Amnesty Hearings — Pietermaritzburg — 1997-02-10

ADV DE JAGER: On page 818 of the judgment, towards the bottom round about line 25
"The account given by accused 1, 2 and 3 and Van der Hogen that accused 6 pulled the deceased out of the van, causing him to fall and that he thereafter throttled him with a belt on the ground accords with the probabilities".
Then on the next page:
"After the deceased had run away he was pursued by accused 1 and 6 and was brought down by accused
2B - 11.2	No/...
MR BANADE	120	ADDRESS
No 6.  Accused No 6's account of what happened thereafter is a curious one.  According to him he stood up, the deceased was still lying on the ground and he put his foot on the deceased's shoulder".
That's his version.  Now could you kindly deal with the version about the hammering of his head - I cannot find it at the moment - against the rocks, where that emerges.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: (Microphone not activated)

MR BANADE: I am not in a position at this stage to take it any further.  I do not see that it comes our in the judgment of Mr Justice Thirion.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand your argument to mean that as far as you are concerned, they have made as full a disclosure as is required by the Act, and that if this detail is not disclosed, as far as you are concerned, they have more or less complied with the provisions of the Act.  That is your submission, is that it?

MR BANADE: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is what I am trying to convey.  I cannot understand how such a small difference makes a different in a 10, 15 year sentence, because they fully disclosed their part in this offence.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: There is something else also troubling me.  With regard to the second applicant, his entire explanation of what happened at the scene, is contained in a paragraph on page 4 of the statement I think of the statement he entered in, and he didn't go beyond that.  That portion read - paragraph 3 of page of his handwritten statement, which you handed in yesterday"
"Ons het daar ingery".
Do you see that?  The statement which you handed in 
2B - 11.2	yesterday/...
JUDGE NGOEPE	121	MR BANADE
yesterday by Mr Erasmus, page 4:
"We drove a stretch and stopped in a bush.  Deep in the IFP area.  I got out and saw Jama running away.  I drew my 9mm pistol and pointed it at him in order to shoot him.  Harrington said I should not for fear of ballistic tests.  Harrington and Madlala traced him.  The rest of us followed.  Madlala took the shotgun from Dhlamini.  The rest of us started walking back to the vehicle and the shot went off".
Has he said anything about the actual killing?  How the deceased was treated at the scene?  Has he really said anything about that?

MR BANADE: Mr Chairman, if one were to examine this paragraph, you would clearly see what Mr Erasmus's perspective was at the time.   He said the shot went off.  His perspective, even though the death was caused in another way, his perception was that the shot caused his death and it is quite clear that he conveyed his perception to this Committee.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ... the deceased was throttled by Mr Harrington many times.  At some stage he was taken out of the van with the belt around his neck and in his statement Harrington said in so many words that he ha throttled the deceased at least on more than one occasion.  Mr Erasmus is surprisingly quiet on the aspect of the throttling of the deceased.  He never said a word about it.  And yesterday he was asked a question, did you see Mr Harrington throttle the deceased with the belt.  His first reaction was:  at which stage?  And then I intervened and I said at any stage?  And then he said no, I never saw him do that.  And I asked him
2B - 11.2	why/...
JUDGE NGOEPE	122	MR BANADE
why, if he never saw it at all, what was the need for him to ask at what stage.  And now it transpired from the evidence that we had today from Mr Madlala that the throttling of the deceased was done - at least at some stage in such a way that it was so many times, surely Mr Erasmus ought to have seen that.  Are you going to argue that it is possible Mr Erasmus never saw any the throttling at all, and if he did see it, why did he not tell us?  Why did he say he never saw it and why did he not tell us about it.

MR BANADE: Mr Chairman, perhaps I could counter that with a counter question.  That is Mr Erasmus's evidence.  If you can remember correctly he gave evidence after Mr Harrington gave evidence.  Mr Harrington himself had already told the Committee that he had strangled the deceased with his own belt.  And that has already been brought before this Committee.  What would Mr Erasmus's reason be for withholding such information and to suppress it, to use your own word.  He can't possibly have motive.  Besides, it wasn't his own actions which he was being questioned about.  	Just for interest's sake I consider that part of your question, I followed your line of questioning yesterday, and I followed it on the Afrikaans channel.  And the interpreter used the word, instead of "belt", used the word "band", and I thought that perhaps it confused Mr Erasmus somewhat - band - until he realised that the actual word being used was "belt".

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Was it about the question he was - the question was whether he was being strangled by Mr Harrington.  It makes no difference what the actual thing was that was being used.

MR BANADE: The only point that I am trying to put to you is 2B - 11.2	that/...
JUDGE NGOEPE	123	MR BANADE
that there were a few seconds there where Mr Erasmus was a bit confused and did not know with which part you were dealing.  That is quite honestly the idea which I got.
But my answer to you is, why would Mr Erasmus suppress it?  He would not achieve anything by withholding any information from this Committee.