Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I gave it to the attorney-general after I consulted with my legal representative and he told me that I had to go to the attorney-general and give a statement.

MR RAUTENBACH: I just want clarity, there wasn't a situation that a section 204 was at issue and that you would be a State witness?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: With regard to this incident?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No, it wasn't put to me.   I could perhaps mention, in the other cases where I was questioned, and where I talked to the attorney-general and facts were given to me, I gave my co-operation only to the extent where the attorney-general told me that I will only give evidence that there would be a section 204.

MR RAUTENBACH: And I also want to ask you, with regard to the interrogation of Mr Bopape, as I understand it the people who were responsible, they were Engelbrecht and Mostert, or am I wrong?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I don't understand your question?

MR RAUTENBACH: Who would accept the responsibility for the interrogation of Bopape?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Mostert and Engelbrecht were responsible for the interrogation of Bopape.

MR RAUTENBACH: And I also want to say to you that at the stage that Bopape was interrogated, you testified, I think what it was, you went there, what did you ascertain there?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I didn't ascertain anything, perhaps I just walked in there and asked how it went and then walked out.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you have any interest, did you want to find out what was going on?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: The fact that I was involved with the arrest and the fact that I was an officer on the floor, I believe that in all cases which are investigated that I have an interest.

MR RAUTENBACH: Since the start of using the electrical device, were you present the whole time?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you tell us, Mr Zeelie, let me put it to you this way, initially we have an interrogation, you're not really involved?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: To use the expression, you pop in at certain occasions?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Please put it in Afrikaans.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is that not good Afrikaans?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: We talk Afrikaans, please give me the statement in Afrikaans.

MR RAUTENBACH: I used the word in Afrikaans "loer", it is pop in.   Is it that phrase that you don't understand?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, once or twice I went to have a look what was going on.

MR RAUTENBACH: Perhaps you did not understand?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Well there's confusion, I couldn't hear you properly.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, we now have a pattern, where the person is asked for information.   You're not really interested, you remain in the background, but when the person is shocked with a device, then you are present the whole time?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I never said that I wasn't interested.

MR RAUTENBACH: I repeat, during the interrogation, you only popped in approximately twice, if I understand you correctly?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: When the torture starts with the shock device, you're present the whole time?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, I was present.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why were you present then, at that stage, why do you want to be present then, or was it coincidental?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I won't say it was coincidental, it was the same reason why I went into the office once or twice.   It's in the passage and it would be normal that I would stand there.

MR RAUTENBACH: The question is, the machine is now obtained?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: You know the people were going to fetch a machine?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now you're not in the office anymore, you are now present where the man is going to be shocked?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Any specific reason why you're now present the whole time, did you want to see the results, what was the reason?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: It was clear that when someone is shocked, that certain information would come to light, and I accept that I would have been interested in that, to hear what information was given.

MR RAUTENBACH: What is your version concerning the time, for how long was he shocked, what was the duration?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: It could have been three, four minutes.

MR RAUTENBACH: If you refer to three, four minutes, could I infer from that, that it was over a period of three, four minutes?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: With intervals.

MR RAUTENBACH: If we have a look at this, if we look at the physical administering of a shock and the shocks, if we now add that in time, what would you guess, what would - I'm not referring now to the intervals that he wasn't shocked, but if you could now perhaps give an estimate?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: There were three shocks and if three shocks were given together, we have three different shocks, but if they now have to be added ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, let's do it that way, yes.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I would say half a minute.

MR RAUTENBACH: Concerning the shock, I want to refer you to page 379, page 379 you answer a question put by the chair-person of the section 29 committee, you start on page 379 at the top, this is your answer
"If you will give me the opportunity just to finish what I want to say.   When I was informed that he was not co-operating, then we decided, all of us together decided that as we said that he had to be frightened, when one gives someone an electric shock, then the person would shake and you can damage yourself if you shake like that when you have been shocked, and that is why we decided to place the person in the passageway, so that there would not be any other items or furniture in the area so as the person couldn't be hurt by those other objects, that is why this happened in the passageway."
Can you remember that you gave the testimony?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you stick to that?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Could you just tell us, this is one of the only sections that I could get that gives more or less a description precisely what happens to the person when he was shocked.   Is it your experience that he shakes to such an extent that if he's close to other items that he could injure himself?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: What I meant with that, if you shock someone, then the muscles are contracted, and what I tried to say was that there was a possibility, the fact that his muscles contract, that he could straighten out his legs and through that a chair could be pushed over and the person is placed on a chair which is not very stable, and that is basically what this boils down to.

MR RAUTENBACH: I also infer from this that there is a definite jerking, shaking of the person when his muscles contract?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I would not say that he really jerks, it depends on how you turn the sling.   It has to do with a contraction and then also release of the muscles.

MR RAUTENBACH: If I take that handle and I give it one turn and then he contracts and releases, relaxes, I don't know much about this, you say it depends on the turn, could you just explain that, if you continue turning it ...(intervention)

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: If you continue turning it, then the muscles stay contracted.   If you stop, then it relaxes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now if the machine, as you said, for example, half a minute, 30 seconds, for 30 seconds this machine is turned, would the person be in the contracted position for the 30 seconds?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Under section 29 proceedings, you also indicated to Mr Steenkamp, you had to make an estimation of how many times you have shocked people in the past, it was very difficult for you to do that, can you remember?