Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR DU TOIT: That might well be the case.  UnfortunatelyI would not be able to make a statement in this regard since Iam not part of this hearing.  I am simply here to take notes andto see what the givens are of this application.  Whether theymight be able to enlighten the committee with regard to any ofthese matters, that would depend on the
4B questions/...
415
questions asked.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Toit, there is no reason why you can beprecluded or in any way precluded from these proceedings.  Shouldyou feel at any stage that you would like to enlighten this Committeeon information that you have relating to the evidence or witnessesor questions you might want to put to witnesses, then I see noreason why you should be precluded from doing so.

MR DU TOIT: Thank you, Chair.  I will convey this to theAttorney-General.

UNKNOWN: Mr Du Toit, the previous application waswhether these persons should be subpoenaed.  Mr Mamasela is afurther person implicated, whom in terms of article 19(4) wouldalso have the right out of his own to bring testimony.  The question,however, is whether permission would force him through a subpoenato give testimony and in that regard we made a ruling.  Thereis, however, nothing that stands in the way of anyone in termsof article 19(4) to bring testimony.

MR DU TOIT: That is also the case, Mr De Jager, and thatis why we want to say that our attitude is that the grounds onwhich Mr Currin is bringing this testimony is particularly sincethey are the victims in this case and it would be proper to categorisethem as victims for further steps.  On these grounds we have noobjections at this moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Currin, you may proceed.

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chair, just directly to reply to Mr DeJager.  You will remember when Adv Pretorious addressed you hedid so in that he had contact with the 204 witnesses and thatat that time they had indicated that should the Commission subpoenathem they would be willing to bring
4B testimony/...
416
testimony, but they would not be willing to bring voluntary testimonyin view of their being State witnesses and that is why there isa fundamental difference between the current witnesses who arevictims and who are allowed by the Act to bring testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Similarly in this case here.  The ladies whoare here and who are related to the deceased may very well want,despite the fact that they are State witnesses in a trial whichmay take place, they would like to come here and give evidence. And I don't know whether there is any power that can preventthem from doing so.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to say, the factthat I raised the point was not to preclude them from giving evidence. I raised the point to show, according to the applicants, thatthe Attorney-General's view on this is inconsistent.

CHAIRPERSON: (Inaudible)

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I don't want to get into adebate with that.  I must say, however, as I recall the argumentof the Attorney-General was that if the State witnesses wouldgive evidence his case would be prejudiced.  I don't actuallysee the reason for us going into a debate on that.  I just wantto place on record that I differ from the Attorney-General andthat we still fail to see the difference between any of the Statewitnesses.  If the argument was that the case of the State wouldbe prejudiced that would be the case in respect of all the witnesses. But we will abide by the decision of the Committee and the victimscan testify.

MR CURRIN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  We would then callElizabeth Maake.
4B

ELIZABETH MAAKE: /...
MR CURRIN 417 E MAAKE

ELIZABETH MAAKE: s s

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, the witness would like to testifyin her mother tongue, which is Pedi.  I have made the arrangementwith the interpreter.

CHAIRPERSON: Please tell her that she must answer the questionsas you put them and she must wait for the questions to be translatedto her.

MR CURRIN: Mrs Maake, you must only answerquestions as and when they are put to you, either by myself orby one of the members of the Committee or by the lawyer who isrepresenting the applicant.  So please wait for the question beforeyou give any answers.   Mrs Maake, you are the mother of JacksonMaake, is that correct?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: Yes, it is so.

MR CURRIN: When was he born?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: Jackson was born in 1968.

MR CURRIN: When did you last see your son?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: The last time I saw him was in 1987 on the13th July.

MR CURRIN: Can you explain to the Committee what happenedon that day before he left.

ELIZABETH MAAKE: When he left home I was on my way to work. He stayed with me and said I must give him R10.  I did so.  Thatwas the last time I saw him.   He left on Wednesday.  I kept askingpeople whether they did see him or not.  On Saturday I enquiredfrom his friends and they did not know of his whereabouts.  Itwas the first time he left home for about three days.  He didn'teven sleep at home.  He was a student or a scholar.

MR CURRIN: Which school did he go to?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: I can't remember the name of the school.
5A

MR CURRIN: /...
MR CURRIN 418 E MAAKE

MR CURRIN: Where was the school?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: The school is situated in Mamelodi.

MR CURRIN: Do you know the name of the street in whichthe school is?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: I do know the street's name.  I did go to townto enquire about the papers or the relevant documents at thisschool.

MR CURRIN: What is the name of the street in which theschool is?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: I can't remember.

MR CURRIN: In what class or standard was your son?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: In Form 3.  He was in Std 8, Form 3.

MR CURRIN: How did he do at school generally?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: He was doing well at school.

MR CURRIN: You heard evidence this morning by the applicants,and in particular Mr Van Vuuren, that your son had left the countryfor training for a period of three months.  Do you have any commentto make in that regard?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: That is not true.  He never left even for abouttwo days.  This surprises me to hear that he left the countryfor about three months.  It was the first time that he left homefor about three days then I started searching for him.

MR CURRIN: Did he have a driver's licence as far as you know?

CHAIRPERSON: Whether he had a motor car.

ELIZABETH MAAKE: He didn't have a car and I have never seena car and I don't have a child who owns a car.

MR CURRIN: Did anyone in the neighbourhood of Mamelodiever say to you that they had seen your son driving around ina motor car?
5A

ELIZABETH MAAKE: /...
MR CURRIN 419 E MAAKE

ELIZABETH MAAKE: No one have ever seen him driving a car.  Wehaven't seen him driving a car within the family.

MR CURRIN: You also heard evidence this morning that yourson was politically active within the township of Mamelodi, isthat correct?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: Do you mean was he active in Mamelodi?

MR CURRIN: ... in the form of politics?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: I don't know.  I don't know about his politicalactivities.  I only remember that he was arrested and we weretold to return them to school.  They were out of school for aboutthree days.  That is all I can remember.

MR CURRIN: You say he was arrested.  Was he charged? What was he charged with?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: It was a group of scholars.

MR CURRIN: What was the case against them?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: They were saying they didn't want to continuewith their classes, they didn't want to write tests because theysaid they didn't want Afrikaans.

MR CURRIN: Did they go to court?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: Yes, they did go to court.  They were arrested,then they were released on free bail and the case was closed thenthey said we should take them to school.

MR CURRIN: Did you know the families of Makope or Sefola?