Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1999-05-05

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga, may I remind you that you're still under oath.

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lowies?

MR LOWIES: (Cont)
	Mr Nosenga, why did you say in your first application - Chair, to refer you to page 2, Exhibit R, paragraph 92, that the date of the commission of the offence for which you're applying for amnesty occurred in 1993?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: No, that's not what happened, the incident occurred in 1992, not in '93.

MR LOWIES: But it appears to me that you are quite sure that the application that you have lodged for amnesty regarding the Boipatong massacre happened on a specific date and you know that date as being the 17th of June 1993, how could you have made a mistake like that?

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Lowies, I think what he is saying is that as far as he's concerned, the incident occurred in 1992.

MR LOWIES: Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Mr Nosenga, the application for amnesty which bears your signature, which occurs at page R1 through to R6, and I think the signature is at page 6, you say that you signed that application.

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, that's what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, what Mr Lowies wants to find out is, in that application which you signed, the dates of the incidents in Sebokeng is given as 1993.

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I think the interpreter did not hear me properly, the incident occurred on the 15th of June 1992.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: I'll tell you why this is relevant, Sir, it's because my attorney is busy preparing a bundle, but I'm going to put to you so long what is in the bundle, and that is in the police docket pertaining to the drive-by shootings in Sebokeng, it appears that you voluntarily handed yourself over to the police in that matter.  What are your comments regarding this?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I do not know anything about that.  I ...(indistinct) explain yesterday how my arrest came about.

MR LOWIES: But it goes further.  You confessed to various offences of drive-by shootings and paragraph 6 of the statement, A23, reads as follows: - Chair, sorry, may I just get a ruling here?  The statement is in Afrikaans, can I proceed in Afrikaans and it will be interpreted?  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose statement is that, just ...(indistinct) tell us.

MR LOWIES: The statement is a statement of one, Jan Theodorus Ferreira.

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, Chairperson, if the statement is read in Afrikaans, I don't think we'd be in a position to interpret it in IsiZulu.

MR LOWIES: I'll translate if it's okay with the Committee.  As you please, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have an actual copy of that statement?

MR LOWIES: They are in the process of being photocopied, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: At this stage?

MR LOWIES: At this stage.  But there is an extra copy with one of my colleagues here.  Could you just bear with me for a minute please, Chair.  There is an extra copy available, Chair.  I'm sorry, but this becomes relevant at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to give this statement to the legal representative of the victims.

MR LOWIES: As you please, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And then in due course we will have those further copies made.

MR LOWIES: We're in the process, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You will translate it as we go along?

MR LOWIES: As you please, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

MR LOWIES: Mr Ferreira will state that he is a Constable, or he was a Constable in the South African Police in 1992 and in 1993, I think, he took or he deposed to this statement.  In the statement, paragraph 6 he states as follows
"I had an interview with a black man who was a suspect.  This suspect, Andries Nosenga, informed me that he would like to hand himself over.  The suspect further highlighted certain occurrences wherein he alleges that he was involved.  These apparently happened in June 1992."
Then he goes on to state he listened to your statements or your explanations and he knows the Everton vicinity quite well, and he was able to connect the events that you described to him with a specific police docket, which is the one in this matter.  Now what are your comments so far, do you recall anything about this?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I do not remember that.  I was assaulted, that is why I confessed to that offence.  I don't know what else can I say now because I explained it all yesterday.

MR LOWIES: In paragraph 13 he makes the following statement, well he states the following:  The suspect, being you, described various scenes to him and he was not able to trace those scenes.  This is the way he put it.
"Certain places were pointed out but it could not be linked with specific cases."
The contents of the docket is further to the effect that you confessed to various crimes and it was not possible for the police to link you with all those crimes that you confessed to.  What do you say about this?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I do not know what they are talking about.  What I want to say is that they assaulted me with regards to the offence in Sebokeng.  I don't know what they are talking about there.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand your evidence, it is correct that ...(intervention)

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I do not know what they are talking about.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Nosenga, listen to the question.  It is correct that you confessed to some shooting after you had been tortured, isn't that correct?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR LOWIES: But didn't you confess, even if you were tortured, to other offences except the drive-by shooting for Everton, Sebokeng.

MS TANZER: Objection.  He's being asked to give evidence about matters which are not before this court, ...(indistinct) asked to incriminate himself, which is against the Act in fact, the Criminal Procedure Act, or any other, his Constitutional Act I don't think ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Pardon?

MS TANZER: It's against the Constitutional Act.  He's asked to incriminate himself in regard to other events and I think that question should be disallowed, with respect.

MR LOWIES: Chairman, I would submit the question is admissible.  There is a specific section which I can't lay my fingers on, but I'm sure there is a section in the act that says that he can be compelled to answer any questions put to him in an inquiry such as this and therefore there's a rider in this ...(indistinct).  I would submit it makes it relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga told us yesterday that he was tortured and then he confessed to some of the things, what happens if he denies that he confessed to any other than what he admitted to having confessed to yesterday?

MR LOWIES: Yes, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it was a result of the torture.

MR LOWIES: I will rephrase the question.
	Mr Nosenga, I would like to put the following to you, you were never sure when you were involved in any acts pertaining to the violation of human rights.

MR LAX: What do you mean by that: "you were never sure"?  What are you referring to, about the incident, about the dates, about the places?

MR LOWIES: About the dates, inter alia.  But let's start with the dates.  Can I make it more concise.  Firstly, you were never sure of any dates when you committed offences, and this is clear from the statement by Ferreira and it's borne out by your reply here in paragraph 9 on page 2.  That's the point I'm trying to make, do you agree?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I would like you to explain to me to which incidents you are referring to, whether the Sebokeng incidents or any other.