out before today?

NORMAN ARENDSE: Ja.

JUDGE WILSON: Were you ever given the opportunity to point him out before today?  Were you ever asked to do so?

MR SIBAYA: This is the first time I had to point him out.

CHAIRPERSON: Move on Mr Arendse.

NORMAN ARENDSE: I want to put it to you Mr Sibaya that the reason why neither the police nor the Investigative Unit of the Commission asked you to point out who the person was is because they didn't believe what you had said, that you were in fact incoherent and unreliable as a witness.

JUDGE WILSON: Can you say that in the light of the evidence, the information we've got about enquiries they allege they did make?  You have been referring to what is contained in the report, well doesn't one of the senior police officers suggest they got a name ...(intervention)

MR SIBAYA: Are you saying that they did not believe me?

JUDGE WILSON: ...of the owner of the vehicle in Umtata, and because they weren't allowed to go in there he decided not to do anything further?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman may I interpose.  I would ask the Committee to simply make a ruling, the statement made by my learned friend certainly may have a tendency to create a perception in the public's view that the Investigative Unit, not believing that they had any evidence simply has produced this.
	As far as the evidence leader is concerned, and from the bundles put up, there has been complete transparency from the very outset.  The secret documents, the reports of Mr Lubbe, as well as Mr Killian, as well as the Intelligence reports of the police from day one have been put up and supplied to my learned friend.  My request is simply that such a statement may create the wrong perception.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, can we proceed to some other aspect of the matter please.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Sibaya have you got a television at home?  Do you watch television?

MR SIBAYA: When I have time I watch TV.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Do you read the newspapers?

MR SIBAYA: No I don't like newspapers.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Okay.  Have you seen this person whom you have pointed out today, have you seen him on the TV or have you seen his photograph in the newspapers before?

MR SIBAYA: No, I wouldn't say so, I have never seen his face even in a magazine.  I read Xhosa magazines.

ADV SANDI: Sorry to interpose Mr Arendse.  Mr Sibaya were you expecting to see this person here?

MR SIBAYA: No, I did not know that he would be here or that he would be brought here.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Arendse.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Sibaya did you have a meeting, or let me ask you this, your statement which you gave in August 1997 to Mr Lubbe, did you discuss it since then, subsequent to your making the statement?  Did you discuss it with Mr Lubbe or anyone else before you gave your evidence here?

MR SIBAYA: No because Mr Lubbe was looking for me even at work.  I asked what it was about.  He said I must get into the car it's very important.  I got into the car.  He told me the matter.  I told him that this had happened a long time ago. I gave him all the knowledge that I had.  Even at home nobody knew about this.  They were shocked when they heard it.  They were shocked - a member of my family said that they saw it in the papers this week.

NORMAN ARENDSE: When Mr Lubbe interviewed you did he have your statement which you made in January 1994?

MR SIBAYA: What do you mean, where?

NORMAN ARENDSE: Did he show you your first statement that you made on the 5th of January 1994, did he have it there with him?

MR SIBAYA: He had it in his hand.  He said that he wanted me in accordance with my statement.

NORMAN ARENDSE: But do you agree now after so many questions have been asked of you do you agree that your statement of August 1997 does not in fact accord, as you put it so nicely, with your statement of January 1994?

MR SIBAYA: This happened a long time ago.  These statements would not be exactly the same, however, I do remember what happened.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Yes one would have thought that because something like this happened so long ago and that you made a statement a few days after you saw what happened that you would have simply said well, I made a statement that day, read it through, or have it read to you and you would have said no, that's fine that's my statement.  Why didn't you do that?  Why didn't you simply say, well you've got my statement, I made one already under oath, why must I make another statement?

MR SIBAYA: He said that he was not a policeman.  He's from the TRC.  He said that he wanted to find out if what I had said was the truth.  I told him what I saw and I was not lying.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Sibaya I am sorry but I have got to put to you that you are lying.

MR SIBAYA: How so?

NORMAN ARENDSE: How so, because you've made two statements, both swearing to God that you've told the truth, on page 87; that it's binding on your conscience, and then you make another statement in August 1997 where you also certify that you understand the contents of the statement and that you also consider that statement to be binding on your conscience.  And you yourself have acknowledged that the two statements differ in material respects, in important respects, that is why I am putting it to you. Do you want to comment?

MR SIBAYA: Are you saying I am not telling the truth, is that what you are saying?

CHAIRPERSON: It's taking a long time.

NORMAN ARENDSE: I didn't hear that answer, sorry Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: He is still asking you whether you are suggesting that he's not telling the truth.

NORMAN ARENDSE: In fact Mr Sibaya I am using a stronger word than just suggesting you are not telling the truth, I am telling you you are not telling the truth.