Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1999-05-06

CHAIRPERSON: What other assurance do you really want?  The man has said repeatedly that he last saw Mr Keswa on the 17th, during the day.  He didn't see him the evening.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair.  I would like to put it to you sir, that you have implicated Mr Keswa in the past for offences which he also did not commit, because he was in custody.

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I don't know anything about that.  I said he was there on the 15th in 1992.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did he implicate Mr Keswa, in these proceedings or in other proceedings?

MR LOWIES: No, in a confession he made to the Police.  Do you agree with that?

ADV SIGODI: Mr Lowies, I think in fairness to the applicant, you should try to be more specific as to when he implicated Mr Keswa in offences, which in fact he did not do.

MR LOWIES: May I just ask an indulgence, I just want to get some documents with your permission Chairman.  There are so many, I can't have them all in front of me.  Mr Nosenga, according to the Police docket in the case where you were convicted, you mentioned an incident where you, Hunter Ndlovu, Victor Keswa, Papie, Mzwake and Sipho left from kwaMadala hostel to Sebokeng, you were driving a 3 litre Ford Cortina, Hunter was the driver, the purpose was to shoot at comrades, members of the comrades.  Do you know anything about this?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I said I don't know anything about that, I said Tswi was the driver, not Hunter Ndlovu.  Hunter Ndlovu was present as well as Tswi and Ndlandla Xindi.  I don't know anything about Sipho, Papie and Mzwake.  I only mentioned them after I was beaten up.  I don't know anything about ...

CHAIRPERSON: Is that a confession you are reading?

MR LOWIES: That is correct Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: What Counsel is reading to you is a confession which you are supposed to have made to the Police, do you understand that?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, I do sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember making a confession?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, I understand that.  Yes, I do remember sir, but I did not include Sipho.

CHAIRPERSON: In the confession itself?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, I did not implicate Sipho.

MR LAX: Did you at the time you were being interrogated and tortured, did you tell them anything about Sipho that might have been written down somewhere?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: No, I do not recall, but people whose names I mentioned to avoid being beaten up was Papie and Mzwake, not Sipho.

MR LOWIES: What about Hunter Ndlovu, did you mention his name?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, Hunter was present.  I did mention that here at the Committee as well.

MR LOWIES: Did you mention Victor Keswa?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: I mentioned it here that Gatiza was present, I did not mention it to the Police and I gave you the reason why I did not mention his name, he was as a result not arrested.  If I had mentioned his name, he would also have been arrested.

MR LOWIES: In this document I find something funny, you describe the charge for which you are convicted, but you mention the date as being early in December 1992, can you give us an explanation why this happened?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: That must be a mistake, I was not arrested in December.

MR LOWIES: No, but that is not the question, the question is you said ...

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: The incident happened in 1992 and I was arrested in 1993.  I was sentenced in 1995.

MR LOWIES: Is it your version sir, that you were tortured to admit this specific offence of which the Police already had knowledge?  In other words they already knew somebody was murdered and they wanted you to admit that it was you and others?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: That is so.  They knew that I resided at the hostel.

MR LOWIES: Did they at that stage know that you were involved in the shooting, the drive-by shooting and just wanted you to admit this so that they could use it in court, or what was the situation?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: Yes, because they assaulted me.

MR LOWIES: What did they want from you in your words, to admit?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: The offences that occurred at Sebokeng, the shooting of people.

MR LOWIES: You see, why I am asking you this, if necessary we will lead evidence regarding this, the Police did not know at that stage when you confessed, when the offences were committed, where they were committed and your complicity.  That is why we also see here they thought the offence was committed in December 1992, because you told them that?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, what is the value of a document which admits of coercion and torture?

MR LOWIES: It is denied that it was as a result of torture, as a matter of fact, it is very relevant to the applicant's ...

CHAIRPERSON: The man says I was tortured to make that confession.

MR LOWIES: Chair, I am not trying to prove that he committed the offences, that is common cause.  What I submit is the following, I submit that from this evidence we will be able to see that he handed himself over voluntarily to the Police and there is a reason for that.  That reason has to be explored further.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you see, if a person says in these hearings that what you are reading from, is a document which was obtained as a result of torture, what value is that document to this Commission?

MR LOWIES: I would say it is relevant regarding the contents thereof firstly, because it shows his knowledge thereof.  Secondly, whether the language that is spoke because this is also relevant, whether he indeed submitted that evidence in Sotho and thirdly, I would say that if there is a motive for making this document and for implicating people, it goes further.

CHAIRPERSON: He does not deny that he made the confession as I understand his evidence.  What is in issue is whether he made that confession voluntarily.  You are free to canvass who interpreted the confession to him, that is another issue, but when you begin to deal with the contents and when you tax him on what is contained in that document, what value is that in the light of his direct evidence before us as to what happened and when it happened?

MR LOWIES: But may I not be able to rebut it if it is not the truth?

CHAIRPERSON: Then you will call evidence, you lay a proper foundation for its (indistinct).

MR LOWIES: But Chair, it may not be necessary if he admits it, it may not be necessary if he admits that the situation is as such, and then I don't have to call extra witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, you will bear in mind that this is not a court of law, this is an administrative, these are administrative proceedings, this is an enquiry, this is not a criminal trial.  This man is not accused before us of the Sebokeng shootings.  Your cross-examination on matters which are not directly relevant to these issues, is limited.  You should know better.

MR LOWIES: I agree with you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not going to allow you to keep on cross-examining this man on issues which he has made it clear that he denies, because this is a document which he denies.  If a man says I was tortured to make this document, you know, there's got to be some limits on the extent to which one can rely on that document, even if to raise issues of credibility, do you understand what I am saying?

MR LOWIES: Yes, I do Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  It is one thing to find out whether a particular statement is the truth or not, but to suggest to him how the Police would have obtained that information, where would that take us to?

MR LOWIES: I agree with you Chair, I will rephrase.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Were you involved in any other shootings after June 1992?

MS TANZER: With respect, I object Chair.  We have dealt with this before, and besides the Boipatong, he is not here to incriminate himself in any other manner.