Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

ELIZABETH MAAKE: During the day he was at school.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mrs Maake, but you don't know personallythat he went to school, isn't that right?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: I knew that he went to school.

MR DU PLESSIS: How do you know that?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: That he goes to school?

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know that he was present at schoolevery day?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: I used to see him coming back from school andI used to check his books because they called us to a meetingthat we should check their books of the time.

MR DU PLESSIS: You never saw him physically going to theschool and you never saw him coming out of the school, isn't thatright?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: I used to see him.  Because when he was absentfrom school the teachers used to write us letters that they wereabsent.

MR DU PLESSIS: Which teachers told you that?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: Can you repeat the question, Sir?

MR DU PLESSIS: I understand that the teachers told youthat he was at school.  Which teachers told you?

JUDGE WILSON: They wrote a letter saying he wasn't atschool.

ELIZABETH MAAKE: If your child doesn't go to school the teachersused to write you letters that your child doesn't come to school.
5A

MR DU PLESSIS: /...
MR DU PLESSIS 426  E MAAKE

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mrs Maake do you know that there wereschool boycotts during that time?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: Yes, there were some boycotts during that time.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know if your son participated inany of these boycotts?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Du Plessis, during which time?

MR DU PLESSIS: During the time just before his disappearance. I am asking questions around that specific time.  All the questionsrelate to that specific time, Mr Chairman.

ELIZABETH MAAKE: There was a time when there was confusion atthe schools and children were not going to school, but I don'tremember which year.

SISI KHAMPEPE: I think what counsel wants to know is whetherthere were school boycotts in 1987.

ELIZABETH MAAKE: Was it in 1987?

SISI KHAMPEPE: Yes.  Your son disappeared on the 13th July1987.  Were there any school boycotts shortly before his disappearance?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: Yes, there were school boycotts during thattime.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, can you remember how frequentlythese school boycotts were?  How intense they were.  Can you rememberany more detail about the school boycotts?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: They were very rare.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did your son participate in these boycotts?
(COMMENCEMENT OF RECORDING ON TAPE 5B)

ELIZABETH MAAKE: I used to see them going to school and comingback.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, can you dispute the evidenceor do you dispute the evidence of Warrant Officer Van Vuuren
5B that/...
MR DU PLESSIS 427  E MAAKE
that he knew your son?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: I am surprised how he would know him.  Maybehe knows him because they used to be arrested.

MR DU PLESSIS: How frequently was your son arrested?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: He was arrested only during that time of theschool boycott.  He was never arrested again.

MR DU PLESSIS: How many times was he arrested?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: He was arrested once and there were many schoolchildrenwho were arrested that time.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, you testified that you don'tknow anything about his political activities, is that right?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: Do you mean in politics?  I don't know.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did he ever speak to you about that?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: He didn't tell me anything.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you can't dispute the evidence thathe was involved in political activities, can you?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: I would not dispute, because I didn't know.

MR DU PLESSIS: So would you agree with me that it is possiblethat he was involved in political activities and that he mighthave been an informer of the police?

MR CURRIN: Sorry, Mr Chairman.  How can he ask this witnessto speculate whether or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Let her answer the question.

ELIZABETH MAAKE: Will you repeat your question, Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you.  Mrs Maake, am I right in sayingthat you can't dispute that there is a possibility that your sonwas involved in political activities and that he might have beenan informer of the police?

JUDGE WILSON: That's two questions isn't it.  She hasanswered the first half already.

MR DU PLESSIS: Pardon M'Lord.
5B

ELIZABETH MAAKE: /...
MR DU PLESSIS 428  E MAAKE

ELIZABETH MAAKE: I dispute that.   I dispute that.  How cana
small child become an informer?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, if he was old enough to havehad a child, I put it to you that he could have been involvedin politics and could have been an informer as well.

ELIZABETH MAAKE: I don't agree with that, Sir.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, I would just like to make a pointhere, that ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: You can re-examine her.

MR CURRIN: I just believe it is an unfair question inthe sense that it is a matter of argument.  To ask her to speculatewhether or not her son could have been an informer is a pointlessexercise, I submit.

CHAIRPERSON: She said he is not an informer, she doesn'tbelieve that he was an informer.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Du Plessis, before you move on to somethingelse, if that wouldn't bother you, could I just ask the witnesssomething.  You were asked earlier on as to why you think that- or rather you gave an explanation as to why you think Mr VanVuuren could have known your son, how it came about that he couldhave known your son.  What did you say about that?

ELIZABETH MAAKE: I don't understand how they can know each other. My speculation is maybe he knows him because they were takingphotos at some time.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Thank you.  I was just putting that questionbecause I thought the interpretation earlier on said that he mighthave known him because they had been arrested and that was notwhat the witness had said.  She had said initially in the firstplace as well, she had said that the reason why Mr Van Vuurencould have known her son was that they had
5B taken/...
MR DU PLESSIS 429  E MAAKE
taken photographs of them.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do I understand it correctly that the evidencethat she gave that he could have known him because he was arrestedwas wrong?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: The interpretation was incorrect.

MR DU PLESSIS: I understand.

ELIZABETH MAAKE: I don't understand.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You don't have to worry;  we understand.
Just listen to the next question which Mr Du Plessis is goingto ask you and concentrate on it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you M'Lord.  Mrs Maake, I put itto you that it was possible that your son might have been involvedin political activities to the extent testified by Mr Van Vuurenwithout you knowing that.  I am going to argue that.  What doyou say about that?

JUDGE WILSON: Implicit in that is that he was outsidethe country for three months without her knowing about it?  Areyou going to argue that?

MR DU PLESSIS: M'Lord, I haven't put that.  I am puttingit on the general basis.

ELIZABETH MAAKE: My child never disappeared for three months.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, I am putting it to you thatit was possible that your son was involved in political activitieswithout you knowing that.

ELIZABETH MAAKE: But he never left home for three months.  Evenif he is two days or one day without us seeing him, all the timehe was always at home.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, I also put it to you that itis possible, and I am asking you - well, let me ask you this. Was it possible for your son to have driven a car without youknowing that?
5B

ELIZABETH MAAKE: /...
MR DU PLESSIS 430  E MAAKE

ELIZABETH MAAKE: Where was he driving the car to, us withoutseeing him.  That's what I want to know.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mrs Maake, I put it to you that the carcould have been parked at a different place, that he was drivingthe car in the evenings when you weren't at home and that youwouldn't have known about it.

ELIZABETH MAAKE: The family not knowing?