Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: If I remember correctly, it was that he was involved with the Maponya group.   As I already answered, I went with Colonel Van Niekerk to conclude other business too.

MR RAUTENBACH: What do you understand with involvement, what does involvement mean?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Considering what?

MR RAUTENBACH: Well with regards to the Maponya group.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: He was involved with the unit of Maponya.

MR RAUTENBACH: You had no more information?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: You had no more information except for the fact that he was involved in the Maponya group?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: At that stage, no.

MR RAUTENBACH: And the next day, did you have more information or not?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: The next day I wasn't there, Your Honour.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you couldn't have obtained more information?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: We're talking about the 11th?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: What about the 12th, did you have more information then or not?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No, Your Honour, I wasn't involved with the interrogation.

MR RAUTENBACH: So at all times whilst you have been indirectly involved, the most information you had was the fact that he was involved in...(tape ends)
...and did you have more information concerning the Maponya group?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Not at that stage.   As I've already testified, a telex came earlier confirming that the Maponya group was concerned with several bomb explosions in Pretoria, and I cannot give you specific incidents, but as I already said in my testimony, (indistinct) came through confirming incidents that took place at several of the Security Branches.

MR RAUTENBACH: Before I carry on, I'd like to look at page 350, which is volume 2.   Let's look at 349 first.   Here you were asked by Mr Steenkamp, look in the middle of the page.   Then Mr Steenkamp asks you
"This is a section 29 investigation.   Did you do anything to Mr Bopape while you were arresting him, did you arrest him or anything, or did you at any stage arrest or assault Mr Nkosi as far as you can recall?"
Dan antwoord u:-
"I would not say that I assaulted them, but it's possible that we roughed them up at the time that we arrested them.   It was possible that they resisted arrest, so I am not going to dispute that much."
Would you agree with that answer of yours?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, that stuff I testified before, it was a long time ago and therefore I cannot answer you in detail.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's carry on.   Then Mr Steenkamp asks you
"You see, my information is that you assaulted Mr Bopape by hitting him with your fist when you were arresting him.   Would you recall that he resisted arrest, or what was the position?   Did you assault him with your fist?"
Dan se u:-
"I would not recall with absolute certainty that I assaulted him with my fists, because even at that stage there was no charge laid against me for assaulting him with my fists.   I do not believe that it was a serious assault.   There were various ways of assaulting, sometimes it was just a matter of dealing roughly with the person while arresting him."
Do you still agree with that?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Your Honour, that's correct, it's a long time ago and I mentioned that he might have offered resistance and maybe I used the necessary violence and then I referred to the word assault.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then you were asked directly and your answer is yes.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Your Honour, at this stage I think I said twice that I cannot remember correctly, and I was asked again and again, and it could possibly be that eventually I just said yes, that's what I might have meant by that and that's by which I'll stand now.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I don't understand what you're saying, did you give the answer attributed to you at page 350, namely "Did he resist arrest?" and your answer was "Yes", did you give that answer?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, I did give that answer, but again I'd like to say why I possibly said yes, because maybe I just said yes, that is possible, that could have been added because at two previous occasions I said that it was a long time ago and it was possible, and how many times was I going to be asked this?

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you know, Mr Zeelie, from your experience as a policeman particularly, and I assume that you've appeared in court, that when in court one should be very careful when giving evidence and shouldn't give a question that may not be correct, merely because you're tired of being asked the same question over and over?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, I understand, Your Honour, and that's why I'd like to correct myself and I'd like to give you a statement concerning that today.

JUDGE NGCOBO: What is the position now?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I have already testified that I cannot remember exactly.

JUDGE NGCOBO: What is it that you cannot remember?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I cannot remember exactly if he offered resistance to arrest or not.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'd like to ask you, Mr Zeelie, with regards to the aspect of the woman who was in the vehicle, who might have been, according to affidavits submitted, it seems that this woman was Helen Magale.   Did she have anything to do with the investigation or anything else, maybe the interrogation, concerning the case against Helen Magale and her brother, George Magale?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No, Your Honour, nothing, nothing.

MR RAUTENBACH: So would I be correct that at the stage when Bopape was shocked, that at that stage all you knew about Bopape was that he, according to information, was involved in the Maponya group?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour.

MR RAUTENBACH: So he didn't really know which information he had to give in order to avoid the electric shocks?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: It was enough for me, Your Honour, to know that he was kept in terms of section 29.   If he was not kept in terms of that section, then it would have been a different matter, but he wouldn't be detained in terms of that section if there was not good enough grounds that he was involved in those acts.

MR RAUTENBACH: So what you are saying is you don't have the information, but he is detained in terms of that section, and because he's kept in terms of that section, the methods of coercion are allowed to be used, because he has to talk?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Your Honour, yes, as far as I was concerned, it was enough reason for me, he was involved in ANC activities, the explosions came about, and I can talk a lot about explosions, I saw a lot of that, and it's touched me personally, I've defused 12 of them and I was close to explosions, my own vehicle was blown up by the ANC at my house, I can talk about these things.   To me it was enough reason.

MR RAUTENBACH: Just to return to that, with regards to his involvement, you didn't know exactly how he was involved?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That's why we had to obtain the information.

MR RAUTENBACH: This involvement could have been that he had phone conversations with Helen Magale, or was closely linked to Maponya itself?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No, I couldn't say that.

MR RAUTENBACH: He can say nothing, he couldn't say anything at that stage, because he had no information, is that correct?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour.   As I've already mentioned, he was detained in terms of section 29.   There was information that he was involved in the Maponya group, and that to me was enough grounds to enforce methods of coercion on him.   Once again the stability of the country had to be assured.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, it seems that when you were detained in terms of section 29, your chances of being shocked by a shocking device was quite good, because you had to give information, and even if you did give information, it wasn't considered enough?