Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-24

MR VISSER: Well, that's another point.  Surely Mr Maharaj, my question now turns on your evidence that you wanted to make something out of paragraph 41 and as I understood your evidence yesterday and today, the first point you wanted to make and we've dealt with that, was that where the Security Police for one reason or another, wanted to protect a particular person, they would do that simply by saying "not of security interest".

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Chairperson, we are differing on just one word.  These two forms are amongst the techniques that could have been used.  I'm not saying they are the exclusive techniques, if I have given that impression yesterday, I have certainly throughout this morning made it clear that I'm not saying that these are the exclusive techniques, but I'm showing from the internal contents of the documents that they are possible techniques.

MR VISSER: Possible.  So you're working with possibilities.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Obviously.

MR VISSER: But now you ...(intervention).

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Unless I was a Security Branch man, I can't go more.

MR VISSER: Mr Maharaj but you went further, you see.  You placed in contra distinction what was done with Mr Charles Zakhele Zwelakhe here in paragraph 41 as opposed to what was done as regards Jabo and Lucky and Zondi.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Yes.

MR VISSER: What was your point with that?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: To establish that the technique could have been employed.  Could have been employed.  Not necessarily employed, I'm saying in this document there appeared to be techniques that could have been employed.

MR VISSER: Mr Maharaj ...(intervention)

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: And I'm showing it to you with Jabo.  It makes no sense from the way they worked, to then find the owner of a block of flats and simply dismiss him as not being of security interest.  How do you know he wasn't an ANC member owning that flat.

MR VISSER: I'm through with that point.  I'm not going back to it.  I want to move forward.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Thank you.

MR VISSER: And I put it to you that quite pertinently the impression you gave yesterday in your evidence was that by mentioning Mr Ndaba's name, attention was drawn by Botha to Ndaba and that he might have become a target of the Security Forces and he would not have done so, had he been an informer.  That was your evidence.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: No, Sir.

MR VISSER: You say that isn't your evidence?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: My evidence, if that is the understanding, Chairperson, may I correct the impression?

MR VISSER: Alright.  Let me then ...(intervention)

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: I am saying that Capt Botha, as the commentator to this report, had the opportunity to employ a variety of techniques to begin to cover the identity of his informant.  Amongst those techniques that he could have used is to use the "nie van sekuriteits belang nie" or he could have used a code number.

MR VISSER: Right.  Would you agree with me that it would have been crazy for him to suggest to Head Office that Ndaba was not of security interest particularly in view of the fact that Mr Ndaba was second in command of the MK Natal Machinery in Swaziland?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: I don't know how crazy the Security Branch were.  If I showed you the rest of the reports you'd find them totally crazy.

MR VISSER: Can we try to stick with the facts of the matter,

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: No but you asked me if they're crazy.

MR VISSER: Instead of being flippant.  It would have been crazy for Botha to suggest to Head Office that the Commander of MK Natal was not of security importance?  Do you agree?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Chairperson, here's a crazy thing in front of us that with all this PN664 spiels circulated to 15 sections, they have revealed that PN 664 is the Commander of MK at Msinga, they have revealed he's also Bongani, they revealed that he's also an askari and they revealed that it was his man that they sent to Swaziland and that he brought in the DLB.  Absolutely crazy.

MR VISSER: So that's the best answer you want to give to my request.  I'm going to leave it at that.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Let's leave it at that.

MR VISSER: Thank you.  Mr Maharaj, I want to put it to you that apart from Lucky, who was at this time clearly an askari, not one single identity of one single informer is made known or is exposed in Exhibit J1 to J5.  What do you say to that?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: My response to that is...

MR VISSER: Well first of all, do you agree with that?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Let's start with your first question, because I'm busy thinking that one.  Charles Ndaba, Commander, killed.  Filla Ndwandwe, kidnapped killed.  Who appeared before the TRC for amnesty for Filla Ndwandwe's killing?  Capt Botha.  Who has appeared for the killing of Ndaba?  Capt Botha.  Today he is saying, "I'm an applicant for amnesty, I killed this man.  He was my agent" and he is saying, "I recruited him in 1988" and the substantive question that has risen, was he or was he not an informant of Capt Botha?  This document J1 does not allow the conclusion to flow at this stage that Charles was recruited by Capt Botha.

MR VISSER: Nor does it say that he wasn't.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Does not allow the conclusion because it is on the applicant's responsibility to establish his case.  It is not for the victim who is dead to establish that he was not an informant.  We're dealing with people, victim's lives also.

MR VISSER: Mr Maharaj how is that an answer to my question to you?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: (...(indistinct - talking simultaneously)

MR VISSER: How is that possibly an answer to my question?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Your question was that in this document no agent has been revealed except M K Lucky and therefore you want me to draw the conclusion that this does not say that Charles Ndaba was not an informant..  I'm saying this establishes at this stage that Charles Ndaba as at February 1988, was not yet an agent and I will show other documents together in the bundle to say right up to September 1988 he was, there's nothing to show that he was an agent and I'm saying that in September, he was out of Swaziland.

MR VISSER: Mr Maharaj, if your big point of your evidence is that Exhibit J1 to 5 does not show that Mr Ndaba was an informer, I'll happily concede it, because that's precisely my point.  The Security Branch did not go around advertising the identities of their informers.   Not in public or in Security reports.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: I was able to identify their agents through their reports.

MR VISSER: Well maybe  you were more clever than the rest.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: No, not more clever, I was just banking on the stupidity of their reports.

MR VISSER: That may be that they were stupid.  Mr Maharaj you seem to make a point of trying to deride the applicants.  Fine.  You're being allowed to do so, so I mean I'm not going to get into an argument with you about that, but I want to stick with the questions, let's stick with the questions.  Do you agree with me that nowhere in Exhibit J apart from Lucky who was an askari, is the identity of a single informant revealed?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: And there are only two agents referred to there.

MR VISSER: And there's a good reason for that, isn't there?

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: No, no, no. 664 and Lucky are the only two ones that appear in that report as agents.

MR VISSER: 664 is Lucky, Mr Maharaj.

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Sorry and then 666.