Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ... you say according to the file "Itappeared that Sefola was a serious supporter of the ANC". This is on page 100.  This is at the bottom of the page.  Fromthe file it appeared that Sefola was a serious supporter of theANC, activist, organiser and trained terrorist.
3B

MR VAN VUUREN: /...
410 J J VAN VUUREN

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You sent Mr Mamasela, who apparently hadnot met Mr Sefola before.

MR VAN VUUREN: No, he had not met him previously.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Notwithstanding the description that yougive to us of Sefola as a trained terrorist, as you put it, MrMamasela in two hours' time has convinced him and he has won hisconfidence and he comes back.

MR VAN VUUREN: We determined from the file where Mr Sefolaworked and where he lived.  If I remember correctly, we also provideda photograph to Mr Mamasela of Mr Sefola.  Mr Mamasela was a verywell-trained operative.  Since Mr Sefola was a very active activistit was not difficult for Mr Mamasela to convince Mr Sefola toaccompany him.  When you meet Mr Mamasela you will understandthis.  You will understand why I say this when you meet Mr Mamasela.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ... to convince a small child, a total strangerin two hours' - to win a small child's confidence -let alone ahighly trained terrorist.

MR VAN VUUREN: Mr Mamasela was a trained terrorist, heunderstood how it worked in these circles.  That is why it wouldhave been easier for him to pick up Mr Sefola, than for instancea black Security policeman who had not been an Askari.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I request that I just clarifytwo points before the witness stands down?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Van Vuuren, you have testified, or it isin your application that the bodies were blown up in an area inBophuthatswana.  You remember that?

MR VAN VUUREN: Do I know where is it?
3B

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: /...
411 J J VAN VUUREN

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: The said the bodies were blown up in an areain
Bophuthatswana.

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: ... move from the place where these people wereinterrogated and killed, how long did you travel to the spot wherethe bodies were blown up?

MR VAN VUUREN: I would guess an hour, three quarters ofan hour.  Somewhere between an hour and three quarters of an houror an hour.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: ... you travelled to the blowing up spot.

MR VAN VUUREN: Not the part in Bophuthatswana, I did not know that, but the surrounding areas towards the road towardsBophuthatswana I did know.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I put it to you that the area or the place wherethe bodies were blown up is known as Jericho, would you disputethat?  It is in Bophuthatswana.

MR VAN VUUREN: I would not know whether this was thecase or not.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: From the evidence you have given I gatheredthe impression that the bodies were placed together on the landmineand simultaneously blown up, am I correct on that?

MR VAN VUUREN: That is correct.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I have in my possession two post-mortem reportswhich I am going to hand up after explaining to the Court.  Thesetwo post-mortems are linked to the one that has been handed upto the Court as EXHIBIT G.  Would you say it is possiblethat the three post-mortems relate to the three persons who wereblown up in that area of Jericho?  Can you draw that inferencesafely?

MR VAN VUUREN: It is possible, I suppose.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: ... in my possession two other post-mortem
3B reports/...
412 J J VAN VUUREN
reports that emanate from the same inquest as Exhibit G.  UnfortunatelyI have no made copies, but these I am going to make copies ofand hand them up later on and for my colleagues as well and thesewill be numbered EXHIBIT I AND J.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: We can make that inference I suppose, MrMpshe, but whether it will be a safe inference is another thing.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee. That I will leave to the Committee because as I have put to himthat the three bodies were found in that area, not complete ofcourse, I will leave to the Committee to come with that inference. I don't know how safe that would be.  I would agree to that.

CHAIRPERSON: When one bears in mind that it is describedthey are bodies of people who are adults and who are over 25,30, 35 years old, and at least on the information placed beforeus, one of them, Mr Maake, must have been very, very young.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I would not argue with the Chairon that one, but Mr Chairman that is the evidence put ...

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, we will take the adjournment at thisstage.  You will hand them in when we resume.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may the witness be excused? We just want to know if we may talk to him over lunchtime.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
3B COMMITTEE RESUMES/....
413
COMMITTEE RESUMES

MR DU TOIT: (BEGINNING OF RECORDING ON TAPE 4 SIDE B -NO RECORDING ON TAPE 4 SIDE A)  Thank you Chair.  Having consultedwith my seniors, the attitude would be the same, namely, and Iwant to place it on record.   As you will remember, on Mondaywhen the application was made to subpoena the witnesses, thesewere particularly 204 witnesses under the State Witness ProtectionProgramme.  These 204 witnesses are co-deeders of the applicants. As you will also remember, the position of the State from thebeginning would have been that there would have been an objectionand that there would have been the request not to subpoena thesetestimonies, since these would be key witnesses in the State'scase.  If amnesty is denied and it is possible to prosecute, thenthey would be the key witnesses.  It was the position of the Attorney-Generalthat should this Committee decide to subpoena these witnessesand if they were to give testimony, the Attorney-General wouldrest in that decision.
 The difference, however, is that Mr Currin's witnesses are simplymembers of the family, they are relatives of the victims.  Theseare not persons who were present on the scene of any of the deeds. These are simply persons who will say that we had children orhusbands who went missing at a certain stage until during thecourse of this year has the State obtained statements, it becamepossible to determine where these family members might be.  Thereason why Mr Currin is calling these witnesses is not to givealternative testimony since they were not present at the events,but to consider some of the reparations that might be made tothese persons if it is determined at a later
4B stage/...
414
stage that they were in fact victims.   In that case the Attorney-General'sposition would be that there is a fundamental difference betweenthe 204 witnesses whom the applicants intended to subpoena andthese witnesses who simply will bring testimony that they lostthese family members through some or other act. 
 This, then, is the position of the Attorney-General in this particularcase.  I don't know if you wanted to ask me any additional questionsin this regard.

JUDGE WILSON: They are not strictly speaking witnesses,are they?  Are these people not persons who should have been given notice in terms of 19(4) of their right to be present and totestify and they are taking advantage of that?

MR DU TOIT: Indeed this is the case.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand you to say that they are not witnesseswho fall in the category of section 204 witnesses?

MR DU TOIT: That is the case.

CHAIRPERSON: And that therefore strictly speaking you arenot raising an objection.

MR DU TOIT: That is also the case.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Du Toit, is it also not true that thesewitnesses might be able to throw more light on whether the offencesin respect of which amnesty is being sought by the applicant isan act associated with a political objective in terms of section19(4)?