Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I'm just trying to find the relevant portion, if you could just bear with me.  I want to refer to page 4 of Exhibit R, it is the - it starts of from the 4th paragraph where
"J.P."
referring to Jacques Paauw asks the following question and I'm going to read it out to you Mr Mamasela:
"How would you describe Dirk Coetzee"?
the answer here is:
"Well, to me Dirk Coetzee is, like I said in Court, he is the flip side of de Kock and they are both devils"

JOE MAMASELA: Yes, not: "prime evil".

MR LAMEY: Ja, just listen further Mr Mamasela.

JOE MAMASELA: Ja.
MR LAMEY
"they are both devils but you know they cannot be equal devils, there is a lesser.  I would say Coetzee is the lesser of the two devils"

JOE MAMASELA: That was my honest opinion, even in my death I would always stick by that opinion.

MR LAMEY: Right.  So you agree still this is not exaggeration, that is the truth?

JOE MAMASELA: That is the truth as far as I'm concerned.  And you were talking - you are dodging your question now.  Mr Chairman asked you a nice question, where in this document is it that Mamasela said this is: "prime evil".

MR LAMEY: Well, I can ...[intervention]

JOE MAMASELA: De Kock is a: "prime evil", where is it in this documents?

MR LAMEY: I'll explain that Mr Mamasela.

JOE MAMASELA: Later, later.

MR LAMEY: Now.

JOE MAMASELA: I hope you won't forget.

MR LAMEY: No, I'll do that immediately now.

JOE MAMASELA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You see, the name of that programme was: "Prime Evil".

JOE MAMASELA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And it centred around de Kock.

JOE MAMASELA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And here we've go a statement by you that: "they are both devils"

JOE MAMASELA: Yes.
MR LAMEY
"but Coetzee is the lesser devil"

JOE MAMASELA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And therefore the logic, absolute logic conclusion is that Jacques Paauw give the title to the programme by referring to: "prime evil", namely the first devil, to de Kock.

JOE MAMASELA: No, where do you get that from now?

MR LAMEY: Well, that ...[intervention]

JOE MAMASELA: Where do you get that from?

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute.  I think maybe Mr Mamasela, just hold on a bit.  Please don't argue with Mr Lamey.
	Mr Lamey, just put questions which will help us in getting the evidence, please.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	Now in 1992 you became a reborn christian Mr Mamasela.

JOE MAMASELA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: We now have it that Mr Coetzee is the devil.

JOE MAMASELA: He's the lessor of the two devils.

MR LAMEY: Yes.  But he's just the lesser of two devils but he still remains a devil?

JOE MAMASELA: Yes, in my opinion he still remains a devil.

MR LAMEY: And in 1994 after you had became a reborn christian you - and in your evidence in the Mxgenge matter in Durban, you said that in your assistance with Coetzee at the IBI, you assisted a friend.

JOE MAMASELA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: So, what you're in fact saying Mr Mamasela, and I want to put it to you, at that time as a reborn christian you are a friend of a devil.

JOE MAMASELA: Let us not play with words here.  You know, when I say this man is a devil I don't mean the satan from hell.  It's an adjective that describes a person with evil intentions or evil works or evil deeds, not the devil himself as you perceive it in your mind.

MR LAMEY: Well, certainly ...[intervention]

JOE MAMASELA: It's and adjective, it's the superlative that I used.

MR LAMEY: Yes, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey with all respect, even if it's so, how would that assist us in solving the problems we've got to deal with in this matter?  I'm sort of getting worried, it's often been asked in these hearings: "but you're a christian or you're a so and so".  	Christians are also sinners so I don't think that line of cross-examination really brings us anywhere in trying to solve what we as a Committee should try and solve here.

MR LAMEY: Yes, Mr Chairman.  I just want to put it to Mr Mamasela, and that's what I'm trying to do, explain that I find it - and I want to put it to you Mr Mamasela, that I find it quite astonishing that you being a reborn christian hasn't got the morality to make an attempt to speak the truth.
	You are prepared to exaggerate, as you describe it, the truth, you are prepared to assist another person in portraying false pictures to an independent board of inquiry.

ADV SANDI: That may be ...[intervention]

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, may I ...[intervention]

ADV SANDI: Sorry.  That may be astonishing to you Mr Lamey but that is what he is telling us.

MR LAMEY: I won't labour that point further, I'll move on to the next point.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt but I wonder if Mr Lamey could revert to the issue in hand which relates to the PEBCO 3.
	The exaggerations, the untruths have been dealt with comprehensively and extensively by both Mr Booyens and Mr du Plessis and I  don't think we need to have a third cross-examiner traversing exactly the same path.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, will you bear that in mind please because I imagine if there are to be 10 counsel cross-examining a witness it doesn't mean each one of them just go back to exactly the same thing.
	It doesn't necessarily mean that the same issue should be traversed 10 times.  And if you could concentrate on the areas which are not covered perhaps that will take us somewhere.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.
	Mr Mamasela, I understand also your evidence that you were a victim of the security forces throughout your involvement with them, from the days at Vlakplaas and also further on, is that correct?

JOE MAMASELA: I still consider myself so, even today.  I'm a victim of both black and white politicians.

MR LAMEY: You were coerced to participate in all the atrocities that you participated in.

JOE MAMASELA: That is true, if one did not do that one would have been killed as is the case with more than 10 Askaris who were killed in the same fashion.

MR LAMEY: And that was also the position with regard to the PEBCO 3.  In your heart you were feeling remorse,  you were sympathetic towards these activists, not so?

JOE MAMASELA: That is natural and it is human.

MR LAMEY: I also take it Mr Mamasela, that you had to be very careful not to display that sympathy to your security officer superiors.

JOE MAMASELA: What is sympathy?  Sympathy means anything.  If you give people food, it's sympathy, you cannot be killed for that.  If you give a person water, it's sympathy, you cannot be killed for that.  If you pick up somebody when he's fallen, it's sympathy, you cannot be killed for that.  So would I be careful about it?

MR LAMEY: I'm just asking you Mr Mamasela, you had to be - my question is, you had to be careful not to give an impression or create a perception of sympathy for activists and the victims because that would create a perception that you are loyal towards the activists, not so?

JOE MAMASELA: That's you own perception and I don't align with it.

MR LAMEY: I'm asking you Mr Mamasela, is that correct or wrong?

JOE MAMASELA: No, I say it's your own perception, it's not correct and that's why I say I'm not going to align myself with that perception.

MR LAMEY: So are you saying that you would, during an incident, and I'm talking in general, you would not participate in a manner which shows that you are completely with the aim of the white security policemen?

MR NYOKA: Mr Chairman, can I chip in there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you can do that.

MR NYOKA: Mr Chairman as I recall, Mr Mogoai said he abstained after the assaults took place, to show sympathy.  I don't know whether those instructions, this question comes from Mr Mogoai because he did the same thing to show sympathy.  I do not understand how this question can be posed when one of his clients said so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, are you putting this question with reference to your client's version or not?

MR LAMEY: No, I'm not putting it with reference to my client's version.