Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-19

GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: I don't exactly remember what was said Mr Chairman, but like I have stated, the proposal that the dam be used came from me.  I do not remember about the house, whether it was Van Zyl but he did know, Carr knew about the house and I would also think that Brig Visser was aware of that house because we basically used it as a base when we had roadblocks, people slept there and we moved out from there.  It was therefore well-known between the people in the Eastern Transvaal and also those people in Natal, not only Josini's personnel, but also people even from Pietermaritzburg actually stayed there as well.

MS SAMUEL: Now on the day in question, when you arrived at the farm house you noticed that this person was already disposed of in the sense that he was already dead, am I right?

GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: No, the first time that I saw the person was dead, I doubt that I ever saw him while he was alive, but at home I hadn't seen his body.  He must still have been alive when I left there.  The first time when I saw he was dead was when they went to the dam and then he was wrapped in a cloth.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just get clarity.  You went together to the house and then you went to the dam to fetch the boat.  Could you give us an indication as to how long it could have taken?

GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: Mr Chairman, I would just like to correct the distances.  We talked yesterday about the fact that Botswana is about 70 kilometres away from the house.  Pongola is about 70 km away from Josini.  You have to go through Josini to go to Pongola.  The farmstead is about 20 km away from Josini in the direction of Pongola, in other words approximately 50 km away from Pongola, it could be a few kilometres extra if one includes turnoffs.  The distance from the farm to the dam, I think van Zyl was there recently, I wasn't there recently either, but I think it is slightly further than he said, I think it's at least a kilometre further.  I went from the homestead to Josini.  I fetched the boat there.  I then took the boat and put it on the dam and I drove back to where he was exploded.

MR LAX: Just while we're on this point, why did you actually go to the farmhouse at that stage?  You were at your office in Josini, they were going to the farmhouse, why did you go with to the farmhouse and then go all the way back to Josini again?

GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: I cannot exactly remember what was said, perhaps I showed them the route, Carr must have been there before, but I cannot remember exactly.  I do not know, but during the killing of the person I was not present and I therefore cannot tell, but I cannot explain why we went back.

MR LAX: It just seems strange, because you sat in your office, you discussed this matter and you worked out what would be done and as you say, you suggested an island in the dam and so on, so at that stage it would have been apparent to you that a boat was required and yet you drove 20 k's to the farm, saw that everything was right there, drove back, then went and got the boat.

GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: Chairman, I do not know whether it was actually complete, the discussions at the farmstead, I do not recall exactly, but in the way that you put it, it sounds as though it was a useless trip, but I do not remember the facts.

MR LAX: Please continue, Ms Samuel.

MS SAMUEL: Thank you.  So basically when you got to the dam, this body that you saw was wrapped in a sail, am I right?

GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS SAMUEL: Did you at any stage remove the sail to see whose body was lying in the sail?

GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: We took the person who was wrapped in the sail and we put him on the boat.  There he was killed.

MS SAMUEL: He was already killed by that time?

GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: He was dead already, yes.

MS SAMUEL: My question is, did you remove the sail at any stage to try and see whose body was in the sail, because if it was in the sail it would have been covered.  What I'm trying to get at, you wouldn't have been able to identify that body at that stage, am I right?

GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: We had not unwrapped the sail at any stage and once it was opened, it wasn't because we wanted to see who it was, because I wasn't interested at all as to see who the person was.

MS SAMUEL: Thank you, Sir.  So I put it to you that you cannot admit or deny that the body that was blown up on that day was in fact the body of Oupa Ronald Madondo?

GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: ...(not translated)

MR LAX: Are you having a problem with your headphones?

TRANSLATOR: I am.

MR LAX: Ian there's a problem with the translation not coming through some of the time on the English.  Would you just repeat that answer?  As I recall you said that you weren't in a position to confirm the identity of the deceased or the identity of Madondo as you knew neither of them, or whether that was the person known as Scorpion.  Have I recalled it correctly?

GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: That is correct, Mr Chair, I do not know Madondo, I did not know him at all and I did not know Scorpion either.  As far as I am concerned, it could have been either of the two or it could have been the same person.  I would not be able to comment on that.

MS SAMUEL: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS SAMUEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  That would conclude the evidence of the applicants present.  We've already ruled that Mr Carr's evidence would be heard at a later stage.  Representatives would be advised of the date and they could attend it if they want to, otherwise they could request us to send them a copy of the transcript and they could make further representation on the transcript.  It may be that Mr Meyer will also be called to give evidence.  If so, you will be advised of that and the same ruling would be applicable to his evidence, either we could send the transcription or you could attend the Hearing.  Could we hear argument now, would that be possible?

MS VAN DER WALT: I was under the impression that the family would be called.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I believe Ms Samuel indicated yesterday that she would like to call a member of the family to oppose.

MR LAX: Can you hear?  Can you hear us?  Now can everybody hear?  Can the Chairperson hear?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

THOKOZILE MAVIS MADONDO: (sworn states)

MS SAMUEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  I refer the Commission to pages 100 to 106 of the bundle of documents being the affidavit of Thokozile Mavis Madondo.
	Mrs Madondo you are opposing this application, the amnesty application of all these applicants, am I right?

GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Ms Samuel, just one thing.  Yesterday we were told that the sister was going to testify.  I just want to find out the relationship between the witness and the deceased.

MS SAMUEL: I believe as to the identity of the deceased.

MR LAX: You're being asked, what is the relationship between this witness and the deceased?

MS SAMUEL: My apologies.  Could you tell the Commission what was your relationship between yourself and the deceased, Mr Madondo?

MS MADONDO: I am his sister. I was the eldest and he was the third child in our family.

MS SAMUEL: You've seen some photographs in this bundle.  Can you confirm that that was your brother?

MS MADONDO: Yes, I sent these photos to the TRC and they made copies of them.

MS SAMUEL: And he was known as Oupa Madondo, is that correct?

MRS MADONDO: That is correct.

MS SAMUEL: Do you know what was his other calling name, whether he was called MK Scorpion?

MS MADONDO: Yes, I do know that name.

MS SAMUEL: And for all intents and purposes, you believe that the applicants are making application for amnesty arising out of the death of your brother, Mr Madondo?

MS MADONDO: That's correct.

MS SAMUEL: Now could you tell this Commission why you are opposing this application for amnesty?