Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1999-05-06

MR LOWIES: I would submit that it is relevant.  The relevance is the following, it is my instructions that he was fleeing from the law and from everybody else at the time, and that is relevant, because it shows a motive why he is applying for amnesty.  I don't want to go too deep into that, but that is the crux of the matter, there is relevance and it is very pertinent to this matter.  I would not ...

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat ...

MR LOWIES: I am sorry Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat your answer.

MR LOWIES: Chair, I hear that whenever I put something like that to him, it must be relevant.   It is relevant to a motive.  I don't want to say too much, because that will inhibit my cross-examination, but it is relevant to a motive.  This man was on the run, this is my instructions, and one of the reasons why he acted as he did, then and now, is as a result of that.  That I would like to explore, otherwise I would not be able to get to the motive.    That I would submit is very relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: A motive for applying for amnesty in this matter?

MR LOWIES: And for falsely incriminating my clients and others.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR LOWIES: Thank you.

MS TANZER: I didn't get that.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your response?

MS TANZER: Well to ask him to confess or to admit to other offences, is asking him to incriminate himself with regard to information that is not before any court of law on which in fact, it is his constitutional right and his right in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, not to incriminate himself.  He has the right to remain silent and now he is being asked to come forward and confess to crimes which allegedly, it is almost, it is a fishing expedition.  It is not crimes that are known to my learned colleague, but he is trying to find out if there is any crimes that he has committed, and I think it is an infringement of his rights.

CHAIRPERSON: I will allow the question.

MR LOWIES: I December 1992, did you commit any crimes such as drive-by shootings?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: No.  I do not know anything about that.

MR LOWIES: I would like to put it to you sir, that the confession that you made, is almost two and a half pages and you give a lot of detail, and you would not have been able to give that detail to the Police, if you were not able to understand the Sotho Interpreter.

MS TANZER: In fairness once again to the applicant, it has not been put to him whether he actually signed this confession.  If one looks at the signature, it actually differs from every other signature I have seen.  I mean that question at least should be put first, whether he even signed such a document.

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: That is not my signature.   That is not how I sign.  It must have been the Police who wrote this.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, are you denying that you had any conversation with the Police so that they could get sufficient information to charge you and convict you?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I stated before sir, that I was arrested in Parys, thereafter transferred to Vereeniging where  I was assaulted and that is how I got to confess.

MR LOWIES: And what you said, was it produced to writing?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: What I am saying is that a statement was taken from me and I was assaulted by Mr Havenga and others in the process of taking the statement.  I don't know what else you want me to say now.

MR LOWIES: If you say a statement was taken, does that mean it was taken down, it was produced to writing?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, they did write it down when they were carrying on with their assaults.

MR LOWIES: And is it your version sir, do you deny that you were taken to Lieutenant Heinrich Kalp?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Please repeat the name?

MR LOWIES: Heinrich Kalp.

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I don't remember that person.  It is possible that I may have been taken before him, but everything that happened, was as a result of my assault, of those assaults on me.  Everything then was under the white government, and I had not (indistinct) to confess to those crimes.

MR LOWIES: The point is taken that you were assaulted.  Were you also assaulted to put your signature on the documents?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: That is not my signature.

MR LOWIES: Were you assaulted to put your signature on any document, not  necessarily this one?  Don't look at documentation, just listen to the question first.

MR LAX: Mr Nosenga, did you sign any documents while you were with the Police as a result of any assaults or tortures?  Yes or no or you can't remember, it is up to you?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I do not remember well.

MR LOWIES: A certain document was shown to you by your legal advisor, was that one signed by you and I am referring to a document which is marked A6, Mr Chairman.

INTERPRETER: The current speaker was off line, we could not hear.

MR LOWIES: Sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that document before us?

MR LOWIES: No Chair, I wanted to do it during the tea adjournment, which I think is an appropriate time because ...

CHAIRPERSON: Just go on and finish this point.

MR LOWIES: Chair, may I enquire what time are we going to take the tea adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: What is it that you are referring to?

MR LOWIES: I was referring him to Annexure A6, fourth and fifth pages.  Is that your signature?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: No, that is not how I sign.

CHAIRPERSON: Speak out Mr Nosenga.

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I am saying that I did not sign this way, this is illegible.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that it is not clear whether it is your signature or whether - what are you saying?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: It is not legible, I do not remember well if I did sign this document.  It is possible that I may have signed it.

CHAIRPERSON: Look at that signature at the bottom, tell us whether is this your signature or whether it isn't your signature.

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: That is not how I sign.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: May the document be handed in as Exhibit U Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on)  Would somebody continue counting those pages and ..

MR LOWIES: If you want me, I will let my Attorney paginate it for you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, did you see any place there on these documents where you signed?

CHAIRPERSON: Has he gone ...

MR LOWIES: I think his representative has gone through the documents with him, is that true?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: That is not my signature.

MR LOWIES: You are referring to the second last ...  Chair, I think the best would be if the documents are paginated.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, indeed and let him have some ...

MR LOWIES: May I enquire when we are going to take the tea adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Wait, perhaps during the break, he should just go over the document and then let us know which ones are his.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any other questions?

MR LOWIES: I think it will be best now to take the adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon?

MR LOWIES: I think it will be appropriate to take the adjournment now.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, we will come back at 20 past 11.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: (s.u.o)

MR LOWIES: (cont)
	Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Nosenga, you had the opportunity of going through the whole of Exhibit U with your Attorney, with your legal representative, is it correct during the adjournment?  I am talking about signatures appearing thereon?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, that is correct.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I am sorry just for the record, my learned friend said Exhibit T, is it not Exhibit U?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, would you please stop confusing us?

MR LOWIES: I think my learned friend is confused, but I thought I said U, but I apologise to everybody, let's go on.

CHAIRPERSON: Those who are listening are better judges of what you are saying.