Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — UNKNOWN

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now did Mr Segal show you that car?

MR SIBAYA: Which car?

NORMAN ARENDSE: That car that you just said now was the car you saw that night?

MR SIBAYA: No it was not there then, he said that I must show him where the car was parked.  I then showed him.

NORMAN ARENDSE: When did you show him?

MR SIBAYA: Two weeks after the incident.

NORMAN ARENDSE: And when you showed him that car, or where you saw the car was the car still there?

MR SIBAYA: He asked me where it is that the car was parked, I then showed him.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Was the car gone when you went to show him where the car was parked?

MR SIBAYA: A week had elapsed already, the car was not there.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now Mr Sibaya that car was found the next morning on the 31st of December 1993, by the police at eight o'clock in the morning.  That car was found in NY129.  Do you know anything about that?

MR SIBAYA: Anything about what?

NORMAN ARENDSE: That the car was found on the morning of the 31st of December 1993 at eight o'clock in the morning after the owner of the car had lodged a report with the police, do you know anything about it?

MR SIBAYA: NY21, no.

NORMAN ARENDSE: No the car was found in NY129 at eight o'clock on the morning of the 31st of December 1993.  Do you know anything about it Mr Sibaya, yes or no?

MR SIBAYA: It was at night when we went there, I don't know anything about what you are saying.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Is it your evidence that it's the first time that you saw these photographs that you saw now today of that car?  It was never shown to you before?

MR SIBAYA: This car, two weeks had elapsed, as I think in my mind that the car was dark I assume that this is it in the photograph.

NORMAN ARENDSE: No the question was that photograph that you saw, is that the first time you see that photograph?  Has it been put before you before today by anybody, whether it's people in this room here or the police or anybody?

MR SIBAYA: I have never seen this photograph before.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Because I find it strange, and I would submit that this Committee or anyone here would also find it very strange, that that car which was involved in the Heidelberg Tavern incident, a photograph of that car had never been shown to you before today, I find it very strange.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think you had better move on, they might have various reasons for ...(intervention)

NORMAN ARENDSE: Well let him, to be ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Don't you find it more strange that he was never taken to an identification parade?

NORMAN ARENDSE: We'll come to that, but since you raise it Judge that's another aspect which I find strange.

CHAIRPERSON: I think move on instead of putting reasons why it's strange.  That might depend upon a lot of other people behaving the way they did.

NORMAN ARENDSE: But maybe, with respect, maybe the witness can give us an answer.  Can we just get an answer from him.

INTERPRETER: The speaker mike is not on.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Can we get an answer from the witness why he was never shown a photograph of this car before today?  And can I just add why he was never taken to an identification parade?

MR PRIOR: With respect Mr Chairman, if it's not within his knowledge then how could he give an explanation.  If that knowledge is peculiar within Segal or anyone else then this witness can hardly be asked to reply.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless somebody told him why we are not going to show you these photographs.

JUDGE WILSON: You can ask him if he knows why he wasn't, but you can't ask him why he wasn't because as Mr Prior said is not within his knowledge.  Does he know why he wasn't you can ask.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Well this just underlines the point, there's a lot of unanswered questions here and why then is the Audi with an XA registration number, why is that Audi connected to the vehicle which was used in the Heidelberg Tavern?  I won't take this matter any further Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you can take this matter any further to ask him why was he not shown a photograph by somebody else.  That hardly merits a sensible answer in any case.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Well I find it odd that this is the very vehicle which was found the very next morning, which was involved in the incident ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You may find that odd but why nobody showed it to him, he may not know why nobody showed it to him.  It may be odd behaviour on the part of the police ...(intervention)

MR SIBAYA: Mr Segal did not believe my evidence, he did not believe my statement.  When he took me to NY129 he said that my statement was not coherent.  He did not believe it.  I just showed him where the cars were parked.  I left him, I said if you don't believe me I don't know.

NORMAN ARENDSE: So it follows logically Mr Chairman you go and show a man, an investigating officer, this is where the car was parked.  The investigating officer by now knows that the car was found there, I mean surely you rip out the photograph or take him to where the car was impounded or kept and you say now is this the car?  Then either at that point you tell the witness thank you very much but we don't need you anymore or he becomes a material witness.  Anyway...

ADV SANDI: Remember Mr Arendse Mr Sibaya was not in charge of these investigations, the police were in charge of the investigations, or they were supposed to be investigating the matter.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Sibaya I want to put it to you, and I want you to comment, that it was Mr Segal who told you what to put in your statement?  The cap that you referred to was conveniently found in that car.  He knows the cap was in the car and he told you to talk about the cap.  And he also told you that you should mention the XA number plate and that is why you can remember the registration number.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman I don't want to belabour this point.  My learned friend must be careful, he's not putting what the witness said, the witness said Segal told him that the number plate wasn't correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you are trying to put to him that the evidence he has given in his statement and now is what he has been told to say by Mr Segal.  That is what you are really trying to get at.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Mr Sibaya listen to me carefully.  Mr Arendse is suggesting that all that you have said in your statement, the important things that you have said in your evidence about the registration number of this car and where you saw it and the fact that there was a cap in the blue car are matters which you were told to say by Mr Segal.

MR SIBAYA: I deny that.

CHAIRPERSON: You deny that.

MR SIBAYA: Mr Segal said that my statement was incoherent, he could not take me to court.  How can he say both things that, put something into my mind and also say that my statement is incoherent.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Okay.  Did Mr Segal tell you to make a statement or did he tell you that your statement is incoherent after you had given a statement out of your own?

MR SIBAYA: I did not give a statement to him, this is why he went to fetch me from my house.  He then took me to the location.  I took him there.  He said that he was not satisfied with my evidence.  He took me to the Attorney General at some point. However, he said that I did not need to go to court because my story was incoherent.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Did he tell you to give a statement?

MR SIBAYA: Who, Segal?

NORMAN ARENDSE: Segal.

MR SIBAYA: He had the other statement in his hand.  He said to me that this, my statement, is incoherent.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Did he ask you, after he said to you your statement was incoherent, did he ask you to give a better more coherent statement?

MR SIBAYA: No he just dismissed my statement because he said that the police had looked for this Audi, apparently the registration number was false, he said to me.