Amnesty Hearings — Mmabatho — 1998-09-23

MR VAN DER BERG: Mr Chairperson, that is correct, it is not very clear.  The applicant moved from the side, the way in which we looked at the video or video camera, he moved from the right hand side.
	Mr de Ionne also testified that he also moved from the right hand side and it is very clear that he fired shots, turned around and fired more shots.  It was not a question that he stood there and when he saw the movement, then fired the shots.  He moved in, it is very clear out of the video, he moved into the scene and then shot the people.
	So it is not, it is very improbable that he moved there and then shot the people after he saw the movement.
	It is also very clear Mr Chairperson, and I want to conclude this aspect, that on the video one can clearly see that Mr Uys, who was on the left hand side of the vehicle, lying against a wheel, that his hand falls forward.  There is no way that he could move his hand towards a weapon.  If there were weapons.
	And the same for Mr Wolfaardt, who was lying flat on the ground on his stomach, with his face towards the ground.  It is also out of my Heads that his left hand was on top of his right hand and there where he was shot, his hands stayed the same, in the same position, nothing moved.  That is a question that I asked to Mr Menyatsoe, that he could have answered if he wanted to and that is if it is true that the hand, he could not even say if it was a left or right hand side, but let's just accept that he moved with his right hand, but I think he mentioned left hand, if this hand moved down to the hip and when I asked him, did you shoot him when his hand moved towards his hip where there would have been a weapon, he said yes, but surely one would expect that the hand or the arm would remain in that position after you shot a person?  It cannot be true what he said.
	Mr Chairperson, if I can then continue.  Paragraph 9, if the member who went for his weapon was shot immediately, his hand would have remained at his side.
	Paragraph 10, the explanations that the applicant gives why these additions were not made to his statements, is because it happened a long time ago and he cannot remember.
	Paragraph 11, Mr Chairperson, this explanation we cannot accept because the applicant had four opportunities to make additions to his statements or affidavits.  It must be taken into consideration that he did have a legal representative.
	He is lying, blatantly lying.  It is all that he did here and these facts, he fabricated afterwards and came to tell it to the Commission.  It is not what really happened.
	Then Mr Chairperson, I would like to refer you to page 29 of the bundle.  That would be the 17th line, second last paragraph, it begins with I approached the occupants of the Mercedes and fired shots at them.  I immediately left the scene, I went back to the TTA and met one of the white officers who said I had done a good job.
	Mr Chairperson, that is exactly the question that worried you and that is with respect, he never explained this 20 minutes.  Monday when I started with my cross-examination, I emphasised this because it is very important, this 15 to 20 minutes and what happened in that period of time.  He never explained it in any of his affidavits.
	Here on page 29 he tells a story, he runs to the Mercedes Benz, according to the version, he is apparently the first person that arrives there, and that from this out of the document, he shot and killed them and moved back.  But that is not what happened.
	15 to 20 minutes expired, where he was present.  On your question Mr Chairman, he answered or let me put it this way, I asked him did you leave the scene and then you asked were you there the whole time?  He said he was there the whole time, at the scene.
	On his own version, he was there for that whole 15 or 20 minutes.  That is something which he did not explain, up to today he have not explained it to the Commission yet.
	If we then continue Chairperson, in paragraph 13 the applicant mentions in his affidavit on page 10 and paragraph 13, that he feared that the AWB  would take over the government and that is why he shot.  He wanted to prevent them from taking over, but this is contradicting his evidence that he was an ANC supporter and he was opposed against the government of Mangope.  So he is saying two things, he wanted to prevent the AWB from taking over, and because he feared that the Police would be next.
	He is looking at that, but one can say that he is pro the Mangope government and because he is fighting for the Police, but in the same breath he says I am a supporter of the ANC and I am jumping around with a gun in my hand.  That is contradictory.
	It also does not correspond to when he was asked whether he had a political motivation.

ADV MOTATA: Before you proceed, if we say in our deliberations regarding the political objective and we say well, this evidence that he was an ANC supporter, doesn't hold, say we say that for instance and now we look at him who was a policeman finding himself as he puts it, in a war situation, would he still qualify in those terms?

MR VAN DER BERG: Mr Chairperson, surely one would expect that if he was an ANC supporter, this would have come forward in his documents more pertinently.  The shooting itself should be seen as an individual incident, he did this as an individual, he was not politically inspired when he stood there.
	He doesn't say that all of us were here and we decided, or someone told me that I must do this and we decided this together.  That was never his case.  He went there as an individual.
	We must take this into consideration, that was his case and we must not forget it, with all respect.  He didn't shoot in order to obtain a political objective.  What he said to the Commission was I shot them out of self-defence.  And if you look at all his statements, he made four of them, if you look at them, it is very evident that he shot out of self-defence, to protect myself and to protect the people.
	I will still get to this people because we do not really know who the people are he protected, seeing that he was the only person at the scene of the crime.  But there can't be any political motivations.

ADV MOTATA: No Mr Van der Berg, if you look at it, the evidence that we have heard so far is that there was a political eruption or upheaval, which is ascribed to a war situation.  Are we able assist us please, that we could say when it stopped and if people are in a war situation, if they kill each other, can we say the other group in this war situation, who was shooting and killing in self-defence or to achieve an objective that we defeat the enemy, where do we draw the line?

MR VAN DER BERG: Chairperson, if you grant me a second and I am going to take it page by page and I am going to get to this aspect because it is included in my Heads of argument.

ADV MOTATA: We will rather do that, because it would be more structured, thank you Mr Van der Berg.

MR VAN DER BERG: As it pleases you.  Mr Chairperson, if you look at paragraph 14 at page 10 of the bundle, the applicant mentions that it was his duty firstly to maintain order, to prevent that the AWB take over and to protect the public or the people.
	Paragraph 15, this evidence correspond with what he says in his evidence in chief, the fact that he was an ANC supporter.  I have already mentioned that before but it is also pertinently shown out of the pieces, out of the document.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr  Van der Berg, just for the record, if you look at paragraph 14.2 of your Heads, I think it should read it is to prevent that Bophuthatswana is taken over by the AWB?