Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

JOE MAMASELA: We had problems in identifying the exact house but we did find a house that had ...[indistinct] that we fixed in the house and we were told that the owner has already passed away.  I don't know who was the owner and all that.  The investigators ...[indistinct] who took the particulars.

MS HARTLE: Now you are aware that there are eight applicants for amnesty?

JOE MAMASELA: Yes.

MS HARTLE: Before this Committee and Mr Roelof Venter in relation to the PEBCO 3 in another Committee?

JOE MAMASELA: Yes.

MS HARTLE: Would you say Mr Mamasela, that the number of applicants who have applied for amnesty would tally with the number of police officers who were present and involved in the operation, both at the abduction and later at Post Chalmers?

JOE MAMASELA: No, certainly not.  Like I said, it was mainly people coming and going and at one stage I even said there were about 14 - 15 people, so eight is just half, it's 40% of the number of the people that were supposed to be applying for amnesty here.

MS HARTLE: So would it be fair to say that there are persons who would have knowledge of the elimination of the PEBCO 3, that have not come forward and applied for amnesty?

JOE MAMASELA: That will be a fact, yes.

MS HARTLE: And I have no problem with the fact that those persons might have chosen not to apply for amnesty but I do have a problem with the fact that they have not been identified by any of the applicants before this Committee, as being involved.  Would you care to comment in that regard?

JOE MAMASELA: Yes, my comment will be that in all certainty and probability those who did not apply for amnesty are those who know that Mamasela did not know them and he could not expose them and they are still holding senior positions in the Government.
	And they are working in cahoots with their brothers here, to cover each other up.  So that is the only reason why they are not taken out by the applicants themselves.

MS HARTLE: If the Committee ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: But Mr Mamasela, could you identify all the applicants as being there?  Did you know for instance van Zyl?

JOE MAMASELA: With due respect Mr Chairman, I did not know all the applicants and I've stated that but she's asking a question whether, why they did not - I said in my opinion it's because I believe that some of them are still in the police force and holding senior ranks and they are protecting each other.  That's why the applicants don't want to confess the others.

ADV DE JAGER: But on the same reasoning, you couldn't identify van Zyl, so he had nothing to fear from you?

JOE MAMASELA: van Zyl?

ADV DE JAGER: Ja.

JOE MAMASELA: Yes, but I don't know why he decided to come out, but why did he decided not to expose the others, like the head of the NIS who came there.  Why didn't he expose him?  What reasons are there for him not to expose him?

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible]

MS HARTLE: Mr Mamasela, you couldn't say necessarily if people who were involved in the elimination of the PEBCO 3 were police officers or ordinary civilians?

JOE MAMASELA: No, they were police officers.  The police, when they go on their killing spree they don't use civilians for obvious reasons.

MS HARTLE: Could they perhaps have use people from military bases?

JOE MAMASELA: In my experience, yes we did have on numerous occasions, joint operations with military intelligence.

MS HARTLE: You couldn't necessarily say if any of those persons present at Post Chalmers at the time of the elimination of the PEBCO 3 were such military persons?

JOE MAMASELA: I couldn't tell, nobody identified himself as from military intelligence but the possibility is there.

MS HARTLE: When you arrived at Post Chalmers that first evening with the abductees, were they given beds to sleep in?

JOE MAMASELA: At Post Chalmers?

MS HARTLE: At Post Chalmers.

JOE MAMASELA: No, no, it was a derelict type of a building at that stage, there were no beds, it was just open cells and then that shed and the other buildings were locked and that's why we were forced to sleep in our Husky bus.

MS HARTLE: Was any bedding, any warm linen provided for the ...[intervention]

JOE MAMASELA: No, no, we kept the engine running at regular intervals to keep ourselves warm.

MS HARTLE: So neither you nor the victims were supplied with blankets.

JOE MAMASELA: No, no, they were never supplied with blankets.

MS HARTLE: You made the comment in your evidence that you, it was necessary to stifle the screams of the victims, why would it be necessary to stifle?  Was it not so that you were at an isolated place?

JOE MAMASELA: The place seemed isolated but there were also isolated neighbouring farm house nearby and there was also the main street of cars passing there just near the place, a stone's throw away from the place so it was indeed necessary for us to stifle their screams.

MS HARTLE: Were you specifically asked to stifle screams or is it something you volunteered to do?

JOE MAMASELA: No, somebody just said, one of our commanders I don't know which one, said: "Try to suppress their screams, they will arose attention", and then we did that.

MS HARTLE: Mr Mamasela, if the victims were burnt at the very same location, would it have been a safe thing to do in terms of not being detected by neighbouring farmers or people passing on the road in proximity to Post Chalmers?

JOE MAMASELA: That would have been the most foolhardy thing for the security police with their vast experience to burn three corpses in a massive bonfire next to that main road and next to the other farming areas.
	One father might have thought: hey here's a veld fire, it's coming to kill our stock, let's call the police, let's call the fire brigade.  To me the whole thing does not make any sense, it's complete nonsense.

MS HARTLE: Now I think you said in your evidence that you were asked at some stage to make a fire?

JOE MAMASELA: No, the braaivleis fire.

MS HARTLE: Did you make a fire?

JOE MAMASELA: We made the braaivleis fire.

MS HARTLE: Did you personally make it?

JOE MAMASELA: I personally made the braaivleis fire.

MS HARTLE: And was there sufficient wood to keep the fire burning all day long?

JOE MAMASELA: No, there was wood, there were branches of the trees like Beeslaar took one wood there, we just took the branches of the trees and we made some wood there for some fire.

MS HARTLE: Were there certain building that you were excluded from, in other words some buildings that you couldn't go into?

JOE MAMASELA: There were locked.  We were not necessarily excluded, they were just locked.

MS HARTLE: And those building where the other officers were operating and coming in and out, were you allowed into those buildings?

JOE MAMASELA: No, they were coming to us. They were coming to us and moving and coming to us and going.  They were not occupying secret offices or something like that.

MS HARTLE: Did you see any diesel?

JOE MAMASELA: There was no diesel there, most cars that were there were using petrol and there was no diesel.

MS HARTLE: But you didn't see any diesel in any containers?

JOE MAMASELA: No, I didn't see any diesel.

MS HARTLE: Now other than your attempt to give food to the victims on the one occasion when you referred to, were they given food at all?

JOE MAMASELA: They were never given anything, let alone water, nothing.

MS HARTLE: Is there any possibility that they could have been given coffee?

JOE MAMASELA: Even if they could have been given coffee, hot coffee, how will they drink it when their teeth were loose and their mouths were bleeding and they were assaulted, it will aggravate their pain.  Even if they wanted to drink it they couldn't because they were injured, severely injured.

MS HARTLE: Sorry, if the Committee could just bear with me.
	The vehicle in which you saw the bodies being placed before you left Post Chalmers, you described it I think as a brown ...[intervention]