Human Rights Violation Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1996-11-20

WITNESS:   As far as the first question is concerned I would like to refer you to the same report further on, where we say that during these occasions allegations were made from both sides - if you continue reading - and it's not always easy to say who started it, because the parties accuse each other.  As far as I'm concerned, and my own impartiality is concerned, as far as the peace at Nxamalala is concerned, I played a big role in that.  I don't want to go into detail, but there are people who will be able to vouch for me on that.  I'd like to go further and mention Imbali before the Seven Day War.  I had talks with UDF leaders.  I had the UDF leaders in the Unit Eight hall and we had talks with them.  We were trying to make peace, to stop the factions from fighting.  At that stage the specific leaders would have reported back to their communities on the Sunday.  On that Sunday our State President, Mr Mandela, was released and the meeting never took place.  And the process was actually to some extent thwarted at that stage.  So, to say that I only consulted with one side is not correct.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Thank you.  The convictions, were those people convicted?

WITNESS:   Some of them were convicted for possession of presumably stolen property, but I think the detectives might be able to give more information on that.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Yes, I think it will be interesting to get documents, because at some stage we were told that the same stolen items were transported in a police vehicle, so one questions justice under those circumstances.  So I think it will be in the interests of everybody concerned to know what really happened, whether any convictions emanated from that.

WITNESS:   That specific statement was made by Mr Shabangu.  In the same statement he said that Constable de Wet was there.  I have documentary proof here which makes it clear that he wasn't there.  Once again witnesses say things which aren't always true, or perhaps they're not quite sure of certain facts.  If we, for instance, look at one particular witness, he said how the police had attacked the house with R4 guns.  Once again R4 guns were never used by the police.  R5s, the first instruction which started taking place in R5s only took place in 1991, and I have here a certificate which proves when the first instructor in R5s was trained.  And this particular lady has to be very well trained, because anybody who can see the difference between an R4 and an R5 rifle at a distance must be very well trained.  I can't do that.  So I think if all the evidence is properly tested the truth will out.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Yes.  Won't you say that in the same way that you were explaining some inconsistencies in your submission, that it's because we are talking of something that happened about six years ago, that instead of accusing these witnesses of saying things that are not true, that probably the same problem that they are facing with it is to try and recollect the sequence of the events?  Anyway, finally, yesterday I got an impression, wrongly perhaps, that in your presentation you were a bit defensive, and I was worried because part of the objective of the Truth Commission is to bring about reconciliation.  And one challenge that we have in South Africa is reconciliation between the police service as well as the community at large, especially the black sector of the community.  And with that kind of perception that I had I became very pessimistic compared to the time when the likes of Mr Harrington, Mr Madlala and Mr Shabangu, where I sensed some sincerity.  There could have been flaws, but I definitely sensed some sincerity, and I had hoped that with that kind of sincerity the gap between the police service and the community will be closed.  With hindsight, if you were to handle the same situation again, what are the things that you will do differently, if at all, and how would you handle the situation?

WITNESS:   If I have to be honest, if I, as a member of the SAPS, as I sit here today, hear the evidence about what the police did then, you're embarrassed.  You're embarrassed to have to align yourself with these criminal acts.  But, if I have to be honest with you, if I had to go through a period such as from '86 to '92, then I wouldn't do it, I wouldn't have chosen the same career.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER: Thank you.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Director Meyer, I just have one question to ask.  Yesterday Mr Harrington, when he made his submission he clearly indicated that they had instructions that they should not arrest IFP people.  I would like you to make a comment on that.  But following onto that my other question is, you have tried to paint a picture of sincere impartiality of the police.  I would like to ask whether you remember that during this unrest during this period there was an attempt to set up a peace committee by business, IFP and UDF/ANC members, and we have also heard that the ANC members, UDF members who were part - who formed part of that committee were arrested just at that time.  Could you explain why, when this was such an important thing to try and bring peace in such a strife-torn area, that those who were involved in that had to be arrested at that time?

WITNESS:   As far as Harrington's evidence is concerned, he and his men were on a mission of their own.  He yesterday mentioned that I had told him that he seemed to think that he was a little god.  What he neglected to mention to the Commission was that I told him that there were many stories doing the rounds, and that Harrington would go to prison if the didn't watch out.  As far as arrests are concerned, I don't know anything about this specific arrest or arrests, but I think what must be mentioned is something which perhaps contributed to the community's opposition to us, and that is the emergency regulations in force at the time.  You know, the emergency regulations were there to suppress the communities, for the same reason as these arrests were performed.  If we got back to the records, if they are available, it was mostly UDF people detained under the emergency regulations.  I agree wholeheartedly.  But these specific arrests referred to, I am not aware of those.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER: Just to follow up on that.  You will recall yesterday that Mr Pierre Cronje gave evidence, and he raised this question of the arrest, detention for many months, of the UDF negotiating team.  And Mr Vlok, who was then Minister of Law and Order, said to him - said to Mr Cronje, he said, "Do you really think that I can allow UDF members to be seen negotiating for peace?"  So I am not asking you to comment on that, I am just saying that was the official Government line at the time.  And if UDF people were seen to be negotiating peacefully to bring about the end of political violence in an area it seemed that it was State policy to arrest them and place them in detention, because the Government could not be seen to allow UDF people to be involved in peace negotiations.  That came from the Minister's mouth.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Thank you, Chairperson.  Just two last questions for you.  You're aware that during the evenings on all those days the vast majority of the combatants camped at the chief's residence.  You're aware of that?

WITNESS:   I can't remember that specifically, but let me put it this way.  Now I have certainty about it, but I can't remember whether it was so at the time, I really can't.

DANIEL JOHANNES MEYER:  Well, from the evidence we've heard so far, and other witnesses, it's clear that that's what happened.  Now, the question I have to you is, why didn't you just arrest those people right there and then at those places?  Or if not arrest them, disarm them and send them home?  It was nightfall, you had people, you could have surrounded them.  It would have been absolutely a simple matter to do at that time.