Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

MR RAUTENBACH: And I think you've already, that you've said that you got the information that the person who was being looked for was known as ST?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: As well as Walk Tall?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: With regard to paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11, do you have anything there that you would dispute?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: You also mentioned 12?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No, I did not mention 12.

MR RAUTENBACH: If we look at paragraph 12, you mentioned that you were the most senior person, there wasn't a major on the scene, is that correct?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: From the side of Nkosi, his version is that he was under the impression, but that he could have been wrong.   Let's have a look at paragraph 13, let take the least controversial one of the first two, you've already denied that the words have been used, "Who is the little one looking innocent?"

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you sure that you could not have used those words, Mr Zeelie, or could you possibly have used it?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I'm quite sure, I would not have used something like that.   I would directly have asked, "Who are you?"

MR RAUTENBACH: Am I correct in saying that he is smaller than Bopape, this is Mbeki Nkosi?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: At this stage I can't really tell you.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you remember?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No, I can't specifically remember.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then there's a part that you specifically dispute and that is
"He put his gloved hand around my neck and began to suffocate me"?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I deny that.

MR RAUTENBACH: I just want to return to the following thing, can you remember
"Who (indistinct) Stanza (indistinct)?"

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: It's possible, I cannot say with any certainty.

MR RAUTENBACH: Dan se hy
"They asked my name and I told them".
I don't think you will dispute that?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No, I won't dispute that, but who asked him that?

MR RAUTENBACH: And then paragraph 15
"Zeelie punched Bopape in the stomach."
You've already denied that?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then I want to show you, perhaps you can say what you tried to give in your testimony when you attacked this statement and that those were the words
"Zeelie punched Bopape in the stomach.   Bopape fell onto the bed and one of the policemen who was busy registering the books asked Bopape, "Is jy dronk?" and punched him again."
What is the problem that you have with this paragraph?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: The problem that I have is in the beginning he refers to me, where he perhaps referred to the policeman who punched him the second time.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why do you say that he possibly refers to the policeman?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Because he refers to it.

MR RAUTENBACH: What he says is that you hit him ...(inter-vention)

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: But I deny that.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'm telling you now how I read the sentence.  And then he says
"I fell onto the bed and the other policeman who was present asked him, "Are you drunk?", and then punched him again."

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: In Afrikaans and English it tells me that the other policeman hit him again.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, I just want to tell you that the word "again" only means that he was hit again.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: And then he would have said that Zeelie punched him again.

MR RAUTENBACH: We'll leave it at that.   If you look at paragraph No 16, he makes the allegation that Bopape was handcuffed and that he was not handcuffed.   Would you dispute that?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I can't see the one would be handcuffed and not the other.

MR RAUTENBACH: But the little one was not placed in handcuffs, apparently it's not necessary.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I told you I can't remember what his size was, but whether he was tall or small, it would have been the same.   Could I perhaps just say why I say this?   If I would handcuff Bopape, because I have a specific reason, because he was linked to the ANC, I would also have done that with Nkosi, because he could also have been a member of the ANC, or a collaborator.

MR RAUTENBACH: Because he was in the room?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Most probably, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: We'll return to that a bit later on.   Let's have a look at paragraph 17, and it seems that that was also not disputed, am I correct?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Paragraph 18, anything there that you would dispute?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: None.

MR RAUTENBACH: Chairperson, it should not be interpreted that it is only where it refers to Mr Zeelie, otherwise we'll have to go through each and every paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it the question directed to Mr Zeelie is in respect of what he himself may know, whether he himself ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: That is so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...is in a position to admit it or dispute it?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, I think you also understand it in such a way, it's only inasfar as it is something that you have knowledge of.   If it's outside of your knowledge, then of course you can't answer that?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct, you will see up to page No 18, where the people were placed into the car, I'm reading, and I cannot say anything about the fact that the woman was lying on the policeman's lap.

MR RAUTENBACH: It, in any case, doesn't seem as if you appear, your name appears in the rest of the statement.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, if we look at what he says about you while you were present, we said that we had a semantic difference with regard to specifically the "again" that he punched him again.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then there was the other difference with the five minutes, one of the members informed us it would be a very logical explanation for what stands there.   It seems to me, if I look at Nkosi's version and yours, that there's only really one aspect that you, in essence, differ from him, and that is the fact that you kicked, or rather hit Bopape and that you tried to suffocate him?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I would have suffocated, or tried to strangle, Mbeki, not him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's just have a look.   If I tell you that the only real difference between your version and his is only the question of the assault, do you agree, specifically in relation to Bopape and then paragraph 13?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: So it seems to me to be paragraphs 13 and 15, and then it seems that his version seems to correlate with yours?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now if we return to this issue of what Nkosi says in his statement, in your testimony you said, you referred to resistance to the arrest.   Precisely what happened when you wanted to arrest Bopape, what was the resistance, if there were?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: It was a very difficult situation, to answer this after such a long period of time, it's a very wide concept, broad concept.   There could be, resistance can be in very different ways.   Perhaps I would have handcuffed him and he wouldn't want me to do it, then I would use the necessary violence to control him.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Zeelie, would you please confine yourself to answering the question.   If you cannot remember, would you please say so.  Do you understand that?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, I have already said it's a long time ago, I can't precisely say, that is why I tried to present myself in this way.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes, and would you please refrain from giving us a description of what form resistance can take?   If you can remember, say you can remember, and just answer the question directly.   Do you understand that?