Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-09-03

ADV DE JAGER: In fact he was explicitly excluded.  He shouldn't go there, because he's needed for something else.  So he's got nothing to do with the murder, if it's been a murder.

MR RAMAWELE: No, Mr Chairman, the position is that, as Mr Nofomela testified, he was informed by Mr de Kock that the people were going ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: No, I'm coming to that.  I just want to take it step by step.  So he wasn't a - he didn't commit the offence himself.

MR RAMAWELE: He was an accomplice, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't a perpetrator.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: But he wasn't an accomplice in the sense that he associated himself with the murder, because he was, then he would have acted contrary to the instructions in the sense that he shouldn't partake, but he might have associated him with a conspiracy to murder.

MR RAMAWELE: Mr Chairman...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: If there was a conspiracy to murder.

MR RAMAWELE: Our position is that he was an accomplice to murder.  He knew that people were going to get killed.  He transported the killers to the scene, not to the scene but near the scene of the shooting.  He waited for the killers to return.   He took the killers.  Our position is that his position is not dissimilar to those people who went to do the actual shooting, the only difference is that he was not at the scene, but surely because he was just part and parcel of the group.

ADV DE JAGER: But then we should accept, he took them to the scene and there is then no room for a coming to the conclusion that de Kock might have told him that they're going to kill those people, but that might not have happened at the scene, at the bridge, it might have been on the trip down to Pietermaritzburg, for instance.

MR RAMAWELE: I don't follow your question.

ADV DE JAGER: Suppose, while they were driving from Pretoria, de Kock told him: "Listen we're going down to kill people", so he would have been aware of a mission to come down and kill people.

MR RAMAWELE: The testimony of Mr Nofomela is that ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: And then, because it's a long time ago, it may be that he's been mistaken about exactly where de Kock told him about this mission, whether it was on the trip down, or whether it was that very evening at the bridge.

MR RAMAWELE: No, Mr Chairman, Mr Nofomela was told in Durban that the people were going to get shot at.

ADV DE JAGER: So you're saying we must accept that de Kock was at the bridge and we must accept that he told Nofomela there?

MR RAMAWELE: Mr Chairman, if the Hearing comes to a conclusion that Mr de Kock did not know about this incident, I submit that it will absolutely not make sense about what happened ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: No, no, no, no that's not what I'm saying.  Kindly listen to what I'm saying.  De Kock could have known about the incident without being at the bridge.

MR RAMAWELE: But I think for the Hearing to come to that kind of conclusion, then the Hearing also has to analyse the evidence of Nofomela, Mr Mbatha, Radebe, Vermeulen, to be able now to come to a conclusion that was Mr de Kock at the bridge or not.  The Hearing has to look at the credibilities of the people who testified here and it is my submission that when we look at their credibilities and their testimony, because we have to try and look whom to believe,  if we have to look at that, it is my submission that my client has to be believed, because somehow we have to use a criteria of believing somebody and if we look at their evidence, we analyse the evidence of the people who testified, it is my submission that, when Mr Nofomela says Mr de Kock was at the bridge, yes indeed, the evidence, his version should be believed particularly when we have regard to the evidence of Vermeulen, Radebe and de Kock and then you have the evidence of Mr Mbatha.  Then it must be believed that Mr de Kock was at the bridge.

CHAIRPERSON: On your client's version, Mr de Kock and all the others who were not the actual perpetrators of the deed, were in a similar position as he was, in other words they would all have been accomplices to those murders?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: They were part and parcel of facilitating the killing, be it by issuing firearms, be it by making it possible for them to get to Chesterville, they would all be in the same position as your client.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, yes, yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Now of course the one question that does arise is, and I've asked you earlier on this question about you know this dispute between all of them and your client, is I'm struggling to think of a reason why your client implicates himself falsely.

MR RAMAWELE: Mr Chairman, the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Why does you client say he was on the scene if he wasn't there, if it's not true?

MR RAMAWELE: You see, I don't know of any reason why my client would come to the Hearing and say he was at the bridge when he wasn't at the bridge and I don't know of any reason why he would implicate himself of such a very serious offence, when in fact everybody, all the police officers are saying that he was not there.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it a self-defence?  I mean, look, on the version of the other people this is a self-defence.  These askaris went on legitimate business and the thing went wrong.  They got attacked and they defended themselves.  Nothing wrong, nothing happened, now your client comes and he says no, he places himself on the scene, he makes himself an accomplice to four murders and an attempted murder on a young boy and it's not true, he's putting himself in this case for no reason at all.

MR RAMAWELE: That is why I'm saying that it's very difficult for me to understand what could the reason be if that did not happen.  I wouldn't think of a reason, there is definitely no reason why he would say so if it didn't happen.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words, in order to be able to accept the evidence of the other witnesses that your client was never on the scene at all, there would have to be some or other reason why your client falsely implicates himself?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you can't help with that conundrum?

MR RAMAWELE: No, I really cannot help the Hearing with that.

ADV DE JAGER: On the same basis, just after the Hearing they made statements.  They implicated other people being there.  They mentioned names.  What would the reason then have been not to mention the presence of your client near the scene at least, because they're stating that nothing has gone wrong?

MR RAMAWELE: I don't understand.  Are you saying that the police officers made statements?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

MR RAMAWELE: To whom?

ADV DE JAGER: To the police.

MR RAMAWELE: To say who was at the scene?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

MR RAMAWELE: Mr Chairman, I think we also have to take into account that this was in 1986 and to say that the police officers who made statements in 1986 after the shooting were being very truthful, I think it will be missing the point particularly if one has regard to the activities at Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: And were those statements made on the basis of a self-defence, in other words the case that they were making after those statements was that they were acting in self-defence, therefore there's no murder.

MR RAMAWELE: There's no murder, yes and the evidence of Mr Radebe itself shows conclusively that self-defence was never an issue at that particular place.  It is definitely not self-defence and therefore ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: No, I'm happy with that, but making a statement implicating for instance Seleka, Magopo ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Your mike please.

ADV DE JAGER: Making at statement on the 27th of June 1986, mentioning all the other people present but excluding Mr Nofomela, why was he the only one excluded?