Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1999-05-05

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: The truth is not coming out here, Sir.  We cannot conceal the truth before the TRC.  People should tell the truth so that they can be pardoned.  They should tell the truth about what happened on the 17th of June 1992, at Boipatong.  They should tell the truth about the shooting and the killing of people in the houses and the streets.  There is one child who is confined to a wheelchair right now, she has no future.

MR LOWIES: I'm talking about your motivation, Sir ....(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, this was canvassed yesterday and the day before yesterday.  If you have a specific point to make in this regard which you haven't made, put it to the witness.

MR LOWIES: I want to put it to you that because - I will retract.  Can you hear me?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Now I want to put it to you that it was only then, when you were here in August, when you heard on a separate monitor that there were allegations that the police were not present, that you decided to apply for the first time for the Boipatong massacre, for amnesty regarding the Boipatong massacre.

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: No, I don't know what you are saying.

MR LOWIES: And further, Sir, if it is true - just to prove to you that this is the situation, if you have a look at page 7 of Exhibit R, it is dated 25 September '96.  That's when the statement was taken.  You have no reason to doubt that, correct?

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Lowies, you keep doing this and it gets very, very confusing.  You keep saying "that's when the statement was taken" and you keep referring to this Form 1 as a statement.  It's not a statement, it's an application form for amnesty.  If you would separate out, maybe he'd begin to get the picture a bit better.

MR LOWIES: I hear you and I will do so.
	Now when I refer to page 7, I mean the application, the document, the one that is now being shown to you by Ms Tanzer.  If you have a look at that, do you have any reason to doubt that it is dated, and that this document was completed 25 September '96, when Mongezi was there?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I cannot say I'm sure.  Yes, it is possible.

MR LOWIES: If you look further, at page 10 of Exhibit R, then it appears that this document must have been intended to be signed by you in June '96. - the very last page.  Now how is this possible, that you complete the form and you have a discussion with Mongezi in September, yet he intends you to sign this document in June, which is three months before?  That is funny.

MS TANZER: I object.  In fairness to the witness, I mean to the applicant, he can't answer what Mongezi did or intended to do or didn't intend to do.  As he said he's never seen the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what counsel wants to find out - and just listen carefully, Mr Nosenga, and if you don't understand the question let me know, I will repeat the question to you in Zulu.  The application for amnesty which you've signed is dated the 25th of September 1996, and it indicates that it was signed at Leeukop Medium C Prison.

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And then comes the unsigned affidavit, which you have told us was probably drafted from a statement that you made to Mr Mongezi.  That unsigned statement indicates that it was to be signed in June of 1996, do you understand that?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Because there is a date June 1996 in it, and the exact date in June was still to be filled in and you were still supposed to sign it, do you understand that?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: ...(no English interpretation)

MR LOWIES: Sorry Chair, there's no interpretation.  I think it's because he doesn't speak in the mike.  I didn't get the answer to that one.

CHAIRPERSON: He said he understands what I'm saying.

INTERPRETER: He understands.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, your affidavit and the statement which gave rise to the unsigned affidavit, were all prepared some time in June, before you made your application for amnesty, which is dated September 1996.  Do you understand that?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What's the question?

MR LOWIES: Therefore, Sir, it appears on the face of these documents, that your unsigned affidavit was backdated and it was not taken in September.  It could not have been taken in September, on the face of the documents.

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I don't know, Sir.

MR SIBANYONI: Excuse me, Mr Lowies, if you look on page 1 of the statement, there is a date on which this application form was apparently faxed, and the date is the 15th February 1996.

MR LOWIES: No, but I think it was an empty application form.  An empty application form was faxed to the place, to be completed.  So it arrives at wherever this is, as an empty form.  It doesn't mean that it was completed at that stage.

MR SIBANYONI: And also there is a date up there, 23rd September 1996.

MR LOWIES: Yes.

MR SIBANYONI: The question I want to ask, is it perhaps not possible that this form was completed and there were some outstanding, either information, or it was not attested before the Commissioner of Oaths and then it gets returned by the TRC to say: "Please have it attested before the Commissioner of Oaths".  I'm asking that as a possibility.

MR LOWIES: I'll investigate that, I can't give an answer.  Because Chair, I hear what you say but you see all these - with respect, and if I might bring this point us now, that is why there is a substantial application to have this matter fully investigated.  There are so many unanswered questions which we do not know and we haven't got access to those documents.

CHAIRPERSON: I told you repeatedly that raise those matters up with the TRC.

MR LOWIES: Thank you, Chair, I'll do so.

CHAIRPERSON: We are at these hearings, we don't have those documents here.  And only if you have difficulty in getting those documents, then come back to me.

MR LOWIES: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll make sure that you get those documents.

MR LOWIES: Thank you.
	Now Sir, if we turn to page 11, this is a second application for amnesty by yourself - wait, before we proceed to page 11, I'd just like to make the following point as well and give you the opportunity to answer.  It appears to me further, Sir, that if one has a look at the discrepancy in the dates which I have indicated to you, and if one has a look at your evidence yesterday, today and Monday, that one of the reasons that prompted you, that motivated you to bring an application for amnesty was only when you heard the denial of police complicity, clearly indicates that this document was backdated.  And I'm talking about you unsigned affidavit.  If you read all those together.

CHAIRPERSON: You know that's a matter for argument.  I'm not too sure that the applicant can ...(intervention)

MR LOWIES: I will argue it later.  I agree with you, Chair, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: ... can explain that, yes.

MR LOWIES: If I have interrupted, I'm sorry, I just wanted to ...  I apologise.
	Now just one aspect regarding page 11, before we start with that.  Why was it necessary for you to file a second application?

CHAIRPERSON: Now are you on the second application, starting at page 11?

MR LOWIES: Page 11.

CHAIRPERSON: So we're finished with the affidavit?

MR LOWIES: We have.
	Mr Nosenga, page 11.  There is a second application for amnesty on page 11, which has been canvassed with you before.

CHAIRPERSON: Just refresh my memory, did he say that what occurs at page 13 is his signature?

MR LOWIES: He denies it.

CHAIRPERSON: He denies it, yes.