Amnesty Hearings — Umtata — 2000-03-28

MR STOFILE: I'll put it this way, for the next three days while she was at the police station she was in a very bad state she was not even able to eat.  Messages were being sent to your offices to fetch her on a daily basis but nobody came until the fourth day?

NELSON NKOSINATHI SIQHOLA: What I'm saying is when Mrs Matoti regained consciousness I left and I then met her when she was released from detention when she was laying a civil claim.  She only mentioned Nkunkwana, we came forward and said we were also involved.  So these questions that you are asking about things that happened afterwards, I cannot be able to answer them.

MR STOFILE: Anyway I'll just pass on to the other questions.
The witness was severely injured during the 16th when you tortured together with the others and assaulted her, says that she was admitted for six months at Umtata General which suggests that with complications, some of which have got after effects until today, I put it to you that the way you assaulted her you had no regard that she was a female, you assaulted her, you know, as if she was a man.  As a result she had gynaecological problems later on.  What do you say to that?

NELSON NKOSINATHI SIQHOLA: I had already explained that question, I would like the Committee to protect me because I've been answering that question and I mentioned that Mrs Matoti was taken to hospital and I also mentioned the cause that took her to the hospital and the doctor gave us a report that her IUD contraceptive was a problem so I don't know what he wants me to say.

MR DUKADA: My question, Mr Chairperson, may I also intervene?  In this application, the applicant is asking the amnesty for having amongst other things ill-treated Mrs Matoti, he is not denying that at all.  I don't understand now the pursuance of these questions, I understand that my learned friend wants to put his case to the witness but the witness has repeated more than five times?

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's common cause that he tortured her and that the torture was serious.

MR STOFILE: Chairperson, I was laying a basis of the seriousness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we know if was serious, Mr Stofile, I'm sure that Mr Dukada is not going to argue anything to the contrary.

MR STOFILE: As the Committee pleases, Chairperson.

MR MGIDLANA: Sorry, sorry, Chairperson, if I may just chip in?  The problem that we have with the applicant is that he seems to make it appear like there was no seriousness in this ...(indistinct) of the torture as well as the lessen his role that's why even myself I was tempted to get in detail ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We're not disallowing the question but I think with the messages that come across, she was six months in hospital as a result of the torture.  I can assure you that we're not going to find that it was anything but serious, the torture.

NELSON NKOSINATHI SIQHOLA: I would like to explain something.  The reason why I applied for amnesty, it is not because I was the boss of the torture but it is because I took part in the torture or the methods of torture that was happening there.  Mrs Matoti thinks that I'm applying for amnesty because I was the only one who was doing these things, I was not alone, there was a lot of us so now it appears as if I personally was the leader of these methods but when I applied for amnesty I applied for the role I took on what was happening there.  So now it is said I am trying to distance myself from certain things and I've already explained for the Committee that I'm not going to agree with something that I did not do simply because I applied for amnesty.  I'm going to admit to what I did because I know that I've made an amnesty application.

MR STOFILE: You see, the problem I have with that answer is that he has been very general in laying a basis and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR STOFILE: And in this instance he must not lose sight that he, in this particular case, he was the one who took an active part in the assault and torture.

NELSON NKOSINATHI SIQHOLA: Yes that is correct, I took an active part when Mrs Matoti was assaulted, I'm not denying that.

MR STOFILE: Can the Committee bear with me?  Can you bear with me, I'm just trying to go through something?
	In your evidence in chief you mentioned that the defendants in the case they didn't contest these cases because they wanted to settle them.  In this particular case there was special application to uplift a bar and the defendants plea was filed as it appears in the documents here and it was actually applicated on the 13/07/1989.  The point I want to make is that there was an attempt because - to try to settle this on the trial date and they tried to sustain the defense all along.  In this particular case, this matter was only settled on the trial date because there was - the point I'm making is that, even when the state attorney in this particular case, the defendant, if they wanted to settle they should have done much earlier.  It is not the case in this particular case and not uplift a bar ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What are you getting at now, Mr Stofile, just put it to him?

MR STOFILE: The point I want to raise with him is that the security police were sustaining the question of the defense up to the trial date when they could have settled the case much earlier on.  They instead applied and increased costs ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So what do you want to know from the applicant now?

MR STOFILE: What I wanted to know from the applicant is that it is not true what he said in his evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you say to that, that case was only settled shortly or on the trial date?

NELSON NKOSINATHI SIQHOLA: I did not even go to court I was not called, I don't even know what is happening when the case is being settled, I don't even - I'm not aware of that.  He would just be told that the case has been settled, I don't know the details whether it has been settled out of court, I don't know what is happening.

MR STOFILE: Do you know Mr Myeki?

NELSON NKOSINATHI SIQHOLA: If you are talking about the one who is deceased, the Lieutenant, I know him.

MR STOFILE: I'm talking about him.  Was he not part of the officers at the Norwood security police at the time of the arrest and detention of the victim in this particular case?

NELSON NKOSINATHI SIQHOLA: Yes he was there in Norwood.

MR STOFILE: Was he stationed at Norwood?

NELSON NKOSINATHI SIQHOLA: Yes.

MR STOFILE: At the time of this incident?

MR LAX: He said so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, how many times do you want him to say, Mr Stofile?  He said he was at Norwood?

MR STOFILE: I just want it for record purposes.
	In your evidence in chief you have not mentioned him as part of the officers who were involved in this particular matter, who were there at the time?

NELSON NKOSINATHI SIQHOLA: I said the list is long, I've requested to the Commission to write down the names because I cannot remember all of them.  I have requested that from the Commission.

MR STOFILE: How long have you worked with Mr Myeki?
How long did you work with Mr Myeki at the security offices?
Lieutenant Myeki, how long did you work with him?

NELSON NKOSINATHI SIQHOLA: I arrived in Umtata in 1984, that was the first time I met with Mr Mkhike.

MR STOFILE: And how long did you work with him?

MR LAX: What is the point Mr Stofile, just please?

MR STOFILE: What I'm trying to put to the witness, I'm trying to say that it is not correct that he could not remember because he has worked with him for a long time.

MR LAX: Yes, he worked with all these policemen for a long time.

CHAIRPERSON: And he did say that, look he's got this list, he asked for - he might have forgotten etc, so now we've know he has forgotten about Lieutenant Myeki.

MR LAX: But what is the point about Myeki apart from the fact that he forgot about him.  Is there anything of substance?