Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-10-05

MR MARTINI: Which we'll accept what Mr Bizos told us, that it correlates to your hand-written statement.  You see you say, look at paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Fifth paragraph, and I'm counting the one sentence earlier up as a paragraph.  Have you got it.  Sorry, page 9, sorry, sorry.

OESMAN ALEXANDER: Page 9, yes.

MR MARTINI: Bundle D.

OESMAN ALEXANDER: Yes.  Which paragraph?

MR MARTINI: Five.

OESMAN ALEXANDER: "Die vergadering van Kewtown Youth"?

MR MARTINI: You see the second sentence
"If more members had arrived the meeting would have continued for longer and the bomb would have exploded in their midst."

OESMAN ALEXANDER: Yes.

MR MARTINI: That's an inference you're making, because that's not what happened, it's not a fact, it's not the actual facts.

OESMAN ALEXANDER: I agree it's an inference, but that was my opinion at the time, but the norm was that we would meet up until 9 o'clock.

MR MARTINI: Right, so you're not stating a fact there, you're making an inference, so it seems as if you were asked this question, that's why you made that statement.

OESMAN ALEXANDER: No.

MR MARTINI: But then why put that in?  Why say
"In the even event that more members had arrived, the bomb would have gone off in their presence"?

OESMAN ALEXANDER: From custom and practise our meetings basically stopped at nine.

MR MARTINI: You see, now go down another two paragraphs.
"Ek ken Gakkie Hardien.  He was aware that I used the Isuzu.  If he had been near the building before or during the explosion, he would have realised that I was inside the building."

OESMAN ALEXANDER: That is also a fact.  I'd been driving that bakkie for more than a year at that time.

MR MARTINI: You're missing my point.

OESMAN ALEXANDER: I understand your point, I'm just saying.

MR MARTINI: You're now blaming him and you're saying, not as a fact, you're saying:  "Gakkie knows my car and if he was near the building at the time, he would have known I was in the building".  Why are you stating that?

OESMAN ALEXANDER: Because it's a fact.  Gakkie knew what I was driving.  In fact the entire one side of Kewtown knew what I was driving.

MR LAX: Well how did it come about that you made such a fact in this statement?  That's really what you're being asked.

OESMAN ALEXANDER: I just wanted to make it clear that Gakkie knew that I was in the building.

MR LAX: Yes, but were you responding to a question that someone put to you about Gakkie?  Did someone say to you for example:  "Gakkie says there were no cars there"?

OESMAN ALEXANDER: I can't remind myself whether ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Because really that's what Mr Martini's getting at.

OESMAN ALEXANDER: At the time I thought I was putting it in my own words.  I can't remind myself that someone asked me questions.  I was asked to give a statement in terms of what happened that night and I knew that Gakkie knew that I was driving that vehicle.

MR MARTINI: That's the point, you had to give a statement of what happened, of facts, you've told us that.  That I can accept, someone ...(intervention)

OESMAN ALEXANDER: That I drove that vehicle.

MR MARTINI: I accept someone will want the statement of facts from you, but why do you say:  "Ek ken Gakkie"?  Did someone ask you:  "Do you know Gakkie Hardien?"

OESMAN ALEXANDER: I can't recall that someone asked me but if they had, I can't say yes they have or they have not.  I know that Gakkie knew that I was driving that vehicle and so did the entire one part of Kewtown.

MR MARTINI: I accept that but in the statement that you make, why do you say in this statement - you see earlier you said you were asked to give this statement to describe the facts that happened on the night of the 31st of August 1989, the bombing.  Now you say:  "I know Gakkie Hardien".  That suggests to me someone asked you:  "Do you know Gakkie Hardien?" at the time that you're making the statement.

OESMAN ALEXANDER: At the time that I made the statement, it was known that Gakkie was responsible for planting that bomb and Gakkie even threatened us.  If you read further in the statement, Gakkie threatened to come and finish us.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll get there.  Gakkie doesn't say they must come and finish you,  he says:  "Ek het gemis", that can mean anything and he says:  "Next time ek sal jou kry".  Now we've also heard the evidence that when he arrived there, there was a bit of turmoil between other members because of Gakkie's presence, people were very unhappy that he was there, but let's stick to this.

OESMAN ALEXANDER: Yes.

MR MARTINI: Did someone ask you?  Why out of your own accord there, if you're making a statement of fact, you say:  "Ek ken Gakkie Hardien" and then go on
"He was aware that I was driving the Isuzu.  If he had been near the building before or during the explosion, he would have realised that I was inside the building."

OESMAN ALEXANDER: Let me once again repeat, Mr Martini.  In terms of me at the time, we knew that Gakkie planted the bomb.  Okay?  It was public knowledge within Kewtown and in line with that, I wanted, me, I wanted to make sure that I put that fact there because, in terms of me, it was important, because he knew I drove the car, or the bakkie.

MR MARTINI: Okay.  Well we'll argue it.  Let's move on.  At this time Gakkie had been arrested, he'd made a Section 29 statement, did you know that Gakkie was saying he didn't intend to kill people, at the time he made this statement?

OESMAN ALEXANDER: I can't recall that, but I knew that he was arrested or that he planted to bomb.

MR MARTINI: How did you know he planted the bomb at that time?

OESMAN ALEXANDER: Well, he was seen the afternoon with a haversack.  He told - because obviously we were afraid and we wanted to inquire some more.

MR MARTINI: How did you know Gakkie planted the bomb at the site?

OESMAN ALEXANDER: He was seen at the venue with the haversack.  He told the staff of the ELC that he was tired, he wanted to sit in the foyer and he had been walking from I think Heideveld, or Manenberg.

MR MARTINI: You forget also, according to him, he says he put a bomb in there and he warned him.

OESMAN ALEXANDER: I don't think Mr Williams would allow us to be blasted to pieces, that's ludicrous.

MR MARTINI: But you heard what Mr Hardien's reply was from Mr Williams?

OESMAN ALEXANDER: Once again Mr Hardien also conceded that Mr Williams never uses that language and will never.

MR MARTINI: But just - so you say because Mr Hardien was seen sweating, walked in with the haversack, that's why he planted the bomb?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think it was a little bit further and also because of the fact that he had been detained in terms of Section 9.

MR MARTINI: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. 29, at least.

MR MARTINI: Also because he was detained under Section 29, for the bomb.

OESMAN ALEXANDER: Where he had made certain admissions, but I don't know ...(intervention)

MR MARTINI: Stop there.  Where he made certain admissions.  How do you know he made those admissions?

OESMAN ALEXANDER: SABC news, newspaper, but the content, all I was interested in at the time was that he planted that bomb, not his intentions were.  He was the one who took the bomb inside there.

MR MARTINI: Well if you weren't interested in his intention, then why do you say:  "He would have known I would be in the building"?

OESMAN ALEXANDER: Because clearly, he knows what I drive, I'm familiar to him, that's why I said it.

MR MARTINI: Mr Alexander, we'll argue the point.  We'll move on ...

CHAIRPERSON: Just one little question.  After the bomb and before this in their normal course of investigating the explosion, did you make a statement to the police, Athlone police or whoever it was, that were investigating the actual bombing as from the night of the 31st of August, an ordinary police statement?