Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: After the - on the first stage, they tortured him for a long time.  Then when they see that they cannot get maybe what they wanted or maybe they were happy now, thinking that they had enough of torturing him, that's the time, after 30 minutes they decided to send me to the shops.  When I came back, one of them was by the car and then when they heard that I just come back with ice cold cooldrinks, then they went to their car to drink and they later went back again.  But while they were by their car, they said we must stand by the deceased, you know, to start getting the information from him.

HASSAN MALL: Are there any further questions before I excuse this witness?

ADV VAN DER WALT: Sir, there is just one question.

HASSAN MALL: Sure.

ADV VAN DER WALT: It is interesting this evidence that you have given today which was led by Mr Mpshe and you were asked specifically about what injuries the deceased had.  You said his face was swollen, his eyes were red, he cried from pain and you had to support him when you led him back to the vehicle.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV VAN DER WALT: But you didn't mention at all in relation to the direct question which was put to you, you made no mention whatsoever of his head that had been burnt right down to the scalp.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: As I said to the Court, his head was swollen, his eyes were red.

ADV VAN DER WALT: You said his face was swollen.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: Please repeat the question?

ADV VAN DER WALT: You said his face was swollen.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: That is correct.

ADV VAN DER WALT: But now I am asking you, why did you not tell the Commission when you gave evidence that his head was burnt right down to the scalp?

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: No, perhaps I would have said that later.

ADV VAN DER WALT: But you did not say that later, until the honourable Chairperson asked you.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: I accept that I didn't say this, but I could have said it later.

ADV VAN DER WALT: That same mistake you made, that same mistake in the court case itself, because you said - my pages have been cut off.  In his judgment the Judge said that after he was taken down, he complained about being hungry and that he was in pain, the deceased's head was terribly swollen and his eyes were blood red.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: That's right.  As I put it to the Court his hair was burnt.  As I put it he was burnt, it was burnt up to the skull, but he was not burnt in such a way that maybe that is the fire only burnt, the hair was burnt off.  The hair is burnt off.  It means the fire burnt the hair off.  So it was, I don't think, to me it was interested to say that if we are talking in terms of injuries, the burning of hair or maybe the removing of hair, is not part of having, I cannot just state seriously that is an injury.

ADV VAN DER WALT: So it wasn't a serious burn wound.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: It would have been serious, if perhaps he had been taken to a doctor, that from my point of view, as I said to the Court, his hair was burnt right down to the skin.  But perhaps if he had gone to the doctor, it would have been considered serious.

ADV VAN DER WALT: What is interesting is that this important piece of evidence you have forgotten today; neither Oosthuisen, nor Julius Khosa testified in the trial of the two applicants concerning these burns, because they saw nothing.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: Perhaps they saw nothing, but I personally saw it.

ADV VAN DER WALT: But Oosthuisen would definitely have testified about that if that had been the case because he was the one who went to the police and told them.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: I cannot testify to that effect.

ADV VAN DER WALT: Let me put it to you then that the two applicants testified that a small fire was made which just caused smoke, because, precisely because they wanted to make it uncomfortable for the deceased, but that there weren't burn wounds.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: I put it to the Court that there weren't burn wounds but as I have already said to the Court, his hair was burnt right down to the skin.

ADV VAN DER WALT: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV VAN DER WALT

JUDGE WILSON: What did Oosthuisen say about that?  Can you remember?

ADV VAN DER WALT: As I recall the testimony he said there wasn't a burn.  According to the judgment it was only Mr Mkoana who testified to that effect.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Maybe you and the witness differ on the definition of injury.  To him, if the hair is burnt, is not an injury and according to your definition if you go to a hairdresser to cut off your hair, you injure yourself. I think that is the difference between you and the witness.

ADV VAN DER WALT: As it pleases the Commission.

JUDGE WILSON: Oosthuisen said that the bag on his head was burnt.

HASSAN MALL: You are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, there is another further witness to be called.

HASSAN MALL: Pardon?

UNKNOWN: There is another witness to be called, but that will be done after lunch.

HASSAN MALL: Yes, we will adjourn until two o'clock.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, my colleague Adv Van der Walt has just informed me that she has an application to make to the Committee.

ADV VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, I'd like to request you that if we can call Mr Jack Mkoana back.  There is just another aspect which I failed to bring up before. If it pleases this Commission, I won't take very long.

HASSAN MALL: Is he available?

ADV VAN DER WALT: Yes.

HASSAN MALL: Will he come forward, please.

ADV VAN DER WALT: I am much obliged, Mr Chairperson.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: (Duly sworn, states).

ADV VAN DER WALT: I would like to put it to you that Mr Van Wyk only after Mr Gerber resigned from Fidelity Guards, moved out of that particular building, and then at a stage when this incident took place, his offices were in the building where Mr Gerber's offices were, about three doors away.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: Yes, after he came back from leave I noticed that he had moved from head office to our offices. I am not quite sure at what stage he was stationed there and when he went back to headquarters.  Perhaps round about the time when they were busy looking for somebody.

ADV VAN DER WALT: No, I don't think you are understanding me correctly.  I am putting it to you that during that whole period before this incident and also after the incident, his offices were in the same building.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: No.  No, that is not correct.

ADV VAN DER WALT: I would also like to put it to you and this is in line with what the Judge said in his summation of the evidence, that you testified that you were a member of the investigating team during that period, you were not an undercover agent as you said.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: The investigating team are more or less part of the undercover group.  I was in the underground investigation for the investigation department, which it is part and parcel of - the information which I get from the people in the street, then I, at the end of the day I pass it to my superior who is in charge of the investigation department.

ADV VAN DER WALT: But you see Mr Gerber was the person who was in overall in command of this investigation team, and yet you said that you did not report to him, but that you reported to Van Wyk.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: I have already said Mr Van Wyk was the heaD of the investigation, the security department, and Mr Gerber was the manager for the security department. In other words, Mr Gerber get the instruction from Mr Van Wyk and Mr Van Wyk gets the instruction from the managing directors.

ADV VAN DER WALT: So Mr Gerber was in charge of the team.

MAMOGALA JACK MKOANA: Yes, that's right.

ADV VAN DER WALT: So what you are saying is that you did not report to Mr Gerber who was in control of the investigating team, you bypassed him and went to Mr Van Wyk.  How does that work?