Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1997-10-31

UNKNOWN: So is it unreasonable to infer from what one 
reads there, that your brother may have left with the gun or that 
when he looked under the counter, there was no gun, you brother 
wasn't there and he had run out with the gun?

FRANCISCO CERQUEIRA: Mr Arendse, isn't it also reasonable to believe if 
one had a gun in his hand and he is being shot and he is dying on the 
pavement, that the gun would be lying next to him?  I found no gun 
next to him.

UNKNOWN: Someone else may have picked up the gun?  Mr 
Brode may have picked up the gun.  How do you know that he didn't 
pick up the gun?

FRANCISCO CERQUEIRA: Mr Brode got to the body after me, I was there 
first.  I got to the body, my brother was lying there, choking in his 
blood.  Mr Brode came up to me and asked me is he gone?  What's 
wrong and he sat on the pavement, put his head in his hands and he 
started crying.

UNKNOWN: Now, unfortunately Mr Brode had already made a 
mistake by mentioning Mr Jose Cerqueira's wife, but is he also 
making a mistake by not - if obviously assuming the Judge's 
summary is correct - is he making another mistake by not mentioning 
that you were there first - by not mentioning you at all? 
	One gets the impression from reading this that he was the only 
one who got to your brother, picked him up, held his head in his 
arms.  He doesn't mention you at all?

FRANCISCO CERQUEIRA: Sir, with due respect to the statement you've 
got there.  That you will have to ask Mr Brode.  Like I mentioned to 
you, I was there first and Mr Brode came afterwards.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

FRANCISCO CERQUEIRA: And my sister in law was definitely not in the 
restaurant at any time during the shooting, or before the shooting.

UNKNOWN: Yes.   You see, I am referring to page 73 Mr 
Chairman, of the second bundle where we have Mr Brode's 
statement.  I am not sure what day it was made, but it seems to be 
the 22nd of October 1997.  And I will just read to you again what he 
says.
	I am reading from paragraph three, the sub-heading "the 
incident".  I had been on duty at Machados restaurant on the night 
of 30 December 1993, when the incident in question took place.  
The restaurant had been quite full that evening, being the festive 
season and everyone was in a jolly mood.
	After the restaurant had closed, the owner Joe Cerqueira, his 
brother and another colleague whose name I can't remember, had 
been clearing the restaurant and set about preparing the restaurant 
for the next day's business when we heard what we assumed was a 
car backfiring in the road outside.   This sound continued and we 
thought it may also be the sound of fireworks thrown by some 
partygoers outside.
	I was the first to walk out of the restaurant to investigate and 
was followed by my colleagues.  I saw individuals coming out of the 
Heidelberg Tavern, which is located next to Machados restaurant.  
They were making their way to a dark coloured car.  I saw what I 
again thought was flares or fireworks and then noticed these 
individuals were firing automatic machine gun fire in all directions.
	Once they spotted me and my colleagues, they fired in our 
direction.  In the resulting confusion, we pushed our way back into 
the restaurant and took cover as best we could.  I remember lying 
flat on the floor of the restaurant.  
	On page 74 at the top - once the firing had stopped, I ran out 
of the restaurant, it was at this stage that I saw the deceased, Joe 
Cerqueira lying, dying in the gutter.  He had been shot in the chest.  
The result was complete mayhem as people ran around in shock, 
shouting for help.  It was only at this stage, when I knelt down next 
to the deceased, that I realised that I had been shot in the leg. 
	My thoughts at that stage were about Joe Cerqueira and I 
remember thinking Joe, you can't die now.  The exact details of what 
happened after that, are not clear to me.
	So, in that statement too, he doesn't mention you specifically, 
although he may have meant when he said once they, that is now the 
... (intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: What about his brother?  Is that not this 
witness?

UNKNOWN: If you can't just give me a chance to finish, I am 
just going to clear that up now?

JUDGE WILSON: You started by saying he does not mention you 
specifically.

UNKNOWN: That is right.

JUDGE WILSON: You don't think that is correct?

UNKNOWN: That is right, he doesn't mention him specifically 
and I am trying to clear that up by saying that he must mean that his 
colleagues, he was clearly referring to the people who were with him 
- his brother and another colleague.  
	So he must have meant that you were in that same group when 
he says the firing was at you and his colleagues?

FRANCISCO CERQUEIRA: Well, he mentions brother, so I am his brother 
and colleagues.  There were other colleagues, which was Michael, 
which was the waiter that I mentioned before.  Yes, I would say so.

UNKNOWN: Well, it is just that from what you are saying, 
you appear to play a leading role, you went outside, you pulled Mr 
Brode in.

FRANCISCO CERQUEIRA: I did.

UNKNOWN: You went back outside, you went to your brother 
first?

FRANCISCO CERQUEIRA: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Now, I am just asking, one would have thought 
that Brode would mention these things.

FRANCISCO CERQUEIRA: I don't know Sir, you would have to ask Mr 
Brode.  I am telling you like it is, you are asking me the questions, I 
am giving it to you.

UNKNOWN: Fine.

FRANCISCO CERQUEIRA: And if Mr Brode's statement seems wrong to 
you, you would have to ask Mr Brode.

UNKNOWN: Yes, now do you respect what I am just putting 
to you, it is not what I am saying because clearly I wasn't there.  I 
am just reading to you what is in the documents before us?

FRANCISCO CERQUEIRA: Sure, I do that, but you seem to be battering me 
all the time about Mr Brode's statement.  I am not here about Mr 
Brode, I am here about my brother and I am giving you, like you've 
asked the truth, I am telling you how I saw it.  I am telling you that 
is the story.
	If Mr Brode has got something different in that statement, I 
am sorry Sir, but you would have to ask Mr Brode.  I wasn't there 
when Mr Brode gave the statement, I am telling you like it is when I 
was there, and I was definitely there.  Because as you've mentioned 
in your statement, I am glad you brought it up about the brother and 
colleagues, because I am very much his brother.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, with respect, it is difficult - the way in 
which my learned friend asks the questions, he wants the witness to 
answer a question how another witness or why another witness said 
certain things in his statement and that is within the peculiar 
knowledge of that other witness.
	Mr Brode will be called and he obviously will answer 
questions on the differences between the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless Mr Arendse is going to suggest that this 
witness was not there, you see.

MR PRIOR: Yes, Mr Chairman and or fabricating his evidence I 
don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, fabricating or not but unless Mr Arendse is 
going to suggest to him, look you were not there.

MR PRIOR: Well, then that is a valid question.

UNKNOWN: Well, it must also surely be valid if there are two 
people who said they were at a particular scene, that you can put the 
one person's version to a witness.  I mean, am I not doing that?

CHAIRPERSON: You can put that to him, but you can't ask him 
why did the other chap not mention your name, that is going too far.

UNKNOWN: Mr Cerqueira, you were not here from the 
beginning of these proceedings and you were not here when Mr 
Gqomfa, that is the applicant on your far right, was giving his 
evidence?

FRANCISCO CERQUEIRA: No, I was not here.