Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 2000-11-14

MR MALINDI: Let us look at Trevor Pitso's statement which appears from page 51 of the bundle.  You've got that?

COLIN ANTHONY PECKENHAM ROBERTSHAW: I've got it, thank you Chairperson.

MR MALINDI: On paragraph 1 he says he arrived in Lesotho on 24 December 1987, in Maseru, and then at paragraph 3 he says he phoned Betty Boom's telephone number and there was no answer.  Can you see that?

COLIN ANTHONY PECKENHAM ROBERTSHAW: I've got the place, thank you Chairperson.

MR MALINDI: And of course this is contrary to the evidence we have here that Betty Boom was being phoned from a next door neighbour's house.

MR VISSER: How does that follow, with great respect Chairperson?  Frankly, I don't know whether the witness understands it but I don't understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose you should lay a foundation for that kind of question.

MR MALINDI: Thank you, Chairperson.
	We agree that at paragraph 3 he says he phoned Betty Boom's telephone number and there was no answer?

COLIN ANTHONY PECKENHAM ROBERTSHAW: That's what stands here, Chairperson.

MR MALINDI: At paragraph 3 also he says the domestic worker told him that Betty Boom left on the 16th of December and was never heard of again.  Can you see that?

COLIN ANTHONY PECKENHAM ROBERTSHAW: I've read that, thank you Chairperson.

MR LAX: Sorry, the part you're leaving out is that he traced through the Telecom, this is the crucial part of laying the foundation for the question, in a sense, is that he traced the address of that phone number, which was her home and then based on that - yes, it says ...

CHAIRPERSON: The foundation I wanted him to lay, and I suppose what Mr Visser was saying, to ask that kind of question what was in my mind, Mr Visser, was that the other applicants, for instance, Jantjie, said that after they established contact with Betty and when she was, or taken back, one of the two, she did not have a telephone at her home, they had to phone the next door neighbour.

MR VISSER: I thought that was what the question is about, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly that's how I understood you and that's why I said you should lay a foundation, not about the LTC.

MR LAX: That was the next part of the foundation.  Yes, I was just getting it one after the other.

MR MALINDI: As the Committee pleases.

MR VISSER: ;   May I ask, Chairperson, because this is going to determine what my reactions here are going to be, whether I've got to keep on jumping up and making objections, which I don't want to do, is this person going to be called?  Can somebody tell us.  Because if he's going to be called, then I'm certainly not going to start making objections every time.  If he's going to be called, certainly I'll have the opportunity of cross-examining him and we'll sort out the whole situation. But if we could have, as a favour to me, an indication whether Mr Pitso is going to be called as a witness before you, I'd be very grateful.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your reaction, Mr Malindi?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, at this stage I am not certain whether we will be able to call certain witnesses, we've tried to make appropriate arrangements and we've encountered difficulties.  My submission Chairperson, is that the witness can comment on the statement and unless I belabour the issue and the answers can be given, they either confirm or not confirm and depending on the answers it may be necessary to make further endeavours to call witnesses or not to call.  If there's a concession, there's no need to call a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR MALINDI: That's the value of the statements that are before the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: So the base is just that you want comment on the statements?

MR MALINDI: That is so, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll allow that, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.  I don't have any objection to that, but may I just be allowed then to give you the proper perspective of what this man says on paragraph 3.  I want you to please bear in mind that from what I read to you, that he never says it was the telephone number of the house in which Betty Boom lived.  He says
"On arriving in Maseru I called Betty's telephone number"
that can be any telephone number, Chairperson.  Assuming in the normal sense of the word, it could be her house, but that in my submission is only one of the possibilities, it's not exclusive that it must be her house.  
	Then he goes on and says:
"and had no response for the entire festive season.  Whereupon I decided to establish from the Lesotho Telecoms how they could help me trace the address of the number."
not of Betty Boom.
"and was accordingly assisted in this regard"
and he doesn't tell us what that assistance was.  He says:
"I then visited the said house"
Now Chairperson, with great respect, as long as it's put in perspective to the witness, that it is not assumed that this is the house in which Betty Boom, or one of the houses in which she lived, then I have no objection to the question.

MR LAX: The only thing that continues, if I may just draw your attention to it, is that he then goes on to talk about a housekeeper of her house who would have phoned normally about her absences.

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, it doesn't say her house.  He finds the housekeeper, I don't know, at the neighbour's house or wherever, I don't know where he finds her, he doesn't tell you.

MR LAX: It says on this occasion, the very same one he's talking about the sentence before.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, the point is he says he goes to a house, an unspecified house where he finds a domestic worker of Betty Boom.  It doesn't mean it's her house.  It could be probable that it's her house, I'm not arguing about that, that's why I said it would be helpful to know if Pitso was going to come and give evidence, because now Chairperson, I have to protect this witness and all I want, and nothing more, is just that the questions be put to him in the proper perspective, that he's not led to the assumption that it is now accepted that it was Betty Boom's house, because that would be unfair.  That's the only point I'm making.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malindi, you're heard your opponent and your colleague, could you tread along those lines?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, as I indicated, that is the position on calling witnesses or relying on statements.  If I may be allowed to put the statement to the witness, it's unfortunate that it's already been debated in front of the witness, but let's hear what the answer will be.
	Mr Robertshaw, the statement has now been read in full to you, would you agree with me if I suggest that Mr Pitso phoned a certain telephone number which he expected Betty Boom to answer and there was no answer through the entire festive season?

COLIN ANTHONY PECKENHAM ROBERTSHAW: I don't know if he phoned that number, this is just what I'm reading here.

MR MALINDI: Pardon?

COLIN ANTHONY PECKENHAM ROBERTSHAW: I don't know if he phoned that number, this is what I'm reading in the statement.  I can't comment on that.

MR MALINDI: Yes, he phoned a number which Betty didn't answer.

COLIN ANTHONY PECKENHAM ROBERTSHAW: I don't know, Chairperson, I can't comment on that.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, as I say the whole argument took place in the presence of the witness and I'm going to leave it at that.
	Paragraph 3 does say that the domestic worker, whether it was in Betty's house or the next door neighbour's domestic worker, disappeared around the 16th of December.  That appears on paragraph 3, do you agree with that?  ...(sic)

COLIN ANTHONY PECKENHAM ROBERTSHAW: I agree it appears there.  I can't remember the exact date that this took place.

MR MALINDI: But it's close enough to the date that you abducted her and took her to Ladybrand?

COLIN ANTHONY PECKENHAM ROBERTSHAW: It's possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember around which time or which weeks in December the abduction took place?