Amnesty Hearings — Pietersburg — 1997-07-02

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, the problem is some of the questions which perhaps Mr Black asked, are the questions which perhaps I might not have asked and one always hopes that when a question is being asked there is a reason for it, and one would keep on being optimistic and thinking that maybe that some foundation is being laid for the purpose of argument and the like. But I think Mr Black, you heard what Mr Visser is saying, and do you want to comment on that?

MR BLACK: Yes, Mr Chairman. I don't propose to belabour this point any further, but I think in fairness to Capt Molapo I should put that to this witness.  In argument I will slightly disagree with Mr Visser in saying that there was no purpose or objective or sinister purpose or other objective to make such a statement or put such a statement to Mr Molapo, sorry, to Mr Sehlwana.  Clearly, I will submit in due course and elaborate, if necessary, that a seed of doubt, a seed was trying to be planted that Mr Sehlwana is going to either receive favourable treatment or some reason or other by meeting with the most senior members of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: But just remember that that statement was put to Mr Sehlwana and he denied it.

MR BLACK: Yes. No, that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And I would have thought that well, he has denied it and there was no need to really go into it that much, I mean.

MR BLACK: No, I hadn't - before the interruption, I wasn't going to proceed any further along those lines.  But as I say, I will confirm, and I think I have made it clear to Mr Van den Berg, that all I asked Capt Molapo as to whether he told Mr Sehlwana to attend and the story about the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: But just remember ...

MR BLACK: But I am not ...

CHAIRPERSON: Just remember, you know, Mr Molapo is not a witness.

MR BLACK: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You are not going to call him and you know, the person who was a witness who was Mr Sehlwana and this thing was put to him and he denied it.

MR BLACK: Yes, okay. I just wanted to also clear Capt Molapo's name.  I don't propose pursuing that line any further.  I have no further questions for this witness either, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Van den Berg, earlier you were asked by the Chairperson in connection with a discussion which allegedly took place in the car between Mr Sehlwana and the cadres that he was transporting, and that information was basically to the effect that if there was a road block on the way, not only will they be in trouble, but that Mr Sehlwana was also, will also be in trouble.  What I wanted to find out from you, is that was that information from Mr Sehlwana elicited by you for any particular purpose, like probably for purposes of making a report as Mr Sehlwana was a person who was working directly under you?

J P VAN DEN BERG: No, it wasn't obtained for a specific purposes. It was simply that I was interested.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Did you pass that information over to your superiors, did you discuss it with Mr Van der Merwe or Mr Coetsee?

J P VAN DEN BERG: I think I would have done so at some stage. I can't remember the exact day or date on which we discussed it.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Did you not present any written reports of information obtained from Mr Sehlwana to your superiors?

J P VAN DEN BERG: Are you referring to after the incident?

SISI KHAMPEPE: Generally, because I think the evidence of Mr Sehlwana was that he was working directly under you, he reported to you as a security officer.

J P VAN DEN BERG: Mr Sehlwana reported to me on a continuing basis and I reported to Mr Coetsee on a continuing basis.

SISI KHAMPEPE: And was information obtained from Mr Sehlwana in the course and scope of his duties as a security policeman, passed over by you to Mr Van der Merwe or to Mr Coetsee in writing?  Was that information in writing or you would merely report orally to your superiors?

J P VAN DEN BERG: It was mainly oral information and was orally transferred.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Never in writing?

J P VAN DEN BERG: Head office was sometimes informed of events by letter or by fax.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: You made mention of a tape-recording to which you listened to at some stage?

J P VAN DEN BERG: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: What was on this tape-recording?

J P VAN DEN BERG: There was the sound of a whistle.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes?

J P VAN DEN BERG: There were numerous shots audible on this tape-recording.  And somewhere, I can't remember whether it was at the beginning or at the end, there was a person using the word "mosono kojoko".

SISI KHAMPEPE: Will you please come again, Mr Van den Berg about the last word you said?

J P VAN DEN BERG: I am not able to speak Zulu, but that's how I heard it, "mosono kojoko".

ADV DE JAGER: Did you hear any other words or any other orders which you heard?  Any discussion which you heard?

J P VAN DEN BERG: Those are the important things which I heard.  There might have been something else, I don't know.

ADV DE JAGER: I want you to think back.  Who had this tape-recording and where did you hear it?

J P VAN DEN BERG: I think that I listened to it at the office and Mr Van Dyk made the tape-recording.

ADV DE JAGER: Was it according to you a tape-recording of the events, the incident there when the road block was carried out and the people were shot?

J P VAN DEN BERG: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: What was Mr Van Dyk's function in this operation, if you can tell us?

J P VAN DEN BERG: I don't know.

ADV DE JAGER: What was his normal role or function in the security police? Was he an ordinary photographer or he did have any special function or was he an ordinary policeman?

J P VAN DEN BERG: He was an ordinary policeman.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We were told that an interview was taped, an interview between an injured person and some members of the security police there at the scene.  Could there have been that kind of interview on that same tape?

J P VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, there could have been such an interview.

CHAIRPERSON: I would have thought that if there was such a conversation you would remember.

J P VAN DEN BERG: I did not listen to the tape-recording intensively, I don't know why, but it could be that I heard it, and that I just forgot about it.  But if it was on the tape and I deny it, then it is simply that I wasn't aware of it, it is not that I am trying to lie about it.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I appreciate that you might not be lying, but I must just express my surprise that you would be able to recall that there was a whistle on the tape, which to me, I mean a whistle I would have thought would be something less significant.  What's the meaning of a whistle on a tape?  I would have thought you would remember a conversation between the police and the person interviewed, rather than remembering the whistle.

J P VAN DEN BERG: It is possible that I only listened to half or that half of the tape-recording. I am not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: But a conversation or an interview between the terrorists as they were seen to be, on the one hand, and the police on the other hand, and I assume the police would not have been asking useless or nonsensical questions.   They must have asked him important questions, and such a conversation must have been of some importance.  Therefore, it would be something that you would remember.

J P VAN DEN BERG: I agree with you that it would have been important, but I can't remember that I heard such a thing.

CHAIRPERSON: You said earlier on that Sehlwana told you that his passenger said that should they meet a roadblock they would shoot.

J P VAN DEN BERG: Those specific words weren't used.  The commander told them cock your guns and Mr Sehlwana was told if we meet with the roadblock you will also get hurt, along with us.  Perhaps different words were used, but the gist of it was the same.