Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-24

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: I can't remember exactly whether he asked us to wait, whether Grobbelaar said we had to wait, I don't remember exactly what the reason was.  But I do know that we spent a bit of time waiting.

MR SEMENYA: I can understand your amnesia, but when you look back was there any singular reason why you had to wait for De Kock?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: My opinion is that I would have felt that Gen De Kock was supposed to take him back to Vlakplaas and obviously with the information we got in his pocket ....

MR SEMENYA: No but when people desert they are not taken back to that place upon arrest.  What logic is this?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: Sir I didn't give orders that day I just did my job.  I am just giving my opinion.  I just felt that it would have been best if he went back to - I believe if a person deserts - I don't know where a matter is investigated but I suppose he goes back for the matter to be investigated.  I don't think it sinister that he was - that he should be taken back by De Kock to Vlakplaas.

MR SEMENYA: I am going to ask this question in a slightly different context.  If Klopper tells us that he assaulted the man seriously you can't dispute it?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: No.

MR SEMENYA: And if he  tells us that that assault happens on the day of his arrest you can't dispute that.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR SEMENYA: And if he tells us that the man is being kicked you can't dispute that.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR SEMENYA: And he tells us that he was tubed.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: I can't dispute any of that.

MR SEMENYA: And if a man like De Kock tells us that it was one of the most vicious assaults on the man you can't dispute that characterisation.   Is that right?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: I can accept that he says that but I can't imagine that such a person would have been detained without medical treatment.   I can't imagine that a person who had been so assaulted would have been allowed to be detained in a police cell without medical treatment or without any record being made of his injuries.

MR SEMENYA: Does it appear in your records?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: I know nothing of it.

MR SEMENYA: Was a doctor called?   Now what are you telling us?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: He is becoming aggressive, sir.  I am just trying to say what I know.

MR SEMENYA: No I am trying to understand you, sir.  I am not aggressive, I am trying to understand whether you say there was formal compliance with calling of doctors.  I am saying de Kock says to us, that was one of the most viscious attacks on the man, are you able out of your own understanding to say that description is incorrect?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: If Mr De Kock said so that was his testimony sir.  I say it is highly improbable that such a person who had been assaulted in such a way would be detained without medical records of his injuries.

MR SEMENYA: On the 22nd February 1989 you take a statement from him.  Did you see any injuries on the man?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: I would not take a statement from an injured person and if there were injuries I would have recorded them.

MR SEMENYA: I can ask you another question whether you can record or not record it.  Did you see the injuries on Mabotha on the 22nd February 1989?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: No, I did not.

MR SEMENYA: Do you know if on your own saying he was an ANC terrorist?  This was an offence in terms of our law was it not?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: Mr Chair, I knew that he was a trained MK.  I don't know what happened to him before that at his first arrest.  That I do not know.

MR SEMENYA: To be a trained ANC terrorist was an offence under our law.  Is that factually correct or not, sir?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: Yes.

MR SEMENYA: Why was he released from detention.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: I have no knowledge of that, Mr Chair.

MR SEMENYA: Why was he not criminally prosecuted for being a trained MK cadre, when that was an offence in terms of our law?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: I didn't have anything to do with his investigation, Mr Chair.  I cannot testify as to that.

MR SEMENYA: I have no further questions thank you sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Anyone else?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman may I just be permitted to just put two more questions.   I know I am out of turn now and it will be very brief.

CHAIRPERSON: If you could be very brief please.

UNKNOWN: Mr Du Toit, your legal adviser is also in the possession of a document from Miss Ngadimeng who had a relationship with Mr Mabotha.  I want to read what she said in paragraph 12 in her statement.
"I was arrested during February 1989.  I was sleeping With Falati, this daughter and .."
- sorry, I can't pronounce these names.
"I was taken to Protea police station.  My first interrogation took place at that police station while a certain Lt Augustyn and another policeman.  Lt Augustyn wanted to know my relationship with Mrs Winnie Mandela and Themba and I could not divulge the real truth".
And then she goes on in paragraph 13 in the first portion I don't want to deal with.  Then she says:
"He appeared to me that they had assaulted him.  His mouth was covered with dried blood as if he was bleeding while being assaulted".

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: Mag ek net weer die datum van daardie verklaring vra asseblief.

UNKNOWN: Februarie.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: 1989.  I have no knowledge of that incident, sir.   I don't remember the name Ngadimeng either.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally.  And I am going to be very strict.  You have one question and no follow ups.

MR VALLY: Mr Du Toit I want to put to you that in view of the fact that you took the initial statement on the 22nd February 1989.  In February 1989 we also have Mr Mabotha placed at Protea police station apparently having been assaulted.  The fact that he was only formally booked into your records on the 4th April, according to the register annexed to Mr Potgieter's submission, that you people did not formally book him in because his injuries were of such a nature that you waited for him to heal between the 22nd February 1989 and the 4th April 1989.  What is your response to that?

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: Mr Chair I cannot accept that such a long time passed before he was booked in.  Perhaps he was detained for something else.  I don't know.  I can't see that it happened that way.  As far as my knowledge goes I had nothing to do with him after his arrest so if he had not been detained I can't explain what happened to him.

UNKNOWN: Mr Du Toit you realise that we have got a very serious problem with your evidence.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: I don't understand why, but if you say it.