Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-09

CHAIRPERSON: If somebody is running a marathon and collapses and dies of heart attack, then it may be said that the fact that he was running a marathon was the cause of the heart attack.  If he hadn't been running a marathon when he got the heart - and he wouldn't have got the heart attack.  Now, I think what Mr Wills is saying is, do you think that the fact that she was being beaten in the fashion described by yourself, brought upon the heart attack?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: It is possible, Chairperson.  I apologise, I did not listen to the question thoroughly.  It is possible.

MR WILLS: After how long after the questioning started did the deceased agree to co-operate with yourselves?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, basically from the first question we had all the facts and it wasn't a question of new information that she could not provide for us, it's just that she had the addresses of these persons and I think that it was clear in the beginning that there was a rapport of her answering questions, that is the inference that I drew of the discussions between her and Taylor.

MR WILLS: So, in short, your evidence is that fairly soon on in the interrogation process, she agreed to cooperate?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: I don't understand Zulu, so I wouldn't know how early this took place.  The feedback of the members as interpreted to me and the totality of the process, indicated to me that it would have been at an early stage.

MR WILLS: So why was it necessary to continue beating her?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, I don't know why Taylor did it.  It was my inference that he did this in order to emphasise his authority over her.

MR WILLS: Mr Coetzer in paragraph 10 of the affidavit at page 103 of the second bundle and again I'm relying on my unofficial translation, Chairperson, indicates, and I quote
"The black woman was then interrogated mainly by Botha and Taylor"
He mentions you even before Taylor.  Can you explain that?

CHAIRPERSON: What paragraph is that, Mr Wills?  Oh wait, paragraph 10.  I have it, yes.

MR WILLS: Can you comment on that?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, I wouldn't know why Mr Coetzer has written it in that sequence.

MR WILLS: Well the point is, he says that you, we all know that there were a number of people in the room, 5 or 6 people in the room.  That he recalls the incident to the extent that you were one of the two people that was mainly responsible for the interrogation.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Yes, Chairperson, and it's also for the same reason that he does not mention the names of the other persons who were present and who participated in the interrogation.

MR WILLS: Sorry, I don't understand your answer.  Are you - why would he say that?  That's what my question is.  If you weren't part of the interrogation as you seemingly seem to - well you weren't a major part of the interrogation, but my understanding of your evidence - Sorry.  My understanding of your evidence is that you were sort of sitting in the back, you couldn't understand the Zulu, you didn't have a stick or a water pipe or a sjambok with you and you didn't really understand what was going on and so you took a back seat, is that your evidence?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is not what I testified.

MR WILLS: Well, what was your involvement then?  Sorry if I've misunderstood you.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: The three members who were proficient in Zulu were the primary questioners, but it was Taylor who understood the primary part of the interrogation.

MR LAX: But he's asking about your participation in  the questioning.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, Mr Lax, I'm getting to that.  When the other members interpreted what Khubeka's answers were, we would ask a question and the question would then be put by either Basson or Wasserman, I beg your pardon, van der Westhuizen, or Taylor, that was my involvement in the interrogation.  The reason why Coetzer has put it like this is unknown to me.

CHAIRPERSON: So what you are saying is that sometimes you would ask a question which would then be interpreted by Wasserman or Taylor for you, are you saying that?  Did you say at all to Ms Khubeka, to any of the people who could speak Zulu present, ask her about such and such and then they would ask a question on your behalf?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, she could speak English and what I say is that I think that she understood English.  The point is, I put the question, whether they interpreted it or not, I cannot recall the detail.  I wouldn't have said: "Ask her this", I would have asked a question based upon the response.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wills.

MR WILLS: Thank you, I just want to get the sequence right here.  My understanding is that you mentioned that at certain stages answers were translated, is that correct, or interpreted?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct.

MR WILLS: So do I understand it that in the main interrogation was done in Zulu?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Correct.

MR WILLS: Then an answer would be given?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Correct.

MR WILLS: And I presume that an answer would be given in Zulu?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Correct.

MR WILLS: And then one of those parties there who was fluent in Zulu would interpret the answer?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct.  I would say "What is she saying?" and then one of them would say what she said.

MR WILLS: And did this occur throughout the interrogation process?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That was more or less the process that we followed right through.

MR WILLS: Yes, so on that basis you must have been well aware of what her answers were throughout the interrogation process?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Yes, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: So you must have been well aware of the fact of when she decided to, on your version, to co-operate with you?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Yes, Chairperson, that is why I said that I think that half-way through the interrogation ...(indistinct)

MR WILLS: What questions did you ask?  Can you recall?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: It would have been a leading question based upon an answer that had been given.  We already had the basic information, so it would have been a confirmation of our information.  The interrogations was about where these terrorists were or where they were hiding, that was the core aspect of the interrogation.

MR WILLS: And was she hit immediately on going into the room?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Not that I can recall.

MR WILLS: When was the first time she was struck?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: I cannot recall precisely when.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it after the commencement of the questioning or prior to the commencement of the questioning?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No, it was after they commenced the interrogation.

MR WILLS: To your knowledge, was there any rationale in hitting her, in the sense that, I understand what you've said earlier I'm aware of that, but was it when she answered a question in a manner that wasn't satisfactory to yourselves, that she got beaten or did she just get beaten to impress upon her the seriousness of the situation as you seem to indicate?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: I think that the second explanation of the version is more descriptive as I saw it.  It wasn't that Taylor hit her in order to assault her specifically, he would put a question and she would give an answer, then he would put another question and then she would give another answer and then he would hit her.

MR WILLS: Sorry, what I'm trying to get from you is that it appears from the answer, as I'm understanding your evidence, that the assault, the hitting of her had no bearing on the answers that she gave, is that your evidence?