MS THABETHA: Mr Chair this morning we will proceed with the matter of Nkgwedi, Leeuw, May and Magoda.
I think I should put it on record that yesterday night I got a call from Mr van der Merwe who said he was only told on Friday that he isn't presenting Mr Phelane in the Jack Menera matter that we were doing yesterday so I have given him an opportunity to listen to the record to the matter which was going on yesterday and to confront with his client and as soon as he is finished with that we will proceed with his matter.
JUDGE WILSON: We will now be proceeding before the same panel as before that is myself Wilson, Judge Ngoepe and Mr de Jager with the matter of Daniel Magoda application No. 732/96 and three others, Applications No. 190/96, 5176/97 and 5175/97.
ADV. MTHEMBU: May I call inspector De La Rey. Thank you.
ADV. DE JAGER: Could you please stand and take the oath.
INSP. DE LA REY: (Duly sworn in, states).
MS THABETHA: Insp. De La Rey we have informed you of the affidavit that was handed into the hearings concerning the matter of Mr Nkgwedi, Magoda, May and Leeuw. We have given you an opportunity to have a look at the affidavit that you yourself wrote and would like you in front of the Committee Members to confirm that all the contents in this affidavit are what actually happened and all the items that we found in the respective applicants were items that were found by you and your other officials who were together with you. Is that correct?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct I confirm the content of the statement as correct.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Can you maybe give a background to who the other officers you were with on that day?
INSP. DE LA REY: Chairperson, the investigation team was consisting of myself, members of the Murder and Robbery Unit in Bloemfontein as well as members of Murder and Robbery Unit in Welkom.
ADV. MTHEMBU: If Mr Chair can bear with me I can't find the translation in this . . .
ADV. DE JAGER: Mr De La Rey if you look to Page 13 of your statement you say that you introduce yourself to the suspect Mishek May and there you found a few things.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson that is correct. After the person introduced him as Mishek May I identified myself to him and then I asked him certain questions. Yes, I had a look and I found these things on him. Yes that is correct.
ADV. DE JAGER: And in the next paragraph it is said that certain things were handed to you by Sgt. van der Watt.
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct.
ADV. DE JAGER: In Paragraph 17 you accompanied the suspects. Is that correct?
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, that is correct.
ADV. DE JAGER: Then in Paragraph 19 certain articles were shown to you?
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, that is correct.
ADV. DE JAGER: Was it found in a house?
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, that is correct, that was in suspect No. 3's in his, the wife that lived with him, it was in her Grandmother's house.
ADV. DE JAGER: And after that you visited another house where you found another bag.
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct, Chairperson, that was the home of accused No. 3's wife, or the wife that lived with him that was her parent's house.
ADV. DE JAGER: And you also found stuff like sweets and so forth? Now, what did you find in the vehicle, the motor vehicle?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, if you look at Paragraph 25 of my statement there I put it out from Item 1 to 7, it was a brown bag with certain equipment then also an overall, a blue shirt, 4, a khaki shirt, 5 it was an Hitachi Sanding machine, 6 was a hammer and there was possible paint on the hammer and then also two keys with the name on it "Post" and "Store".
ADV. DE JAGER: And then also empty beer bottles that was also found.
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, that is correct.
ADV. DE JAGER: So none of the previous items where found in the motor vehicle.
INSP. DE LA REY: No, not at all Chairperson.
ADV. DE JAGER: The articles found in the motor vehicle, could you identify it. Were they possessions of the deceased - whom did they belong to?
INSP. DE LA REY: Chairperson, yes, I don't know what evidence is allowed but from the investigation it seemed that the clothing was the possession of the accused and the sanding machine and the hammer and the keys those were the property of the deceased.
ADV. DE JAGER: Was the motor vehicle locked or was it open?
INSP. DE LA REY: No, it was not locked.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Was it during the daytime?
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, it was in the day. More or less 10 o'clock in the morning.
JUDGE WILSON:: On that, if you go back to Paragraph 17, or a I think 15, sorry. You start there at 11.20?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON:: Was that in the morning?
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, that is correct, in the morning.
JUDGE WILSON:: Then you go 11.30, 12.05 that would have been midday?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON:: And 12.15 is that just after midday?
INSP. DE LA REY: Perhaps if it could be of assistance, everything happened between approximately 10 o'clock in the morning and 3 o'clock in the afternoon that was on the same day that was 14 February.
ADV. DE JAGER: A later day you went to Mr Swanepoel and there you found Kruger Rands and also a cheque?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct. That was after the accused have been arrested.
ADV. DE JAGER: Who is this Mr Swanepoel?
INSP. DE LA REY: Chairperson, at that stage he was the owner of Ureka Diamonds in Bloemfontein. They also did transactions in gold as well as old coins.
JUDGE WILSON:: I think my colleague made a slight error there, you didn't find the cheque there, you took the cheque with you didn't you and he identified it?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct. I confiscated this cheque at accused No. 3's common law wife parent's house and it was in a bag and I gave the cheque or showed it to Mr Swanepoel and Mr Swanepoel identified it as a cheque that he wrote to a person and then he also gave the two gold coins that was in his possession back to me.
JUDGE WILSON:: So, you arrested accused 1, 2 and 3 in the course of the morning?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON:: And accused No. 4 also in the morning?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is quite correct.
JUDGE WILSON:: There is no question of you finding him sleeping in a sitting room of a - living room in a house in the middle of the night?
INSP. DE LA REY: No, Chairperson, although accused No. 2 and 3 were arrested by myself while they were sleeping in a lounge in this room and they were sleeping on the carpet in this house, it was during the day time.
JUDGE WILSON:: It was during the day time?
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, that is correct.
JUDGE WILSON:: Thank you.
ADV. DE JAGER: A further question. At the top of Page 5 you said that a first aid kit and 13 cassettes that was hidden in an oven in the kitchen?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct. I just want to look at the specific paragraph Page 5, it is paragraph 24, the end of paragraph 24. Yes, that is correct. The first aid kit as well as the 13 cassettes were in a cassette holder and it was in the oven in the kitchen.
ADV. DE JAGER: Who owned this?
INSP. DE LA REY: It was the possessions of the deceased.
JUDGE WILSON:: Any further questions?
MS THABETHA:: Inspector De La Rey on paragraph 15 you say you found accused No. 1, 2 and 3 sleeping. I want to ask you a question concerning accused No. 2. So you arrested them. Paragraph 15 . . .
JUDGE WILSON:: . . . (inaudible) you said accused No 1
MS THABETHA:: Accused No. 2, 3 . . .
JUDGE WILSON:: Accused No. 2 and 3, not 1, 2 and 3 . . .
MS THABETHA:: Ok. My mistake, accused No. 2 and 3 whilst they were sleeping - what I want know from you is, did you find anything on accused No. 2.
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, that is correct. I found a jack knife, no nothing with accused No. 2 but well with regard to accused No. 3 I found a jack knife but nothing with regards to accused No. 2 at that stage.
MS THABETHA:: In paragraph 20, one of the things that were found was a ENS(?) bread knife(?) and was it ever discovered to whom this knife belonged to?
INSP. DE LA REY: Chairperson, all the property that I confiscated and that I also note in my statement was identified by Mrs May who lived with the deceased that it was in fact the property of the deceased. There was nothing that was not identified that I confiscated that wasn't the property of the deceased except for certain documents that belonged to accused No. 3.
MS THABETHA:: Thank you, no further questions.
JUDGE WILSON:: Any cross-examination?
JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Inspector, I will take you paragraph by paragraph in according with you statement. I will start from paragraph 8.
No at the time when you entered House No. 1663, D Section are you certain that there were no people in the yard as well as in the house?
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, that is correct. There was no-one except for a young boy, he was a scholar, he was outside of the house and there was no-one within the house.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Or more a less, could you estimate how old was this scholar that you found in the yard?
INSP. DE LA REY: If I can remember correctly, it was in the region of 10 or 12 years.
ADV. MTHEMBU: And did you enquire from him if there were people in the house or not?
INSP. DE LA REY: The house was not locked, I went through the house and then I found myself that there was no-one there.
ADV. MTHEMBU: The question is, did you enquire from the scholar if there was any person in the house or not?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct, he said that there wasn't anyone in the house and then I just made sure for myself that there wasn't anyone.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Why did you say in your statement that "I enquired from the scholar if there was anyone in the house and he said no and then I proceeded to inspect the house myself"?
INSP. DE LA REY: Can you please repeat the question, I don't understand it.
ADV. MTHEMBU: I am saying why is it contained in your statement that "I enquired from a scholar that I found in the yard if there was anyone in the house or not"?
INSP. DE LA REY: At that stage I didn't mention it in my statement because I didn't think it was important because it was a child who was a minor.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Because accused No. 1's version is that when you arrived at House No. 1663 that he was in the yard in the company of two other persons, do you have any comment to make with that statement?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct. Accused No. 1 was not on the property of the concerned house, later during the investigation I established he was noticed some distance from the house where he was standing with some other persons.
ADV. MTHEMBU: In paragraph 11, you say that Sgt. Constable Yankee shouted that there were persons who were running away and you say that one of these people or persons that were running away was accused No. 1, Mr May. On what basis do you make that statement or assumption if you say accused No. 1 was standing with two other people at a distance from the house?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, after Sgt. Jantjie had alarmed me, some of the people, the bystanders stopped accused No. 1 and arrested him, they handed him over to me and later Jantjie identified accused No. 1 as one of the persons who he had been seen to have run away.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Is it correct that when you arrived at this house that you drove inside the yard with your motor vehicle?
INSP. DE LA REY: At that point the vehicle which I was using was one loaned by a Constable Jantjie, my vehicle was definitely not inside the yard, but it is possible that some of the vehicles of other members could have been in the yard at the time.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, are you dealing with credibility or anything in particular other than credibility, should we understand that you are dealing with credibility?
ADV. MTHEMBU: That is correct.
It was accused No. 1 says that when the other two people ran away, they did so from the yard, but he didn't do so and when you confront him he was inside the yard not as you have put it on your statement.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, that is simply not true it is not so that accused No. 1 was in the yard. That is not true.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Accused No. 2, sorry, accused No. 1 further says that he had no injuries on his wrist but that the injuries were on his thighs and somewhere on his buttock.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, accused No. 1 did have some old injuries apart from those on his wrists - I beg your pardon on both of his wrists.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Now, the articles mentioned in paragraph 13, are you certain that all these articles belonged to the deceased?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, I am very sure about the brown wallet and the cash in the wallet, the dollar notes contained therein and the card with personal particulars of the deceased person as well as the gold men's watch which I removed from accused No. 1's arm and also the personal particulars of the deceased were noted there, the other Husky Denim wallet I cannot remember perhaps I can just refresh my memory and look at the identified property list. Mr Chairperson, it seems to me as though the blue denim wallet, the Husky wallet was not identified as being the property of the deceased.
ADV. MTHEMBU: And you will not deny the fact that the blue denim Husky purse belonged to accused No. 1. Is that correct?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct, I cannot deny that.
ADV. MTHEMBU: And you further confirm that the manner in which these articles are set out in paragraph 13 one gets the impression that all of these articles belonged to the deceased?
INSP. DE LA REY: What I am positively sure of is the brown wallet, that was identified positively, it is difficult for somebody to identify cash but because the cash was in the wallet and there was a card with the personal particulars of the deceased on it that was also in the wallet and therefore it was identified as being the property of the deceased. The watch very definitely, yes, because his initials and surname were also on the watch and that is why it was identified positively as being the property of the deceased. All that I can say is that the cash will be difficult to prove that it was the deceased.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Furthermore inspector, when you, when accused No. 1 was arrested, was he or was he not wearing a leather jacket? Can you still remember?
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, I can remember, Mr Chairperson, at the stage when he was arrested by the bystanders and handed over to me he did not have on a leather jacket.
ADV. MTHEMBU: But accused No. 1 says that when you arrested him, you asked him, you personally asked him to remove the leather jacket because you had no money and could not afford one. Did you say that to him?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is not true at all. At no stage he didn't have a leather jacket on so I couldn't have searched it.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Accused No. 1, further says that the brown wallet that you are referring to, paragraph 13.1 and paragraph 13.3 that these items you found in the car and only the item listed in paragraph 13.2 was found on his person.
INSP. DE LA REY: That is not correct, Mr Chairperson.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Sgt. van der Watt, did he tell you where he had got hold of the articles mentioned in paragraph 14?
INSP. DE LA REY: He did tell me and after he had handed in his statement he confirmed where he had taken possession of these articles, namely the leather jacket, the hankie and the ammunition and the firearm.
JUDGE WILSON:: Who is he that both of you are referring to? You said "he" and you said "he", who are you talking about, the accuser May or are you talking about Sgt. van der Watt?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, I am referring to Sgt. van der Watt as being the person who handed the articles over to me and this is also the person who told me where he found the articles at Sgt. van der Watt.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Because Mr May says that the leather jacket referred to in 14.1 was the leather jacket you made him to remove when you arrested him and further that the items mentioned in paragraph 14.2, 14.3 and 14.4 that all these articles were also found in the vehicle.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, that is not correct, the leather jacket, Sgt. van der Watt handed it to me, also the other items, the hankie and the firearm. At no stage were these articles found in the vehicle.
JUDGE WILSON:: Did you put it to him that the leather jacket was found in the vehicle?
JUDGE NGOEPE: No, I said the articles mentioned in 14.2, 14.3 and 4.
JUDGE WILSON: Not the leather jacket?
ADV. MTHEMBU: Not the leather jacket.
JUDGE WILSON:: My recollection was that when he gave evidence he said it was found in the house (. . . intervention)
You may carry on.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Now, in paragraph 15, you say as a result of information given to you by Mr May, you went to House No. 337, how did Mr May furnish this information to you?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, he gave this information to me voluntarily, he said that some of the persons had been with him which showed to me and then took me to House 337, K Block, Botshabelo(?) where I arrested accused No. 2 and 3.
ADV. MTHEMBU: But Inspector, Mr May says that when he was arrested in the yard, he was assaulted with fists and hit with the butt of firearms and that you actually suggested to him that he should got to House No. 337 which is where some or one of his co-accused was.
INSP. DE LA REY: That is not correct. Accused No. 1 voluntarily gave the information. At no stage was he assaulted with the fist or a butt of the firearm, he voluntarily took me to address 337.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Do you remember whether or not allegations of assault were also made during the trial?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, no, I do not recall any allegations of assault during the trial, not as far as I can remember.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Accused No. 1, goes further and says that you actually mentioned to him though it mistakenly, that you had got the information that Leeuw had been involved from Leeuw's parents instead of saying from Nkgwedi's parents and that is how you then said he must take you to House No. 337 being the house of Mr Leeuw.
ADV. DE JAGER: . . . (inaudible) this really is it in order to exonerate Mr May because he split on his pals or what is the purpose of the question?
ADV. MTHEMBU: The purpose is that Mr May did not voluntarily furnish to the Inspector any information voluntarily, that the Inspector already came to Mr May having had prior information that he had obtained from Mr Nkgwedi's parents although he had said to May that information he had got from Leeuw's parents. Now you . . .
JUDGE NGOEPE: . . . (interruption) I think Adv. de Jager is asking you this because it is common cause isn't it, I mean your client's admitted that they went to the deceased place, they killed the deceased, Mr May himself agrees he was there and he took part in killing the person, how he was the one or other person was arrested, where the information came out why it was, how did the police get the information implicating another person, does it really matter, after all as I say they admit they went there and they committed this offence.
JUDGE NGOEPE: With due respect Sir, what I wanted to have test the credibility of Insp. del La Rey, I submit that it will be - it is relevant if information not furnished by him - by Mr May, for him to say in his statement that I got with that information from Mr May voluntarily who had to go after arresting him. I would submit the relevance.
ADV. DE JAGER: Didn't I yesterday ask Mr May, whether he took the police and pointed out his friends, and he said yes, he did so and he never complained that he was assaulted, he never mentioned it yesterday when I asked him.
ADV. MTHEMBU: I don't recall if he said he had taken the police to Mr Leeuw's house voluntarily. It may have been that he said he took them there, but I am, perhaps the point was not canvassed further that if he did take them there was it as a result of information that he voluntarily furnished the police or as the lot of police are saying take us to No. 337.
ADV. DE JAGER: OK. let us carry on.
ADV. MTHEMBU: My question to the Inspector is that when he went to Mr May, didn't you already have information and that addresses of the suspects that you were looking for and it was merely for Mr May to direct you to the respective houses?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, I didn't have any addresses with me before. I hadn't got any suspects in the case up to that stage before arresting Mr May so I didn't have any addresses and I really didn't have any addresses of the accused.
JUDGE WILSON:: As I understand your evidence, it was the car you found, not Mr May. Mr May then appeared on the scene when he started running away and that is when you got him. It was the car that you found at that address which you then identified as a stolen vehicle?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct Mr Chairperson. The car that actually led us to arresting accused No. 1 and the other persons. After I found the car there and identified it as being the accused missing vehicle that is where the whole thing originated, from there the arrests of 1, 2, 3 and 4 followed.
ADV. MTHEMBU: On paragraph 17, Inspector, Mr Nkgwedi and Mr Leeuw, they deny that they gave you information to go to House No. 3269 but that the information relating to accused No. 4 was given to you by Mr May?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, accused 1, 2 and 3 gave me information and the address 1684 K. Accused 4 was not found there and there we were given a report that he was at another house visiting and another person then led us to address 3269. In that house accused 1, 2 and 3 then took me to the home of the accused No. 4 although at that stage he wasn't there somebody else we found at the house took us to this other address where we then found accused No. 4.
ADV. MTHEMBU: At that stage, Inspector, where you aware if money had also being taken during the robbery or not?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct, Mr Chairperson. There was a sum of money and if I remember it was about R500.00 in cash that was taken during the robbery.
ADV. MTHEMBU: And when accused No. 4 was arrested you found the sum of R102.85c in his person. Is that correct?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct, Mr Chair.
ADV. MTHEMBU: And did you ask him whose money it was?
INSP. DE LA REY: I did ask him and that is how I also took possession of it because it was mentioned to me that it was money coming from the deceased house and on the grounds of that I seized this money.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Accused No. 4 says that it was his personal money and it had nothing to do with the money taken from the house during the robbery.
INSP. DE LA REY: That is not right. Accused No. 4 told me that it was money which they had found in the deceased house and that is why I then confiscated the money. He did not tell me that it was his personal property.
ADV. MTHEMBU: When Elizabeth Nglani handed over to you the blue plastic bag were the accused present or not?
INSP. DE LA REY: At that stage it was just accused No. 3's wife who was in the house because the space was very limited and it wasn't possible to have everybody in the house. She went in and made a report and the goods were handed over to us.
ADV. MTHEMBU: All the four applicants say that they do not know where you found this blue plastic bag and avail that this plastic bag was also in the car?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, that is not so, the bag was with accused No. 3's common-law wife that was at home 469 E and we came out with the bag and the accused must have seen the bag at that point because the evidence had been identified and marked already and placed in the vehicle and accused No. 3 was in the vehicle at the time so he must have seen this bag with us.
ADV. DE JAGER: How far was this house where the bag was found at 1684 K. Accused 4's home is that correct. I beg your pardon, 1766 C. the bag was handed to you from the house where the motor vehicle had been parked.
JUDGE WILSON:: It was handed over at 496 wasn't it, this plastic bag?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct, in the E Section.
JUDGE WILSON:: And at 1766 it was a "blou drasak".
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON:: We are talking about the plastic bag now at 496. You are talking about the plastic bag aren't you?
ADV. MTHEMBU: With due respect, it is my mistake, Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON:: Did you not mean to talk about the plastic bag found at 496?
ADV. MTHEMBU: No, I meant to talk about the blue bag
JUDGE WILSON:: Drasak?
ADV. MTHEMBU: Blue drasak.
ADV. DE JAGER: Can you give us an indication of how far these two houses were. The one where the car was parked and the other one where the blue carry-bag with the goods mentioned in paragraph 20 was found. How far are these two houses from each other.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, it is difficult to estimate the distance, they are in two different sections, Montebello(?) has numerous sections, D and E are basically next to each other, but if I have to guess it could be between 5 and 10 kilometres.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Inspector, Mr Leeuw says that the items mentioned in paragraph 20 were actually found at House No. 337 in the kitchen in a sink and that the grocery items mentioned in there were actually found in the boot of the car.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, that is not correct. You will notice later on in my statement that I mention evidence which was found at 337 K and these items were found at House, the house of the grandmother and the common-law wife's mother. As I have made a note in my statement this is how the items were found. It was not at 337 K.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Amongst the items mentioned in paragraph 21, items No. 4 and 5. Were these also part of the articles that were removed from the deceased farm or not?
INSP. DE LA REY: No, Mr Chairperson, these were not part of it, it was the property of accused No. 4 according to his own version.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Inspector, did you not deem it or at the time deem it necessary to mention if an article belonged to the deceased or not that in the manner in which this letter has been compiled it is misleading. For instance, articles 21 (4) and (5) on reading your statement, one gets the impression that these also formed part of items removed from the deceased's farm.
INSP. DE LA REY: No, I cannot agree. A full list has been compiled. It was filed and it has been attached to the charge sheet because these persons appeared in court. There was property which was missing and there was property which was recovered, so I cannot agree that it is misleading because in the file and in the possession of the court and the documents which were handed in there, this list of property which was missing and recovered was given and all the evidence relevant to that matter was submitted in court and it was tabled there so in my opinion it is not misleading.
JUDGE NGOEPE: But I think the Advocate is, his question is, looking at the statement itself without consulting the docket without consulting any other document if you simply look at your statement itself, without going outside your statement, an impression is created of the kind that he is explaining. I mean, on the face of your statement.
INSP. DE LA REY: I will agree with you that if somebody were to read my statement perhaps to them it would be misleading, but to me it is not misleading.
ADV. MTHEMBU: But you agree, Inspector, it would have been expedient for you to separate articles that belonged to the deceased and articles that belonged to the applicants or the accused?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson. Yes, as I have already mentioned, one could have done this in the statement but unfortunately it wasn't done in this way and I felt that the lists which I compiled additional were quite adequate.
JUDGE WILSON:: It would have been expedient perhaps to have later in the statement said on investigation it was found that the following articles did not belong to the deceased, which you would have complained even more bitterly I have no doubt, if he had taken goods away belonging to your clients and had not listed them as have being taken, would you? The failure is not at the end of it, after the identification to have prepared a short list and said the following items were not identified as belonging to the deceased?
ADV. MTHEMBU: Or further, Mr Chair, to have made an addendum to the very statement that articles listed in certain paragraphs were not of the deceased but of the applicants.
JUDGE WILSON:: But he didn't know when he took the articles. He couldn't identify them. He took what he thought may have been. You were not in a position to identify were you. You didn't know what belonged to the deceased. You took what you thought had belonged to him, is that no so?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is quite correct, Your Honour. You will note that the arrests were just less than two days after the murder of the deceased and at that stage one didn't have any idea of what had been stolen, so it was impossible for me and the same applies to any other case, it is impossible to identify the property. All that I can say is that all the possible articles relating to this case, these articles were confiscated and once they had been identified then you can deal with it further. It is correct as you have explained.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you with Mrs - I assume you were not with Mrs May?
INSP. DE LA REY: Not on the day that the arrests were made. At a later stage after we had sorted out all the evidence and the articles, she came to my office to identify the items which concerned her. At the stage of the arrests, as you will know it is impossible to take a witness with you when you are busy arresting somebody because it can be a very dangerous situation.
ADV. MTHEMBU: . . . (inaudible) groceries was not in the boot as the accused say and if the groceries was in the house in the kitchen as you say, how could you possibly identify grocery as belonging to the deceased and not to the household concerned?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, at all the different houses and it is not only one particular house where groceries were found and confiscated, it is coincidental that the deceased had gone to do shopping on the same day which he was murdered and it had been at one specific supermarket where he had done his shopping and all those which I found had the same labels the same boutiques of the shopping centre and that immediately confirmed to me that these were the groceries of the deceased and that is why I didn't confiscate those ones. The deceased and the lady who stayed with the deceased also identified this as property which articles which they had bought the same day, so it wasn't just one house where there were groceries it was at the house of accused No. 3's common-law wife's mother and also 337 K as well as accused 1's brother's house, so the kind of articles which I found and confiscated were the same as those which the deceased had bought that day that he was murdered and it is on that basis that the articles were identified as being the deceased property.
ADV. MTHEMBU: So, you had fore knowledge that the deceased had bought some groceries from a well known supermarket?
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, that is correct. During the investigation one does a lot of inquiries and we found out from the people that had gone to buy groceries that specific day and Mrs May also told me at a later stage that they had gone to get groceries in Bloemfontein. That is the whole reason why they wanted to come to Bloemfontein on that particular day of the murder, to buy groceries, so I did know more or less what I was looking for but I could see that firearms were missing from the safe after going through the identify document of the deceased. I knew there had to be groceries because they had gone to buy groceries.
ADV. MTHEMBU: And before of that fore knowledge when you got into the various houses, and you found some groceries with the label from that well known supermarket, you suspected that that could have well have been groceries that had been bought by the deceased?
INSP. DE LA REY: Very definitely, yes.
JUDGE WILSON:: As I understand your affidavit, what in fact happened was at House 1766 you were given a blue carry bag by Alice Tlakane(?) in which the groceries were and that she then later gave you a plastic bag also containing groceries. Is that so?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON:: You set this out in paragraph 20.
INSP. DE LA REY: That is quite correct, Mr Chairperson. Their groceries in the black bag were hidden in the room and the other.
ADV. DE JAGER: And in the same case where their groceries were, in the same bag there were two men's watches, one with the deceased's name on and the other with Mrs May's name on?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct. Mr May's particular's, her husband's particulars, I can't remember exactly but there were those particulars on them. It is unfortunate so that in the bags of groceries there were other things which could be identified positively as belonging to the deceased or Mrs May.
ADV. MTHEMBU: . . . (inaudible) take the point raised by Judge Ngoepe further for example the white pillow. On what basis would you have said that this white pillow belonged to the deceased?
INSP. DE LA REY: Are you referring to the white pillow which was confiscated at 337 K?
ADV. MTHEMBU: Paragraph 32 . . . it doesn't say, it just says at 1 o'clock, oh yes, I assumed it was House 337. Did that pillow have any distinguishing marks for you to say that it belonged to the deceased?
INSP. DE LA REY: The reason why I confiscated this particular pillow was because accused No. 2 handed it to me along with the shoes and he said it was part of the property which had been taken from the deceased's home and that is why I also took the pillow because he gave it to me with the shoes and later it was identified positively as being the deceased's property.
ADV. MTHEMBU: But Inspector, Mr Nkgwedi says that the pair of brown shoes were his. He said that in modus operandi, in that bedroom, at house No. 337, was that anything that you saw as being new or as being of quality, you just said it could not belong to them. It could only be the late Mr Fourie's property.
INSP. DE LA REY: That is not correct Mr Chairperson. The accused at No. 337 K and all the other cases voluntarily, I asked them what they had taken and it was just part of investigation, you ask people what else they took from the deceased's home and then the accused gets it out and as he took out the pillow and the shoes, accused No. 3 again took out the knife from the bag and it was after what I had asked them that they handed these articles to me. It is not so that I said yes because it is an expensive article it can't belong to them, that is not correct.
ADV. MTHEMBU: The applicants say that after the arrest of accused No. 4, Mr Magoda, that you actually didn't go back to House 337, but that instead you went to K Section at Leon Bottle Store where you went to go and buy liquor and from there you went to Bloemfontein. I am sorry.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, that is not at all true, as I have in my statement, you will notice that the course of time which expired was brief and to move between sections takes a lot of time and if you look at the time which expired there wasn't time to do other things, it was a matter of moving front one point to another and then back to that point. That kept us busy, there wasn't time for other things.
ADV. MTHEMBU: The articles mentioned in paragraph 21, Mr May says that he didn't provide you with any information but that these articles were found by the police in the vehicle.
INSP. DE LA REY: Could you please repeat your question. You have spoken about Mr May and the place where I found the items mentioned in paragraph 21 was at the home of accused No. 4, Mr Magoda and that's not where Mr May lives.
ADV. MTHEMBU: My paragraph 24 you say that as . . .
JUDGE WILSON:: Paragraph 21 you were asking him about.
ADV. MTHEMBU: No Mr Chair, I said specifically, I mentioned paragraph 24.
JUDGE WILSON:: You may have meant to, I don't think you did and the witness didn't think you did either.
JUDGE WILSON:: Paragraph 24?
ADV. MTHEMBU: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
INSP. DE LA REY: The brown suitcase was hidden under a bed and accused No. 1 took me into the house, he took me directly to the room, he personally took out this suitcase from under the bed and there I went through the contents and after that he took me to the kitchen where the cassettes and the first aid kit were taken out of the oven and the other items in the vehicle were not identified to me in person, it was in the course of the investigation that the vehicle was searched and gone through and the other things mentioned in paragraph 25 were found in the vehicle. Goods mentioned in 24 were identified to me by accused No. 1.
ADV. MTHEMBU: But Inspector, accused, Mr May, according to your version he was brought to you by a member or members of the public at House No. 1663. Is that correct and that is where you found the deceased's vehicle? Now before even going to effect further arrests of the other accused or applicants why did you not search House No. 1663 to find if you will find any articles that are connected or linked with articles removed from Mr Fourie's farm?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, at that stage I already had evidence such as the watches, the firearms which accused No. 1 could be related to the charge and I found from experience that if you delay too much at one particular place in the day before starting to look for the other persons then evidence disappears because their bush telegram is running fast and then the evidence can be lost and the suspects can escape so we acted immediately, you will notice at 337 K after we arrested accused 2 and 3 there, we locked the house with the purpose of first going to look for the other suspects and after we had found all the suspects then we went back to the houses and then we confiscated the other items, so it was just to save time to get hold of the other people that we did this.
ADV. DE JAGER: Mr De la Rey, you have been asked what Sgt. van der Watt gave to you? It's the brown leather bag, the bullets, the firearm?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct.
ADV. DE JAGER: I don't know if it is a dispute, I know it is a hearsay but where would he have got these things.
INSP. DE LA REY: In the statement of Sgt. van der Watt and what he told me orally, it was quite a distance from the house where the vehicle was found in the vicinity of another house and I think it is probably 200 m, if I can estimate the distance from the house where we were. He found this in another yard, the jacket was lying there, the firearm was under the car.
ADV. MTHEMBU: In view of the fact that the bush telegram goes faster, but not searching House No. 1663 at the time when you arrested Mr May, didn't it occur to you that maybe there will be evidence in that house which could be tampered with if you had to come at a later stage?
JUDGE NGOEPE: But I think he is saying that, after all, he did find some things which were strongly incriminating and what was important for him was to affect the arrest on the other people. Whether some further items will disappear or not, well that could have happened, but that could not have been affected his investigations that much because he had already found some items which were strongly incriminating.
JUDGE WILSON:: Well, what is also relevant is, did you leave House 1663 with the doors open and nobody guarding it or did you leave someone to keep an eye on it?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, with the vehicle which had been found there which was unlocked and the house which as I testified earlier could not be locked, I couldn't afford to leave this place unguarded, I did post somebody there, a few people in fact, with the purpose of preventing any other person from gaining access to the house of the vehicle, so the possibility that somebody could have tampered with evidence did not exist.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Inspector, as mentioned in paragraph 26, all the applicants deny that these articles were handed to you freely and voluntarily?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, after the arrests I got good co-operation from those persons arrested. There was a good understanding between us and as I have said voluntarily without being forced in any way, these items were pointed out to me and I was given certain information without using force of any kind. They voluntarily gave this information to me and the items.
ADV. MTHEMBU: But applicants May, Nkgwedi and Leeuw say that you did apply force on them by way of assaulting them at the time.
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, that is not at all true. Everything took place in Botshabelo well, it has a high population figure, there were a lot of people, there were a lot of inquisitive people and it would have been impossible for me to assault somebody in the presence of the public. This definitely did not happen, I can give you this assurance.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Lastly, Inspector, I put it to you that you have mentioned in this statement that you found certain items or certain items were handed over to you by each one of the accused or applicants in order to aid or to boost your case against the four accused?
INSP. DE LA REY: Mr Chairperson, that is definitely not the case, I could never have done something like this to say that I got something from somebody, it doesn't work that way and it did also not apply to this case.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MTHEMBU
JUDGE WILSON:: Did you give evidence at the trial?
INSP. DE LA REY: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON:: Was it alleged there that you had assaulted the accused to obtain these items?
INSP. DE LA REY: Not at all, Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON:: Do you propose to lead any other evidence? Well, rather I perhaps phrased that somewhat incorrectly and that this witness was, the affidavit was produced some time ago on the basis that if the defence challenged it, the witness would be made available for cross-examination. Are there any other witnesses who you feel should be made available to the defence for that purpose?
MS THABETHA:: No, Mr Chairperson, except that I don't know whether it is relevant to today's hearings, I would have liked Inspector De La Rey to briefly outline step-by-step what actually happened in the investigation, you know, I don't know whether it is relevant to this. In brief, like they found the car, they searched the car, from there they arrested, from there what they did.
ADV. DE JAGER: I think it is tabulated in his - even the time is given at 13.20 this at 13.40 this, so I don't think it would be . . . (inaudible) . . . If there's any other witness that you, that the applicants' representative would like to cross-examine, he should indicate it to you and then you could decide to call the witness.
JUDGE WILSON:: I think, I confirm what my colleague De Jager has said, that from the time of the finding of the car we have a complete timetable set out in the affidavit and I cannot see any need to repeat that, if there was something outside that you want to, that would be a different matter, but to deal with that investigation he has set out and I think the applicants' council has tested it and has put that certain of it is incorrect, we don't need him to tell us the same story again.
MS THABETHA:: Very well then, maybe one question. In paragraph 20, when you found Alice Thlakane(?) in the house, what actually did you request from her?
INSP. DE LA REY: If you will just bear with me for a moment. Mr Chairperson, Alice Thlakane is the wife of accused No. 3, it is as a result of her information that we went to House 1, she said there was some items which she wanted to hand over to me, so she knew exactly what we are going to do at House No. 1663 and when we got to the house she went to the cupboard, she took out the bag and she gave it to me.
JUDGE WILSON:: 1766 isn't it, not 1663?
MS THABETHA:: No, it is paragraph 20.
JUDGE WILSON:: Yes, 1766.
MS THABETHA:: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON:: Paragraph 20.
INSP. DE LA REY: I beg your pardon that is my mistake.
MS THABETHA:: Are you saying you met Alice before you actually came to House No. 1766 and she told you that there were items in the house and then she led you to the house and you, she handed over the items to you. Is that what you are saying?
INSP. DE LA REY: Yes, I had met her beforehand when I arrested accused 2 and 3, she was also living there. I found her there and then she accompanied us the whole time and that is when she reported to me that I must take her to house 1766 C where she then handed those items to me. That is how it occurred.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHA
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MTHEMBU
(Mr Mthembu would like to cross examine Mr Tchanchi and Sgt. van der Watt who are present with us today).
JUDGE WILSON:: Thank you, you are excused. Who are you calling?
WITNESS EXCUSED
MS THABETHA:: Officer van der Watt.
ADV. DE JAGER: Mr Mthembu can you kindly explain to me what's the purpose of this cross-examination. It's common cause that he has been murdered, it is common cause that they had a firearm and that they in fact killed the person with the firearm. They are asking exactly for amnesty because they did it so that is not in dispute, what is really in dispute, what are we looking for? I don't want to restrict you at all but I, if once one is admitting I've murdered the man, I have used the firearm, I indeed shot him, is it really in dispute where the firearm was at a later stage or what is going on?
ADV. MTHEMBU: With due respect if I say yes, I killed him and I robbed him and I did so for personal gain it (. . . inaudible) due respect.
ADV. DE JAGER: . . . (inaudible) the firearm was found.
ADV. MTHEMBU: . . . (inaudible) van der Watt is about a brown leather jacket(?)
PIETER VAN DER WALT:: (Duly sworn, states)
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Mthembu the, effectively you want Mr van der Walt now under oath to come and confirm as to where it is alleged he found the leather jacket so that it is no longer hearsay evidence so that it should now be confirmed as to where Mr van der Walt actually found the leather jacket, that is what you to do and so on it goes on with the other policemen so that the policemen, one after the other can come and confirm and confirm? Anyway, go ahead.
EXAMINATION BY MR MTHEMBU
ADV. MTHEMBU: Mr van der Walt is this brown leather jacket that you handed over to Mr de la Rey, how did you get hold of it?
MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson in the process in which we are trying to address the people I was in a particular yard and a black person, a man approached me and he told me that he had noticed a leather jacket. I went with him. It was around the house and there pointed out the leather jacket to me.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Mr May says that the leather jacket was removed from his person by Mr de la Rey and not handed to you over by a member of the public?
MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, that is a lie. I found the leather jacket where it was pointed out to me by the person.
JUDGE WILSON:: Is there anything else there with the leather jacket?
MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, I picked up the leather jacket and in the one pocket of the jacket I found a holder with some bullets and some .22 rounds.
JUDGE WILSON:: Anything else.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Nothing else.
MR VAN DER WALT: Nothing else was found in the leather jacket at that stage. Later on I got to know that a firearm had also been thrown away by one of the accused. I went back to where I had found the leather jacket. I searched the area and then under an old vehicle, I found a white hankie and inside the hankie there was a firearm. That is all that I found in the area at that time.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV. MTHEMBU
ADV. DE JAGER: The firearm which you found there was it investigated and is it the firearm which was used to shoot the deceased?
MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, I established from Insp. de la Rey later that this firearm was the one which was removed from the scene of the deceased.
JUDGE WILSON:: Was it one of the deceased's firearm's?
MR VAN DER WALT: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE WILSON:: This leather jacket, I know you weren't in charge of the investigation, perhaps that is an unfair question, we should perhaps have asked the previous witness, do you know who it belonged to?
MR VAN DER WALT: I have no idea, Mr Chairperson.
ADV. MTHEMBU: Did you find it in the house or just in the open?
MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, the leather jacket was lying between the house - it is a corrugated iron house and the car and I assume that the person who left it there must have moved between those two places and just thrown down the jacket on the ground.
JUDGE WILSON:: No further questions?
MS THABETHA:: No further questions, Mr Commission.
JUDGE WILSON:: Thank you.
MS THABETHA:: Mr Chair, my learned friend, Mr Mthembu says he wouldn't like to call Inspector Chanje anymore,
JUDGE WILSON: He doesn’t want?
MS THABETHA: No he doesn't want to any more.
JUDGE WILSON: He has made him available to you if you wish to cross-examine him?
MS THABETHA: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Very well, so Mr Chanje has been made available but the applicants counsel has stated that he does not wish to cross examine him or to question him? May he then be released as well?
MS THABETHA: Yes he may.
JUDGE WILSON: All the three policemen that are involved, they are released.
MS THABETHA: May I suggest Mr Chair at this stage that maybe we take a short adjournment, so that Mr M... ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: I think the time has come for the normal adjournment anyway, we started shortly after nine this morning, I think it's the normal time for taking an adjournment, we'll take the adjournment.
MS THABETHA: And then we'll proceed closing arguments?
JUDGE WILSON: Yes.
MS THABETHA: Immediately after?
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
ADDRESSES
JUDGE WILSON: Very well.
MS THABETHA: Mr Chair, as discussed with you Mr Mthembu will not be leading oral evidence on the argument, or will not be leading arguments orally. He will hand in a written argument to you. However I would like to say something in summary.
I would say in my opinion there are essentially two requirements to this whole matter of Nkgwedi. Two requirements that are necessary in as far as the promotion of national unity and the Conciliation Act is concerned, namely full disclosure and whether the act committed was associated with a political objective.
JUDGE WILSON: Whether the act was?
MS THABETHA: Whether the act committed was associated with a political objective.
On the question of full disclosure, in my opinion I think the applicants have disclosed factors to the effect that they did kill Mr Fourie ...(tape ends) , however these acts can be broken down into two, namely the killing of Mr Fourie and the robbery, that is the items that were taken at Mr Fourie's house. I will start with the killing of Mr Fourie.
Evidently from the applicant's evidence it was APLA strategy to kill the farmers to further their political objectives. In other words it appears from the evidence of the applicants that the act they committed, namely the killing of Mr Fourie, was a strategy aimed at overthrowing the government of the day which was then regarded as discriminatory. Further on it appears that the political objectivity behind was the dismantling of the apartheid regime which the government of the day was seen to be part thereof.
JUDGE WILSON: That is what they say but surely the question that has to be decided is whether that was in fact their intent or whether their intent was to enrich themselves or that to pay off past debts, and they are merely using this now as an excuse for it, and whether the further complicating factor is whether they were originally carrying out the aims of the PAC in killing a farmer to cause the overthrow of the Apartheid Regime, and they decided to commit some other act in conjunction with it to which, how much weight we should attach to each aspect.
MS THABETHA: Well I'm saying in my opinion, it appears to have been done on behalf of the organisation, because if you remember we called a commander Mr, I think, Khotle in our last hearing who came and gave evidence to the fact that Jan Shoba, who was the commander that the applicants say gave an order, did actually give such an order.
JUDGE WILSON: To kill anonymous farmers?
MS THABETHA: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: The difficulty as I see it, which I would like to hear argument on from both sides is, they selected a farmer, as my recollection is, with whom at least two of them had close connections and with whom they had a grievance. Isn't that this case?
MS THABETHA: It is the case but in my opinion I don't know, I think there are two issues. It's the killing of Mr Fourie which appears to have been political and the extent of the items which were stolen, whether that wasn't for their personal gain. I think those are the questions. I wouldn't like to proceed with my arguments on these factors, I was just outlining as a summary what this matter is about.
Can I proceed Mr Chair?
ADV DE JAGER: If you're not, are you presenting full argument now or are you outlining something, what your argument would be about? Because if you intend to file written argument, it's no use of we taking time about outlining now what your argument would be about in the future.
MS THABETHA: Very well then I'll put my argument in writing.
JUDGE WILSON: As I've indicated, I would certainly, speaking for myself, welcome argument from the applicants dealing with this point as to whether even where an act falls within a category of being the type of act that can be done for political purposes, must one consider whether this particular act was done for those or for some other purposes. And the further problem which arises, problem is perhaps the wrong word, is whether this is a matter where they have personally benefited, whether they acted for personal gain, which is very much interlocked with the first point I put that even where it is an act which on the face of it falls within the act for a political purpose, must one not consider the motives of the people who committed the act in question and speaking for myself I think for you, we would welcome argument on that point. And as I understand it now Counsel wish to reserve the question of argument and I hope that we can perhaps have argument on the factual aspects of the application by the end of this month. I am acutely aware of the fact that all the major political parties are making further representations to the TRC at the present time and there may well be matters raised in those representations which Counsel would like to have an opportunity to study and they may not be able to do that by the end of this month, so if they wish to file further argument on the legal and political interpretations they are at liberty to do so, but I think if we could get rid of the factual aspects by the end of this month, it would assist all of us while we still have some recollection of them.
ADV MTHEMBU: Thank you Mr Chair, I will do so.
Mr Chair I don't know it's so important to outline the issue of acting on instructions and the issue of acting beyond the instructions given. Because that might be deal.
JUDGE WILSON: It comes to then the question of whether what they were doing falls within the political or the personal aspect. You can be given instructions and then you can twist those instructions to suit your own wishes, and you will not then, although you claim to be acting, you will not in fact be acting on instructions, you will be taking advantage of the opportunity given by the instructions. It all links in with whether if one, how much regard one has to possible personal motives in a matter which otherwise would be political.
ADV DE JAGER: You sent the reminder they've been found guilty on two counts, one of murder and one of robbery with aggravating circumstances, and I would like to thank both counsel for the assistance they have given us during the course of the hearing.
ADV MTHEMBU: Thank you Mr Chair.
MS THABETHA: Mr Chairperson, as far as I know we're proceeding with Menera.
JUDGE WILSON: We have now concluded that matter, we are going to continue the hearing of the application of Nsemeni Jack Menera, applicant No 0015/96 which will be heard by the same committee, Wilson, Ngoepe, de Jager and we will now continue with that hearing. I should have added before that that we have concluded the evidence in the previous hearing.
MS THABETHA: Excuse me Mr Chair. There is a letter that I was supposed to read at this hearing in this matter.
JUDGE WILSON: We are reverting to the...(intervention)
MS THABETHA: I'm indebted to the Committee for this...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: ...Nkgwedi matter which I said we have just finished for the recording of a letter which has been received by the evidence leader.
MS THABETHA: This is a letter from Roelof Fourie. It says
The Amnesty Commission Bloemfontein.
To whom it may concern.
In connection with the death of our father, Roelof Fourie, who was murdered on the 12th of February 1992, we would like to bring the following facts to the attention of the Amnesty Commission.
We first learned that the four men were convicted of murder, Mr Nkgwedi, Mr Magoda, Mr May and Mr Leeuw who are seeking amnesty from a television item. We would like the opportunity to tell the court about Roelof Fourie and how he treated his workers. He built brick houses for all the permanent families on the farm, plus ablution blocks with running hot and cold water. Local farmers were not in favour of this as this raised expectations amongst their workers. He also built a school and when he saw the headmaster who was not teaching the students but taking time off, he went to the Education Department and had him replaced with a more reliable teacher.
He gave plants from his garden to those who wanted to set up their own gardens.
He used his prize bulls to breed with the workers' cattle to improve their stock..
He used the farm's vehicles to take the staff shopping on a monthly basis and also transported sick workers to doctors when needed.
He regularly killed sheep for the staff as well as supplied them with groceries on a monthly basis.
Every Christmas he ensured that every member each family resident on the farm received a gift.
He built a soccer field for the children.
Roelof Fourie was a firm but fair man who expected his employees to put in an honest day's work in return for wages which were the highest in the area. He was not involved in party politics but he was respected for his knowledge on improved farming methods in the area which benefited both inhabitants and the environment.
In addition we would like to point our that contrary to his statement the father of Sebula Nkgwedi was still resident and working on the farm Stormberg at the time of the shooting. We believe the situation has been exploited by those who want their freedom, even if it means changing the facts. At the trial all were given every opportunity to state their motive for their murder and non talked of the PAC operation. If their political convictions were so great, why did they not state this and why was there no evidence of any political support inside or outside the courtroom or in the newspapers? Can a case for amnesty be built on lies?
Another cause for great concern is that Hendrick Leeuw, after he was convicted, turned around in the courtroom and said to Roelof Fourie's grandson, Do you remember me? Yes said the grandson, It's your turn next, I will come and get you Bertrand(?) Hendrick! This was immediately reported to the prosecutor, Mr Hatting. Nothing further was heard on our side. Should a man who's already admitted to killing be set free to perhaps carry out his threat in the name of Justice? We believe that the motive for murder was robbery as the workers believed him to be a rich man. This is supported that they stole His share certificates, Kruger Rands, a motor vehicle, clothing and household effects. And not for political reasons as has been put forward.
We would like you to carefully consider the above facts before granting amnesty to the four men.
Yours sincerely
Thank you Mr Chair.
JUDGE WILSON: I would ask you please to have copies made of that letter to supply one copy to the applicant's representative, one to the three members of the Committee and one to those responsible for the recording, that they can check the document against the recording they have when they're preparing the record of the proceedings.
MS THABETHA: I will do that Mr Chair.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
We now revert to the matter of Nsemeni Jack Menera which I referred to a few minutes ago, application No 0015/96.
