Amnesty Hearings — Nelspruit — 1999-02-04

MS THABETE: But I thought we had addressed that question, because my first question was, he said they came from a garage, and then he said he thought they were going to kill him, and then he said he thought they were police.

CHAIRPERSON: There were various stages at which he said different things... (intervention).

MS THABETE: Oh, okay.

CHAIRPERSON: ...I think that's why Mr Black in fact was intervening to object to your line of questioning, because it didn't contextualise the situation as already testified to by Mr Sambo.   Rephrase your question.

MS THABETE: Fair enough, maybe I should rephrase my question.   At the stage when you approached Mr Van der Spuy and Mr O'Farrell, would it be correct for me to say you thought they were security branch policemen?

VOICE SAMBO: I only realised that when he took the gun from his pocket or wherever he took his gun, that's when I realised that they were police, because I knew that police or security branch were the people who wanted me dead.

MS THABETE: So all along who did you think they were, before you saw them taking out the guns, who did you think they were?

VOICE SAMBO: I thought that they were from the garage, Shell garage.

MS THABETE: Okay, I'll move on.   It is my instruction - I have already said that it's my instruction that they actually introduced themselves to you as policemen and you responded and you said that's not true, they did not.   It's also my instruction that you, when they, after they had told you that they were policemen, you actually caused a scene and you prevented them from further searching your car, is that correct?

VOICE SAMBO: That's not correct.

MS THABETE: Is it also not correct that after you had prevented them from further searching your cars, Mr Van der Spuy warned you that he will place you under arrest?

VOICE SAMBO: That's not true.

MS THABETE: Is it also not true that after he had warned you, he grabbed you by the arm, saying that he's placing you under arrest, whereupon you grabbed him around the waist and attempted to remove his firearm, isn't that correct?

VOICE SAMBO: That's not true.

MS THABETE: Further, is it not correct that when you attempted to remove Mr Van der Spuy's firearm, he pushed you and he drew his weapon and fired one warning shot in the ground?

VOICE SAMBO: That's a lie.

MS THABETE: Further, Mr Sambo, is it not true that after he had fired one shot on the ground, you came back, you grabbed him around the waist, whereupon Mr Van der Spuy bit you, or I'm sorry, bit your hand?

CHAIRPERSON: Who bit whose hand?

MS THABETE: The applicant bit Mr Van der Spuy's hand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETE: Isn't that correct?

VOICE SAMBO: That's not true.

MS THABETE: So, Mr Sambo, are you saying the evidence from the photographs that were taken on the scene showing a bite, were not from you, you did not bite Mr Van der Spuy's hand?

MR BLACK: May I just - I certainly don't have any such evidence, and I haven't see any such photograph.

CHAIRPERSON: Which one, I just lost that because my colleague was telling me about something, what evidence is that, Mr Black?

MR BLACK: Madam Chair, my learned friend is attempting to create or refer to a court record which we don't have, and... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you have a copy of the court record?

MR BLACK: I've got a copy of the judgment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.   I mean that is referred to in the judgment.

MR BLACK: Yes, but we haven't seen any photographs of any such... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I agree, we also don't have any such copies, but these have been referred to in the judgment.   To the extent that I think Ms Thabete wants to delve deeper into those photographs and details surrounding the evidence impinging on the photographs, you might have to have the photographs in front of you, but I don't think that's what she's attempting to do.

MR BLACK: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: I hope, Ms Thabete, you are aware of the difficulty that might present the committee if you were to go deeper into the nature of the photographs and the details surrounding the evidence contained in the photographs themselves?

MS THABETE: Madam Chair, I understand that, but I also have instructions, and I just wanted the applicant to verify, in the light of the fact that, besides the instructions I have, it's there in the judgement, page 6, page 32 of the bundle, where it refers to the bite mark on Mr Van der Spuy's wrist, I just wanted to find out whether... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, I think it's for Mr Sambo to admit or deny that evidence, but I think that can't take the matter any further, you can't object to that question simply because you don't have copies of the photographs.   As I understand Mr Sambo's evidence in that regard, it's a denial.

MR BLACK: Yes, okay.   May I... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: It can't be taken any further.

MR BLACK: Yes.   No, I just wanted that to be placed on record, because I just have some difficulties in, you know, that matter being put to him without seeing the photographs.

MS THABETE: Page 32 of the bundle, page 6 of the judgment, line 20.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Black, for your peace of mind, we do not think as a committee that anything can turn around that piece of evidence.

MR BLACK: No.

CHAIRPERSON: If that will really come to be uneasiness... (intervention).

MR BLACK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...with which you are taking this line of cross-examination.

MR BLACK: Yes.   No, no, I appreciate that the committee is fully cognisant and aware of the laws of evidence in this regard and my learned friend may continue.

ADV BOSMAN: Madam Chair, may I just address Mr Black on this point?   Mr Black, I would just like sort of clarity in my own mind, are you saying that the court record would not be admissible evidence, because it's a public document?   If Ms Thabete were in a position to produce extracts or anything from the court record, would you accept that that is admissible evidence?

MR BLACK: Yes, most certainly, but we just don't have - to put to a person the bite mark on the right hand without having it before you, is a bit unfair.

ADV BOSMAN: No, I just wanted to make sure that I understand your objection correctly.   Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Ms Thabete.   Thank you, Ms Bosman.

MS THABETE: So, Mr Sambo, you're saying you did not bite Mr Van der Spuy's hand, is that your evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: That's his evidence, Ms Thabete... (intervention).

MS THABETE: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: ...let's move on.

MS THABETE: Okay.

MR LAX: Sorry, it wasn't his hand, it's his wrist, is it not correct?

MS THABETE: Yes... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: It's his right wrist.

MS THABETE: ...it's his right wrist, yes.

MR LAX: He might say, "Yes, I didn't bite his hand".

MS THABETE: I stand to be corrected, thank you member of the committee.   Did you bite his right wrist, Mr Sambo?

VOICE SAMBO: The hand which had a gun, I think that's the hand which I bite when I took the gun.

MS THABETE: So you're admitting to the fact that you actually bit Mr Van der Spuy's right-hand wrist?

VOICE SAMBO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why have you just denied that part of Ms Thabete's question?   I know in Seswate it really doesn't make any difference whether it's a wrist or it's a hand, there is no material distinction between the two, why did you say, "No, I didn't bite his hand", but you can say, "Yes, I bit his wrist"?

VOICE SAMBO: After he shot me, Mr Van der Spuy, I grabbed his hand, the one, the hand which had a gun.   We fought, because I wanted to take his gun from him, because I was scared that he was going to kill me.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that evidence - no, I think the question was not that you assaulted him, the question was you bit his wrist, and you said no.   Was that not translated properly to you?

VOICE SAMBO: It means it wasn't translated properly to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.   You may proceed, Ms Thabete.