Human Rights Violation Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-06-11

MR NTSEBEZA: So where the riot police are concerned Dolf would have been involved in this.  Now did your report mention that on the morning of the 9th of June as thousands of Witdoeke massed on the western edge of Crossroads, the riot police were present, did your report mention that, do you remember?

MR DU TOIT: I would have given a complete description, that's all I can tell you but I can't remember those details, but what Dolf had said and so forth, that I would have reported on quite thoroughly.

MR NTSEBEZA: Did you report that shortly after 10 the Witdoeke advanced westwards towards KTC, brushing aside KTC residents who had gathered near Crossroads and after first setting fire to tents in Zolani Centre they went on and reached and started setting fire to KTC, did your report mention that detail?

MR DU TOIT: No ...(intervention)

MR NTSEBEZA: That firstly they gathered, secondly, they marched after setting fire to tents and Zolani Centre they then reached and started setting fire to KTC, do you recall if your report had mentioned that?

MR DU TOIT: No, no, those detailed movements etc, that was Dolf's job, he would report on that, that would not be part of my report.

MR NTSEBEZA: No, no, no, it was your job to report - you were gathering information of what happened in terms of your own testimony today.

MR DU TOIT: Ja, ja.

MR NTSEBEZA: Now did your report say that the police took no action to disperse the Witdoeke or to prevent them from advancing on KTC, did your report mention that?

MR DU TOIT: No, because I hadn't had that information.

MR NTSEBEZA: Did your report mention that instead the police advanced with, or escorted the advancing Witdoeke, and when KTC residents attempted to resist the attack the police use gunfire and teargas to drive them off, did your report mention that?

MR DU TOIT: No, my report did not contain that detailed information because I hadn't been there personally.  That would have been contained in Dolf's operational reports.

MR NTSEBEZA: Did your report mention that the police in their armed casspirs stood by while Witdoeke advanced past them into KTC and started burning under their very noses, did your report mention that?

MR DU TOIT: No my report did not mention that.

MR NTSEBEZA: So you were informing the police commissioner on what had happened on the 9th and the 10th and the 11th, information that was at best half-baked, would you agree with that?

MR DU TOIT: No, the information which I gave I believed was balanced, it wasn't half-baked.  And I must also say that the operational information would be channelled through Dolf's channels.

MR NTSEBEZA: Where would Dolf have found this information from?  Did you say information with Dolf?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, yes Dolf and I shared information but those finer details regarding movements etc that would have been part of Dolf's report to the Commissioner because it concerned how his people would have moved and their movements, and how his people reported to him, so I think he would be able to tell you about that.

MR NTSEBEZA: Now you testified that Ngxobongwana was arrested in April, or at least he was detained for quite some time from April 1985, now I take it that you were, as a Security policeman you were aware of the provisions of the Internal Security Act in terms of which people were detained at the time, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, yes I was aware of the legislation.

MR NTSEBEZA: You were aware that the legislation provided for a person to be held in communicado, that means in circumstances where the person was not able to be visited by friends and family, by lawyers, except only occasionally by a magistrate and/or a judge, and/or a district surgeon?

MR DU TOIT: Yes I am aware of those provisions.

MR NTSEBEZA: It was in circumstances where it was possible, in fact the provision of the law, I think you are aware of this, was that a person would be kept in detention until they have replied to questions satisfactorily, you are aware of that?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.

MR NTSEBEZA: And in fact the determiner of whether the questions were satisfactory would, for all practical purposes, be the detainer, in other words the police person and/or the Commissioner of Police.  It would lie not on the courts of law, not on anything but the person who has caused the person to be detained as to whether the questions had been answered satisfactorily or not.  That was the law, do you agree with that?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR NTSEBEZA: And your own testimony was that before this arrest Ngxobongwana was in fact part and parcel of the same group of people as constituted the group called the Comrades, they were all part of the United Democratic Front, they were one single group.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, Ngxobongwana was a member of the United Democratic Front in those years.

MR NTSEBEZA: Ja, before he went to prison.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, yes.

MR NTSEBEZA: And after a period of detention without trial, as I have described, he came back a different person, would you agree?  That is the conclusion we can draw from his actions.  Would you be able to draw that same conclusion from what he behaved like after he came out of detention?

MR DU TOIT: Yes he had a different approach, a different attitude and convictions.

MR NTSEBEZA: Something must have happened to him whilst he was held in prison and only members of the Security police had access to him whilst he was there, do you agree?  Are you uncomfortable with the question?

MR DU TOIT: No I am not uncomfortable with the question but I don't think it was only members of the Security police, the doctor, magistrate, uniformed policemen and so on would also have had access to him in detention but the Security police, yes, they certainly had access to such a person, that is correct.

MR NTSEBEZA: You are not suggesting that the magistrate or the doctor would have been questioning him whilst he was in detention would you?  You are not suggesting that the doctor would be interrogating him whilst he was in detention are you?

MR DU TOIT: No, no, that's not what I am suggesting.

MR NTSEBEZA: Nor the magistrate?

MR DU TOIT: The magistrate would have, I am sure, have asked him whether he had any complaints or problems.

MR NTSEBEZA: Yes.  So it was the police who had an interest in asking him questions on the basis of which, if he had answered them satisfactorily, he would be released?

MR DU TOIT: Yes it can be accepted that that was the practice at the time, and was the purpose of the detention.

MR NTSEBEZA: And as a policeman, as a Security policeman, if for instance it was you were detaining, you would tell him if you don't reply to questions you are going to remain here, you are going to rot here until you answer questions satisfactorily, not so?  And you would be stating the law, not so?

MR DU TOIT: It is possible that a policeman could have acted in that way but I wouldn't have done it ...(intervention)

MR NTSEBEZA: No Mr du Toit it's not a question of possibility, that was the position.  You would explain to a detainee that listen the law provides that I can keep you here for as long as you do not answer questions satisfactorily, and you made that understood by the detainee, not so?

MR DU TOIT: Yes ...(intervention)

MR NTSEBEZA: Yes.  Are you aware that whilst Ngxobongwana was in prison he was - are you aware that whilst he was in prison or immediately after his release from detention he switched lawyers and insisted on being represented by Mr Ivan Swartzberg from Pretoria, are you aware of that?

MR DU TOIT: I am aware of that, that Mr Ngxobongwana made use of Mr Swartzberg in connection with, I think, a rental issue in New Crossroads, but I am not 100% sure, but I know he made use of a Swartzberg attorney relating to some housing or rental issue in New Crossroads.