Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — UNKNOWN

NORMAN ARENDSE: Did you first tell Mr Segal what you saw that night before you gave your statement?

JUDGE WILSON: How many times has he said he didn't?

NORMAN ARENDSE: Please for the record can you please tell me Judge?  Just for the record Mr Chairman, I just want to say again ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The record is burdened with a lot of questions which are a repetition.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Chairman this witness' evidence, or his - it was introduced unilaterally by the leader of evidence and by their team.  The time it's taken to deal with this witness, with respect, we must be allowed the latitude to do so properly.

CHAIRPERSON: Try and avoid asking questions which have already been asked a number of times.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Well maybe I didn't get the answer then, maybe he can tell me again, because one of the factors that you take into account when you assess someone's credibility as a witness is also his memory and whether he can remember what answers he gave.

CHAIRPERSON: I am aware of that.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Maybe he will give me a different answer.

CHAIRPERSON: I am going to allow you this once.

NORMAN ARENDSE: As you please Mr Chairman.  The question is did you tell Mr Segal what you saw before you gave the statement, before they took down your written statement?

MR SIBAYA: No.  I saw Mr Segal days after I made a statement.  He fetched me from my house with my statement in hand.  He took me to the place of location because I had spoken about NY 113 and NY 115, I took him to the location.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now then comment on this, why is it recorded by Mr Lubbe, the investigator, that Inspector Etsebeth who took down your statement on the 5th of January 1994, why does Etsebeth say that he was instructed by Mr Segal, Superintendent Segal to take down your statement?  Can you comment on that?  That's on page 9 of the second bundle. "Segal told Etsebeth, take down Sibaya's statement".

MR SIBAYA: I only know Nongausa, I don't know who wrote my statement.  I only met Mr Segal days after I had made my statement.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Mr Sibaya you made two statements, one in '94 and one in '97, do you agree with me that if you made two statements three years apart, four years apart, three, four years apart, that it's more likely that the first statement you made should be accepted because it was still relatively fresh in your memory?

MR SIBAYA: I hear you Sir.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Do you agree with me that your first statement made shortly after what you saw is more likely to be acceptable?

MR SIBAYA: Correct.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now in that statement ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think we will adjourn at this stage Mr Arendse.
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MR SIBAYA: (s.u.o.)

NORMAN ARENDSE: (cont)
	Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Sibaya.

MR SIBAYA: I am listening Sir.

NORMAN ARENDSE: You agreed with me that if you had made two statements, one in 1994 and another one in 1997 then the one made in 1994, which is shortly after the incident, that that is the statement that is more likely to be - that that statement will contain more likely what you saw than the one that you made this year, you agreed with that?

MR SIBAYA: Correct.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now in that statement is it correct that you never mentioned that any one of the group of - you also in your two statements talk variously about children and then young men, but let's talk about this group of young men that you saw, you never mentioned in your statement of 1994, or in your one of 1997 that any one in that group had mentioned anyone by the name of Madasi is that right?  That name, that is not contained in either of your statements?

MR SIBAYA: I was not the person who wrote the statement.  I gave the statement verbally.

NORMAN ARENDSE: On both occasions, in '94 and this year?

MR SIBAYA: Correct.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Can I just ask again, I am sorry if I am asking again, but were the contents of these statements not read back to you before you signed them?

MR SIBAYA: What statement?

NORMAN ARENDSE: The one in 1994 and 1997, did the people who drew up these statements not read it back to you to check with you whether the contents of that statement is correct and concurs with what you want to say?

MR SIBAYA: They read it to me but I did not think that after he had read the statement to me the statement could be rectified.  I just agreed to what he read.

NORMAN ARENDSE: The first statement was an interpreter used there, when you made the first statement before Mr Etsebeth?

MR SIBAYA: No I did not have an interpreter.

NORMAN ARENDSE: And the second statement this year, did Mr Lubbe use an interpreter?

MR SIBAYA: No.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Does that then explain some of the discrepancies in your statements that you didn't understand so nicely what was in the statement because it was in English and because neither Mr Etsebeth nor Mr Lubbe used an interpreter?

MR SIBAYA: I can speak English, however, I work with English people, I can speak English and I understand it, however when one reads it to me it's a different story.

INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon it's a mistake of the interpreter.

MR SIBAYA: I cannot read English well.

NORMAN ARENDSE: You sure you can't read English?  Didn't you read from your statement yesterday while you were sitting where you are sitting now?

MR SIBAYA: Yes I was reading but I don't know all the words.  I can't even pronounce certain words properly.

NORMAN ARENDSE: But you can see a name when you see one, you can make out the name Mazibuko, you can make out the name Madasi, you can make out the name Sibaya can't you, you can do that can't you?

MR SIBAYA: I don't have a problem with Xhosa names.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Now Mazibuko's name was not on your first statement, why didn't you notice that his name was not on that statement even if you couldn't understand the English?

MR SIBAYA: That policeman said that we, Mazibuko should not be involved any further in this because he refused to come.  He said that I must just leave Mazibuko out.

NORMAN ARENDSE: So Mazibuko's name was then left out deliberately?

MR SIBAYA: It was deliberate, it was not a mistake.

NORMAN ARENDSE: And why is Madasi's name not on the first statement or on the second statement, was his name also left out deliberately?

MR SIBAYA: I am not sure about this name.  Maybe it was another name, I am not sure about it.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Ja in fact Mr Sibaya I want to tell you that on that evening of the operation at Heidelberg they were operating under different names, did you hear the name Khayalethu that evening, Khayalethu, K-H-A-Y-A-L-E-T-H-U, did you hear that name?

MR SIBAYA: No I did not.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Because you see that is the name under which Mr Madasi was operating at the time and that was the name, the code name under which he was arrested.

MR SIBAYA: I did not hear that name.

NORMAN ARENDSE: But you heard the name Madasi?

MR SIBAYA: It could have been Madasi or Madala, but it was something similar to that.

NORMAN ARENDSE: So okay can we accept then that you are not so sure now whether you heard the name Madasi that night?

MR SIBAYA: Maybe I am mistaken.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Thank you.  I think you are mistaken Mr Sibaya, in many ways.  Mr Sibaya, because you see - just for the record Mr Chairman, Mr Madasi was arrested under the name, the following name, Mcebisi, M-C-E-B-I-S-I, Nazo, N-A-Z-O.  He was arrested I think on the 5th of January at Elliot by the police under that name.  In other words the police only came to know his real name some time, presumably after he was arrested, but somehow you can recall the name Madasi.  Do you want to comment on that?

MR SIBAYA: I can't dispute what you are saying.

NORMAN ARENDSE: Did you, you know that they went to court and they were found guilty and they were sentenced, do you know that?  The case was on here in Cape Town in November 1994, later that year, do you remember that?