Amnesty Hearings — Carltonville — 1998-08-11

CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell Chaba.

MS GCABASHE: Chaba Judge.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Who is he?

MS GCABASHE: Hendrik van Rooyen.

ADV DE JAGER: And is that the same person as Masoba or who is Hendrik van Rooyen?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: Masoba is Hendrik van Rooyen.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	Sir, would you agree with me that there was no real reason for Mr Mokoena to stab and subsequently kill the deceased, because he was totally unarmed?  Do you agree with me?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: I would disagree with you because the deceased tried two times to fight back.

MR STEENKAMP: I got the distinct impression that after his gun was taken away the knife was taken away and then he was stabbed, or am I wrong?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: When he fell for the second time he could not fight back and we were finishing off fighting with him, we left him there.

CHAIRPERSON: Just answer the question please.  I think it is being suggested to you that after the deceased's knife was taken away from him, what was the need to stab him?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: The situation that prevailed at that time led to what happened to the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  What situation was it?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: A fight situation.

CHAIRPERSON: You know you use the word fight, please.  The word fight means two people are engaged in fighting.  When one man's knife is taken away from him he is no longer fighting.

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: The situations that were prevailing at that time were such that we were angry and enraged and that is why I'm saying there was a fight going on because we were enraged.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, can I continue?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do.

MR STEENKAMP: Sir, was Mr Mokoena also armed with his own knife or did he use the deceased's knife, to kill and stab the deceased, can you remember?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: What I remember, he had it right from the township but I saw him taking the deceased's knife.

MR STEENKAMP: And stabbing the deceased with his own knife, or is that wrong?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: That's correct Sir.

MR STEENKAMP: In other words the deceased was killed and stabbed with his own knife by the first applicant, while he was totally unarmed?  Do you understand the question?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: The deceased was stabbed by his own knife and the iron rod and also stabbed by comrade Maumakwe's knife.

MR STEENKAMP: Now my real question is, why was it necessary for all of you, after the deceased was unarmed, to still continue to kill him, why was it necessary?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: As to whether he was dead when we left him I was not sure, but what I know is we injured him and he was hit many a times.  This did not last but as soon as we took his armoury from him we used it on him and we left him there.

MR STEENKAMP: Did you want to kill him?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: That was not our aim.

MR STEENKAMP: Except the weapon and the knife that was taken, was anything else taken from any of the deceased?  Was money taken, was clothing or any personal belongings taken from them?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: Not as far as I can recall, I saw nothing of the sort happening.  I didn't see any money or watches taken from him.

MR STEENKAMP: Were they body-searched by any of you after they were killed, before you left?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: No, I never saw that, I saw nobody searching him.

MR STEENKAMP: Sir, just clarify for the Committee and for me as well, can you explain to me how this action, the killing of both the deceased, how can you describe that killing as being with a political motive?  Can you explain that to me?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: As other comrades have testified, they have already explained.  I would explain again and emphasise what they have emphasised.  Because the township was under seige by these criminals, the community was not able to stand on its own to fight.  We as the youth members of the ANC Youth League came to an agreement that we should try to expunge criminal activity from the township and hand them over to the police so that they will be brought before the community and account for their actions.

MR STEENKAMP: Then lastly, isn't it true that you actually engaged in the same actions as the other criminal people in the area, by killing both the deceased?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: As I've already explained, our intention to go and look for the deceased was not to kill them but to catch them and bring them before the community and the community would make them account and hand them over to the police, because what we did was not the same as what they did.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP

ADV DE JAGER: If that was your intention, why then when he was lying helpless on the ground didn't you take him, hand him over to the community and thereafter to the police?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: In terms of my explanation, the deceased were injured to an extent that we thought that we should take them to the kombis, what is left is for the police to come and detain us, that is why we decided to leave them there.  We saw that the intentions which we came there with we did not accomplish.

ADV DE JAGER: You mentioned it before, in the end you killed them because you became very angry with them and were enraged and that was the real reason why you didn't arrest them but killed them.

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: I would ...[indistinct] say that because the deceased were already injured.  If we took them to the kombis we were inviting the police.

ADV DE JAGER: So isn't it then true that you didn't take them to the police because you were afraid that you yourselves would be arrested, and it was in your own interest then not to take them to the police?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: The way the situation was, if we took them to the police we were going to be detained and then we were afraid to be arrested.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you recall precisely what you saw insofar as the attack on the second deceased was concerned, step by step?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: I did not see what happened to the second deceased, he was fighting together with the other three comrades.  They were in a struggle, fighting. Because I was not concentrating on what was happening to the second one, I was concentrating on KK, I did not know or see what happened to Bafino.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't even know whether he was armed?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: I did not see well because he was struggling with comrade Chaba and comrade Chaba was armed with a knife, so therefore it shows that he was also armed.

CHAIRPERSON: How did he die?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: I don't have the knowledge how he died, we just left them there being injured.

CHAIRPERSON: You know now, after having been through the trail and after having been with your colleagues you must know now how he died?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: After we stabbed him the police told us that he died because of multiple ...[indistinct] injuries.

CHAIRPERSON: What has happened to the rest of the gang?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: Do you mean in Bekkersdal or in our township?

CHAIRPERSON: We're talking about this particular gang, whether it was in Bekkersdal or in the township, the gang that was terrorising the community according to you.  What happened to that gang?

STEPHEN LEBOGANG VAN ROOYEN: After the incident of this one, I don't have knowledge because I was detained, after the deceased were killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR KOOPEDI: Nothing in re-examination, thank you.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI
WITNESS EXCUSED