Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1999-05-19

MS TANZER: My client obviously as you heard, states that the police were intricately involved in the attack on Boipatong and he had a version where Mtwana Zulu was also involved in the planning of the attack, although he said he did not see him on the night of the attack during the attack, but he definitely believes he was part of the planning of the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, but do you have any instructions as to whether Mr Zulu was present during the attack?

MS TANZER: Yes, my initial instruction was that he was part of the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  The victims as I understand it, is that there were white men or white persons during the attack.

MR BERGER: That is correct, yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And that of course they saw the police vehicles during the attack.

MR BERGER: Yes, that is also correct, Chairperson. - assisting the attackers.

CHAIRPERSON: And that Mr Vanana Zulu was present during the attack.

MR BERGER: Indeed yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, we don't have a position, we are probing.
R U L I N G
	Having listened to counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the issue in this hearing is whether there were police or white persons during the attack who took part and assisted the attackers and secondly, whether Mr Vanana Zulu was present and took part in the attack.
	These issues raise matters of credibility of the witnesses and the reliability of the evidence relating to the identity of persons alleged to have been present during the attack.  
	Insofar as issues of credibility are concerned, the ordinary rule relating to cross-examination is that a cross-examiner is allowed a wide latitude, in particular to probe matters that are in issue.  The limit to that cross-examination will be repetition, but on matters that are not in issue, that is collateral issues, the answer to those questions given by the witness, is final.  It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rules but broadly-speaking these are the limits that will be allowed during these proceedings, bearing in mind that one is dealing with an inquiry.
	The other matter which is of grave concern to us and we find it deeply disturbing is that at the very beginning of these hearings it was agreed that there will be an exchange of documents that will be used during the proceedings so as to afford the other side a proper opportunity to examine the documents and prepare the case of those that counsel is representing.  That role has not been observed, and I once again urge the parties to comply with that rule.  
	We have urged the parties to reach some agreement as to what precisely are the matters that are in dispute, that has not been done.  As a result of that we hear evidence on matters that appear to be common cause or that are not in dispute and in the process the process is being delayed.  And I want to state and urge the parties once again, we now know what is in issue and what is not in issue, I urge the parties to stop fighting about matters that are not in dispute or matters which can readily be ascertained, but only to agree on what evidence we need to hear relating to these matters that I have now placed on record and which the parties have agreed are in dispute.  I sincerely hope that the legal representatives will comply with this request.
	To the victims who are here to testify, it is necessary that we know what happened and one way that it can be done is to ask questions as to what happened.  The purpose is not to traumatise the witnesses, but it is a sincere attempt to know what happened, so that at the conclusion of these hearings when we sit down to consider the evidence, we have the full picture of what happened. 
	I hope I am expressing the sentiments of each and every Member of this Committee, when I say we understand the pain and the trauma that you suffered at the time.  If we had an option we would have preferred not to ask you to relate these events once again, but we have a job to do. When counsel oversteps the limit we will intervene.  I therefore ask you for you co-operation so that we can bring these proceedings to some finality.
	Yes, Mr Strydom?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, just before Mr Strydom continues and lest we be seen to be conceding certain issues, I understand your ruling is in the context of the evidence which is being given at the moment, there are however other issues which have to be decided, such as proportionality, authority and motive and other issues and quite clearly those don't touch on the evidence we're hearing at the moment.  The one thing which does is the question my learned friend, Mr Lowies spoke about, sexual assaults and that that is irrelevant.
	Our submission is that that would be relevant to the whole question of proportionality and that's why that evidence is being tendered where it is possible to tender such evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: (Cont)
Thank you, Chairperson.
	Ms Molete, I want to read a certain portion of your evidence-in-chief to you.  I've got a cryptic note and I just want you to confirm that evidence and then I'll ask you a few questions in that regard.  The question was:
"Did you see other white people during the attack?"
Your answer was:
"It was difficult, facing death, to see if the attackers were white or black."
When ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, Mr Strydom, are you referring to ...(intervention)

MR STRYDOM: Evidence-in-chief, according to my notes.

ADV SIGODI: Oh, thank you.

MR STRYDOM: Do you confirm that portion of your evidence?

FLORENCE MOLETE: Can you please explain yourself?

MR STRYDOM: I'm just reading from what you said in your evidence-in-chief, because I want to ask you certain questions after that.  According to my note it reads as follows: - the question was
"Where there other white people during the attack?"
And you said:
"It was difficult, facing death, to see white or black"
That's my note, but I would assume it said "to see if the attackers were white or black", is that correct?  I just want you to confirm the evidence.

MR BERGER: Perhaps if you could explain what the evidence-in-chief was, that might help.

MR STRYDOM: Maybe I should do that.  When Mr Berger asked you questions you gave certain answers and at that stage I was writing down what you said.  Now you testified quite quickly and it was difficult to write down every word, but my note reads as follows and I want you to confirm if this is what you said.  The question by Mr Berger was
"Did you see other white people during the attack?"
And then you answered:
"It was difficult, facing death, to see white or black."
That is according to my note.

FLORENCE MOLETE: Mr Strydom has asked me many questions and now he returns to the same question again.

MR STRYDOM: All I want to ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, if I can ...
	Please Mrs Molete, you must understand, we're not trying to badger you, this question is question of what you said when you first testified when Mr Berger led you and Mr Strydom is entitled to ask you this question and we'd like you to please give us an answer.  So he's not unfairly questioning you at this stage.

FLORENCE MOLETE: I do not dispute that.

MR LAX: All he is asking you is, can you remember saying that to us when Mr Berger was asking you questions, that is was difficult to tell whether a person was black or white when you're facing death.  If you can't remember saying that, that's okay, just give us ...(intervention)

FLORENCE MOLETE: I do not remember because he has asked me so many questions.

MR STRYDOM: Then my note goes further to read when you testified
"When the men came in I was fighting for my life.  I didn't know where Miriam and Mita were."

FLORENCE MOLETE: Yes.