Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-19

MS MADONDO: When my brother was arrested, we usually gave food to Thomas to give it to my brother.  When I saw him he told me that my brother's car was in John Vorster Square and I went there and I found his car there.  After they've taken the car from Protea police station, they took us to John Vorster Square because usually when I go to Home Affairs, to go to collect maintenance or Department of Labour, I will go past John Vorster Square.

MR LAX: But of course you don't know where your brother might have been at that time?

MS MADONDO: No.

MR LAX: And then one last thing, you said you went to Gaberone to look for your brother in this statement, this was after you went to Swaziland?  Do you remember going there?

MS MADONDO: Yes.

MR LAX: When was that approximately?

MS MADONDO: I think I went to Gaberone in 1983, that's when they arrested me and took my passport, the police arrested me.

MR LAX: Did you actually get to Gaberone or were you arrested before you could cross the border?

MS MADONDO: I went to Gaberone.  I used the Zeerust border gate and coming back I used the other border gate and when I arrived at ...(indistinct) police asked me where I was coming, I told them and then they communicated with the other police in the police station and they were told that I am a sister to my late brother and when they asked me I told them yes I was and then they arrested me.

MR LAX: Now, what did you do at Gaberone?  Did you make inquiries from ANC cadres there or comrades there?

MS MADONDO: Yes exactly, that's what I did and I only discovered that no-one knew his whereabouts.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Lax are you going to be asking about something else?

MR LAX: No, no I'm finished now.

ADV SANDI: Do you remember who these people you were making inquiries from in Gaberone?

MS MADONDO: De Boor is an MK, he's now working in a military camp called Lace.

ADV SANDI: Did they say to you - are you saying these people you were inquiring from said they've no idea at all as to where your brother may have gone to, or what could have happened to him?

MS MADONDO: They said they didn't know where he was.

ADV SANDI: Did they perhaps indicate to you as to when they had seen him last?

MS MADONDO: No, they didn't tell me when they saw him last, they only told me that ever since he left for South Africa they didn't see him again.

ADV SANDI: Did you tell them that he had been arrested by the police and his car taken away by the police?  Did you tell them about that incident?

MS MADONDO: I knew that police usually arrested him and released him, therefore I thought maybe they had released him that's why I went to Gaberone and looked for him but then they didn't know him.

ADV SANDI: After your brother had disappeared, did you have any visits or inquiries by the police coming to your house to look for him or any contact like such?

MS MADONDO: Yes.  Protea police used to come, some they will come by Casspir and they would just playing with our minds because they knew where he was.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You may be excused, or any questions Ms Samuel?

MS SAMUEL: No re-examination.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS SAMUEL
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: That will be the evidence from the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: You only wanted to dodge the rain so, who would be first?

MR BOOYENS: I will be Mr Chairman, due to the fact that my client testified first.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, the position of Mr van Zyl in this regard, I will address the Committee on the basis that as far as we can see in Mr van Zyl's position, it makes no difference to his position whether Scorpion was Madondo or was not Madondo.  It makes no difference to Mr van Zyl's position, so I will accept for purposes of argument that the identity of Scorpion has been established.  Mr van Zyl is in any case not in a position to say to you that he can state as a fact it was or it wasn't the man.
	Now when my learned friend, not the one who is present today, the one who appeared yesterday, was asked on what basis they opposed the application of Mr van Zyl, I must confess I had a bit of difficulty in understanding what the exact nature of - sorry as one gets older these things give you problems - I understood the basis of the objection to have been something like that he wasn't killed in action, I think that's what she said.  Now I don't understand what really the nature of the position was and in fact when the relative today gave testimony, she in fact, although obviously the Committee is not bound by what she said, but she in fact said that she is glad that they came out with the truth.  
	I would submit that as far as Mr van Zyl is concerned in any case, that his evidence was not shown to be unreliable or untruthful, there was no evidence really to gainsay his evidence.  There are certain contradictions between the various applicants.  Mr Chairman, if the Committee members and I were to tell a story about something that happened two months ago, never mind 20 years ago, I would be mildly surprised if there are not certain contradictions.

CHAIRPERSON: You shouldn't ...(indistinct) the Committee members, they may forget what they've heard two weeks ago.

MR BOOYENS: Learned Gentlemen like the Committee Members confess something like that, Mr Chairman -  Mr Chairman, all I'm saying is the contradictions that there are is, was it Mabazwana or Pongola, so does it matter?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think one should look at the full disclosure of the material facts and it's material that they've killed somebody, it's material how they killed him, what they did with the body, what was the reason for the killing, whether they killed him 5 kilometres this side of Josini or the other side of Josini, wouldn't really in this specific case, make a difference.

MR BOOYENS: Or whether they destroyed the body in one or two explosions also doesn't make - it seems that Mr van Zyl, he conceded that he might be wrong and it seems, listening to the other evidence, that the probability is that there was one explosion.  But I would submit that that is neither here nor there.  It's not an exculpatory type of statement that he's making when he says there were two explosions.   In fact if one looks at it objectively, it is in fact worse for him if there were... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on)