Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1999-05-10

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, I did.  I told them that I am not Sotho speaking.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say that you corrected this person on a number of occasions?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, that is correct.  I was telling him often times to rectify mistakes in the statements and he would say he his sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you correcting his interpretation of what you had said to him?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes.  Yes, I would hear him saying something different.

CHAIRPERSON: This is what he was telling the person who was taking down the statement?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: If I may Chairperson, you say you would hear him saying something different, what language was he saying something different in?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: He was speaking this broken Zulu.

MR LAX: No you were speaking Zulu to him, he was speaking broken Zulu to you, you said to us you would hear him saying something different, he must have then been translating what you had said, to the person taking the statement, isn't that so?  Yes or no, plain and simple?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, yes sir, I cannot dispute that.

MR LAX: So the question is then, what language was he talking to this other person in?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: He was speaking this English, I don't know and he would come back to me and he would speak in Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know the difference between English and Afrikaans?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: They were speaking English.  He was speaking English.

MR LAX: I thought you told us earlier that you don't understand English?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, yes, but they were speaking English.

MR LAX: Well, then how did you know that he wasn't telling that person what you had told him?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: The legal counsel used to look at the statement at the end of taking it, and verify it with me through the Interpreter.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the position that the statement was read back to you?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: He would ask me each time he was writing, whether it was correct, whether the statement was correct or what he was writing, is correct, and I would rectify him or rectify the statement along the way when the need arose.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the position that after you had spoken, this was interpreted to the person who was taking down the statement?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you would be asked by the person who is taking down the statement, who would read back what he has just written down, to confirm whether in fact this is what you had said?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, I would give him the information and it would be interpreted, written down and verified.

CHAIRPERSON: And this happened from the beginning to the end of the statement?

INTERPRETER: May the question please be repeated?  May the question please be repeated?

MR LAX: Chairperson, they are asking you to repeat the question, the Translators, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, what was the question, I can't even recall.

MR LAX: They were talking about repeating the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you have been telling us that the person who was taking down the statement, after you had spoken, this person would confirm with you by asking you whether in fact that is what you had said?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That happened throughout the statement?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And as you were going along, was the statement being corrected?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What I want to find out is whenever you made corrections, were these recorded down?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, I would see the person scratching out what he had written before.

CHAIRPERSON: So he would scratch what is down, and write something else?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And would he confirm whether that is in fact what you had said?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And what would you say, would you confirm that?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, because he would scratch out some things, I would see him scratching out some things.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, now when you told us that you corrected the Interpreter on a number of occasions, correcting his interpretation, is that what you were referring to?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, because the Attorney asked me if the statement was as I told the Interpreter.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chair.  Mr Nosenga, can I assume then that you reject the statement that Mr Peens addressed the meeting on that day?

CHAIRPERSON: Has he not told us that that is not correct, hasn't he told us that?

MR DU PLESSIS: Excuse me Mr Chair.  In your evidence in chief, according to my notes, Mr Nosenga, you said the following, I don't know if you can remember
"... Peens said he will supply weapons, Gatchene was interpreting ..."
	Can you remember that you testified to this extent?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: No, I said the person who addressed the meeting was Gatchene.

MR DU PLESSIS: So this is not correct?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: No, it is not correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember if a person by the name of Chaka was present at this meeting?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: No sir, I did indicate that he was not present.

MR DU PLESSIS: Once again sir, in my notes, in your evidence in chief, you testified that Chaka accompanied Peens to the meeting?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: No, I said he was not present.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you wish to change your testimony now?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I said Chaka was not present, I only met him on the 17th.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Nosenga, let's move on to the day of the massacre.  You said you saw Mr Peens again on that day, is that correct?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I did not say that I saw Mr Peens on the 18th.

MR DU PLESSIS: Sir on the day of the massacre, the day but before the massacre took place, did you see Mr Peens again?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I saw him during the day on the 17th at the Iscor parking lot.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was he alone?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, I saw him, just him.

MR DU PLESSIS: So nobody accompanied him, is that correct?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I am saying I only saw Peens handing money over to Gatiza.

MR DU PLESSIS: How do you know that Mr Peens handed money over to Mr Keswa?  Did you see this money?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, I did see the money.

MR DU PLESSIS: How much money was it?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I do not know.

MR DU PLESSIS: How did you see that it was money, sir?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I was close to them when he handed the money over.

MR DU PLESSIS: How close sir?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I was close, from where I am sitting it would be myself and Victor and Mr Peens.  The applicant pointed to his legal representative and Mr Strydom.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you could hear, if there was any conversation between Mr Peens and Mr Keswa, you would be able to hear it, is that correct?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: No, I did not hear them.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was there no conversation between them, or you didn't hear them having a conversation?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: They did have a conversation, but I didn't hear what they were saying.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, why couldn't you hear what they were saying?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: They were speaking in English therefore I did not hear what they were saying.

ADV SIGODI: You did not understand what they were saying?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, I did not understand them.  Yes, I did not understand what they were saying.

ADV SIGODI: Were you part of this what shall I call it, the group or was it you, Gatiza and Peens together when Peens was giving Gatiza the money because as you described it, you were quite close together, was it the three of you together?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, there were three of us at the parking lot.