Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-08-20

MR MBANDAZAYO: Hm, okay.  Now you were asked yesterday to identify one of the persons and you said look one person you identified was Bhani and you mentioned by name, you didn't even look at the person you said it's Bhani?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Did you know him before?

MR P DE CASTRO: No not at all.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So you only knew him here or where?

MR P DE CASTRO: I will never forget his face in my life.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Hm, quite.  Is it also true that Bhani was taken to your supermarket to make a pointing out after his arrest?

MR P DE CASTRO: I heard so but before they came to make a pointing out we were all taken to the local police station and we were kept there until the investigating officers was finished with them.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Is it also correct that during the trial the Judge made a remark that because of the lack of time after the incident and that you didn't have sufficient time to identify Bhani, he can't attach more weight to your pointing of Bhani?

MR P DE CASTRO: Excuse me, can you repeat that Sir?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Am I correct to say to you that the Judge made a remark in his judgment in the case - let me put it this way Sir, where you present all the time in the trial?

MR P DE CASTRO: No, not at all.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay, so you were not present when the judgment was given in the case?

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes I was present on the day of the judgment and I was present on the day that I gave evidence to the Supreme Court.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Okay.  I'm saying that in his judgment the Judge who presided in the case, Judge Cilliers, said that because the identification of Bhani by yourself and your brother took some place 16 months after the incident and that you did not even have more than two minutes to see him on that particular day, so he can't attach more weight to that and he did not assert it?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well that's his problem because I, the face of Bhani I will never forget in my life.  I mean that night I stood for a few seconds, even minutes, looking at him.  He wasn't looking at me but I was looking at him.

MR MBANDAZAYO: In any event I was just parting, it's not in dispute that he was there, definitely it's his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is this in the judgment?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Mr Chairman I'll go to - if you turn to paragraph that paragraph, page 16 of the Judgment.

CHAIRPERSON: Page?

MR MBANDAZAYO: 16, 45 of the bundle, the second line.  If you start reading from the second line Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Mr Mbandazayo can you explain to us why you're proceeding on these lines and if it's not at issue, why the cross examination on this point.  If you could just lead us or get to the point?

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes.  Definitely Mr Chairman it's not only the only aspect that is taking into account, even the credibility whether the witness is the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: But we know, he says he saw him on the day in question.  He saw him again at an identification parade.  The Judge had doubts because the identification parade was that much later.  He saw him again at the trial.  He says that's the man I recognised and you say that man was there.  At the trial, you may recollect that at the trial your client did not give evidence and did not admit being present.

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Mbandazayo if I could also point out the Judgment in Afrikaans here, but what the Judge was saying is it would be risky to, on his evidence alone, find beyond reasonable doubt that indeed it was Bhani but he continues to, in his finding to accept that it was Bhani, also on other information.  He's simply saying on that evidence alone, one could not do such a finding.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible).

MR MBANDAZAYO: That's correct Mr Chairman, that's what actually was said.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no credibility finding made.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Exactly Mr Chairman, there was no credibility finding made ...(indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: So what's the relevance now?

MR MBANDAZAYO: The point was that, Mr Chairman, I'm trying to get at is that at that particular point in time even though now he knows that is Bhani.

CHAIRPERSON: At that point in time he was satisfied it was Bhani, today he is satisfied it was Bhani, there has been no change whatsoever in the circumstances, has there?  He did not tell the Judge he had any hesitation, he said that is the man, as I read the evidence.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what he's saying today so what can you make out of it?  I'd like you to explain.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes Mr Chairman I agree it just the point, but what I'm saying is that at the time of the incident, at the time of the incident at the supermarket, that's what I'm getting at that under the circumstances under which he was and he also gave evidence that he was shocked and he had, there was not sufficient time he had to look at him, it's not possible it's just because after that he had a sight of it, that's what I was driving at,  At that particular point in time.

CHAIRPERSON: He said that he did, he still says he did.  We are not going to make a finding about identification here so I cannot understand, I agree with my colleague here, what the point of this is.  There's no suggestion that the witness has changed his evidence in the slightest.  Is there?  That is not your submission.  ...(indistinct).

MR MBANDAZAYO: Definitely Mr Chairman, definitely, that's not my point Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman if the Chair pleases that it's not, I'll pass that point and come to another one.  Mr De Castro do you know a person, a policeman by the name of Sgt Landman?

MR P DE CASTRO: Yes I do know him.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Can you tell me under what circumstances do you know him?

MR P DE CASTRO: I just saw him one time in my life.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Yes, what was that time?

MR P DE CASTRO: No he just came to get some witness in another case.

MR MBANDAZAYO: And the witness was working at your supermarket?

MR P DE CASTRO: That's right.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Is it also correct that you had a bribe with him?

MR P DE CASTRO: No that's not true.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Is that witness still in your supermarket?

MR P DE CASTRO: No he's long time left.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Did you also give statement to Landman?

MR P DE CASTRO: Not at all.

MR MBANDAZAYO: But you confirm that you are the person who brought him to the witness?

MR P DE CASTRO: No not at all.

MR MBANDAZAYO: You did not point him the witness to you?

MR P DE CASTRO: As I told you just now I met Charlie Landman on one occasion and that's when he was looking for witness in a certain case which I've got nothing to do with that case whatsoever.

MR MBANDAZAYO: The reason why I'm asking is that the said witness, my information is that the said witness made a statement that you introduced him to Charlie Landman and you had a bribe where evidence was cooked that certain people would be convicted?

MR P DE CASTRO: No that's not true.

MR MBANDAZAYO: So that witness is lying?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well he must be lying, definitely.  I've never had - I've got no time to have bribes with people of the law, I'm a business man I've got nothing to do with politics or the police work, whatever.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Well I'll leave it there that point but it will come in one of the amnesty applications, your name will come up in one of the amnesty applications regarding that incident.

MR P DE CASTRO: You're welcome.

MR MBANDAZAYO: Now let me follow this point was that you are not a, you are a business man and you are not, have nothing to do with politics.  Are you not a supporter of any political organisation?

MR P DE CASTRO: Well when there's time to vote then you must vote for someone so I only like involve myself just before a voting or a election and I must make a decision to vote for somebody, that's in the only occasion that I ever get involved or, I mean that's my right to vote like any other citizen of South Africa.