Human Rights Violation Hearings — Pollsmoor — 1997-02-18

ADV NTSEBEZA: This is a resumption of proceeding that began yesterday and we hope today to take the evidence of three witnesses.  May I just remark that maybe at  this stage to get something out of the way.
You will recall that advocate Francois van Zyl in the proceedings yesterday indicated that there were matters in the transcript that he heard -  that were of great concern to him - like a trained lawyer however he was fair enough to say it is possibly a transcript fault.  In particular he referred to a word in the transcript that suggested that an unknown commissioner was referring to a witness as a dog.
 You would recall that I immediately and spontaneously indicated that no-one in this Commission - certainly not in this Committee could have used an  [indistinct]   of that nature.  I agreed with him that it obviously is a fault in the transcript.
 As it happens when we made further inquiries because this is something of great importance to the image of the Commission.  We discovered that the witness with whom this exchange was taking place is a gentlemen called Dolf Odendal.  There can be a very thin dividing line between dog and Dolf and I am quite prepared in my own mind to say that the possible explanation was that what appears to be dog is in fact Dolf.
I have not gone to listen to the tape myself because I thought that I do not need to dignify this inquiry further with any explanation. As far as Dolf is concerned all our apologies for any inference that may have been [indistinct]  from the way in which ether I or any of the Commissioners might have come across as having referred to as a dog.  
You don't appear like one  and I certainly would never have said those words.   I  just wanted to get that out of the way.  
I did  indicate to  advocate Francois van Zyl yesterday that,  that is the only possible explanation and he took it as settled on that basis.  I just want to place it on the record that, that is the only possible explanation we can come up with and it is in keeping with our own attitude and I would therefore not hold it against any of the mass media who want to satisfy themselves that this was so - but as it is.  
It so happens that at the present moment there is other transcripts especially in the field of sports administration that are sensational at the moment and I think the  [indistinct] should really concern themselves about those than the one that is presently before this Commission.
Sporting language seems to be  very radical these days but that - less said about that at this stage because I believe those who are associated with those remarks are wanting to take everybody to court to keep them quiet. 
May I just recognize in our midst today an old friend - one of the best lawyers that this country has seen.  And author, a member of South African society who I believe is not even an octogenarian - he's possibly beyond that.  He is one of the very few queens council who still remain in this country - advocate Gerald Gordon - you see and his dear wife who are in the audience.  I am even afraid to say they must stand up but I'll abuse my privilege and say can they stand up so that they can be seen.
Of particular interest to me is the fact that in 1967 - in December - he gave me a job as a messenger in his chambers and there began an association that has blossomed over time.  I am very pleased that you are here, Gerald.
May I also recognize the presents in our midst of Professor Francis Wilson of the School of Economics in UCT.  Thank you Francis, I can see that your modesty is overwhelming you - you have half stood in your chair but then -  there's a lot  that can be said about you as well but I will not say it.
My attention has been drawn to the presence of Pam Reynolds - Professor Pam Reynolds who's sitting next to Professor Wilson.  If I could - she's in the anthropology department, if I could prevail upon her to make herself visible - thank you.
I will then simply say that the ground rules that applied yesterday, still apply today.  I have checked my cell phone is off and would like everybody else to do the same.  And we are going to hear the evidence today of Detective Inspector Karel Bothma and before he gives his evidence I will ask advocate Potgieter to swear him in, advocate Potgieter.

ADV VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, before the witness is sworn in may I just say on behalf of my clients that we except the explanation unreservedly and I am glad that that was simply as I suspected it could be an transcribing error.

ADV NTSEBEZA: Thank you very much, advocate Van Zyl - advocate Potgieter?

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mnr Bothma goeie more - kan u vir ons u volle name gee vir die rekord asseblief?

UNKNOWN: Karel Bothma.
KAREL BOTHMA Verklaar onder eed

ADV POTGIETER: Baie dankie, sit gerus.
Thank you Chairperson.

ADV NTSEBEZA: I believe that you also may be having a sworn statement that you want to read into the record, is that correct?

UNKNOWN: Dis reg  Edelagbare.

ADV NTSEBEZA: Thank you sir, go ahead then.

UNKNOWN: Ek, KAREL BOTHMA verklaar onder eed en in Afrikaans soos volg
1. Ek is 'n afgetrede polisieman gedurende 1986 was ek nog lid 
van die Mag - Suid-Afrikaanse Polisie en verbonde aan die 
Moord- en Roof-eenheid en het die rang van Speurder Adjudant 
Offisier beklee.
2. Op die 2de Maart 1986 is ek in kennis gestel om op die 3de 
Maart 1986 om 03h00 by die Honde-eenheid te Wingfield aan 
te meld.  Ek kan nie onthou hoe ek in kennis gestel was nie.
3. Op die 13de van die 10de maand het ek 'n beedigde verklaring 
afgele insake die gebeure van 3 Maart 1986.  'n Afskrif van 
bovermelde verklaring word hierby aangeheg.
4. Ek wil net meld dat dit my doel was om van hierdie persone te 
deursoek en indien nodig te arresteer.  Die gooi van die 
handgranaat en die daaropvolgende skietery, het arrestasie 
sonder maksimum geweld onmoontlik gemaak.
5. Ek is vertroud met die inhoud van hierdie verklaring en begryp 
dit.