Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1999-05-24

JUSTICE BEKEBEKE: No decisions were consciously made, as we were being shot at. That's when each and every individual decided consciously or subconsciously to attack.

ADV STEENKAMP: At the time of the incident, can you indicate to us whether or not you occupied any position in the local structure there.

JUSTICE BEKEBEKE: I was the chairperson of the Paballelo Youth Organisation.

ADV STEENKAMP: And was this incident at all, or any of this problems at any stage discussed before this incident. The problems in Paballelo?

JUSTICE BEKEBEKE: The problems of Paballelo were discussed over years, even on November 1985. Hence the meeting that was called on the 10th of November in the Community Hall to discuss our grievances, our political and social grievances in Paballelo as black people in 1985.

ADV STEENKAMP: Can you just tell us, on behalf, I'm just asking this question on behalf of Mrs Sitwala specifically. What was your view at the time regarding the police in Paballelo?

JUSTICE BEKEBEKE: In Paballelo, it's not that the police as a whole might be, could have been against certain individuals who were definitely trying to thwart our aspirations to get us out of the morass of poverty in Paballelo. We have friends in the police services. I was playing soccer with a number of police in my soccer team, Paballelo Chiefs. My father's best friend is a policeman. He used to come and visit us, even today. So it was not to say that we are anti the police. We have to have policemen. But those who are against our aspirations as black people, those were definitely our enemies.

ADV STEENKAMP: At this time of the incident, were there other policemen at the scene? Did you see any other policemen? ... (indistinct) the killing of the deceased?

JUSTICE BEKEBEKE: There were a lot of police. There were police from Upington, police from Kimberley who were patrolling the streets in 1985, especially on the 13th of November.

ADV STEENKAMP: But during this specific incident, at this specific stage, were there also other police attacked or only this specific policeman?

JUSTICE BEKEBEKE: The police in the casspirs were attacked too by us, with stones.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman. No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Steenkamp. Is there anything else you want to add, Mr Bekebeke, in view of the questions that were asked to you?

JUSTICE BEKEBEKE: There is nothing except that I think today if we take a retrospective act, of course, we do not deny, I specifically do not deny that I was involved in the killing of the deceased. But I think that if we have to have true reconciliation today is the day when those who were involved in accusing especially people whom I know specifically were not involved in the killing of the deceased, this is the time for us to make a clean breast of it and tell us what happened actually.
	Because, according to me, just to take an example, a 60 year old Mrs de Bruyn, together with her husband, could not have been there. They weren't there. Accused, I think, Mr Menebognon, could not have been there. He was across the street, in King Street. Just prior to us running up Pilane Street, he wanted to cross, but unfortunately, he couldn't, because the police were shooting. And there he was his name accused of murdering the policeman which he wasn't part and parcel of the whole thing. The man was sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit. What would have happened if he was definitely hanged at the end of the day? Do you really say that we are coming for reconciliation when we still cling to untruths? When some people are having their names as criminals today when they didn't commit this crime? And even the way in which it was explained at court, evidence that was given, that was not truthful. Do we today say that we really want to reconcile, but still cling to those untruths? I do not deny I did kill the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr Bekebeke. Have you got any witnesses that you intend calling.

JUSTICE BEKEBEKE: I've got no witness to call, thank you, Commissioner.

CHAIRPERSON: You've got no witnesses.

JUSTICE BEKEBEKE: I've got no witness to call.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case you want to bring?

JUSTICE BEKEBEKE: That is my case that I'm presenting.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, have you got anything?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I'm not going to call any witnesses. It's my instructions on behalf of the victims that they feel that their resume and number of public statements of the Commission, detailed statements and they're specific, they are not intending to testify at all. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Steenkamp. Yes. Mr Bekebeke, is there any argument that you want to present to us in support of your application, anything in particular that you want us to take into account?

JUSTICE BEKEBEKE: Commissioner, I have submitted my application and I think this far that's my application.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, have you got any submissions?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, no further submissions, except to say that I just want to reiterate again that the victims are not, in principle, opposing the application, but they would like to leave the decision in the hands of the Committee. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Mr Bekebeke, referring to your aim of reconciliation, you refer to those who were implicated and tried, convicted. We haven't read, as you will appreciate, the record of the trial, simply - no, I don't want you to reopen that, you did mention some names. Surely that's important in terms of the interests of those individuals, they have in the past, I assume, made their public statements also at the trial. I want to refer to another part of this reconciliation process and that is your relationship vis a vis the dependants of the deceased. You objected to some noises made by the victim's relatives here. You did say also and ... (indistinct) in response to a question by Mr Steenkamp that there was no decision, there was no motive, it was a response in anger. It wasn't something that was planned. I think that goes somewhere to explaining it. But I'm not experiencing any outreach from your part towards the victims. Surely you would understand something about their feelings. If you put yourself in their shoes. Have you had an opportunity to talk to them since the death of their relative?