Amnesty Hearings — Benoni — 1998-09-08

CHAIRPERSON: I think we can take it further, if some of your men decided on a day, let's some of us go and eat at the Wimpy, is that something that they would tell you or convey to you, or report back to you about this, a social thing?

JOHANNES ABRAHAM SCHEEPERS: If it would have been a social event I would have carried knowledge of it.  If it was a single occurrence, for example if they wanted to go and buy cooldrink I wouldn't know about that, but if it was a function or at a regular period would go there I would have known about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me put it this way Mr Scheepers, we've held a few of these hearings, and many of them had to do with the applications of members of the Security Branch throughout the country, and some of the evidence that we heard was that some of the men that was involved had regular braais, at least once a week.  For what reason it doesn't matter.  Is that something that was written in a book or that was mentioned to the Station Commander, or is something that just happened?

JOHANNES ABRAHAM SCHEEPERS: Mr Chairperson, in my office we had the arrangement with the personnel if they wanted to have a braai they must inform me because then I would know.  I had no objection if it happened, but then I had to know about it, and I had good control over my personnel.

CHAIRPERSON: You said the same would have happened if they as a group would have decided to go to the Wimpy?

JOHANNES ABRAHAM SCHEEPERS: Yes, that would have happened.

MR KOOPEDI: Now as you headed the investigation on this matter, is it correct that the result of your investigations were that a coloured man or an Indian man was responsible for planting this bomb?

CHAIRPERSON: Does that - is that relevant Mr Koopedi, your applicants have said they planted the bomb, and I can't see them having been classified by the previous regime as Indian or coloured.

MR KOOPEDI: That is precisely my point Chairperson, and the idea was to show that much as the investigation is proved to be floored now by the nature of the applicants we had then, and I thought that for the sake of record purposes we have to show that perhaps the witness before us here cannot be said to have known all.  And like he said there are things that he would not be sure of.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me put it this way, I think I speak for my two colleagues too, we'd rather prefer a small record than a larger one.

MR KOOPEDI: There are no further questions to this witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

ADV STEENKAMP: No thank you Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Scheepers on the issue that has already been addressed by the Chairperson concerning your possible knowledge of the activities of your underlings with regard to places that they could have visited with their informers, is it possible that they could have visited Wimpy with their informers because it was patronised by people of all races, and in those circumstances they wouldn't be easily noticeable?  Is it possible then they could have done that without your knowledge?

JOHANNES ABRAHAM SCHEEPERS: Mr Chairperson I was for a long time in control of the information collection, in other words the, I dealt with the reports from my personnel, even before I came Commander, and it was not practice to use the same place over and over again.  If one of the members visited this Wimpy in order to meet up with an informant, they would not easily repeat this because that would become a risk.

SISI KHAMPEPE: But if he had met with an informer at a Wimpy, would that be something that would be reported back to you?

JOHANNES ABRAHAM SCHEEPERS: I would have known if he visited the informant or met up with him because he has to take notes, but I would not always know where this took place.  But it was not practice to go to the same place over again.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Thank you very much.

MR MOTATA: Just one Mr Chairman following up on my colleague there.  I understand you when you say probably it was not the practice, but could it happen without your knowledge that for instance for convenience that your underling would go to the same place more than twice with the same informer because it's a public place, it's not easily noticeable?

JOHANNES ABRAHAM SCHEEPERS: Mr Chairperson I doubt that because it would be a risk for himself as well.  In their training they were not allowed to do this.  And if he does do it he would run the risk of being exposed or his informant can be exposed, and the personnel would not do this.

MR MOTATA: Thank you Mr Chairman I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words you say that it is not likely to happen in this way, but you cannot dispute it?

JOHANNES ABRAHAM SCHEEPERS: It is not impossible, but it is very unlikely.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV STEENKAMP: May the witness be excused Mr Chairman.
WITNESS IS EXCUSED

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman the next witness I'm then calling is Mrs Beatie Malope.
	Mr Chairman just before Mrs Malope will start testifying if I can just indicate that Mrs Malope is also a victim in this incident and she used to work at the Wimpy Bar where this incident happened.  She will be testifying in Xhosa Mr Chairman, sorry Sotho Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: (duly sworn in, states)

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  Mrs Malope am I right in saying that you are also a victim in this incident and that you are also opposing the application of all 4 applicants, am I right in saying that?

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV STEENKAMP: Before we start the question can you maybe just indicate to the panel exactly what was your extent of your injuries?

UNKNOWN: My ears were affected, one of my ears is -when you talk with me you must speak a little bit louder.

ADV STEENKAMP: At the time of this incident, am I right in saying that you worked at the Wimpy Bar?

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV STEENKAMP: During 1988 for how many years have you been working at the Wimpy Bar at that stage?

UNKNOWN: Three years Sir.

ADV STEENKAMP: And what was your function in the Wimpy Bar?

UNKNOWN: I was receptionist receiving calls.

ADV STEENKAMP: Am I right in saying that you were the person receiving calls for people who was ordering food from the Wimpy Bar?

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV STEENKAMP: Can you remember, have you ever ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp before she carries on, I missed the injuries that she described on this ...

ADV STEENKAMP: I'm sorry Mr Chairman I'll just ask her to repeat it.
	Can you just repeat your injuries to the Chairperson please, exactly what was the extent of your injuries.

UNKNOWN: The other problem is that my - I'm not able to see from a distance, my eyes are affected, I have a ...(indistinct) problem.

ADV STEENKAMP: Am I right in saying that you've got limited hearing ability and also limited vision, is that what the extent of your injuries were?

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Just to repeat that last question, have you ever received any orders during the time that you worked in the Wimpy Bar from the police ordering food for people that was in custody, or even people that were in custody who was ordering food from - via telephone, or by the telephone?

UNKNOWN: When we receive orders through the phone you ask the person the name and you ask him where is the place where he is staying.  We were not delivering food on Saturdays.

ADV STEENKAMP: Have you ever received any orders from police or from the police station via the telephone?

UNKNOWN: No Sir.

ADV STEENKAMP: During the time that you've worked there - or let's go to the day of the incident, am I right in saying that on that day you had a special for children and you were organising this special.  Can you maybe describe or elaborate on that please?