Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-11

MR VISSER: So how did you suggest to Mr Bhila, what did you suggest to him in order to lure him away from his home?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Let me put it clear to you, Mr Bhila when he came to us, there was no bag to show that he's going out, he just came empty handed so how can we arrange for him to go out without clothes?

MR VISSER: No, no, no, I don't think you understand what I'm saying.  There was a plan, there was a plot to try to lure him away from his home so that he could be arrested, is that correct?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VISSER: What was that plan, was it not that to tell him that he must come, that you would take him out of the country to save him from being arrested?

ERNEST RAMATALA: I think we differ when coming to send him out, the plan was to take him for further instruction from the UDF.

MR VISSER: I see, I see, is that how you remember it?

ERNEST RAMATALA: It's how it was, exactly like that.

MR VISSER: Yes and after Bhila was placed in the Combi, you came back to C.R. Swart and you knew nothing about what further happened to Mr Bhila?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR HUGO: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no questions.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chairman, Van Schalkwyk on behalf of McCarter.
	Mr Ramatala, at the time you said you were a member of the South African Police Force, what was your rank?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Constable.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Constable?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you carry a pocket book with you?

ERNEST RAMATALA: What?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you carry a pocket book with you?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now did you make any entries in the pocket book about these events?  Do you want me to repeat the question?

ERNEST RAMATALA: I want to explain to you.  My job was the security, the pocket book was not to be used to a sensitive information like that one, how can you use the pocket book for a thing like that one of Mr Bhila?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The point of the matter, there's no other entry or there's no entry that you made on the day in question about the events?

ERNEST RAMATALA: No, pocket book was for your own interest, if you want to keep something for your own information.  There was nobody to check up on that book.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Let me ask you again, did you make any - I'll ask it a little bit differently, did you make any entry on ...[intervention]

MR MALAN: He did say - I mean that's clear that he said that he didn't make any entry.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you.  So apart - when you made your statement to Holmes in 1996, did you have anything to look at, anything to refresh your memory with?

ERNEST RAMATALA: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were you shown any statements by Holmes in order to refresh your memory?

ERNEST RAMATALA: No nothing.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were you shown any documents by Holmes to refresh your memory from?

ERNEST RAMATALA: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are you quite sure about that?

ERNEST RAMATALA: ...[indistinct]

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well in paragraph 4 of the statement that was handed up, appears the following sentence and least it be a mistake because of the languages, let me put it to you, it will be interpreted
"I can recall the incident as follows.  Our group according to the documents that were shown to me"
...[inaudible] your statement referred to if nothing was shown to you?

ERNEST RAMATALA: No, you see the documents that he showed me, it was the document for the claim of the S&T

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So documents were in fact shown to you.

ERNEST RAMATALA: Ja, for the S&T

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Then you say an interesting thing further on in the statement, allow me to read it to you
"And an independent witness"
That is something I want to clarify from you because my copy Mr Chairman is little unclear, it could be "geheer" or "getui" if I might just clarify that?  If it's "geheer" I'll accept it, mine is unfortunately not clear.
	Perhaps if I may just ask the witness, did you discuss the matter with any witness?

ERNEST RAMATALA: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Right and you were not shown a statement for instance by Mr Bosch or Mr Rosslee or anyone?

ERNEST RAMATALA: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Not, now I want to canvass with you the presence of the various members of the Durban branch of the security police.  Did you at the time know a certain, I think his rank at the time was Sergeant, Aubrey Nogade?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Was he a member of your unit?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At Pretoria or in Durban?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Well when we were down here he was not around, not knowing maybe he arrived in the evening.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: He was not involved in the incident that you have sketched at all?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Abducting, he was not around as far as I know.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Right.  When you made and if I may just briefly ask you a few questions about this statement, when you made the statement to Mr Holmes, were you under the impression that this was going to be used in a case docket to be opened or built against somebody?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Can you repeat the question again?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: When you made the statement did you think that this statement was going to be used in a case docket, a police docket against someone?

ERNEST RAMATALA: I was making the statement for the only part that I had played, not knowing what's going to happen in future.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You were not asked to make a statement or were you asked to make a statement as a witness so to speak, you were not accused of having done something wrong and given an opportunity to explain?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Well I can say so.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And have you all along been aware of or under the impression rather that you would be a witness in this matter?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: That the Attorney General's office obviously were investigating?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You yourself and pardon me for asking you this, have not applied for amnesty for this particular incident?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In your mind you did nothing wrong?

ERNEST RAMATALA: I have never been in the killing.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: As far as you're concerned that is the bit that's wrong?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: When you were given these instructions in your own mind did you think this would just have been an arrest?

ERNEST RAMATALA: We used to do that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: That was part of your normal duties?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Part of the game.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now you seem to sketch two different incidents that happened on two days.  Firstly you would go out to the scene, the general vicinity would have been pointed out to you and then later you went back, do I understand that correctly?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: On that first occasion, let us deal with that.  You say that it was Mhieza who had pointed out, as I understood you, sort of the general area or did he point out a specific house?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Mhieza knows that place very well, he said to us: "I don't want to be very close because he knows me, but you check from this"  They give us the number of the house, can be number three to number four and you just count the houses and it was like that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: He did not point out the specific house to you, that's all I want to know.

ERNEST RAMATALA: By pointing a specific house in the sense that he was there next to the house is this one, no, but he said that you go along this number, it will be number 5, then you get it.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Was Mike Lembedi present at that particular point in time?

ERNEST RAMATALA: Mike?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Lembedi was he present.  Lembedi?

ADV PRIOR: Was Lembedi present?

ERNEST RAMATALA: No, no, no.  When - no, the first - he was not there.