Amnesty Hearings — Ermelo — 1998-07-23

MR HATTINGH: As it pleases.
	Mr Khaba, could you just explain this mistake in your statement, the supplementary statement, about you going to the hospital where Obed was and where you stabbed him to death?

CHAIRPERSON: Whose mistake was it in the first place.  Was that yours or somebody else's?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: What mistake are you referring to?

CHAIRPERSON: In your statement, the typed statement, it says that Obed was finally killed in hospital by being stabbed.  You have said that that is not so, you shot him and that if anybody has said it's stabbing then it's a mistake.  Whose mistake was that, was it yours?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: It's possible that it's the person who was writing the statement because when I submitted the statement I stated it clearly that I shot him.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's somebody else's statement - mistake?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: It could be somebody else's fault either the typist or the writer of the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then that question should be directly directed at somebody else not the witness, isn't it so?

MR HATTINGH: Perhaps you will then be able to just answer this question.  This statement, the supplementary statement which was made available to the TRC, the Amnesty Committee, by telefax on March 13, 1998 was only signed yesterday or the day before, is that correct?  Signed by yourself?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: I don't understand which statement you're referring to.

MR HATTINGH: If you take the bundle of documents and you look at page 47 to page 57.

CHAIRPERSON: So what, Mr Hattingh, what's the point?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, this applicant confirmed as recent as a day or two ago that the contents of this statement is correct and he was - I think it became clear from the Chair that Mr Black was requested to prepare himself adequately or properly by going through the statements with his applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: How was Obed killed, what's the factual situation, what's the truth?  Was he shot or stabbed or both?

MR HATTINGH: That is exactly the point, Mr Chairman, he was only shot while there were only two shot wounds.

CHAIRPERSON: And this witness says he shot Obed and he didn't stab, so what's the point?  Is it the truth or is lying with the truth?

MR PATEL: Mr Chairman, if I may be of assistance perhaps.  When he was giving his evidence in chief, if I remember well, when clarifying this issue of stabbing, he said he shot him and then he went on to say Livingstone stabbed him.  I don't know whether I heard him well but that's what I recall.

ADV SANDI: That is my recollection as well.  Perhaps that might not be the issue from the point of view of Mr Hattingh, not so?

MR HATTINGH: Well I am in fact dealing with that situation and his recollection and his evidence in that regard and my intention is to assist this Committee to get to the truth and I believe in doing so one should try to confront or cross-examine the applicant on things that are not on the surface of it appear not to be the truth and let him explain it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, if you look at the document which you referred him to, he says Obed was located and was killed by stabbing - he then corrects that and say by shooting or shot and he was shot.  The actual position is then he further stated in his evidence that if he was stabbed, he doesn't know about it, if he was stabbed then it could only have been done by Livingstone.  That's what he said.  You tell me now that the only wounds found on the body of Obed was two gunshot wounds.  Isn't the amendment that he makes in his evidence in chief correct?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, perhaps the only point I would like to make which I will hopefully in the end would like to argue is that very little reliance can be placed on whatever he stated in his statement because whatever suits him, he stated there although he may very well not even know what he stated in this document because he can't read English according to him and what doesn't suit him is being changed.
	Mr Khaba I put it to you that what is put in this statement is not - you're not always the source of the information of what is put in this statement and whatever doesn't suit you is being changed to suit the requirements of the Act for you to get amnesty?

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's deal with this one by one, is that every answer you give on that double barrelled question you're in trouble.  It's been put to you that whatever is contained in the statement is not totally forthcoming from you.  What do you say about that?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: Whatever is written in here is the true testimony of what I experienced, what I did and what I was involved in.

CHAIRPERSON: And secondly it's been put to you that you change your version to suit yourself as and when necessary?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: I wouldn't have time to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	Just to regard to your statement about the stabbing of Obed which you rectified by stating that it was in fact that you shot him.  The post mortem indicates that there were no stab wounds on his body.  Could you just explain your version then that your partner stabbed the deceased as well?

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't say that he stabbed him, he said if there are stab wounds then it could only have been Livingstone.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	If you could just then explain, did Livingstone try to stab Obed while he was lying in his hospital bed?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: I'm not clear, I do not have any clarity to that effect.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Khaba, that is in fact the problem I have with your evidence.  You were present, you killed Obed by shooting him twice through the head is that correct?  That was in the hospital.

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Livingstone went with you to the hospital when you committed this?

BONGANI WILBERFORCE KHABA: That is correct.  We were together and he has presently submitted an application for amnesty and whatever question that pertains to Livingstone I think you can pose to him and not me.

MR HATTINGH: I would just like to put it to you that your memory and recollection is very selective.  To what suits you you're prepared to tell this Committee.  What doesn't suit you and when you have problems you would rather not talk about it and be forthwith and make full disclosure to this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think that's a fair proposition, Mr Hattingh, you put it to him or you ask him whether he saw Livingstone stab or attempt to stab Obed.  It presupposes that there are two non-existent stab wounds or many more stab wounds on the body of Obed.  Those are not the factual issues.  It was sometime during his evidence in chief the issue whether the deceased was stabbed or not came up and his simple answer was - look I don't know about it but if there are stab wounds on that body it could have been Livingstone or it could only have been Livingstone who had inflicted it.  The fact of the matter is there are no stab wounds.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I accept that but however, the source of allegations regarding stabbings is the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: But you say so - he says it's a mistake, he never spoke about stabbings.  It's a mistake on the part of the person who recorded the statement or who typed it.  That's what he says, he says he never mentioned stabbing.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, if you would just allow me, I'm not going to take it much further, if you would just allow me.  On the paper, on the face of it, on the document which was signed and confirmed two days ago by the applicant he makes mention of stabbing.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]