Amnesty Hearings — Umtata — 1998-08-25

MR WESSELS: Do you know what gave rise to the eventual holding of the inquest after the Attorney General had decided in 1986 to indeed charge the two persons?  Was that also then the decision of the Attorney General that the inquest should be held in the interim, whilst Mr Tshabalala was missing or was there some other explanation for that?

EDMUND THEMBA WILLY: I didn't know.

MR WESSELS: But the decision to hold an inquest was not your decision?

EDMUND THEMBA WILLY: No.

MR WESSELS: In the normal course of proceedings, that decision would have emanated from the office of the Attorney General, under these circumstances where he, the Attorney General had initially decided to institute a prosecution.  If he cannot proceed, he will then decide that an inquest should be held in the interim.  Do you confirm that those were the normal proceedings?

EDMUND THEMBA WILLY: Yes.

MR WESSELS: With your knowledge of the investigation of this particular case, you would confirm and this is also reflected in Exhibit L, the inquest cover sheet, that there were numerous other affidavits from independent witnesses dealing, or who witnessed this particular shooting of whom statements had been taken as part of your investigation?

EDMUND THEMBA WILLY: Please repeat your question.

MR WESSELS: You will confirm with your knowledge of the investigation in this case, that statements had been obtained from a number of other, that is independent eyewitnesses to the shooting, and that those statements formed part of the inquest record as it is also reflected on Exhibit L?

EDMUND THEMBA WILLY: I do accept that.

MR WESSELS: You do not only accept that, you know that.  You know that there were a number of other witnesses who were present there in the vicinity where the shooting had taken place, from whom statements had been taken by the police?

EDMUND THEMBA WILLY: Yes I do know that there were a lot of witnesses and statements were taken from them.

MR WESSELS: The point I just want to make is that it was not only the warning statements of the four occupants of the vehicle, of the kombi vehicle that was submitted to the Attorney General, those were just part of a number of statements which were in the docket and submitted to the Attorney General for his decision?

EDMUND THEMBA WILLY: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

MR WESSELS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  Mr Majokweni, do you want to put any questions to Colonel Willy to clarify any matter?

MR MAJOKWENI: Thank you Mr Chairman, yes, I do.  Is it correct that you were not in the forefront of the investigation, you only assisted Major Gileli?

EDMUND THEMBA WILLY: That is correct.

MR MAJOKWENI: Is that perhaps why you don't really know many of the things that happened between the Attorney General, the inquest and so on, is it because you are not in the forefront of the investigation?

EDMUND THEMBA WILLY: That is correct.

MR MAJOKWENI: When you received these statements as you alleged, from Colonel Booi, these belonging to Dandala and the other three persons, did you in fact notice whether they were signed or not signed?

EDMUND THEMBA WILLY: I didn't notice that.

MR MAJOKWENI: Thank you My Lord, I have no further questions.

MR MAJOKWENI: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Thank you Colonel Willy, you may return to your seat.

<UNKNOWN>: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, there is no further witness now except for Chief Keizer Matanzima.

CHAIRPERSON: The witness who is Chief Keizer Matanzima, do you want the Court to call him?

MR MAPOMA: I beg your pardon Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish, Mr Matanzima was subpoenaed, was he not?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you intend calling him then?

MR MAPOMA: Can I just get an indulgence Mr Chairperson, I just want to consult with the victim's legal representative.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairman, I intend calling him.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he here?

MR MAPOMA: There is no indication that he is here, I have not seen him today.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is he?  Just call his name out so that I can see whether he is here?  Call his name three times and see whether he is here?

MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairman, there is no positive response, he is not here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.  What do you intend doing?

MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairman, in the event of him not having honoured the subpoena, I think the matter will have to be taken with the Commission whether to take it further, by way of prosecution at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.  But in so far as these proceedings are concerned?

MR MAPOMA: In so far as these proceedings are concerned Chairperson, the evidence now is completed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dukada?

MR DUKADA: Mr Chairperson, as I indicated earlier we don't intend to call any witness in opposing the application, we will argue the matter on the basis of the evidence already led.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  As I understand the position, the legal representative of the applicants, do not have any further witnesses they wish to call.

MR HUGO: That is correct Mr Chairman, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels, do you have any witness that you want to call?

MR WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman, as representative of Gen Kawe, he has the right to testify or to adduce evidence.  It is not his wish to testify or adduce any evidence, so as far as him being an implicated person, he has nothing to present to the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.  Mr Majokweni?

MR MAJOKWENI: In respect of Colonel Booi and Gen Nkalitshane, my situation is the same as Gen Kawe.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, they do not intend to place any evidence before this Commission, very well.
	It seems to me that the matter is then ready for argument, is that right?

MR DUKADA: Mr Chairman, may I put this in your able hands in the matter, our view is that it is absolutely important to have the evidence of Chief K.D.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it going to take the matter any further in so far as the applications are concerned, at this stage?  We have heard all the evidence now?

MR DUKADA: Mr Chairperson, the evidence or our submission will be that the evidence of K.D. Matanzima may be relevant to the application by Mr Dandala and if, I don't know what the type of evidence Mr Matanzima will give at the appropriate stage, but if he gives evidence to say that the Transkeian authorities were aware about the killing, yet Mr Dandala has testified he wasn't aware at all that the killing was premeditated, then the question of full disclosure becomes relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: But there is no suggestion here, has there been, that the death of the deceased was pre-planned, has there been?

MR DUKADA: No Mr Chairperson.  If the newspaper article which contains the remarks of Chief K.D. Matanzima does give a suggestion that the killing was premeditated.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that suggest that Mr Dandala knew about that, is there any suggestion about that?

MR DUKADA: No, no Mr Chairperson, I don't know if you follow my point.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to confine this because once the victims have all the right to appear at these proceedings, but one has to bear in mind that this is not an open enquiry.  Matters that ought to be canvassed here, have to be confined to the relevance.  We accept that there was this statement which was made in regard to the death of the deceased, by Matanzima, but is there anything to suggest that Dandala conspired with the government, because all he has told us is that he was told that something has to cover it up, that he has said.
	That is why some of the contents of his statements, he testified, were altered because there has to be a cover up, and he mentioned the names of those Officers who told him that there has to be a cover up.