Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-02-04

VOICE SAMBO: What I don't understand clearly, because if I understand you well, is that you're saying that I said that those white men came there so that they would steal and/or to check if they can come later at night and steal, and now you want me to confirm if I said so or not.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: I will try to speak to you in Swazi, because I don't know whether these people who are interpreting are not interpreting this very well.   It looks very simple.   Do you understand Zulu?

VOICE SAMBO: Yes I do.

CHAIRPERSON: What we are trying to get from you is that what's written by Judge Curlewis who wrote or was the presiding judge when you were arrested for murder of Constable Van der Spuy and the case which you were facing of not allowing them to do their job, together with Constable O'Farrell, and also for the possession of a firearm which was unlicensed, in that case the judge is saying that your testimony was, these two white men were injured because when they came to your place and went to your cars, you thought that these two white men were there to steal inside your car, or you thought they were going to come back and steal at night.   The reason they came when it was still daylight, they wanted to see as to what was inside those cars or that car, so that when they come at night they steal.   This is the evidence which Judge Curlewis said you had gave.   Is this the evidence you've told the Court?

VOICE SAMBO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you telling the truth when you gave this evidence in court?

VOICE SAMBO: You mean which evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: We're talking about this very evidence.

VOICE SAMBO: This was a lie.

CHAIRPERSON: If this was a lie, can you give us the reason why you told this lie in court?

VOICE SAMBO: Yes, I can give you.   What made me say so, I didn't tell the Court that I knew these people, therefore I wanted the Court to believe that these people came to steal there, that's why I said so.

CHAIRPERSON: You thought you were going to be released by saying this lie?

VOICE SAMBO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand each other now.   The question from Ms Thabete now is that she understands that you lied in court at that time, because you were trying to escape conviction, but now what is troubling her is that this lie which you've told the Court, that these two men, or white men, who came to your house and opened your car, because they wanted to steal from your car, this lie, it's almost exactly or similar to your statement, the one which you've written for the commission as they've already read it to you from page 5, paragraph 10(a).   Now you were applying for your amnesty, because here in this application for your amnesty, you did again write that you thought that these people were thieves, you used thieves - I'm not finished - now I know, as a chairperson, that you've already tried to explain that you didn't write this application on your own, you were being helped by someone else.   If you've written this personally, your aim was to write and refer to these people as criminals, not as thieves.   Do we understand each other?

VOICE SAMBO: Yes, we do.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete now, she has a problem, even though you've now explained.   Her problem is that there is no evidence here that these people were there to kill you, or to assassin you.   Even though you used a word like criminals, to her it's still the same, that criminals and thieves are almost the same, it's almost the same like the evidence you've told the Court.   Now you can answer and explain so that we go further.   Do we understand each other?

VOICE SAMBO: Can I answer?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

VOICE SAMBO: When I was writing my application for amnesty, and when I said these people were criminals, I was meaning criminals from the security branch, criminals who are doing secret things if they want to further their aims, because they wanted to kill me politically, but no-one would have found out who they were.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete, you may proceed.

MS THABETE: Very well, Mr Sambo, still on the same point but I'm proceeding, you gave evidence that when you approached the two, Mr Van der Spuy and Mr O'Farrell, they did not inform you that they were policemen, is that
correct?

VOICE SAMBO: That's correct.

MS THABETE: It is my instruction, Mr Sambo, that when you approached them, they did explain that they were policemen and they wanted to search your vehicles.   What is your comment?

VOICE SAMBO: What I've said is the truth, they didn't tell me they were police.   On our first encounter, when I went and approached the one who died, Mr... (intervention).

MS THABETE: Mr Sambo, if they had told you that they were police... (intervention).

MR LAX: Just hang on, we're waiting for the translation to finish, please.   Please continue, Ms Translator, you were saying when you first approached Van der Spuy... (intervention).

INTERPRETER: Yes.

MR LAX: ...something, and then you stopped.

VOICE SAMBO: When I first approached Van der Spuy, he didn't say that he was a policeman.

MS THABETE: Mr Sambo, if they had introduced themselves as policemen, would it have changed your response to them, would it have made any difference to the way things happened that day?

VOICE SAMBO: I think the reason for them not identifying themselves as policemen, it's because they were there to kill me.

MS THABETE: No, my question... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: No, the question is, had they identified themselves as policemen, would this, I quote Ms Thabete, have changed the way things happened that day?

VOICE SAMBO: I don't know.   They should know that.

MS THABETE: I'm talking about yourself, would you have shot Mr Van der Spuy?

MR LAX: Perhaps put it another way, if I may assist, what would you have done if they had told you that they were policemen at that point in time?

VOICE SAMBO: You mean before shooting me?   You mean them identifying themselves before they shoot me or after they've shot me?

MR LAX: I'm saying that at the time you approached Van der Spuy, what would you have done if he had said, "I'm a policeman, I'm here to check these cars out", what would you have done?

VOICE SAMBO: I was going to let him search my car.

MS THABETE: When you approached Mr Van der Spuy and Mr O'Farrell, were they next to the cars?

VOICE SAMBO: Yes, they were.

MS THABETE: In your evidence you said they had started opening the doors of the cars, isn't it?

CHAIRPERSON: Only one had, Ms Thabete, that's his... (intervention).

MS THABETE: Mr Van der Spuy.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van der Spuy only.

MS THABETE: Yes.

VOICE SAMBO: Yes.

MS THABETE: Now my question to you, Mr Sambo, I hope it's the last question on this aspect, it's that in your evidence you've told us that in your mind you thought these were security branch policemen.   You saw... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Sorry, may I just interrupt there?   There are different stages, as... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Just allow her, Mr Black, to complete her question because it will probably address your problem.   Proceed, Ms Thabete.

MS THABETE: Thank you, Madam Chair.   You say when you saw Mr - according to your earlier evidence, when you saw Mr O'Farrell and Mr Van der Spuy, you thought they were security branch policemen.   When you approached them, you say they didn't tell you that they were policemen, but you thought they were policemen, they were busy searching your car.

MR LAX: To be fair, Ms Thabete, he said he thought a little bit that they were policemen, but he saw the sign on the side of their vehicle... (intervention).

MS THABETE: Yes, the emblem.

MR LAX: ...and he thought they were from a garage, he thought they were from a Shell garage, that was actually the full text of his testimony at that point in time.