Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-06-30

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: I wouldn't remember, Sir.

ADV VISSER: More than three?

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: There will be more than five.

ADV VISSER: More than five? All right.  Did you see anything being done to this wounded person other than what you say you saw Fuchs shoot him.  Was anything else done to him at all?

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: I don't remember well, Sir.

ADV VISSER: Did you see that he received an injection?

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: Maybe he was injected before I arrived, but I didn't see any injection being put to him.

ADV VISSER: Yes, well, let me tell you what the evidence will be. The evidence will be there was a Black person who was a medic in the South African Defence Force, on stand-by right there and he was asked by Mr Erwee to give him an injection to stabilise him, because he was becoming unconscious all the time, and falling into unconsciousness all the time.

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: I don't know that, Sir.

ADV VISSER: Well, do you say it didn't happen or do you say it could have happened?

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: All I saw is that they shot him.  If there was a doctor you are able to see the medical instrument, as to whether a person was breathing normally or not.  But truly I would say there was no doctor there.

ADV VISSER: Yes, well, perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, but you just said they shot him.  Is that what you said?  Mr Chairman, I don't hear an answer over my microphone.

INTERPRETER: I am waiting for an answer, Sir.

ADV VISSER: Oh.  Is it correct that you said "they shot him" and that you mean to say ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Interpreter, I think he gave an answer and you didn't interpret it.

INTERPRETER: No, it was a short question which I didn't know on the meaning.  It was a short question. It was an incomplete question.

SISI KHAMPEPE: I think it was incomplete, Mr Interpreter.  He said "amantunza", he shot him.  You probably missed that one.  Maybe you can ...

INTERPRETER: My apologies.

ADV VISSER: I'm sorry, what is the answer, is, he shot him? I am not sure what the answer is now, Mr Chairman.

SISI KHAMPEPE: That's how I understood it.

ADV VISSER: All right.  While you are all standing there, watching ...

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: I said he shot him.

ADV VISSER: He shot him, all right.  Now just please tell the members of the Committee how exactly Fuchs did this.  You could see it clearly, I take it. It was right in front of your eyes.

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: I saw him exactly when he shot him.

ADV VISSER: But tell us how he shot him.

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: He pulled a gun, then he shot him on the chest.

ADV VISSER: On the chest?  Was the wounded man lying flat on his back or was he sitting up?

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: He was sleeping on his side.

ADV VISSER: On his side.  The gun that Fuchs pulled out, what kind of gun was it?

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: I didn't see it clearly, but I believe it was 9 millimetre, maybe it was a short gun, I say maybe it is a 9 millimetre, maybe it was not.

ADV VISSER: And you say he shot him in front into the chest?

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: Yes, that's true.

ADV VISSER: Are you quite certain about that?

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: Yes, I am telling the truth.

ADV VISSER: Now I am going to ask you this question again, and I repeat it with a specific purpose.  Are you quite sure that what you saw was Fuchs shooting the wounded man right in front of his chest with a firearm?

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: I still repeat my answer that that was the situation.

ADV VISSER: Right.  Mr Chairman, I wish to refer you to the bundle of documents, first of all, to the newly numbered pages 151.  Now I am going to go through this as quickly as I can, through a process of elimination, Mr Sehlwana.  The people who were killed, all six of them ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, you will have to assist us - our papers are not numbered.

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, yes, it is C in your file, C, page 23. I wasn't aware that they haven't been numbered, Mr Chairman.  It is a document which is a report of a medico-legal post-mortem examination and it is marked A1 and that is the new page 151, the old page 23, Mr Chairman.  Have you found it?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

ADV VISSER: There was a post-mortem examination carried out on the bodies of each of these six people.  Are you prepared to accept that?

MAROPENG MATTHEWS SEHLWANA: Yes, I agree on that, that those people that were in my car were six.

ADV VISSER: Now what we are going to do now, Mr Sehlwana, is we are going to now try to establish which of these six people was the one that was wounded and the one that was shot by Fuchs with the firearm right in front on his chest, because that is your evidence.  The first one at page 23 says, and I am going to read it slowly, because it is Afrikaans and I hope I will be able to read all of it, because our copy is very weak, Mr Chairman.  The chief post-mortem findings made by the doctor, and if you want to know who it was, it was Dr Diederich Jacobus Jacobs, in Louis Trichardt, was the following.  He says
"Multiple bullet wounds in the left side of the body and head, with severe bruising or crushing of last-mentioned."
I am pausing here to say this.  This refers to the head -
"So that the whole skull on the left-hand side of the skull ..."
Mr Chairman, then there is a word that I can't read here because our copy is too poor.  It would seem that that is correct. My learned friend says "kolabeer", it would seem to be that, "kolabeer het" -
"There was internal bleeding in the chest cavity and the abdomen."
The cause of death was found by the doctor to be -
"Brain damage as a result of multiple bullet wounds through the skull."
Now I am not going to enter into a discussion about this, I am suggesting to you this person would have been killed on the spot.  He was not the one that survived.  Are you prepared to accept that?  Well, I will argue that ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think what he is going to say is going to help us.

ADV VISSER: Of course, but I think in fairness I must just put to him what I am going to argue, Mr Chairman, and I am putting it just as a statement to him, that I am going to argue that he couldn't possibly have been the man that was wounded, and let's go to page 26, also of C.
	Mr Chairman, perhaps I can attempt to go faster by translating it as best I can.  The problem is that, and it is again perhaps a question of argument, but I will take you through the first five of these post-mortems and we will suggest to you with respect, that there is no way that any one of those persons could have survived.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you see you can do that, but my only problem is I don't know what the value of his comments are going to be?

ADV VISSER: That is the problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Whether it makes any difference between simply, you know, you just leaving that and then arguing, putting to him.  To me it's really ...