Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-09-03

MR RAMAWELE: But Mr Chairman, they were not actually implicating them, they were actually saying they were acting in self-defence.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but then why wouldn't they say too also he was there, but they all acted in self-defence?

MR RAMAWELE: I don't have any access to the docket itself, but I see it as the police officers made a statement about the people who were at the scene and then how the shooting occurred and they were not implicating the attackers, they were just saying the police officers who shot were acting in self-defence, so Mr Nofomela was not there, so I wouldn't see any reason why ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: No, they mentioned Vermeulen, they mentioned Bosch, they mentioned McCarter.

MR RAMAWELE: They never mentioned Mr Bosigo also and Mr Nofomela says Mr Bosigo was also at the bridge.

CHAIRPERSON: Beside you see, your client was really playing a very peripheral role.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In fact on his version he was told by de Kock he shouldn't be part of the operation so what did he do?   He drove the vehicle, on his version.

MR RAMAWELE: He just drove the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: To the bridge and back.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes and back, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's it.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes.

MR SIBANYONI: Would you say maybe this is one of
the deck stories, the cover stories which we normally hear about after the police have acted, that they will sit down and make up a story, maybe that their cover story excluded your client, Bosigo as well as de Kock and that they are now  sticking to that version which was initially given.

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, Mr Chairman, because if you look at what happened, if we accept the fact that they were going to eliminate those activists, it is my submission that I cannot see any reason why the truth should have been told to the police just after the shooting.  This was Vlakplaas.  I cannot see any reason why the truth would have been told as to exactly what happened.  I cannot see any reason why it should have been because it was a clandestine operation, why would they speak the truth?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and we should have a reason, if we want to reject the evidence of Mr Mbatha, we must have a reason for doing so and it appears on Mr Mbatha's evidence that these attackers were busy until they had a group of people gathered in the same place, in one room with one door and one window, all bunched together inside and they were speaking comrade language, exiles, the people in the room were responding on the terms that they wanted to hear about wanting to leave the country for military training and everything else and then there was a shooting without any warning at all.

MR RAMAWELE: I agree entirely.  I agree entirely that the sole purpose there was just to shoot.  As I said earlier, even when you take the evidence of Mr Radebe himself, even if, when you ignore the evidence of Mr Mbatha, on the evidence of Mr Radebe himself, it is quite clear that the intention there was to shoot, even if we disregard Mr Mbatha's evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Have you got any other submissions, Mr Ramawele?

MR RAMAWELE: No, Mr Chairman.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, any submissions?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chairperson.