Amnesty Hearings — Thohoyandou — 1999-06-29

SISI KHAMPEPE: Was it omitted, Mr Van Rensburg, or he did not specify who had instructed him to do the various vigorous exercises that he had alluded to in his evidence-in-chief?  Wasn't his evidence-in-chief general?  If I recollect his evidence-in-chief is that various policemen made them to do various vigorous exercises, that was his evidence.  He didn't mention which of the officers instructed him to do which of the many vigorous exercises he was subjected to.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.  Mr Chairman, on at least two occasions he did mention a group of policemen who were involved in torturing him.  The second one I can remember was when the policemen were named, the policemen who jumped on him were named, one by one.  This was supposed to happen immediately after these vigorous exercises and, at that stage the name of Mr Netshivale was also omitted.  And I just find it peculiar that on both instances, when he mentioned specific groups of policemen who did certain things, the name of the fifth applicant was omitted.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Van Rensburg, assuming we accept the evidence of Mr Mahumela, that Mr Netshivale gave him instructions to do these exercises, how would you submit would that impact on Mr Netshivale's application?

MR VAN RENSBURG: If that evidence is accepted, of course it will have a serious implication on the evidence of Mr Netshivale.  I would also argue and that forms part of my address, Mr Chairman, that the question of the memory of the specific persons also must play a role in this instance.
	We must remember that, and that was the evidence of specifically Mr Netshivale, that it was not only the Security Branch members who interrogated suspects at the time in this brutal way, it was standard practice and normal procedure.  Therefor it is submission that these instances will stand out more vividly in the memories and the recollection of the victims rather than that of the applicants.
	As my learned friend, Adv Meyer, argued these events took place a long time ago and I would submit that, and on the basis then that if Mr Mahumela's evidence is accepted, it does not necessarily mean that Mr Netshivale and perhaps also the other applicants elected not to tell the Commission about this but, it can perhaps be explained by the long time lapse.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Van Rensburg, is it no so that if you take it within the context of all the alleged forms of torture, that this exercise might be regarded as a lesser form of torture than for instance, applying the electrodes to the private parts of victims and that one could more easily say 'Well, it could have been lapse of memory on the part of Mr Netshivale?'

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Mr Chairman, I would really agree with that statement.  It is so that, especially if we bear in mind that these torture sessions lasted, as the victims testified, for long hours, it is easy that such a minor or actually one of the exercises can actually be forgotten.
	Yes, it was not a major incident, it did certainly not cause any serious injuries and therefor I would say that it was actually a minor incident.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Doesn't it go to the question of full disclosure?  I don't know whether this wasn't a minor injury, that wasn't my impression.  His evidence, Mr Mahumela's evidence is that he was subjected to a rigorous form of exercise in the manner in which he described as having been the one which he was instructed by Mr Netshivale to do.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Whether that didn't cause serious injury or not, I cannot say.  Doesn't it go to the question of full disclosure because Netshivale was quite explicit on this fact that he only slapped all the suspects with his bare hand and did nothing other than that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.  Well, apart from the fact that I have to stress that it is possible that he had forgotten about it.  I have to also stress the fact that is was the part of his evidence that he personally has made his own peace with the victims.  And I would submit therefor that there would be absolutely reason for him not to make full disclosure at this stage.
	And, I also submit that from his evidence and the way that he has presented his evidence, it is clear that he in fact did try to make a full disclosure as far as possible.
	May I continue?  To continue then, Mr Chairman, I submit that Mr Netshivale has in fact met all the formal requirements stipulated in the Act.  That is it from the evidence clear that he was at the time, an employee of the state who acted under orders.  And that there was action taken against members of a liberation movement as stipulated in Section 22b of the Act.
	The fact that he was acting with the necessary political motive, I take it is also not in dispute at that this stage, as well.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	To then conclude my address, I would submit that Mr Netshivale has in fact made full disclosure to the Committee, that he has met all the requirements and that he asks for amnesty for the assault and torture of Rev Phoshwana, Mr Phosiwa, Mr Chikororo and Mr Mahumela.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, the amnesty that the fifth applicant is making is for assault and torture of the Reverend Phoshwana, Mr Phosiwa, Mr Chikororo and Mr Mahumela.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Van Rensburg.  Ms Mtanga?