Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-07-02

MR BLACK: That's, I was about to correct myself. Thank you, Mr De Jager.  If in fact you said you could see that as the Commissioner correctly points out, then that wouldn't be correct that - I am just putting the general terms. I am not, I am saying that my information is that he was - Van den Berg told Mr Van Zyl, you told him, that you didn't point out which koppie you were sitting on, but that you were just keeping observation and that you - and then the events are related as to, in accordance with the evidence we have already heard. So I understand your answer to be you couldn't have said that to him, because you were not in a position to observe what had happened.

J P VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: But Mr Van den Berg, you could have said to him I sat on a koppie over there, but what happened at this place is this and that and the following and that could have been the story that you had heard from the other people who were present.  You could have told him what had happened. Isn't that correct?

J P VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Thank you.  Because this was generally discussed exactly what took place.  I mean, these facts as to what took place you became aware of after the event, by way of discussions which took place during, amongst your colleagues. Is that correct?

J P VAN DEN BERG: I did become aware of the facts.

MR BLACK: And at a later stage, according to Mr Van Zyl, you were travelling in the direction of Botswana and during the course of the conversation with him, you came to the Eendvogelpan and during the course of the conversation with him, you told Van Zyl that Matthews had told you that this is where - this is the stage at which the occupants of the Kombi all cocked their AK-47s. Could you have mentioned that to him?

J P VAN DEN BERG: That is possible.

MR BLACK: Okay.  Now there is another issue which I just want correct the record. You are saying that shortly before this hearing Mr Sehlwana came to you and asked you directions to the hall. Is that correct?

J P VAN DEN BERG: Correct.

MR BLACK: But it not only stops there. He gives you some story that the captain, the investigating officer, a Capt Molapo gave him further information.  It that so?

J P VAN DEN BERG: Yes, that's correct.

MR BLACK: You clearly remember him mentioning Capt Molapo's name?

J P VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Did he say that this is a man who told him to come to attend the meeting?  To attend the hearing, sorry.

J P VAN DEN BERG: Yes, he said that Capt Molapo had phoned him about three weeks before and told him about these hearings.

MR BLACK: Well, and that in addition to that, Capt Molapo said to him that after the hearings he would be going to Cape Town and to meet Joe Modise and the Deputy President, Thabo Mbeki?

J P VAN DEN BERG: He told me that Capt Molapo had told him that he would have to go to Cape Town after this hearing, on the instructions of the Deputy President Mbeki and Minister Joe Modise.

MR BLACK: Well, I must tell you that Capt Molapo ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, I am sorry to interrupt. If I understand it correctly, Matthews told you that he had been phoned three weeks ago.  Was there only the one discussion between Matthews and yourself this past Sunday or did you speak to each other again recently?

J P VAN DEN BERG: He also came to my house on a previous occasion, it could have been a month or two months ago.  During that discussion nothing of importance was said.  This discussion took place on Sunday afternoon.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you, Mr Black.

MR BLACK: Thank you.  Well, you see, I find this very strange, this evidence.  Capt Molapo, first of all denies that he had ever - would say such a thing to Mr Sehlwana, there is absolutely no reason for him to do so.  I am just giving you that information.  Secondly, Mr Sehlwana who is represented by attorneys, and it was through his attorneys that it was communicated to him about the dates of the hearings, where the hearings would take place, et cetera.  I asked Capt Molapo as to whether he had served notices on Mr Sehlwana and he says no, because we had summonsed him to this hearing through the means of his attorneys.  But in fairness to you, Mr Van den Berg, I did not ask Capt Molapo whether he at any stage had telephoned Mr Sehlwana.  And that is a fact which I can ascertain.  But certainly it was put, as I understood it, that he had been told to attend the hearing when it was put to Sehlwana, it was understood that the proposal put to Sehlwana was that Capt Molapo had told him to come to these hearings, and thereafter he would go and see the Deputy President and the Minister of Defence.  When I canvassed that with Capt Molapo he denied it.  Would there be any possible reason that you can think of, that Sehlwana, if he did in fact report this to you, would come up with such a fairytale?

J P VAN DEN BERG: I don't have any idea.  It is simply something which he mentioned. He mentioned it spontaneously.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Van den Berg, where have you ever heard the name Molapo before in your life?

J P VAN DEN BERG: I heard it from Sgt Sehlwana.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you ever meet Capt Molapo and spoke to him?

J P VAN DEN BERG: No, I didn't, I met him at the start of these hearings, I saw him for the first time.

ADV DE JAGER: And how did you know it was Mr Molapo?

J P VAN DEN BERG: I heard him saying to somebody outside here that he was the investigating officer in this case.

MR BLACK: Mr Van den Berg, the name Molapo, are you sure that you have received that name from Matthews, and that you didn't just discover it here at the hearings, when people were looking through papers or whatever?

J P VAN DEN BERG: No, I am quite certain that I heard it from Matthews for the very first time.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I am sorry to have to interrupt my learned friend, but there is something which I think we must get clarity on. There seems to be developing in this hearing an idea that there are two parties against each other in front of you; that Sehlwana is say the one party and as opposed to him stands the other applicants. That's altogether not the situation, Mr Chairman. With great respect, the legal representative of Mr Sehlwana does not oppose our application. We do not oppose his.
	We are not here in conflict with each other in the sense that one witness has to be broken down as far as credibility is concerned merely because he says something different from another. We didn't tender this evidence to make anything out of it.  We tendered the evidence merely because we believed it is something that happened that you should be aware of. We are not making any point of it. But we do find it objectionable, Mr Chairman, that this witness is cross-examined as if he is sucking something out of his thumb, because frankly, Mr Chairman, it has nothing to do with the merits of our application for amnesty. We suggest to you that we are wasting time, with all due respect to my learned friend, if we are - you will remember that we didn't attack Sehlwana's credibility. I didn't cross-examine him.
	  What we did in our questions, was to lift out areas where his evidence coincided with ours and where they differed.  We didn't cross-examine him because it is not necessary, Mr Chairman, and you can allow it to go on, but we wish to place on record, that we are busy with something which is totally irrelevant to what we are about here, namely the applications for amnesty.