Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — UNKNOWN

<UNKNOWN>: s I've said in the court that I wastortured, beaten up and the statement that I made I was forced by the policementhat they are real. I was forced to say yes to that. The names they were talkingabout I had to accept them, but the problem that they had as policemen, theycouldn't identify the people they were talking about.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr

<UNKNOWN>: rendse, what exactly are we busy with now? Do you want to start another trialwithin a trial or what are we busy with here, because as far as I understandthe situation, the statement on page 7 which seems to be troubling you, whyI don't understand, is that in the first place the trial court did not admitit, it found it was inadmissible, for whatever reason. Your client has saidto us that it does not contain the truth at any rate. Why are we going to thisgreat length to investigate circumstances under which the statement was madeif the trial court had rejected it in any case and your client is also rejectingit now. On what conceivable basis can it come into and be used here in our proceedingsbefore us against your client?

NORMAN ARENDSE: Judge, thank you for askingme that question. The questions around the statement are being put in anticipationof what I believe my colleague, Mr

<UNKNOWN>: embridge will be putting to the witness.

<UNKNOWN>: s I understand their case up until this point, they are opposing this applicationon two grounds, the proportionality aspect and that these applicants are notrevealing the whole truth to the

<UNKNOWN>: ommittee. That is one reason.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: That reason makes it immediately a question for re-examination because I meanyou can't re-examine in advance. You would have to wait and see to what lengthMr

<UNKNOWN>: embridge is going to go and then deal with it in re-examination becauseyou keep on anticipating, maybe you are mis-anticipating and then we don't know,you see, that is why I am asking, we don't know how far we are going to go inthe process of trying to anticipate the cross-examination, particularly if thebasis of this statement is so dubious.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Judge, can I answerthat in three parts?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: He may not even talk about it, Mr

<UNKNOWN>: embridge may not even refer to it.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Firstly, with due respectit is a perfectly legitimate tactic or aspect of leading the evidence of yourclient to anticipate what the opposition is coming to say or do. Secondly theprocesses, the criminal trial and this process are entirely different. If thereis in fact, and that seems to be your
prima facie view, that this statementshould be thrown out completely because another court has already in its opiniongiven a ruling on it, then if the

<UNKNOWN>: ommittee is agreed that that is the casethen believe me I would be the first one to accept it and I won't have to dealwith it.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: No, you don't understand my point. The questionof legitimate anticipation is a fair one, but you missed the point. There mustbe a basis for it, for anticipation and it is not for me to say that we willthrow that statement out, your client has said it does not contain the truth.

ADVARENDSE: Judge, the other reason which I think is a compelling reason whywe should deal with it and why I rather deal with it, is that the question canlegitimately be put to him that the names Vusi,

<UNKNOWN>: ubrey,

<UNKNOWN>: hasi, there is mentionof a Datsun vehicle, are mentioned in the statement, be it that it was ruledinadmissible, it is also mentioned in your statement before the

<UNKNOWN>: ommission,it is also mentioned by the others. We now know as a fact that Vusi exists orexisted. We know as a fact that

<UNKNOWN>: ubrey ...

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I suppose wecan proceed, but I sincerely hope that we are not going to go into a trial withina trial on the allegations of assault by the police and all that sort of thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't it be, sorry, wouldn't it meet the requirements if you just clearedup with your client that to the extent that his evidence here, differs fromthe contents of his statement, he maintains that what he is now saying, is thetruth? Now, then if you are going to suggest to him that some of what he saidin that statement was suggested by the police, or by anybody else to him, tosay, then you may point out that. Point that out, but I think that it will beappropriate if we proceeded along the lines as suggested by my brother, theother side know by now that there are differences between what is containedin his statement and what he is saying here now under oath and in his affidavit.	So, I think that there can't be too much dispute, everybody knows that thereare these differences. If it is your intention now to go through each pointof difference between his evidence here now and what is contained in that statement,then I think that you are overstepping the mark.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Thank youMr

<UNKNOWN>: hairman. Mr Makoma, it has been put to your other comrades already, thatyou would have been aware that the St James church was a target, even beforethe killings took place. What do you say to that?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: I do agreewith my fellow

<UNKNOWN>: fricans, nobody knows about it except the

<UNKNOWN>: ommander.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Tell us a bit more about Vusi, is Vusi and Nonxuba are they one and the sameperson, are they different persons?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: They are two differentpeople.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Who was Vusi?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: He was one of the

<UNKNOWN>: PL

<UNKNOWN>: ommanders.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Was he involved in the attack?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: No, he was not involved.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Was Nonxuba involved in the attack?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes, he was involved.

NORMAN ARENDSE: What role did he play?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: He was the

<UNKNOWN>: ommander, everything that happened we did that underhis instructions.

NORMAN ARENDSE: So he led the attack, he led the attack?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes.

<UNKNOWN>: an you turn to page 31 of that bundle?Now, you see I don't know whose handwriting it is, but we are not going to putthat in issue, there is a comment there from

<UNKNOWN>: arney Desai, do you see that namethere?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes, I can see.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Do you know who heis?

<UNKNOWN>: arney Desai?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes, I know

<UNKNOWN>: arney Desai.

NORMAN ARENDSE: He is high up in the P

<UNKNOWN>: is he?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now in the last three lines there on page 31 he says, "Wecondemn this mindless violence on churchgoing people". He is referringto the St James attack. Do you want to comment on that?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Theonly thing I can say

<UNKNOWN>: frican

<UNKNOWN>: arnie Desai is the leader of the P

<UNKNOWN>: and the

<UNKNOWN>: PL

<UNKNOWN>: ,is the military wing of the P

<UNKNOWN>: and the attack that happened in the St Jameschurch, was led by one of the High

<UNKNOWN>: ommanders in

<UNKNOWN>: PL

<UNKNOWN>: . Then in 1993 when hewas commenting as he is saying here, I can understand as he is the politicianand during those days we knew that the struggle was still in power. On behalfof the

<UNKNOWN>: PL

<UNKNOWN>: , I think the members of the P

<UNKNOWN>: are not involved in the operationsdone by

<UNKNOWN>: PL

<UNKNOWN>: . Only

<UNKNOWN>: PL

<UNKNOWN>: members that are involved and they are the only oneswho can come with clear information in anything that has been done by

<UNKNOWN>: PL

<UNKNOWN>: .

ADVARENDSE: Thank you. Now, if you turn to page 36, this has been referredto by my colleague Mr

<UNKNOWN>: embridge already, I think he put it to Thobela, do yousee page 36?

GCINIKHAYACHRISTOPHER MAKOMA: Yes, I can see it.

NORMAN ARENDSE: You see there

<UNKNOWN>: PL