bitter-aloe/trc-testimonies huggingface dataset:
Special Hearings — Health Sector Hearings — 1997-06-18

WENDY ORR: Thank you very much Professor Maharaj.  I would be grateful if you could put your recommendations in writing and send them to us.  I have one follow up question, you have very honestly and openly highlighted a number of problems which affected the University of Natal Medical School.  My question is, apart from the reconciliation graduation in 1995, has anything been done to address these issues?

UNKNOWN: The question of trying to redress the issues of the past has been a matter that has bothered many of us especially as being from the past itself, and as we heard from the Wits experience there's a lot of bitterness and unhappiness amongst graduates of colour regarding their position within this institution.  As you would have gathered from the submission that apartheid played its own role but the university had decided to add over and above that in terms of how it conducted itself.
 Now the position is at present that there are affirmative action and equal opportunity programmes that have been put into place.  The question also with regard to selection procedures is there's always a member of the equal opportunities and affirmative action group represented in  order to ensure that there is fair play.  Clearly not enough has been done.  I would say that it would appear right now that what we've done is merely embarked on the beginning of a process.  Clearly it is quite evident that much more needs to be done and I hope that our university will actually take the lead in going the full way in trying to restore its position in society and creating a fair and just society.  There is still much work to be done if I may say so.

WENDY ORR: Thank you, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Professor Maharaj.  I would suggest that we break for lunch.  I'm sure that all of you are starving.  Please come back at two o'clock.
HEARING ADJOURNS
AAAS  SUBMISSION

MS MKHIZE: Welcome to this afternoon's session.  I would like to invite the representative of AAAS to come forward please.
 To both of you, Professor Robert Lawrence and Dr Audrey Chapman I would like to welcome you.  It's really a privilege to have you participating in this given your organisation's contribution, not only to this country but within the TRC itself.  I will ask the two of you to stand so as to take an oath.

UNKNOWN: (sworn states)

AUDREY CHAPMAN: (sworn states)

MS MKHIZE: Dr Wendy Orr will assist you in talking to your submission.

WENDY ORR: I want to reiterate our welcome and not only to you but to the rest of your delegation who have travelled all the way from the United States to help us in our work here.  We are really very grateful to you and to the other international visitors.
 You have sent us a preliminary submission and we have asked you to focus in your presentation on that part of your submission which focuses on district surgeons.  The issues, the problems, the potential solutions, so I'd really like you just to move straight into that and we'll then take questions afterwards.
Special Hearings — Health Sector Hearings — 1997-06-18

MALCOLM BARRY KISTNASAMY: (sworn states)

MS MKHIZE: Can you say your name, your position and where you are located please.

MALCOLM BARRY KISTNASAMY: I am Malcom Barry Kistnasamy.  I am currently Deputy Director General, Environmental Affairs, Health and Welfare, Northern Cape Provincial Administration.  I speak in my personal capacity on behalf of a group of progressive doctors who were part of the executive of NAMDA between the years 1982 and 1992.

MS MKHIZE: Thank you very much Dr Kistnasamy.  What I would like to do is to raise three questions for you so that as you are talking through your document you will have in mind areas which, based on what you have submitted, we felt needed further clarification.
 The first question is; how did NAMDA's objectives differ from those of MASA?   Where is NAMDA today?
 The second question is; looking at the state of health services today are there any strategies learnt from NAMDA, activities which you think would be more effective in ensuring health for all today?
 The third question is to request you to spend some time sharing your thoughts on the way forward, especially in view of the fact that up to today survivors of human rights violations are the poorest of our society, and they are from communities where health services are still either non-existent or inappropriate.  
 Thank you.
Special Hearings — Health Sector Hearings — 1997-06-18

MS MKHIZE: Dr Kistnasamy thank you very much for representing what I will say, all the survivors of human rights violations as well.  Dr Ratemane shared about what he was exposed to as a student in the South African universities, so I see you certainly as one of the survivors who remain a strong voice for many people of South Africa who have suffered under the previous socio-political order.
 You have made a commitment to work with us in finalising some of these ideas and we will continue to pose questions to you, especially as we finalise our report.  Thank you very much for coming forward.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Excuse me.  While you are on your way out, can you tell us about this organisation that supports ex-servicemen?

MALCOLM BARRY KISTNASAMY: That was part of the SAMS submission.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Oh okay.

MALCOLM BARRY KISTNASAMY: And what we are saying is to extend that to all South Africans.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Okay, thank you.

MS MKHIZE: Maybe just while you are leaving I would like to mention one thing, that we have received submissions from the Physiotherapy Board, Occupational Therapy Board, South African Pharmacy Council, Medical Research Council, HSRC, so we are working with all these other bodies.
OASSSA  SUBMISSION
 I will then invite a representative of OASSSA, Miss Ann Harper to come forward please.  Thank you very much for coming forward, Dr Orr will assist you to take your oath.

WENDY ORR: Ann welcome.  I know you've travelled all the way from Durban to be with us and we are very happy to have you here.

MS A HARPER: (sworn states)

MS MKHIZE: Welcome again.  I will try to do the same.  I will pose three questions to you and ask to talk to those aspects of your submission which will address the three questions.
 Your organisation operated during a difficult period of extreme political oppression and I am almost certain that you experienced difficulties related to the type of work you were doing.   A specific question,
1. What specific problems and impediments did you have to deal with in relation to service with special reference to
1. The type of people you were counselling and their conditions;
 Counselling as a professional service;
Your role as professional counsellors.
I know counselling wasn't the only objective, it was providing health care as a whole.
 The second question is,
2. To a certain extent some mental health professionals, psychologists, psychiatrists, medics, nurses, as well as some professional bodies are reported to have either colluded with the State or maintained an uneasy neutrality, do you have any experiences that should support this belief or observation?
If so please if you can just talk to those sections of your submission.
3. Such violations of human rights should never have happen again, that's what virtually all the people are saying, what suggestions do you have to prevent non-repetition of such acts?
Thank you very much.
Special Hearings — Health Sector Hearings — 1997-06-18

MS MKHIZE: And thank you very much for coming forward.  We are hoping to get that submission from you as soon as it is ready.  We thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this process. Thank you.
 While HHRP representatives are coming forward, Dr Orr has got one announcement to make.

WENDY ORR: We announced this morning that copies of submissions were available from the Quick Copy Centre in St George's Mall, unfortunately, I don't know if this is sabotage or mere coincidence, every single machine in the Quick Copy centre has broken down, so that arrangement no longer pertains.  We are trying to come up with some sort-of alternative.  For those of you who are leaving today if you can give us your names and address we will undertake to get the submissions to you, otherwise if you are going to be around for the next few days we will try and find another copy centre where the machines are working.  So please don't go to Quick Copy looking for submissions.  Thank you.
HHRP  SUBMISSION

MS MKHIZE: Dr London in welcoming you I would like to make the same plea, that we will really appreciate it if you can limit your presentations to those aspects which haven't been heard, and Ms Wildschut will assist you to take an oath and then Ms Gobodo-Madikizela will assist you with your submission.

LESLIE LONDON: (affirms)

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Thank you Chairperson and welcome again Leslie.  You have submitted a 200 page document and it's very succinct and I just don't know what to say to ask you to - whether to ask you to speak on certain parts, but I really leave that up to yourself to decide which parts you think we should hear in public today.  Over to you Leslie.
Special Hearings — Helderberg Flight Special Hearing — 1998-06-01

DAVID JOSEPH KLATZOW: We have a smoking member of the commission.   I'm going to suggest that I approach the commission, show you, and repeat it onto the tape when I get back.
 When I light a flame, the gas inside there has to come out, oxygen from there has to diffuse in and you have a flame.   The heat output of that flame is limited by the speed at which oxygen can diffuse from the air into the active part of the flame.    Now that's called diffusion.   If you have a fire involving packaging material, wood, (indistinct - moved away from mike), plastic, you get a diffusion flame, and it is rare that the temperature gets higher than just under 1 000degC.   The temperatures on board the Helderberg exceeded that by far, and the reason is that it wasn't a diffusion flame, and that is the crucial conclusion that was drawn by Southeard.    The small geometry and the high heat output told him it was not a diffusion flame, and it had to be a promoted fire, and the thing is, they carry their own oxygen, they don't need oxygen (indistinct).
 Now, the person called by Margo to deal with fires, and he was the only proper fire expert who was sworn in and cross-examined by the commission, was Mr Southeard.   His conclusion was that the fire aboard the Helderberg was not a diffusion type fire and it was caused by a contraband substance or an illicit cargo, which was a promoted fire, that is to say it carried its own oxygen with it and did not require the presence of atmospheric oxygen to enable it to burn.   He was undented in cross-examination and his evidence was unblemished.
 In answer to this, Margo elicited a few comments from a Mr Hill, who was never sworn in and never properly cross-examined and never gave his testimony under oath, and Margo ignored the crucial element in Southeard's finding that it was a promoted fire, inexplicably, in my view.
 We know that the fire occurred in the foremost right-hand pallet on the passenger deck.   We know, from the cargo manifest, which has inexplicably become available, and which appeared to be shredded shortly after the accident, in Taipei, inexplicably shredded, I might add, we know that the kind of things that were officially listed in that pallet, PR would not burn, they would not do what happened aboard the Helderberg that night.   Spare parts for bicycles and shoes, and things of that nature, simply do not burn with that ferocity, and do not spontaneously ignite.   Why did Margo ignore this?   The answer is a mystery to me, unless Margo himself was involved in deflecting that inquiry away from its true purpose.
 Sorry, do you want to break?   I see that... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: In fact it's a very convenient time for us to take a 15 minute break, if it is convenient for you.   We'll break for 15 minutes, we'll resume at quarter past eleven.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Special Hearings — Helderberg Flight Special Hearing — 1998-06-01

GERRIT DIRK VAN DER VEER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that last word I don't like, "no more use for you", but - I'm an old man already, but no, all I want to say is that if there's anything that the Truth Commission needs, or other questions subsequent to this, I will be very grateful to answer them, I don't have a problem with that, and if I recollect things, then I will also, you know, like Christelle asked me, I will slowly start this computer moving again and say, "Look, you know, what can you or what can't you remember?"
 The other thing is, there are other people you may also want to ask to come to the commission.   I've mentioned for instance, what's it, Mr Lewis, as one name, who was my deputy, and I mean he was deeply involved in that.   The other gentleman that was deeply involved in this is Mr Boschoff, who in fact was later on seconded to the DCA to help them with the investigation on the island.   Another gentleman, Mr Nic Vlok, who's now with Comair, okay?   What I'm trying to say is, if you look for more evidence, then there are more people who could throw light.   Captain Jimmy Hippert, I think is a gentleman that could help very much.  I don't know whether you're going to bring Captain Deon Storm in, I have the highest regard for him as an individual.   All I'm saying is, you know, then that should happen, and if there's anything else I can be of assistance with, please shout.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Van der Veer.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any more evidence you are calling, Ms Terreblanche?

MS TERREBLANCHE: Not today, Mr Commissioner.

CHAIRPERSON: We're adjourned until half past nine tomorrow.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me Professor, sorry to interrupt you. I hope of course I mean that wht you will want to do is to highlight ...(intervention)

PROF HINDS: I don't intend to trespss on your patience and to read the whole of it - what I intend to do - I know that many of you are sitting there with great apprehension wondering if I am going to read 125 pages - what I intend to do is to highlight the portions dealing with genocide, deal with the inter-relation in terms of this antecedent formed on the basis for the United Nations declaring apartheid as a crime against humanity and then I will go to the back and deal with the role of the United States and the other Western Countries and why they in fact did not ratify the Convention. On target?

CHAIRPERSON: Well done. Yes.
Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for a very moving account. We are enormously grateful, and are you all right now?
 Thank you very much. Paula McBride. Thank you for coming.

PAULA MCBRIDE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Well, most of us know about you and maybe in your submission you might be able to let others know a little bit about you, I don't know.
Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very, very much. Miss Norton.
Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Maloi. I would like to thank the panellists for the crisp way in which they have isolated the issues which they wanted to actually deal with. I do believe that many of you are going to address them again in your submissions tomorrow. I would plead however that we not be defensive because this is a time of self-introspection in fact for the different sectors of the legal profession. The reason the Commission is here is because we're investigating why gross human rights violations took place. And unfortunately one of the areas which is a problem is the fact that we did have a judiciary which called itself fairly independent and respected.  However given that gross human rights violations did occur.
 I think the question that the Commission is faced with is not that the judges have not engaged but why they in fact have chosen not to try and answer some of the questions by way of an oral presentation and in fact response. It is a difficult one and we are going to grapple with that but it's not an easy one and I think that the Commission will have to give some thought to that over the next few weeks. 
 Tomorrow morning I'm going to ask that people do arrive at nine 'o clock so that we can actually start then. I know it is actually our fault for starting late. There were hitches with the question of the power and sound system. We have allocated a half an hour for each grouping and I'm going to ask people to try and think of that overnight so that they can address the issues in a much more shortened fashion.  We will allow people to make representations in writing to issues that have been raised in other people's submissions and this is not in fact the place at which the Commission is going to make findings. 
 So I just put that on the table and ask people to come tomorrow at nine 'o clock. But in the meantime I'd like to thank you on behalf of all of us and expressly on behalf of the Archbishop who in fact had thought we would finish at four-thirty and had arranged to leave at five. We thank you for participating today. We know that it was quite a long day and we ask people to come back tomorrow fresh to start again. Thank you.
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION ON TUESDAY 28 OCTOBER 1997

YASMINE SOOKA: The Archbishop and Dr Boraine are very apologetic about the fact that they cannot actually be here today but they have other matters which need attendance and attention and so they've asked me to note their apologies here.
 We're going to be starting with a submission from the General Council of the Bar and I would like to welcome Advocate Jules Browde and his team who are presenting for the Bar Council. I'm going to ask you to begin. Before we do I'm going to ask Mr Malan to administer the oath please.

JULES BROWDE: (sworn states)

YASMINE SOOKA: Mr Browde over to you.
Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

CHAIRPERSON: Another 10 minutes.

UNKNOWN: Ten minutes. Okay. I remember a matter in Ga-Rankua where 18 children under 15 were detained and severely assaulted. I think one of the accused names was Daki Mutle. When he appeared in court before the magistrate one child was so severely beaten his shirt was covered in blood he could not stand in court. He had to lie down. We applied for bail. Bail was refused. The magistrate just simply postponed the matter.
 In another matter where children from Leandra were really being assaulted and detained and harassed by the police we sought the assistance of the South African Council of Churches and removed the children to a church in Wilgerspruit, the police then swooped upon them in helicopters and arrested them. They were then detained, put in a cell and sjamboked, young girls and boys even of pre-puberty age. 
 Of course the Cosas case where children were booby-trapped and blown up, I think that is a well-known case, so I'll go on. I'm not going to go into the details of that. But I may just add here that it was always a pattern, a tendency, particularly in the magistrate court, to believe policemen no matter how poor the evidence was and reject the evidence of accused persons.
 In the matter of Dubasi, the State v Dubasi and others I was telephoned by the police and asked, and told that my clients were appearing in the magistrates court. I rushed down there and the prosecutor wanted my clients to plead on the first occasion. I had advised my client not to do so because we had not had the benefit of a full consultation. The magistrate then had postponed the matter for a few minutes. I walked pat the corridor and saw the magistrate speaking to the policeman. I came back and recorded that when I appeared for client. The magistrate was so angry with me when I asked for a postponement, he refused. I then withdrew as attorney on record and left. My client of course then did not plead and was taken away.
 In the matter of the State v Monty Mzinyati my client was arrested and detained for a long period and then charged for undergoing training in Russia. We had, his alibi was that he was in Lesotho at the time and he was involved in a collision and was hospitalised at the time that the indictment alleged that he was undergoing training in Russia. We took affidavits from various people, from the hospital superintendent, from the police superintendent and many people in Lesotho. We applied to lead evidence on commission. That application was refused. But we finally, and he was convicted and sentenced. On appeal he was acquitted.
 Not all magistrates were bad I must say. We had some cases that were quite surprising. And I think I want to mention here in the case of the State v Thandi Modise. The magistrate was so appalled with a major's evidence that he referred his evidence to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mrs Jana could I just ask you just for the sake of the cameraman just to put your page down please.
Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Professor. I think that in all the submissions that have come from the judges, and in fact have come through the proceedings yesterday, the question of education at universities has been highlighted. And certainly what one wants to develop in the future are people who speak out and who don't remain silent. So you play quite a central role in developing the minds of young people. And I think that needs to be encouraged at universities because I think all of us even from universities such as yours I think were prey at some stage to a particular kind of education which was posited on one tradition rather than another. And I think that what we need to learn is about how to become fearless critics in the system within which we work. So thank you very much for sharing your experiences with us.
 Might I now call the Association of Law Societies. I've been informed by Mr van Vuuren that in fact it is not him who is presenting as we thought but it is Mr Trikamjee, Mr Mervyn Smith, Mr Monty Noel and Julian van Klemperer. If I could ask you to take up your seats please. Are you comfortable with having two of your participants behind you or would they like to join you? Is that fine? 
 Alright. Thank you very much for coming. I think you've probably sat through two days of submissions where the Association has also come under attack, but we would like to welcome you for making use of this opportunity and making a presentation. Before you begin, however, I'm going to ask Mr Richard Lyster to ask you to take the oath please.

MR LYSTER: Thank you perhaps if you. Will there just be one person speaking? Will it be yourself Mr Trikamjee or others?

ASHFORD TRIKAMJEE: Others as well.

MR LYSTER: Perhaps just those that are going to be talking if you'll just briefly give your full names.

ASHFORD TRIKAMJEE: Ashford Trikamjee.

MERVYN SMITH: ...Mervyn Smith.

ASHFORD TRIKAMJEE: (sworn states)

MERVYN SMITH: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Trikamjee you may begin.
Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

YASMINE SOOKA: Thank you Mr Trikamjee to you and your colleagues. I think that the admission that has been made, is very very important, but I think that what we do want to see is that a change in attitude where lawyers don't just practice law, but try and practice - participate in justice as well. So, thank you very much for the contribution to you and your colleagues.
 We're going to break for lunch now. I'm going to ask people to come back at two o'clock, please.
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

YASMINE SOOKA: I welcome the BLA-delegation, Mr Justice Phosa and Mr Jake Maloi, who will be presenting on behalf of BLA.
 Before we begin, I'm going to ask both of you to take the oath, please and I'm going to ask Mr Malan to administer it.

JUSTICE PHOSA: (affirms)

JAKE MALOI: (sworn states)

UNKNOWN: Thank you very much. You may sit down.

YASMINE SOOKA: Mr Phosa, could I just ask you to repeat that, because I think the mike was off at the time.

JUSTICE PHOSA: That I'll take an affirmation, which I did take.

YASMINE SOOKA: Thank you.
Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

YASMINE SOOKA: Thank you. I'm going to apologise for a slight change in the programme. We're going to bring Prof McQuoid Mason forward now, because he has to catch a plane later. So, if you'll just indulge me. I know I'm putting the Legal Resources Centre and NALSA and Tony Richards slightly lower down today on the programme, but Prof McQuoid Mason has to actually leave, so if you'll just bear with me.
 Thank you. Prof Mcquoid Mason, we'd like to welcome you. Is that ... (intervention).

UNKNOWN: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

YASMINE SOOKA: Are you going to be presenting alone or ... (intervention).

UNKNOWN: I'm going to be presenting and my colleague, vice-president of the Society, Cheryl Loots, will maybe chip in with questions and answers afterwards.

YASMINE SOOKA: Thank you, I am going to - before you begin, I'm going to ask Mr Ntsebeza just to ask you to take the oath, please.

MR NTSEBEZA: Now, can you place on record your full names, both of you?

UNKNOWN: David Jan McQuoid Mason.

CHERYL EILEEN LOOTS: Cheryl Eileen Loots.

UNKNOWN: (Duly sworn in, states).

CHERYL EILEEN LOOTS: (Duly sworn in, states).

YASMINE SOOKA: Thank you. You've been very patient. We've taken a little bit of time today and you've been here yesterday as well. You can proceed.
Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

YASMINE SOOKA: No, I think it would perhaps be best if you continue through and then we'll do ... (intervention).

UNKNOWN: Okay. Well, Cheryl, you're going to answer questions later?

CHERYL EILEEN LOOTS: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Alright. The second part is just a presentation from the University of Natal Durban. Again we weren't able to consult all our members, but the management committee has agreed to this presentation and again we've dealt with it in the same way.
 I'm going to list the failures of our faculty first and then talk about some of the successes. I'm also going to talk about some of the academics who made a contribution. I'm going to try - I'm going to also mention some of the academics who were not the high flyers who made a contribution as well.
 First of all then examples of failures. Certainly at our university during the 1960's and 70's, apart from Professors Van Niekerk and Matthews the majority of legal academics did very much - did very little to get involved in any active public criticism of the apartheid state. They remained apolitical, they didn't speak out openly. They didn't even support their activist colleagues on many occasions. 
 The mid-1970's I think the sort of low point of our faculty in a way was when Raymond Suttner was arrested in about 1975 and because he had involved a student in his underground activity the executive of our law school felt that that was a major breach of his academic function.
So as a law school they weren't prepared for the law school to release a notice condemning ...(tape ends)
Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

MR NAKA: No sir I was not. In one specific case it was seven police officers that were charged for assault. Six of the seven were white and they came with their lawyer. The complainant because he suspected we perhaps not be doing our job properly has instructed - I think it was Post Maloto who had (...indistinct) the police had just pleaded and when we were about to call the first state witness in that particular case the chief magistrate in that area heard that I was going to try this white police officers. He came in, he ordered that the trial should be stopped. And he removed it from my court and up to this day I don't know what happened to it. But we were not allowed to try any other race except blacks.

MR SKOSANA: I want to follow up on that matter because I remember I was prosecuting that matter. And in his approach the chief magistrate was also white, he shouted me from outside through the window that I must stop that case because he wanted to see me in the office. I ignored him and proceeded and he entered the court room and took the charge offence and took the charge sheet and the records before the presiding officer. Disturbing the whole proceedings and we had to adjourn and he had to reprimand me strongly that I was not allowed under any circumstances to bring any white accused person before Mr Naka. All matters which involved whites had to be taken over through his office. He would redirect them to Pretoria for proper magistrate and prosecutor to be deployed to a area.

MR NAKA: May I just add? At all material times the secretary of the department of justice and the chief magistrate were all the time white and they were part of the department of justice in South Africa.

MR VALLY: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Naka and Mr Skosana. This is, this particular area, the KwaNdebele area falls under the Gauteng office and we do have a special project around what did happen as a result of the question of independence in that area. So we will probably be coming back to you to answer some more questions on that issue. Thank you very much for coming today.

MR SKOSANA: Thank you Madam (...indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: May I call Mr Hendrikse please?
 Mr Hendrikse before you actually sit down I'm going to ask Mr Malan just to ask you to take the oath please.

UNKNOWN: : Mr Hendrikse the oath or the affirmation? (reads oath) Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hendrikse for being so patient. We know we're running hopelessly late. I'm going to ask you just to highlight the issue that you've raised in your submission and then Mr Vally will ask you questions.
Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

PANEL: Mr Neidt, just before you proceed I mean we've just completed page 14 of a 100 page submission and you did make it available to us in advance I wonder whether you could perhaps be a little more discerning in what you.

MR NEIDT: Alright the next point that I just want to say to you as we deal with the various sections as far as security legislation is concerned what was contained in the various sections and we also gave you some statistics in this regard. Unless there are other questions I leave it at that except to say that I think it was later on 1979 that the state president appointed a commission of inquiry into security legislation and this became known as the Rabie commission. The purpose of this commission - I'm on page 34 now, was to inquiry into and make recommendation to ....(...indistinct)

PANEL: ...(inaudible)
Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

CHAIRPERSON: I think I must apologise to both of you for having kept you waiting. I don't think that we anticipated that our witnesses would take so much time but before you start your presentation may I just explain that two of the people are in fact going to leave because they have a flight to catch. So if they leave at quarter to seven please don't be offended if we are still here though to hear your submissions.

MR SIMPSON: We will have finished by then.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you can proceed. Do you have a written submission to?

MR SIMPSON: Ja I want to talk to it in my opening statement if you don't mind?

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR SIMPSON: Our concern is that we have a draft report. We've only recently been integrating reports of both our organisations into it and so we wanted to refine some of the recommendations which is why you haven't received the final report thus far. With your permission we would like to submit it to you hereafter. We will not be addressing in any great detail the substance of the report now. We will leave it for you to read. If that's alright?

CHAIRPERSON: Okay thank you.
Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. If you do have your lengthier submissions in writing that will be useful for us as well. Before we close this hearing I'd like to thank all the people who've made this hearing possible. Our team over there; Melanie, Anay, Jakob and Tracy. Leila, Hanif I'd like to thank the sound people for being so patient with the long hours. They've often said to us we, that's an abuse of their human right. The camera people and of course the SABC and their crew. Gail's team as well. Thank you for being here with us today and thank you of course to my fellow commissioners. We've reached a certain stage I think that there's a lot of work still to be done. This is really a basis in terms of which one can start preparing a report but there are lots of unanswered questions. Not the least around the question of the judges and of course the question of the magistrates. But these are issues which the commission will need to look into further. Thank you the proceedings of this hearing are now closed.
HEARING ADJOURNS
Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1998-01-28

LODEWYK DE JAGER: If I might just answer both your questions Mr Chairman.  As far as surveillance is concerned, I have practical knowledge in the true sense of the word.
 I established a unit of that nature in Cape Town, and to surveil any person for 24 hours, is not an easy task and it was not possible within the Soweto context.
 As far as Paul Erasmus is concerned, yes, I knew him sir.  I think to a certain extent I even facilitated his transfer down to Mossel Bay, myself being in the Cape.  It is a given fact that Paul and I did see one another sometimes because I closely associated myself with Johannesburg Security Branch.
 I had personal friends there.  We were also on the same frequency as far as held hand radio's were concerned, and frequently if something happened in Soweto, one would arrive at a scene and Paul Erasmus would be there.  Particularly one afternoon when Colonel Sauer and Theart were shot, I had hardly gotten to the scene and Paul Erasmus was there, totally outside the ambit of his normal instructions and without how can I put it, as far as Paul in concerned, he might have had less wider and broader tasks and he might have deemed Mrs Mandela and that which went on around her, to be more important in his own task definition than we did in Soweto.
 I am not trying to beat about the bush Mr Chairman, but I can't bring it closer and speak on Paul's behalf, I apologise for that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think I understand what you are saying.  Mr de Jager, thank you very much for your attendance and for the answers to the questions that we put to you.  You may stand down, thank you.

LODEWYK DE JAGER: Thank you sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I call Daniel Francois Malan Bosman.  Mr Bosman, may I say welcome, thank you for your attendance.  Ms Sooka will administer the oath.

DANIEL FRANCOIS MALAN BOSMAN: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  Mr Bosman, I understand you have a statement that you would wish to read into the record?

DANIEL FRANCOIS MALAN BOSMAN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Could we go ahead as before?  Thank you, we are listening to you Mr Bosman.  Can I just say I would ask the cameraman to observe some of the rights of people.  I do not want any more photographs taken in front here, excepting new witnesses, thank you.
Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-24

CHAIRPERSON: I want to welcome all of you to the hearing.  The Commission team is exactly the same as it was yesterday so I will not introduce them again.
 I would like to say a special word of welcome to a number of families who have lost loved ones from different sides of the conflict.  There are representatives from the Mabotha family here, as well as the Pretorius family.  Mrs Sepei is here, the family of the Sono's, Shabalala's, Asvat's.   Which is a grim reminder of the very high cost that was paid during the years of conflict and nothing should take away from that and I hope that we will bear that in mind and be sensitive to people who have suffered.  
 We have a very tough schedule this morning and I certainly don't want to take away anyone's right to ask questions, to cross-examine, to give testimony.  But I would appeal to the leaders of evidence, to legal representatives and to the witnesses themselves to try and confine ourselves to the heart of the matter.   This is a hearing concerning the so-called Mandela Football Club and Mrs Madikizela Mandela.  If we can keep that in mind I would be most grateful.  From time to time if I think that you are taking too much time I will remind you that we are under pressure.  I am hoping that we can finish at five o'clock and I know that that is 
supremely optimistic, bearing in mind yesterday.  But let's make a try.  I understand that the lawyers and our leader of evidence, some of them have talked about possible ways of handling huge volumes of evidence and material.  Let's try and do that without stifling debate.  We want to get to as much of the truth as possible.  So thank you again in anticipation.   
 I call the first witness Mr Hume du Toit.  Welcome Mr Du Toit.  Thank you for appearing before the Commission.  My colleague Miss Sooka will administer the oath.

JOSEPH HUME DU TOIT: (sworn states)
Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-25

MR UNTERHALTER: Otherwise known as Sponge?

MS FALATI: Yes, I that.

MR UNTERHALTER: Yes, was it also to go and apprehend Lerothodi Ikaneng?

MS FALATI: You know - about Lerothodi Ikaneng, I do not know whether he was going for Lerothodi Ikaneng but I knew that they were going to Orlando West to go for these other comrades.

MR UNTERHALTER: Was that being done on Mrs Mandela's instruction?

MS FALATI: Yes, that is why he was beaten up.

MR UNTERHALTER: Do you know after the assault whether he was then sent to carry out this mission?

MS FALATI: I know because after they came from the - I don't know whether I get your question, but after coming - they were ...[indistinct] Slelekele - Slelekele High School, so as the were coming this way I understand Katiza said Busizwa was going on the other way to Orlando West because he was afraid of coming home - in the office in Commerce House, before that mission is complete or accomplished.  So Katiza came back to tell us that - to tell Mrs Mandela that Busizwa has been killed, he has been abducted by these other ...[indistinct] boys.

MR UNTERHALTER: I see, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Yes?

MR MPOFU: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Identify yourself again please.

MR MPOFU: My name is Dali Mpofu, I'm representing myself.
 Mrs Falati you were arrested around about February or March 1989, is that correct?

MS FALATI: I'm Miss Falati, not Mrs.

MR MPOFU: Can you answer the question please?

MS FALATI: Yes please, can you address me in a proper way, I'm Miss Falati.

MR MPOFU: Were you arrested in February or March 1989?

MS FALATI: In February.

MR MPOFU: February yes.  Were you then represented by a firm of attorneys of which I was at?

MS FALATI: Yes.

MR MPOFU: Yes, and were you kept at the women's prison at Diepkloof prison?

MS FALATI: Yes, Sir.

MR MPOFU: And I met you there for the first time, is that correct or did you know me before that?

MS FALATI: Yes, I've known you since there was a detention of this "End Conscription Campaign" or something of the sort where those White boys were supposed to go to join the army at the age of 18, those who were defied at ..
Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-26

PETER JOHN STOREY: That evening - which is the 13th, Friday the 13th still, Mr Ayob visited Mrs Mandela and told her that he was going to see Nelson Mandela, who of course at that time was in prison.  It is possible I say, that in this meeting he also conveyed a message from Oliver Tambo to release the children, because we'd been working with Mr Tambo to get such a message and we know that one did come.
 Mrs Mandela repeated to Mr Ayob her allegations about Paul Verryn, and he said: "Well, if theses allegations are true, then let me take the children to Bishop Storey where they can make these accusations to Mr Verryn's Bishop".  She agreed at first - according to Mr Ayob - but then she called in Xoliswa Falati, and said that Xoliswa must accompany the youths to see me.  Then she changed her mind again - according to Mr Ayob - and said that I must come myself, I must come to her home on Saturday the 14th.
 Now I received that message at about 10 o'clock, she wanted to see me at 11.30 on Saturday the 14th.  I received that message via my lawyer, Mr Haysom, at a quarter to 10. I had a meeting immediately with Mr Haysom at his home.  I wanted to contact the community leaders and my own presiding Bishop before visiting the home. I was unable to do so.  
 And we made a decision that I would not go, first of all because in her home the children were still virtually in detention and would not be free to tell the truth to me, and, secondly, because I had made a commitment to work with the community each step of the way and I had not been able to consult with the community about this visit to her home.
 I attempted to contact her to give her this news, but I couldn't find anybody who had her telephone number at that time.   Later in the day I came home and found a message from somebody, speaking for Mrs Mandela, who indicated that she had waited for me and had left.  Then that evening Mr Ayob came back from a meeting with Mr Mandela in prison in the Cape, and I was told by Mr Ayob that he had come with instructions from Mr Mandela that the youths must be released that night, and he asked me to prepare accommodation for them.
 And then later I got a phone call from - I think, Mr Haysom, my lawyer, to say that Mrs Mandela had refused to release them and they would not be coming out that night.   
 I await your guidance, sir.

MR VALLY: I think the rest is very important for you to go through factually as you've got it down.
Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-24

MR VALLY: : We gave you a second copy, I don't know what has happened to it now.
 Alright, we are on page 88 of the first Section 29 Enquiry. If you look at a third of the way down the page, I start off with a question - 
"Were you aware of any tension between Mandela United Football Club and other schools in the area or other Football Clubs?"
 - 88, first Inquiry.

CHAIRPERSON: : Order please.

MR VALLY: : Mrs Madikizela Mandela answers
"I know nothing about that Mr Chairman, I heard these things in the media"
- 88, First Transcript, 
 Could we take a very short break Archbishop and I want to just arrange a couple of copies so that everyone has a copy.

CHAIRPERSON: : I think we should, let's go, I mean they have got. That is enough.

CRISIS COMMITTEE: : It's the second hearing.

CRISIS COMMITTEE: : I am told it's the first.

CRISIS COMMITTEE: : In my copy it is the one after the blue division.

CHAIRPERSON: : There is, I am glad to be affirmed that there is wisdom in adjourning and we've have very long days, I mean we have been having very long days. I, Roger, don't make rude signs in the, I, order please.
 We adjourn until half past eight tomorrow.

MR RICHARD: Mr Chairperson, may I just say we are missing page....

CRISIS COMMITTEE: I think Mr Tony you come to us, don't go to the Archbishop.
HEARING ADJOURNS
Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-24

MR SEMENYA: I'm using this because one watches movies of kidnapping and negotiations and what have you, I don't want your meeting with her to have that context and that was the only point.
 Let me get to the second point.  For some reason - and I'm taking advantage of you knowledge of the Diepkloof residence, that the children were kept their against their will, can conjure in one's mind that there were high walls there.  Were there high walls?

TATO MOTLANA: No, there were no high walls.

MR SEMENYA: There were gates with locks and what have you and chains around them?

TATO MOTLANA: No, there were no chains around.

MR SEMENYA: Now, using the ability of these young men, would they have walked if they had chosen to at the Diepkloof house - just given the physical description of the premises?

TATO MOTLANA: Mr Chairman, the gates to the Mandela residence ...[indistinct] nonsense - concrete wall, that also ...[indistinct] no but the entrance is freely accessible.  I think much, much later the security did improve I think after maybe Mrs Mandela had been threatened or something, the security did improve but at those times in 88/89, you could walk in and out.

MR SEMENYA: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I had hoped we were going to have finished with the trio before we took a break for tea.  Well, there is tea and we are going on until 7 o'clock tonight, so we probably need to have a bit of a break now.  Perhaps we can finish Doctor Motlana, we hope we can finish Doctor Motlana.

YASMINE SOOKA: Doctor Motlana, I really don't want to get caught in a language difficulty because we're talking about ...[inaudible] but I think the fact of the matter is that there had been a period when different individuals in the community had tried to secure the release of these young boys.  You were in fact sent in I think as almost the last resort.
 Now, there had been a consultation between you and these church leaders where I think the circumstances had been explained to you about the position these boys were being held in and I assume that when you went in there, you went in with that kind of knowledge.  Now why -given the fact that you knew there was this boy Stompie as well, were you unable to raise the questions of where this missing boy was - Stompie Seipei ?

TATO MOTLANA: I regret Mr Chairman, that one of the things that I did not raise was the question of the whereabouts of Stompie, I did not I'm afraid.

YASMINE SOOKA: Why?

TATO MOTLANA: I can't explain why I did not raise the question of Stompie but I did not.

YASMINE SOOKA: You see the one question that I think my learned colleague over there has raised, is that it was possible for these boys to walk from the house and we given this image of the house with possibly wall etc., and so I think the question that one
Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-24

MURPHY MOROBE: On my part Chairperson this particular issue, when I talk about the effects clearly there is a definite way in which relationships have been affected here, you know, and it was bound to happen, it's by the very nature of the intervention.  Now one either takes it personally or one takes it politically and I chose to take it politically.  I have no individual or particular gripes against the person or any individual, I take the issue politically and for me I mean that's basically where I come from and up to thus far it hasn't affected me.  Sure I mean I know, I don't want to talk even about rumours etc because as you will see from my statement where I talk about undercurrents that's basically what it is people just don't come up, you can sense it, you know when people take particular positions and think that you know you are either not one of them because you take a particular view, for me it doesn't matter.  I think history called upon us to make a particular point and I think we made it.
 Now I think history once again will become the judge of whether we were right or we were not right, and I think that's why for me this Commission is important.  It must come up in those facts.  And for me it's also important that if we are wrong in what we did or said it will be incumbent upon us to take that and come up and say we were wrong and make the appropriate apology.  Now for me my eyes are on the Commission, that's why I am here to try to assist the Commission to get to the conclusion.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that it seems sensible to say it would probably be better to call a halt to the proceedings for today at this point.  In an ideal world we would have wished to have completed the schedule that we had already set out for today but it isn't the case and I do want to apologise very deeply to people who have come and were ready to testify, Commissioner Fivaz, I think it would be, in fact irresponsible.  We are tired. I am a sick old man and so I can use that, I can't go on forever, these younger people might, so I suggest that we break and start, Mr Semenya you would start tomorrow morning.
 Thank you very much.  We resume at half past eight.
HEARING ADJOURNS