Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

UNKNOWN: : Yes in this case the magistrate, I think his name was O'Cam, I'm not absolutely sure, referred the major to the attorney general for a charge of perjury. This matter also featured in the editorial of the Star newspaper but I do not know what was the outcome of it, whether he was actually prosecuted or not and I think probably not.
 I want to mention here that the case of Hashe, Galela and Godolozi in the application for habeas corpus in Port Elizabeth. We had eyewitness evidence that our clients were arrested by the South African police. Their evidence was disbelieved. The Minister of Law and Order, then Mr Vlok made an affidavit stating that the police had not arrested my clients. It now transpires from Mamasela that the police had in fact arrested our clients and we know what the outcome of those arrests were.
 I'm not going to delve into the sentencing pattern because I think other people have already delved and I'm sure others giving evidence after me will touch on that. But I think everybody knows about the famous Mug case where our client had merely inscribed the words "Viva Mandela" on his coffee mug. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment. In this matter I must also say that the prosecutor had asked for bail - when we had made an application for bail, had asked for bail to be set in an amount of R2000. We argued that we could only afford R1000. The magistrate set it for R3000.
 I would also like to mention the case long before the CCB and the third force operations became public. I represented Ben Kreling and a van de Vel, whose first name I cannot remember, who was a corporal in the defence force who had stolen a blueprint on the special force activities which included assassinations of political activists and cross-border raids. I had sent this to Lusaka via courier and somehow I was told later that it got mislaid. Our client van de Vel in fact got convicted and sentenced under the Defence Act, the contents was not revealed as the court was held in camera. 
 On another occasion in a magistrate's court we had a witness, a state witness who when giving evidence in-chief said that he was assaulted severely when he had made his statement to the police, to a prosecutor and that it was not true. The magistrate got so furious and discredited him and said something to the effect: "Vat hom weg." When we asked to cross-examine him he refused. My client was convicted and sentenced. But we won the matter on appeal, eventually.
 In another matter which I remember now I represented three persons in a magistrate's court and they also alleged that they were very severely beaten at John Vorster Square when they were held in a cell and they were given electric shocks and that there were plugs and sockets in the wall. We asked for an inspection in loco. The magistrate had refused and eventually, it was on a Thursday I think, and the magistrate then agreed that we could go on inspection in loco on a Monday. We wanted an immediate inspection in loco but he had refused. And eventually when we went on Monday true there were shelves, the police had alleged that there were shelves and there were no sockets or plugs in the wall, and true there were shelves but when we asked, the counsel asked the police to remove the shelves they did, the sockets and plugs were hidden underneath the shelves. Our client was then also convicted and sentenced but if I remember he was then acquitted on appeal. 
 But what I'm trying to do here is just set out some kind of pattern of what we faced, particularly in the magistrate's court. It is only a few matters. In fact the records that I have can make up volumes of these kinds of practises in the magistrate's court and also in the supreme court. I would like to sum up now because I think....
 As far as the role of the judges, I've been asked to comment on that. In my experience I think I can say that there were judges that, who were clearly committed to state policy. And I think that one of the examples I'd like to say is in the State v Mahlangu. The hostility that we faced in court throughout no doubt was one that showed that the state, that the judge had already made up his mind. What had happened, Mahlangu - can I carry on for another few minutes? I'm trying to wrestle - In this matter the facts of this case was that Solomon Mahlangu and his co-accused had undergone military training abroad and had come back and instructed to carry out sabotage operations. On that day when they were in Johannesburg they had just arrived from abroad and they were at a taxi rank trying to get into a taxi to go to one of the locations. The policemen then starting searching their bag and as it was common practise those days policemen always search bags and contents of black people ...(tape ends)
 They, when they had come back into the country they had not given any specific instruction, they had to await instructions for sabotage operation, and the facts of the case was as they ran down Jeppe street and entered in Gott(?) street, Solomon in fact had run in a different direction from his co-accused Mondi Matlong, Solomon had found a place to hide and he was hiding but his co-accused, Mondi Matlong ran into a room in Gott street in the John House warehouse and was confronted by a group of white men who were having tea. He went into panic and started shooting and tragically and unfortunately innocent civilians were killed. Solomon then came out of his hiding place and surrendered. He did not participate in the shooting whatsoever. He was convicted on a doctrine of common purpose and sentenced to death. I believe that he should not have been convicted. 
 But even if he was convicted I certainly believe there were extenuating circumstances in this particular case. For example, he was barely 21 years old at that stage, and that was not taken into consideration. Had Solomon Mahlangu been alive today I think he would have held a significant position in the government of today. 
 Then there were those judges who were not committed to state policy, but even when there was doubt in the interpretation of the law did not have the courage to sway in favour of the liberty of the person. And I often speculated why, was it purely a matter of courage or was it ambition or perhaps in some cases it was both. 
 And then there were those judges that really tried and tried very hard. For example in the State v Gumede and others when the attorney general's certificate prohibiting bail application was held so sacrament for years was a casualty after it was challenged. 
 I think I will end there. But I would like to make a few points before I end. If I may. Am I going on too long?

CHAIRPERSON: Five minutes.