Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-20

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, with respect the witness was asked whether he was tortured, he has told us this time and again.  I don't know where my learned friend is taking us.  The witness has repeatedly said what was done to him.  It was done in order to save time and the witness has already given a more detailed explanation than what was expected.  Perhaps my learned friend can tell us where he is going.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I think Mr Visser wanted to know why the witness, when you led him yesterday, why he did not tell us that he was forced to do some physical exercises.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I hear what you are saying Mr Chairman, but the problem is as the witness has already told us, it is part of the so-called torture, that is why he didn't mention it.  Because he used the collective name.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I think that is a point for argument.  I don't see anything wrong personally with the question which was put by Mr Visser.

ADV DE JAGER: He did give evidence or testified that he was hit with fists, with a belt and with the pipe, but he said nothing about forced exercises, and that is the point Mr Visser is making, whether it is correct or wrong, that is another matter.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, that is not what my argument is.  My argument is that this morning he told us exactly what was done.

ADV DE JAGER: You can use that in your argument if that is your argument, but let's proceed with the cross-examination.

MR STANDER: As it pleases you.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Kopi is here, he has heard your evidence and he says that you are talking nonsense.  He never assaulted you, although he was present while you were in detention, he never assaulted you.  Do you have any comment on that?

CHAIRPERSON: Who was that?

MR VISSER: Kopi, I am sorry Mr Chairman.

JOHN JWAYI: They are used to denying things they did.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is a sweetened statement.  Can you identify Mr Kopi in the audience?  Do you see him?

JOHN JWAYI: He is not present.

MR VISSER: If Mr Kopi is in the audience, would you just stand up please.  It seems he isn't yes, I am sorry for wasting your time, I thought he was here Mr Chairman.
	I have no further questions.  I am sorry Mr Chairman, my Attorney thinks I should ask this.  Yes, of course Mr Chairman, and it is my fault that I slipped on this.
	Mr Kopi will also tell this Committee that none of you were assaulted when he was present, he never saw any assault on you in addition to the fact that he denies that he assaulted you, he says he never saw anybody assault any of you.

JOHN JWAYI: They would dispute that, many of them, but they were present when the assault took place.  He was present, he knows very well that it happened.

MR VISSER: I do think that is now my final question, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR STANDER: No re-examination, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR STANDER: .

MR VISSER: My learned friend, Mr du Plessis, wants to know whether you can now interpose Mr Khoja.  I have no objection to that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we should.  We put Mr Memani on terms so that he could get back to write his exams, and I think we should dispose of him so that he can go as soon as possible.

MR VISSER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we should place on record, it appears in the transcript that when the matter came before us last, Mr Memani pointed out that he would need time to take instructions from his client, as regards the Exhibit X which had been handed in by this witness.
	This witness had not referred to anything else.  I then said that I thought copies should be made from the documents, which should be made available and I said I propose to have copies made of certain of these documents which will be available for circulation, they will go to Mr Memani first for him to work on, and then they will be made available to others.
	It appears that for reasons best known to those responsible, the documents were not sent to Mr Memani first, but it is quite clear that the adjournment was to enable him to look at those documents and that was some three or four months ago.
	And he has now only got the documents, he tells me, yesterday.  We will now be able to continue.  Are you ready to proceed now, Mr Memani?

ADV MEMANI: Yes, My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: You were the person to cross-examine the person next, I don't think anybody else was interested.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I think the witness is still under oath.

UNKNOWN: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps I should, unless anybody wishes
available later, return to this witness, the original documents.
	Captain Khoja, can you take these documents back to where they came from?

UNKNOWN: Yes, I will return them sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  I am returning to him the four pocket books, the occurrence book and the single quarters' register.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.  Mr Khoja, you were asked about Mr Venter and the question that you were asked whether you knew him and you said that you knew him very well.

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV MEMANI: Can you describe Mr Venter?

UNKNOWN: Mr Venter was a status above mine, but not much.

ADV MEMANI: And what else?

UNKNOWN: He is a white person, he is not as black as me, I would say he is a white person.

ADV MEMANI: What colour was his hair?  I am saying what colour was his hair?

UNKNOWN: It will be the same as Mr Britz' hair.

ADV MEMANI: Where did you know him from?

UNKNOWN: I started to know Mr Venter when he phoned me
from Bloemfontein  communicating with Constable Ngo, that is for the first time I started to know him, that there is somebody called Mr Venter.

ADV MEMANI: Did you see him after he phoned you?

UNKNOWN: Yes, I saw him after the conversation on the phone.

ADV MEMANI: How many times?

UNKNOWN: I saw him once.

ADV MEMANI: And the colour of his hair was not Mr Britz' hair colour?

UNKNOWN: That is correct, it was the same as Mr Britz' hair.

ADV MEMANI: No, I am putting it to you that you are wrong, the colour of Mr Venter's hair was not the same as that of Mr Britz.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I would like to know the basis of my learned friend's statement.  As far as I can remember no evidence about how Mr Venter looked like, was introduced before the Committee and I am not sure if my learned friend knew Mr Venter.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it that his client who lived with Mr Venter for at least two weeks, could describe him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then he must put it on record on that basis Mr Chairman.

ADV MEMANI: Can you dispute that?

UNKNOWN: Yes, I dispute that because I saw the colour of his hair the time I met him.  It was not an old person, you know that the colour changes through age, you can even change - Mr Britz can change his hair to black.

ADV MEMANI: But he died only a few months after you saw him, isn't it?

UNKNOWN: I know that he died, but I cannot tell how many, after how long.  After I saw him, I received a message that he died.

ADV MEMANI: Are you saying that you don't know how long after you saw him, he died?

UNKNOWN: I don't remember well, but then I would remember, but now I am not able to remember after how many months, but I have knowledge that after I saw him, thereafter he died.

ADV MEMANI: And you cannot say that you knew him very well, you saw him only once, isn't it?

UNKNOWN: I knew that person well, because he communicated with me many times.  He was phoning in in my office looking for Constable Ngo.

ADV MEMANI: And his car, what colour was his car?

UNKNOWN: I don't know which car you are talking about.  Are you talking about the car which was left in the barracks or which car?

ADV MEMANI: By whom was it left at the barracks?

UNKNOWN: It was with  Constable Ngo.

ADV MEMANI: When he left it, where did  he go to?