Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: You are reminded that you are still under your

formal oath.

FRANCISCO CERQUEIRA: (s.u.o)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Good Morning Mr Cerqueira.

MR CERQUEIRA: Good morning Sir.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Cerqueira, yesterday at the outset I said to

you and I just want to repeat that today, that what happened that

evening, cannot be defended, it is indefensible, the killings of

everybody in that Tavern and the killing of your brother, constitutes

a gross human rights violation, there is no argument about that, so I

don't have any fight with you about that.

So, just in terms of the necessary sensitivity which this matter

and which this process warrants, I just want to assure you of that.

MR CERQUEIRA: I appreciate that.

ADV ARENDSE: But you will also appreciate that we need to get

as full a picture as possible of what happened there and at times,

you know, I am going to put things to you which you know, which

obviously you may not agree with and which you may not like, but

like with everyone else, I've got a job to do.

MR CERQUEIRA: Okay.

ADV ARENDSE: Now one of the things I put to you yesterday,

which may have caused some consternation or which may have upset

you, is the suggestion that you may not have been there.

Now, none of us and I am sure Mr Prior will also tell you

that, we as lawyers we cannot make suggestions to you if we don't

have some basis for making them. If they are purely speculative or

unfounded, then we are out of order and I am sure that the Chairman

will come to your assistance or will rebuke me if I do that.

So yesterday's suggestion from me comes out of the summary

of the evidence that the Judge made in the criminal trial. And that

comes from Mr Brode's evidence. Mr Brode, I read back to you that

he said he was there, Mr Cerqueira's wife was there I think and some

other waiter, he never mentioned your name. That is where it comes

from.

MR CERQUEIRA: Did he mention Mr Cerqueira's wife was there?

ADV ARENDSE: Sorry, let me just get it. It is on page 46. He

said and you understand Afrikaans - from line 22 Mr Chairman - he,

with Jose Cerqueira and his wife as well as another waiter stayed

behind after all the guests left the restaurant at about quarter past

eleven.

MR CERQUEIRA: Well, Sir, there seems to be a little bit of a

misunderstanding. Whoever gave you that statement, my brother's

wife was not in the restaurant at the time of the shooting.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay, so Mr Brode made a mistake, it is not

Jose's wife, it was you?

MR CERQUEIRA: I don't know how he made that mistake, but I

don't want to sound funny, but I don't look like a woman for

starters, and she is definitely very much a woman. She was

definitely not there, Sir.

ADV ARENDSE: So, you know, as far as we are concerned, we

accept that you were there, we don't have a problem with that.

MR CERQUEIRA: Thank you.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, may I be of some assistance. I don't

want to interject unnecessary, but the statement of Brode or

submissions of Brode on page 73 of the witness' bundle, which was

supplied to the legal representative where he describes the incident

in that statement, maybe that may assist my learned friend.

The middle paragraph, under the heading "The incident".

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you. I have just indicated that it was not

in issue that Mr Cerqueira was at the scene. Mr Cerqueira, just

going back to what you said then yesterday, all this happened very

quickly?

MR CERQUEIRA: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: We are talking about the matter of a couple of

minutes at most?

MR CERQUEIRA: The time seemed like an hour to me, but it was

very quick.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, yes. When you came out of the restaurant

the first time, did you observe anyone else or anything else in the

vicinity of the corner there where you were at, at the corner of

Lower Main Road and Station Road or in Station Road itself?

MR CERQUEIRA: No, when I came out, Mr Brode was standing

on the corner in front of me and then the other waiter that worked

for us, came and stood with us. That is the first observation of any

person around me, if you are talking about people.

ADV ARENDSE: And the second time you came out, did you

observe anything or anyone?

MR CERQUEIRA: There was no second time. It was the first time

I came out before the shots had been fired at us. I came out onto

the pavement.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA: The two gentlemen I mentioned was standing

there, we looked up and the car was coming down.

ADV ARENDSE: But didn't you say you went back in after that?

MR CERQUEIRA: When they started shooting at us, yes, I ran

back in, I dragged Mr Brode in. We struggled through the door and

then I came out. After - like I mentioned to you yesterday - after

going over the counter, looking for the gun, shouting for my

brother, then I came out and he was lying on the pavement.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay, that is the second time?

MR CERQUEIRA: That is the second time.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay, now the first time, apart from seeing Mr

Brode and the other waiter there on the pavement, and you dragging

Mr Brode in, you didn't see anything else or anyone else?

MR CERQUEIRA: I am not sure what you are asking me.

ADV ARENDSE: No, I mean did you see another vehicle?

MR CERQUEIRA: Are you talking about when I was inside the

restaurant or outside or ... (intervention)

ADV ARENDSE: No, when you came out?

MR CERQUEIRA: When I came out?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, you came out now twice, okay, we know

that.

MR CERQUEIRA: I came out once first, I saw the two gentlemen

standing there. I looked up and I saw one vehicle coming down. I

didn't notice any other vehicle. And when the shots were being fired

at me, believe you me, I didn't notice anything else, I just noticed

to get out of there.

ADV ARENDSE: I understood you to say yesterday, that you came

out a first time and you saw what you called a heavy laden vehicle.

MR CERQUEIRA: No Sir.

ADV ARENDSE: Move up against the one way?

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Arendse, I think you are a little bit mistaken

there. What I said yesterday was that when I was inside the

restaurant, the car - I noticed the car, if I turned to the door, I

noticed a car driving, slow down. While I was sitting in the

restaurant.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay, okay, that is fine. Then I was mistaken.

MR CERQUEIRA: Okay, Sir.

ADV ARENDSE: But you then only came out twice? Once ...

MR CERQUEIRA: Once to find out what the popping sounds were

about and then when I ran in, then I came out - looking for my

brother.

ADV ARENDSE: And then when you observed this vehicle again,

it was now coming in your direction?

MR CERQUEIRA: Correct.

ADV ARENDSE: Whereas when you were sitting ...

MR CERQUEIRA: In the opposite direction.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, when you were sitting in the restaurant, you

saw it going that way?

MR CERQUEIRA: Going up.

ADV ARENDSE: And that was a matter of minutes?

MR CERQUEIRA: Yes, Sir.

ADV ARENDSE: The interim?

MR CERQUEIRA: Yes, Sir.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, when you came out the second time, did

you observe any other vehicle or any other persons in the street?

MR CERQUEIRA: No, Sir. At the time there was so much fear

and so much confusion, I was only concerned for my brother and I

went straight onto the pavement where my brother was.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay.

MR CERQUEIRA: He was actually in the gutter, not on the

pavement. That is the second time when I came out.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay. Now, the first time you went out and you

pulled Mr Brode in, what did you see?

MR CERQUEIRA: The first time when I went out and pulled Mr

Brode in?

ADV ARENDSE: When you went out and pulled Brode in, yes?

MR CERQUEIRA: I went out, I saw Mr Brode standing there with

the waiter and then the gunshots were being fired at us. I looked

up, it was the same vehicle. It looked to me like the same vehicle,

the same dark vehicle, I can't put a colour to it, it was coming down

in the opposite direction.

The same type of vehicle, the nose was up in the air, like this

and the people were firing at us. That is the second time I went out.

I dragged Mr Brode in because he froze in the doorway, he had

been shot in the leg and against the wall, the first shots hit the wall.

That's when I dragged him in with fear, I went through.

ADV ARENDSE: Did you see anyone in front of the Tavern?

MR CERQUEIRA: In front of my Tavern?

ADV ARENDSE: No, in front of the Heidelberg Tavern when you

... (intervention)

MR CERQUEIRA: Did I see anybody?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes?

MR CERQUEIRA: I can't say I did. I can't say I did.

ADV ARENDSE: You were looking at the car because shots were

coming from the car?

MR CERQUEIRA: Correct Sir.

ADV ARENDSE: You were focused on the car?

MR CERQUEIRA: I was focused on the car.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay.

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Arendse, in circumstances like that when

you are being shot at, there is not many things that you can observe,

other than look out for your safety. And I was looking out for Mr

Brode's safety as well.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes. No, I understand. Now, so at which point

then did you, you said yesterday that you saw someone at - it

sounded to me that someone sitting at the back, firing at that side of

the road, or firing towards the opposite side of the Heidelberg

Tavern and Machados?

MR CERQUEIRA: When I came out and stood with Mr Brode

before they started shooting at us, the shots of gun and I saw the

one barrel being stuck out, sort of out of the roof like this, and the

person's head from the back.

And then another guy on the right hand side of the car, sorry

the left hand side of the car, shooting towards us. They weren't

shooting direct at us at first, they were shooting like sort of at an

angle straight at the wall. And then the guy turned the gun on us

and started shooting, that is when I grabbed and ran inside.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA: The car was travelling very, very slowly.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes. Maybe I can tell you that there was

someone on the corner of Lower Main Road and Station Road. It

seems that more or less the same time that you observed what

happened.

I will read to you from page 45 of the record and page 46 Mr

Chairman, from lines 22 onwards. An employee of the Cape Town

City Council, John Jacobs, was on duty that Thursday evening of the

30th of December 1993. He was patrolling the streets to see

whether all the street lights were burning. He and a colleague were

driving alone Lower Main Road in Observatory from north to south.

As they arrived at the corner of Lower Main Road and Station

Road, they heard sounds like gun fire or fire crackers and saw three

men emerge. Since they wanted to turn into Station Road, they saw

three men in a car, against the one way, in Station Road, driving in

their direction. They were then forced to wait for this motor

vehicle. Mr Jacobs heard gun shots at the very moment when

someone emerged from the door of the facility on the corner of

Station Road and Lower Main Road. He saw the end of a rifle

sticking slightly out of the back passenger window of the vehicle. It

was clear to him that someone was firing from the motor vehicle at

this person. He had fallen flat in his motor vehicle and then when he

lifted his head again, he saw the person who had emerged from the

door of the corner facility lying in the storm water drain in Station

Road.

Now, that version doesn't exactly correspond with what you

observed, do you agree with that?

MR PRIOR: With respect, that is not so and I must object. In the

summary given by the learned Judge it is connected by the witness

Jacobs to the firearm he sees protruding, or the barrel he sees

protruding out of the vehicle. He links that firing with that firearm.

He doesn't say that the man who was shot at, was in fact firing.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that so, Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, can the witness just comment. It

is not a trick question. I have just read to him what Mr Jacobs said

and I am asking him whether that corresponds with what he has told

us. That is all, I have made no suggestions or allegations that shots

may have been fired from the person on the corner, and this would

have been your brother Mr Cerqueira. I made no suggestions. I am

just asking for your comment.

CHAIRPERSON: I want you to know that what Counsel has read

out to you, is the Judge's summary of the evidence that was led

before him on this aspect of the matter. Do you understand?

MR CERQUEIRA: Sure.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are invited to comment on that passage

that has been read to you.

MR CERQUEIRA: I have got no comment Sir.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you. Now, just on the issue of the gun,

your brother's gun in this case. Is it correct, you can't tell us apart

from saying to us that the Police, or a policeman looked at the gun

and said that no shots were fired out of the gun, you cannot say

under oath whether or not your brother fired a shot or shots at any

of the Heidelberg attackers?

JUDGE WILSON: He has said under oath that his brother didn't

have a gun. That he went to where his brother's body was, and he

didn't have a gun. Hasn't he, isn't that the evidence he gave

yesterday?

ADV ARENDSE: No, I didn't understand it to be that clear Judge,

with respect. What we heard yesterday and Mr Cerqueira is here to

correct me, is that some time afterwards, it may have been five to

ten minutes after the late Mr Cerqueira was picked up from the

pavement, Mr Brode produced the gun to the Police.

MR CERQUEIRA: No Sir.

ADV ARENDSE: His evidence was that he picked up this bag on

the pavement.

JUDGE WILSON: His evidence was he went to his brother how

was shot under the left arm. He had no firearm, he had a bag in his

hand. Wasn't that your evidence yesterday?

MR CERQUEIRA: That is correct.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Cerqueira, did you see a gun? Did you see

your brother's gun?

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Arendse, like I've just told you, like the

Judge has told you, I didn't see no gun. When I got to my brother's

body, he was lying there, he was choking in his blood. I found the

pouch that I produced yesterday next to his body and there was no

gun there. The gun was later given to me by Mr Brode, to my hand.

I held it in my hand. The Police arrived, asked me if there was

shots being fired by the same gun, I said no, please check it.

The Policeman checked it, took it, gave it to another

Policeman, he made a statement which I didn't. I didn't make any

statement, he made some sort of statement. He wrote on the thing

and they took the gun. I don't know what happened to the gun

afterwards to be quite honest with you.

ADV ARENDSE: Yesterday I read Mr Brode's, the summary of his

evidence to you. Do you remember that?

MR CERQUEIRA: I do remember Sir.

ADV ARENDSE: And he mentioned nothing about the pouch or

the bag which you produced here?

MR CERQUEIRA: Or the gun?

ADV ARENDSE: Well, he spoke about the gun and I recall saying

it is unfortunate that it is just left at where he said and I quote on

page 47 on the top. "He called to Cerqueira to take his firearm in

hand which he kept behind the bar counter. He then realised that

Cerqueira was not in the restaurant.

That is all he says about the gun.

MR CERQUEIRA: He is quite correct, that is what he did. He

went in shouting with me, we were both shouting for the gun. I

shouted at Mr Brode, get Joe, get my brother and he was shouting

for my brother as well. That is quite correct.

ADV ARENDSE: So is it unreasonable to infer from what one

reads there, that your brother may have left with the gun or that

when he looked under the counter, there was no gun, you brother

wasn't there and he had run out with the gun?

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Arendse, isn't it also reasonable to believe if

one had a gun in his hand and he is being shot and he is dying on the

pavement, that the gun would be lying next to him? I found no gun

next to him.

ADV ARENDSE: Someone else may have picked up the gun? Mr

Brode may have picked up the gun. How do you know that he didn't

pick up the gun?

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Brode got to the body after me, I was there

first. I got to the body, my brother was lying there, choking in his

blood. Mr Brode came up to me and asked me is he gone? What's

wrong and he sat on the pavement, put his head in his hands and he

started crying.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, unfortunately Mr Brode had already made a

mistake by mentioning Mr Jose Cerqueira's wife, but is he also

making a mistake by not - if obviously assuming the Judge's

summary is correct - is he making another mistake by not mentioning

that you were there first - by not mentioning you at all?

One gets the impression from reading this that he was the only

one who got to your brother, picked him up, held his head in his

arms. He doesn't mention you at all?

MR CERQUEIRA: Sir, with due respect to the statement you've

got there. That you will have to ask Mr Brode. Like I mentioned to

you, I was there first and Mr Brode came afterwards.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA: And my sister in law was definitely not in the

restaurant at any time during the shooting, or before the shooting.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes. You see, I am referring to page 73 Mr

Chairman, of the second bundle where we have Mr Brode's

statement. I am not sure what day it was made, but it seems to be

the 22nd of October 1997. And I will just read to you again what he

says.

I am reading from paragraph three, the sub-heading "the

incident". I had been on duty at Machados restaurant on the night

of 30 December 1993, when the incident in question took place.

The restaurant had been quite full that evening, being the festive

season and everyone was in a jolly mood.

After the restaurant had closed, the owner Joe Cerqueira, his

brother and another colleague whose name I can't remember, had

been clearing the restaurant and set about preparing the restaurant

for the next day's business when we heard what we assumed was a

car backfiring in the road outside. This sound continued and we

thought it may also be the sound of fireworks thrown by some

partygoers outside.

I was the first to walk out of the restaurant to investigate and

was followed by my colleagues. I saw individuals coming out of the

Heidelberg Tavern, which is located next to Machados restaurant.

They were making their way to a dark coloured car. I saw what I

again thought was flares or fireworks and then noticed these

individuals were firing automatic machine gun fire in all directions.

Once they spotted me and my colleagues, they fired in our

direction. In the resulting confusion, we pushed our way back into

the restaurant and took cover as best we could. I remember lying

flat on the floor of the restaurant.

On page 74 at the top - once the firing had stopped, I ran out

of the restaurant, it was at this stage that I saw the deceased, Joe

Cerqueira lying, dying in the gutter. He had been shot in the chest.

The result was complete mayhem as people ran around in shock,

shouting for help. It was only at this stage, when I knelt down next

to the deceased, that I realised that I had been shot in the leg.

My thoughts at that stage were about Joe Cerqueira and I

remember thinking Joe, you can't die now. The exact details of what

happened after that, are not clear to me.

So, in that statement too, he doesn't mention you specifically,

although he may have meant when he said once they, that is now the

... (intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: What about his brother? Is that not this

witness?

ADV ARENDSE: If you can't just give me a chance to finish, I am

just going to clear that up now?

JUDGE WILSON: You started by saying he does not mention you

specifically.

ADV ARENDSE: That is right.

JUDGE WILSON: You don't think that is correct?

ADV ARENDSE: That is right, he doesn't mention him specifically

and I am trying to clear that up by saying that he must mean that his

colleagues, he was clearly referring to the people who were with him

- his brother and another colleague.

So he must have meant that you were in that same group when

he says the firing was at you and his colleagues?

MR CERQUEIRA: Well, he mentions brother, so I am his brother

and colleagues. There were other colleagues, which was Michael,

which was the waiter that I mentioned before. Yes, I would say so.

ADV ARENDSE: Well, it is just that from what you are saying,

you appear to play a leading role, you went outside, you pulled Mr

Brode in.

MR CERQUEIRA: I did.

ADV ARENDSE: You went back outside, you went to your brother

first?

MR CERQUEIRA: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, I am just asking, one would have thought

that Brode would mention these things.

MR CERQUEIRA: I don't know Sir, you would have to ask Mr

Brode. I am telling you like it is, you are asking me the questions, I

am giving it to you.

ADV ARENDSE: Fine.

MR CERQUEIRA: And if Mr Brode's statement seems wrong to

you, you would have to ask Mr Brode.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, now do you respect what I am just putting

to you, it is not what I am saying because clearly I wasn't there. I

am just reading to you what is in the documents before us?

MR CERQUEIRA: Sure, I do that, but you seem to be battering me

all the time about Mr Brode's statement. I am not here about Mr

Brode, I am here about my brother and I am giving you, like you've

asked the truth, I am telling you how I saw it. I am telling you that

is the story.

If Mr Brode has got something different in that statement, I

am sorry Sir, but you would have to ask Mr Brode. I wasn't there

when Mr Brode gave the statement, I am telling you like it is when I

was there, and I was definitely there. Because as you've mentioned

in your statement, I am glad you brought it up about the brother and

colleagues, because I am very much his brother.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, with respect, it is difficult - the way in

which my learned friend asks the questions, he wants the witness to

answer a question how another witness or why another witness said

certain things in his statement and that is within the peculiar

knowledge of that other witness.

Mr Brode will be called and he obviously will answer

questions on the differences between the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless Mr Arendse is going to suggest that this

witness was not there, you see.

MR PRIOR: Yes, Mr Chairman and or fabricating his evidence I

don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, fabricating or not but unless Mr Arendse is

going to suggest to him, look you were not there.

MR PRIOR: Well, then that is a valid question.

ADV ARENDSE: Well, it must also surely be valid if there are two

people who said they were at a particular scene, that you can put the

one person's version to a witness. I mean, am I not doing that?

CHAIRPERSON: You can put that to him, but you can't ask him

why did the other chap not mention your name, that is going too far.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Cerqueira, you were not here from the

beginning of these proceedings and you were not here when Mr

Gqomfa, that is the applicant on your far right, was giving his

evidence?

MR CERQUEIRA: No, I was not here.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay. Now, I am not sure whether Mr Brode

was here all the time. But Mr Gqomfa said that after he got into the

vehicle, he was one of the attackers, he heard shots fired in his

direction and he responded by shooting in the direction where the

shots came from and at no stage was he challenged on that

statement.

MR PRIOR: With respect, Mr Chairman, I have a recollection that

it was put to the applicant that he wasn't fired at. And I speak

under correction.

ADV ARENDSE: I think we need to find that, it was never put to

Mr Gqomfa that ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You can find that, but put your question

nevertheless.

ADV ARENDSE: I am just putting it, I think it is important then to

clear this up because Mr Brode, I am just putting it to you Mr

Cerqueira, Mr Brode, if he was here, and if he was with you and saw

more or less given detail here and there, that he saw more or less

what you saw and heard what you heard, it was never as far as Mr

Gqomfa's statement is concerned, as far as his evidence is

concerned, it was never put to him that shots were not fired and that

he is either mistaken or that he is lying.

MR CERQUEIRA: Sir, like you say I wasn't here so I don't know.

I don't know, but I would also like to at some stage to ask Mr

Gqomfa, is it, is that the gentleman's name, is it Mr Gqomfa?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Gqomfa, if the three of us, which one of us

was shooting at him, because we were being shot at. I had nothing

in my hand, Mr Brode had nothing in his hand, why was he shooting

at Mr Brode and myself?

There were four of us standing there?

ADV ARENDSE: But we know from your evidence ...

(intervention)

MR CERQUEIRA: If he says that my brother was shooting at him,

how come did he shoot at us in the first place? Does he also say

that I had something in my hand or that Mr Brode or that Mr

Michael had something in his hand?

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Cerqueira, we also know from your evidence

and from what Mr Brode said that your brother had run out, even

before the two of you got to him.

MR CERQUEIRA: Sorry, could you repeat that?

JUDGE WILSON: That was after the three of them had been out,

they had been shot at, they have gone back into the restaurant. It

was then that they started looking for the brother, they had not seen

the brother outside when the three of them were outside. Is that not

quite clear from his evidence?

ADV ARENDSE: I am not sure whether that is so clear Judge.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, that is what he said and up to now, you

haven't challenged it Mr Arendse. He said Brode went out first, he

came out and the other colleague came out. They then started

shooting at them, and he pulled Brode back into the restaurant. You

put that to him a moment ago that he pulled Brode back.

ADV ARENDSE: I also put it to him that Brode said he ran inside,

looked for his brother, this is on page 47 he called at Cerqueira to

take his firearm held behind the bar counter into his hand.

JUDGE WILSON: That's after he had been shot at, start at the

bottom of page 46 "as fire was aimed at him, he realised that they

were shooting at him from the motor vehicle, he swung around to

run inside."

ADV ARENDSE: Then he runs inside and he realises that

Cerqueira is not inside.

JUDGE WILSON: He has spoken throughout and this witness has,

of being shot at while the three of them were outside. They were

not shooting at that stage. You can't ignore that Mr Arendse.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse, I think in fairness to you, you are

putting to this witness what Gqomfa said. Gqomfa said that he saw

somebody or he heard somebody firing at him, whereupon he fired at

that person, he shot at that person. You are putting that question to

this witness.

ADV ARENDSE: That is correct Mr Chairman, there is no basis

for Judge Wilson intervening in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no.

JUDGE WILSON: What I am suggesting Mr Arendse, you were

putting it on the basis that that is why Gqomfa began shooting,

because somebody was shooting at him.

But there is the evidence of this witness that Gqomfa had

already shot at them even if the brother went out afterwards with a

gun.

ADV ARENDSE: I don't propose taking this point any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cerqueira, in fairness to the applicants,

Counsel says that this is what the applicant said. Now, I don't want

you to argue back, you are given a chance to admit or deny whether

that is what happened and that he, Mr Gqomfa, fired only after

somebody else had fired at him. That somebody else was your

brother, that is what he is putting to you because that is what Mr

Gqomfa had said.

Now, from the answer you had given, it seems that you

disagree with that?

MR CERQUEIRA: I do Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, just say that you disagree with that.

MR CERQUEIRA: I disagree.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on, Mr Arendse.

ADV ARENDSE: Did you say yesterday Mr Cerqueira, that you

made a statement to the Police or that you don't understand why

they didn't take a statement from you at all?

MR CERQUEIRA: No, I said they took a statement from me the

following day and the gentleman wrote it down. It was Mr Lennon

Knipe was there and some other Police Officer was there in civilian

clothes and he took me to the counter and I said what I saw, and he

wrote it down.

ADV ARENDSE: And you made that statement, you know they

usually ask you to take the oath and so on, and you signed the

statement?

MR CERQUEIRA: If you are asking me if I took the oath, I can't

remember, but he did definitely take the statement.

ADV ARENDSE: Can you remember signing the statement?

MR CERQUEIRA: I think so. I could be under correction, but I

think so.

ADV ARENDSE: Let me just read to you what Mr Gqomfa said in

his written statement. Unfortunately we don't have a transcript

available of what he said when he was giving evidence.

He says the attack lasted for about two to three minutes. I

then withdrew last. The others were already in the car which was

idling and was moving very, very slowly in the direction of the robot

against the one way.

After I got into the car, when we approached the robot, some

shots were fired in my direction. I rolled down the window and

opened fire. I now know that the fire which I had returned, had hit

one Jose Cerqueira and had fatally wounded him. That is what he

said. Do you want to comment on that?

CHAIRPERSON: You have already put that to him.

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Arendse, Mr Gqomfa can say what he likes.

There was no shots fired at him, certainly not from myself or Mr

Brode or Mike or for that matter, from my point of view, from my

brother, because if he had fired shots with a gun, the gun would

have been lying next to his body. And when I came out, the only

thing that was lying next to his body was the pouch, a whole lot of

blood and nothing else. So I don't see how he could have shot with

a pouch.

So I think Mr Gqomfa is not telling the truth.

ADV ARENDSE: Is it possible that the gun could have been in the

pouch?

MR CERQUEIRA: No, I don't think so because if we take a similar

gun and try and fit it in that pouch, I don't think it could fit in there.

ADV ARENDSE: Tell, us then, what gun are we talking about

here?

MR CERQUEIRA: We are talking about a long barrel 45.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, we are talking about a pistol?

MR CERQUEIRA: Correct.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA: Semi automatic pistol.

ADV ARENDSE: And my instructions are that the shots that came

from the direction of where Machados is, came from a pistol.

MR CERQUEIRA: I don't know Sir, that is what you are telling

me, I don't know.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, now you told us earlier, and I understand

and I agree with you, everything happened very quickly.

MR CERQUEIRA: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: When you came out and you saw your brother

lying there, surely your focus was on your brother, trying to retrieve

his body, trying to see whether he was alive?

MR CERQUEIRA: Yes, the focus was on my brother, yes.

ADV ARENDSE: You weren't looking out for a gun or for any

other item for that matter.

MR CERQUEIRA: You are quite correct, I wasn't looking for any

other item. It just so happened, that when I lifted my brother's

head, the pouch was lying next to his head and I noticed the pouch

lying next to his head.

ADV ARENDSE: And the gun might have been lying somewhere in

the gutter? Is that not possible? Is it not possible that it could have

been lying somewhere?

MR CERQUEIRA: I did not see any gun.

ADV ARENDSE: No, I accept that you did not see any gun. I

accept that, okay.

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Arendse, many things can be possible.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, that is all I want to know.

MR CERQUEIRA: I did not see a gun, I picked up my brother's

head, the pouch was lying there next to his head. Mr Brode came,

surely he would have noticed the gun as well. And after a couple of

minutes, after five minutes or ten minutes after, I don't know, then

he handed me the gun. You would have to ask Mr Brode where he

got the gun.

ADV ARENDSE: Because you see it is, why, for what reason

would Mr Brode just hand, we are going to ask that, I just want

your comments. For what reason would Mr Brode hand a gun to the

Police when a gun didn't figure at all in this situation?

JUDGE WILSON: Did Mr Brode hand a gun to the Police?

ADV ARENDSE: That is what the witness said, Judge.

MR CERQUEIRA: No Sir, I didn't say that.

JUDGE WILSON: He said Mr Brode handed the gun to him and he

handed it to the Police.

ADV ARENDSE: Oh, it is the same thing.

MR CERQUEIRA: It is not the same thing, it is two different

things. Mr Brode gave me the gun and I gave it to the Police.

ADV ARENDSE: That is better then. I am glad that's been cleared

up, that is better then. Why did he hand the gun to you if the gun

didn't feature at all in this situation?

MR CERQUEIRA: I've got no idea, you will have to ask Mr Brode.

ADV ARENDSE: I mean if the gun was just lying where it usually

lay under the counter, or in a desk drawer or whatever, there is no

reason that one can think of why the gun should just be produced

and given to you?

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Arendse, are you suggesting when gunshots

had been fired all over the street, when a man was lying dead in the

gutter, you think of logical reasons? Surely any person there who

knew there was a weapon available, would want to have it in his

possession? Wouldn't you ... (intervention)

ADV ARENDSE: No Judge.

JUDGE WILSON: If they came back, so you would be in a position

to do something?

ADV ARENDSE: No, no. I wouldn't.

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Arendse, at the time I didn't have a gun with

me, but I was hoping that I had a gun with me. I was hoping that I

had a gun with me, and that is why I went into the restaurant,

shouting for the gun to protect myself because when somebody is

firing shots at you, surely Mr Arendse, even in your case, you would

have also hoped for something to defend yourself with? Isn't that

so?

ADV ARENDSE: Well, exactly.

MR CERQUEIRA: Thank you very much.

ADV ARENDSE: I want to suggest to you then, that your brother

did want to defend himself and that is why he ran out with a gun.

And that is why he aimed shots, you agree he was a brave man in the

ordinary course? He stood up for himself, he stood up for his

rights? He worked hard?

MR CERQUEIRA: My brother was a very soft man, in fact if I was

the one that got shot I would have said more that I am the

aggressive man.

ADV ARENDSE: Well, I mean let's not get into the semantics.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse, I think yes please, just move on ...

(intervention)

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, he ran out with, I want to suggest to you

Mr Cerqueira, he went when he heard the popping sound, the

cracking sound, he ran outside, he took his gun and he aimed shots

at the attackers, as they got into the car. And those are the shots

that Mr Gqomfa says was fired in his direction.

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Arendse ... (intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Are you now saying he shot up the road as they

got into the car outside the Tavern, is that what you are now

putting? Is that your version on behalf of your clients?

ADV ARENDSE: Well, if could hardly be anything else. What can

it be, I mean Mr Gqomfa ... (intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: I want to know, I am asking you Mr Arendse, is

that the version you are putting that as they got into the car in front

of the Tavern the deceased shot at them?

ADV ARENDSE: Let me not put words into Mr Gqomfa's, this is

what is in his statement. He says, he withdrew last, the others were

already in the car which was idling and was moving very slowly.

After I got into the car and we approached the robot, some shots

were fired in my direction.

JUDGE WILSON: After I got into the car and when we approached

the robot? What you put to the witness a moment ago was as they

were getting into the car, that is what I queried Mr Arendse.

There is no suggestion at any shots were fired at them while

they were getting into the car.

ADV ARENDSE: When he was in the car, the shots were fired Mr

Cerqueira. I am suggesting to you that it was your brother who

fired those shots. And he is the only one who could have fired those

shots and that explains why Mr Brode produced the gun, handed it

to you and you handed it to the Police. There is no other reason

why that gun would have been produced to the Police.

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Arendse, like I said earlier on, there was no

way in my view, like you've got your view that you've just given me,

there is no way in my view that my brother could have shot at the

car when they were getting into the car out of the Heidelberg Tavern

because myself, Mr Brode and Michael was standing in front where

we were taking the shots, so if my brother had to shoot, this is just

an assumption that I am making like you are Sir, he would have had

to shoot us first before he shot at anybody else.

And I would have heard the shots from behind me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse, I think you've got an answer. He

does not agree with the way, he does not agree with the evidence

that you are putting to him, that is Mr Gqomfa's evidence and he has

denied that, now can we move on from there?

ADV SANDI: Mr Cerqueira, did Mr Brode say anything to you as

he was giving you the gun?

MR CERQUEIRA: Not that I can recall Sir, no.

ADV SANDI: He just gave you the gun?

MR CERQUEIRA: He just gave me the gun. He said he is Joe's

gun, I think that is what he said, something to that effect.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on please.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Cerqueira, I also want to just put something

for the record. I find it very odd Mr Brode gave a statement, he

gave evidence in court and he gave a statement to the Investigators

of this Committee. Mr Gqomfa gave his evidence as I have read it

out to you.

And he wasn't challenged on that at all. Now, this is a critical

aspect, you agree with that, it is a critical aspect?

MR CERQUEIRA: I agree, it is a very critical aspect, especially

when somebody get shot at.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, for no reason apparently?

MR CERQUEIRA: For no reason.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, for just standing on the corner?

MR CERQUEIRA: Correct.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA: Very critical.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, you know, have you got any explanation

why it wasn't raised?

MR CERQUEIRA: Sorry?

ADV ARENDSE: You didn't want to be part of this process?

MR CERQUEIRA: No Sir, like I mentioned yesterday. I didn't

want to be part of this process because they had already been

sentenced, and I was quite prepared to forgive the whole thing, not

forget, I still haven't forgotten. I still haven't forgotten, to forgive

until these allegations came up that my brother was shooting at

them.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA: Surely, you know, then I battled with my mind.

That if my brother was shooting at them, then surely when they

were shooting at us, we must have been shooting at them as well.

Were we shooting at them or not?

CHAIRPERSON: All this is a repetition of a great deal of evidence

we have already heard. Can we move on.

ADV ARENDSE: Were you approached at all by the TRC

Investigators to make a statement?

MR CERQUEIRA: They contacted my sister-in-law and I told my

sister-in-law that I didn't really want anything to do with that, and

so did she. I think they did contact her. I was told by the family

and I said the people had been sentenced, and I don't want anything

to do with it. Quite happy with that. Quite happy to forgive, but

not forget. I haven't forgotten, it might take me another year or

two, I don't know.

ADV ARENDSE: You are very angry, is that right, about what

happened to your brother?

MR CERQUEIRA: Sir, must I be quite honest with you?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes. We want nothing else here in this court.

MR CERQUEIRA: I can't find, this is the Truth and Reconciliation

Committee, I can't find anger in my gut when I look at that man, but

today I must be, with due respect to you, I am very angry at you the

way you handled things yesterday, I was very angry.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA: I was very, very angry Sir. Like you

mentioned, when you stated that I wasn't on the scene. And yet

today you read to me another statement where it actually mentions

that the brother was in the restaurant and colleagues.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA: How come you overlooked something like that?

ADV ARENDSE: Because Mr Cerqueira, must I give you an

answer?

MR CERQUEIRA: Yes, please.

ADV ARENDSE: On the first part of being angry with me, I feel

sorry for you, okay and I forgive you. Are you a Christian?

MR CERQUEIRA: I am.

ADV ARENDSE: Aren't you taught to forgive?

MR CERQUEIRA: Sir, what I am taught and what I am not taught,

has got nothing to do with you.

ADV ARENDSE: How long have you been in this country?

MR CERQUEIRA: Are you a Christian Sir?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to put a stop to this kind of questions.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Cerqueira, I put to you what the Judge had

summarised and what was said in a court of law under oath. This

statement in here means absolutely nothing. This is not under oath

and it is not signed by Mr Brode.

Are you still saying that I was unfair not to put that to you?

MR CERQUEIRA: Sir, when you ask me questions about Mr

Brode, I think you are very unfair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse, what a witness' opinion is of

Counsel, is a matter of no concern to the Committee.

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Harmse, I am not interested in Mr Brode's

... (intervention)

ADV ARENDSE: It is Arendse, okay, Arendse, not Harmse.

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Arendse, I am not interested in Mr Brode's

statements. I came here ...

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I must object at this line of ...

(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I am going to stop these proceedings for a while

Mr Arendse, if it is necessary. I've told you once before please get

on with the facts and not your personal differences or his differences

towards you.

You've got to take whatever he says. If he is unhappy with the way

you've questioned him, please you are doing your duty as Counsel,

but don't involve in argument about that. Carry on with your

questions Mr Arendse.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Cerqueira, I want to suggest to you, I want

to put it to you that because you are angry, angry at me, angry at

the applicants, angry ... (intervention)

MR CERQUEIRA: I am not angry at the applicants Mr Arendse, I

am angry at you.

ADV ARENDSE: Well, now that you are angry at me, I want to

suggest to you and put it to you that because of your anger, you

don't like to hear that there is a possibility that your brother may

have had a firearm and may have shot at the applicants, at one of the

applicants as he says he did.

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Arendse, I am not saying there isn't a

possibility, there is always a possibility of 1001 things that could

have happened. What I said to you is that when I got to the body,

there was no gun. I didn't see the gun. Mr Brode came and sat

next to us on the pavement, he didn't see any gun and a little while

later, he only produced the gun. Therefore Sir, with due respect, I

think ask Mr Brode where he got the gun. I don't know where he

got the gun. He might have got it in the restaurant at a later stage,

I don't know. But yes, there is a possibility, there is 1001

possibilities.

ADV ARENDSE: Can I just ask you again. It seems odd to us

that, is me and my colleague, that after the attackers are gone, a gun

is produced. For what reason can that possibly be?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, with respect, this question has been

asked again and again in several ways. Answers have been given and

the Committee has already given a ruling for Mr Arendse to move

off onto something fresh. I must now object and ask for a final

ruling on this particular aspect.

ADV ARENDSE: I will leave it there.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed with the next question Mr Arendse.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Cerqueira, when you came out ...

(intervention)

MR CERQUEIRA: Sorry, it is Mr Cerqueira.

MR ARENDSE: Cerqueira right. When you moved back in, you

pulled Mr Brode in, the other waiter came in with you, your brother

didn't come in with you?

MR CERQUEIRA: No, Sir. I didn't see my brother, that is the

reason why I came inside the restaurant, shouting for my brother.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, yes, because when you came out, your

brother was already outside, he must have been outside?

MR CERQUEIRA: No, he was not outside. There were only three

of us standing outside, Mr Arendse.

ADV ARENDSE: But I thought you said you came outside to look

for your brother?

MR CERQUEIRA: No Sir, I said I came inside again looking for

my brother.

JUDGE WILSON: He did not say that Mr Arendse. He said they

came outside to look at the noise, the source of the noise.

ADV ARENDSE: I said I thought he said that. Can the witness

correct me Judge, instead of you please.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think ... (intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: No, Mr Arendse, as Counsel you must put things

accurately.

ADV ARENDSE: I put it accurately, I said I thought, now if I

thought wrongly, then he must tell me that.

JUDGE WILSON: I am telling you you thought wrongly and you

will accept that ruling and you will stop carrying on as you are Mr

Arendse. My brother the Chairman, has already offered to adjourn

the matter so that you can quieten down.

MR CERQUEIRA: Do you want an answer from that Sir?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA: The only time that I went outside, looking for

my brother, was after the shots had been fired. After we had been in

the restaurant, looking for him and then we ran outside, and then I

found him outside. Not before the shots had been fired.

Before the shots had been fired, I went into the restaurant,

not outside, into the restaurant, looking for my brother.

ADV ARENDSE: So at which point could he have been shot? Was

it before or after you came out?

MR CERQUEIRA: I've got no idea. I've got no idea.

JUDGE WILSON: If he had been shot before, when you went out

of the restaurant for the first time and looked up the road, would

you have seen his body?

MR CERQUEIRA: Yes. He was definitely not on the pavement

when I went outside for the first time, when the shots were being

fired at us.

ADV ARENDSE: So he must have then, did he run passed you at

any stage?

MR CERQUEIRA: I didn't see him run passed me.

ADV ARENDSE: So is it your evidence that when you came

outside with Brode and with the other waiter, your brother was not

there?

MR CERQUEIRA: What I think from my view Sir, is that when the

three of us were standing on the pavement looking up, he must have

come and stood behind us, therefore I did not see him. Otherwise,

believe you me, if he was there, I would have dragged him inside as

well.

ADV ARENDSE: So there is the possibility then that he actually

came out with you but behind you and you didn't see him?

MR CERQUEIRA: There is a possibility Sir.

ADV ARENDSE: And when you turned to go back in and pulled

Brode in and the other waiter ran in with you, your brother either

didn't turn back or he turned back, but was shot as he also wanted to

go in?

MR CERQUEIRA: Correct, there is a possibility. Like I say when

we first came out, the shots were being fired at us, there is

definitely no way that he was shooting at them if he was shooting

behind us.

ADV ARENDSE: I put it to you that that version of the way you

are putting it, is not what happened Mr Cerqueira. I am putting it to

you that your brother had gone out first, armed with his gun, had

fired shots in the direction of this car which was coming in his

direction, in the direction of the robot.

At that point, or immediately afterwards, you came out and

that is when you retreated, but by then your brother had already

been shot. That is what happened Mr Cerqueira.

MR CERQUEIRA: No, that is not what happened, Mr Arendse.

ADV ARENDSE: Is it not possible that it could have happened?

MR CERQUEIRA: No, it is not possible.

ADV ARENDSE: Everything happened quickly?

MR CERQUEIRA: Mr Arendse - because when I came outside, the

only people that were standing in front of me was the two waiters.

The waiters were standing in front of me. There was no way that my

brother could have been standing, firing in front of me and me not

seeing.

The first shots that were shot at us, was aimed at myself and

Mr Brode. Mr Brode got hit on the leg and the shots were on the

wall, next to Mr Brode's leg. Surely if my brother was firing and he

was standing there, I would have seen it. And surely under those

conditions, if he was firing at somebody, I wouldn't have even come

onto the pavement because I would have realised something was

wrong.

ADV SANDI: Mr Cerqueira, is there a building opposite the

Heidelberg Tavern?

MR CERQUEIRA: Between our restaurant and the Heidelberg,

opposite, yes, there is.

ADV SANDI: Was that building shot at by the attackers at the

Tavern?

MR CERQUEIRA: Yes, it was.

ADV SANDI: Whose building is that, what sort of building is that?

MR CERQUEIRA: Opposite the road from us, directly, is a

hardware store and they've got storage upstairs and there is a coffee

shop directly outside the Tavern and there is a restaurant, called the

Planet, that is downstairs and upstairs.

ADV SANDI: Were there any people at that particular building at

the time the shooting was taking place?

MR CERQUEIRA: Yes, there were because the restaurant called

the Planet is - most of its busy period is in the evening at round

about that time when the incident happened.

ADV SANDI: Was anyone of them actually hurt or injured?

MR CERQUEIRA: Not to my knowledge, Sir.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Cerqueira, can I put another scenario to you

as a possibility? Your brother goes outside before you, with his

gun, you don't see him, you don't see him, he fires at the attackers

coming in your direction.

You don't hear that, because now you are running out and you

are coming onto the street, onto the pavement, you don't hear that

and the attackers shoot at him. And when you come out onto the

pavement, that is when these shots are fired in your direction, is that

not a possibility?

MR CERQUEIRA: No Sir. Can I just go through what I said

yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to go through what you've

already said, you can just say yes or no to that proposition.

MR CERQUEIRA: Sir, in this case, can I just say something? Mr

Arendse, when we heard the popping sounds like I told you

yesterday my brother was standing behind the counter, on the inside

of the counter like I mentioned in my statement yesterday.

I was standing on that side of the counter, when the shots

were being heard, the waiter walked to the door slowly, I walked to

the door afterwards, my brother was standing behind that counter.

When we went onto the pavement, surely if my brother had

gone first, I would have seen him in front of me?

ADV ARENDSE: I am sorry, but I mean if you've said that

yesterday, you said it, but this is the first time that you have put it

like that according to my recollection. I am sorry Mr Cerqueira, I

don't think that is what you've said yesterday or up to now,

explaining why your brother, according to you, must have come only

after you, that you saw him standing behind the counter, you were in

front of the counter and you went out.

I mean you said, didn't you, you must correct me if I am not

correct, you said you went to look for him.

MR PRIOR: With respect, that was after the shots. Mr Chairman,

may the appropriate place of the record be found, otherwise we are

going to have a lot of cross-examination on whether it was said or

not? It is certainly my recollection and I led him on that and he told

the Committee with respect where the positions of the people were

before the popping sounds were heard.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want the transcript to be played back, is

that what you are suggesting?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I suggest that in order to avoid the type

of confusion that seems to be prevalent.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse, do you want the transcript to be

played back of all the cross-examination?

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, does Mr Prior agree or doesn't he

agree that that is the first time certainly, that I hear that Mr

Cerqueira is saying that his brother stood behind the counter, he

stood in front of the counter, he ran out first? I mean, you know, if

the Committee and Mr Prior tells me that he has said that before

already, then I will leave it there. But it is the first time I hear it.

ADV SANDI: Speaking for myself, I cannot locate this particular

aspect of his evidence in my notes. But I do have a - I do remember

him saying that yesterday. We think that is what he said yesterday.

ADV ARENDSE: Leave it there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, proceed please.

ADV ARENDSE: I have no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any re-examination of this witness?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Just one, just one aspect. The

widow of your brother, Mrs Cathy Cerqueira indicated that she

didn't want to attend these proceedings, is that correct?

MR CERQUEIRA: Yes.

MR PRIOR: And are you aware whether she made a statement?

MR CERQUEIRA: I am not aware.

MR PRIOR: Thank you. I have no further questions in re-

examination, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

JUDGE WILSON: Will you please look at photograph number 22.

Is that a picture of your restaurant?

MR CERQUEIRA: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Now, there are three, well I can see but there

are apparently three lines marked "n", do you see those?

MR CERQUEIRA: Yes, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: And from what I can see in the photograph, two

of them are bullet marks, well the marks made by bullets on the

wall?

MR CERQUEIRA: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: One is on the corner of the building, right on

the corner itself it would seem, and one is on the wall leading to the

door?

MR CERQUEIRA: Correct.

JUDGE WILSON: You said something about I thought, think you

said something about bullet marks showing the injury to Brode's leg?

MR CERQUEIRA: Correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Was that one of those bullet marks do you

think?

MR CERQUEIRA: The lower one on the corner of the wall Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: So that bullet mark was caused at the time that

they shot at you and Brode?

MR CERQUEIRA: That is correct, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: Now, at that stage, looking at the picture, it

must mean that the car had already passed your restaurant because

otherwise they couldn't shoot a bullet into that entrance passage

way, could they? That couldn't have been shot from further up the

road?

MR CERQUEIRA: Are you talking about the second shot Sir?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, the one lower down that you have pointed

out?

MR CERQUEIRA: Correct, the shots were still being fired after we

had gone into the restaurant.

JUDGE WILSON: They were still firing shots as they were passing

the restaurant? By that time they were passed the restaurant?

MR CERQUEIRA: Correct.

JUDGE WILSON: And they were firing shots?

MR CERQUEIRA: There were some shots that went into the

restaurant, that hit a table and hit the glass on the top. As you can

see, there is another mark there, and there is one lower down on the

door that the Police didn't really find.

JUDGE WILSON: But your brother's body was further up the

road?

MR CERQUEIRA: My brother's body was ... (intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Where the drainage is shown?

MR CERQUEIRA: (a).

JUDGE WILSON: On the other side of the traffic light?

MR CERQUEIRA: On this side, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Just above the traffic light, isn't it?

MR CERQUEIRA: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA: It is about 500 feet.

JUDGE WILSON: 500 metres. Because what causes me some

confusion is that that would indicate that your brother was probably

shot before the car passed the restaurant, wouldn't it?

MR CERQUEIRA: Correct, correct.

JUDGE WILSON: So that would be before the shots were fired at

you, your brother had been shot further up the road?

MR CERQUEIRA: Sorry Sir, I didn't hear that?

JUDGE WILSON: If your brother was shot further up the road,

that was before the shots were fired at you and Mr Brode?

MR CERQUEIRA: If he was shot further up the road?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA: Correct.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION ADV ARENDSE: Mr

Chairman, just leading on from Judge Wilson's questions. Doesn't

that then make it now more than a possibility that your brother ran

out first, he was shot. He shot at the attackers, he was then shot

and as they continued coming down, by the time you came out, you

were now - the car was now either at the robot or just passed the

robot and this volley of fire may have continued and that is why you

see these marks?

MR CERQUEIRA: Sorry, I didn't understand that. When the car

came passed the restaurant?

ADV ARENDSE: Your brother was already shot?

MR CERQUEIRA: No.

ADV ARENDSE: But your brother was shot further up Mr

Cerqueira? Your brother was lying at the drain.

MR CERQUEIRA: No, my brother was shot between the drain and

that set of robots. You can see for yourself it is not very far from

the restaurant.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA: It is not very far from the robot.

ADV ARENDSE: But it is further up?

MR CERQUEIRA: Further up from where?

ADV ARENDSE: Further up from the, it is further up from the

door, not by much.

MR CERQUEIRA: Sir, it is about the distance from here to there.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, now that is why I am asking you isn't ...

(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it. The witness indicate the distance

between the front door, the front entrance to where your brother

was, is that what you are saying?

MR CERQUEIRA: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And you point it out as how much?

MR CERQUEIRA: It is about that distance.

CHAIRPERSON: About a meter, Mr Arendse? Mr Prior?

MR PRIOR: I understand it to be about a meter, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the end of it?

ADV ARENDSE: No, I just want to put it to Mr Cerqueira, that

that Mr Cerqueira, strengthens, okay firstly I want to ask you why,

or unless you tell me it was not particularly relevant or you weren't

asked, why are you now mentioning about the, after you saw

photograph number 22, are you mentioning the shots that were fired

through the door and that a glass inside the restaurant was hit?

CHAIRPERSON: If those are in fact the facts, does it really

matter?

JUDGE WILSON: Nobody bothered to ask him, did they Mr

Arendse?

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

JUDGE WILSON: And doesn't the, if you are looking at

photograph 22, it appears to indicate as far as I can see, that that

third line is going to a bullet line through the door, isn't it?

ADV ARENDSE: I am not going to pursue this because this is a

different process, otherwise I would have with respect. I think a

witness is here to tell us what happened, exactly what happened, and

he just didn't mention that.

I think it perhaps effects the other evidence, but that is for

argument, so just leave it.

I just want to put it to you Mr Cerqueira, that it strengthens

the possibility that your brother must have run out before you, in

front of you, that he was shot in front of Machados, outside of

Machados.

MR CERQUEIRA: Machados.

ADV ARENDSE: Machados, yes, and can you explain then how

come you never saw him?

MR CERQUEIRA: Because simply Mr Arendse, he was not in front

of me.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay. I have disputed that already, I have got

no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cerqueira, you are excused from further

attendance, thank you.

MR CERQUEIRA: Thank you, Sir.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I have a statement of Cathy Cerqueira,

who is not attending the proceedings. Would it be appropriate at

this stage to read it onto the record?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it under oath?

MR PRIOR: No, it is not on oath.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, leave it out then, Mr Prior.

MR PRIOR: I will see that she makes the oath.

CHAIRPERSON: If it is relevant.

MR PRIOR: It was her submission as a victim, I thought it may be

appropriate to deal with it, but I will leave it till later.

Mr Chairman, I indicated in Chambers that the victims had

drafted a letter and wished to place it on record. May this be an

appropriate stage Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can it be done during the evidence that they are

going to give? Aren't you going to call any witnesses?

MR PRIOR: Yes, I intend calling Mrs Langford first. She comes

from Port Elizabeth.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, call her.

MR PRIOR: And maybe she can read the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Whoever they decide can read it.

MR PRIOR: As the Chairman pleases. I call Mrs Langford.

ANDREA JEANNETTE LANGFORD: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Mrs Langford, as one of the

next of kin, a letter was drafted or prepared by the victims as a

group, is that correct?

MRS LANGFORD: That is correct, yes.

MR PRIOR: Will you please read it onto the record?

MRS LANGFORD: I will.

"The Heidelberg Tavern attack, amnesty applications.

We understand the need for unity and reconciliation in our

new nation and that the conflicts and divisions of the past

must at some stage be put behind us in order to achieve the

aim of the amnesty process.

We also understand that in order to attempt this difficult

journey, the Amnesty Committee ought to have as complete a

picture as possible of the causes, nature and extent of the

gross violations of human rights, which in our case relates to

the senseless killings of, and injuries to our sons and

daughters.

We have heard that full disclosure of all relevant facts relating

to the Heidelberg attack is one of the requirements for

amnesty. This necessarily implies that the truth be told. We,

as the survivors of this gross violation of human rights, are

deeply concerned by the nature and conduct of these

proceedings thus far.

Whilst not understanding the finer points of the law, it seems

unfair to us that the Chairman is in open hearing remarked as

follows:-

Sibaya's evidence was irrelevant to these amnesty

applications. The kombi must also have been drunk. He,

Sibaya, probably also knew the name of the name of the sheep,

when he was attempting to answer questions about how he

could remember certain details.

The reaction of laughter at Sibaya's expense that these

remarks evolved from the legal representatives of the

applicants, Dumisa Ntsebeza, and the supporters, we feel

detracts from the serious nature of the amnesty process and

makes light of evidence which we believe is important in

searching for the truth.

Such remarks also fail to take into account our pain and our

grief. It is out of place to listen to these remarks in the same

process as the evidence of the killings of our loved ones.

We are under the impression from the proceedings thus far,

that the legal representatives are constrained to represent the

minimum facts required to satisfy those requirements for

amnesty.

We are all of the view that the proper and full disclosure of

the facts, has not been made.

We are also concerned about the manner in which Mr

Cerqueira was cross-examined, which was in our minds, unfair

and insensitive to his grief and loss.

We as survivors demand the right to be treated with dignity

and sensitivity if these proceedings are to mean anything at

all.

Finally, we are present disillusioned about the process we

have seen thus far, and must ask the question whether the

amnesty process is simply part of the political solution

whereby perpetrators of gross violations of human rights will

be granted amnesty as a reward for their loyalty to their

masters.

We invite the Committee to address our fears and concerns in

this matter".

And we have all signed this.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mrs Langford. Mrs Langford, you've also

made submissions in respect of the death of your daughter,

Bernadette, is that correct?

MRS LANGFORD: That is correct, yes.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, may I refer the Committee to item 5 on

the submissions by victims, the Bundle that was prepared and handed

to you, which appears on page 61 to 67.

Your daughter, Bernadette, she was at the time of her death,

was she still a student at the University?

MRS LANGFORD: No, she had just received her degree three

weeks before her death.

MR PRIOR: Had she gained employment or had she taken up

employment at that stage?

MRS LANGFORD: She was busy with a temporary job at Edgars,

Adderley Street, while waiting for replies for her application for a

teaching post.

MR PRIOR: Was she in any way connected with the military or the

Security Forces at the time?

MRS LANGFORD: No, no.

MR PRIOR: Mrs Langford, you have prepared a submission, have

you not?

MRS LANGFORD: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: And do you wish those submissions, which are

unsigned, to form part of your evidence?

MRS LANGFORD: That is right.

MR PRIOR: Could you please look at page 62 and could you tell

the Committee, what kind of person Bernadette was.

MRS LANGFORD: Page 62?

MR PRIOR: I beg your pardon, I am referring to our Bundle. You

have your single copy in front of you.

MRS LANGFORD: Yes. Shall I begin at "Who Bernadette

Langford was"?

MR PRIOR: Yes, please proceed.

MRS LANGFORD: Right, thank you.

"Who was Bernadette Langford before? A talented young

lady on the brink of her career. The eldest daughter of

Andrea Langford, sister to three sisters and a brother, loved

by her family, friends and all who were privileged to know

her.

On the 9th of December 1993, she had received her higher

diploma in Education post graduate for secondary education.

She completed the prescribed course in the following teaching

subjects: Art, school counselling and guidance. She could

also teach through the medium of Afrikaans higher and

English higher.

Since the very young age of seven, she was capable of

attaining the goals she reached for, such as ballet with

honours and scripture exams with distinction. Besides her

school studies, which later included drama, this pattern was

pursued while at University. Her first three years were at

Rhodes University where she received her BA degree in fine

art and psychology.

And at the same time, she was a keen sportswoman. That was

in volley ball. She also completed an advance course in

deportment, beauty rooting, fashion and photographic

modelling. She had also done a St John's ambulance course.

Bernadette had one desire, and that was to enrich our society

with her abilities.

She had a great love for children and a compassion for the

misunderstood. She was working on a casual basis at Edgars,

Adderley Street, while waiting for a reply from her

applications for a teaching post.

She undertook to care for the family and had plans to support

her brother's education. She had hopes of raising a family of

her own one day.

The incident. On the 30th of December 1993, Bernadette's

friends decided to stop at the Heidelberg Tavern in

Observatory for eats and while there, she was gunned down

with automatic gun fire, according to reports.

Extent of injuries. During the early hours of the 31st of

December 1993, Bernadette had lost her life. She, who

showed mercy to others, was not given that chance. An

innocent human being".

I approve of the statements made and the copies, I can give to you.

MR PRIOR: Yes, that is not necessary at this stage, they will be

handed in Mrs Langford. Please continue. Are you able to continue

at this stage?

MRS LANGFORD: Yes, I can, thank you.

MR PRIOR: Thank you.

MRS LANGFORD: Who is Bernadette Langford now?

"Bernadette has gone to be with The Father. She lives

on in our memories. Though the last memory of her causes us

to sorrow, not as the world, but with the hope of everlasting

life. I know if she was here, she would want us to hold onto

the truth.

The loss to the family came at a time when funds were

exhausted. I, her mother, had to come up to Cape Town and

identify her and do the necessary arrangements for her burial

in Port Elizabeth. This was very difficult at the time as I was

unemployed, due to the fact that I had given up my work the

previous year, to sort out our family matters after her father's

sudden death due to respiratory failure.

His small business had to be shut down and I had not

recovered from these losses, when this tragedy struck the

family. Family and friends rallied around at the time, I thank

God for them. I was told that a fund had been established to

assist the families, but this came to nought - up to this very

hour, I have never been assisted in any way.

I feel I have the right to ask what is the right of human life, is

it not to be given a free chance to live? This is what I would

say if I were given the opportunity to make the statement.

The past four years have been exceptionally difficult since

Bernadette's death. As a result, we had to deal with many

frustrations such as continually being asked about our feelings

and our view concerning the way in which she died because

the community where I live, could not accept the way in which

she died.

My relatives all suffered emotionally because of the trauma

and they knew that because of our culture in which we care

for the one who cares for you, this was not going to happen.

I asked God for inner strength and the courage to forgive

which I did.

I had to remember to lead by example, which the rest of the

family would follow. The hardships have not ended because

life has become more expensive. I have a casual job since last

year, which is a blessing in a small way.

The men who shot Bernadette, have to understand that we

forgave them as a family, but this shouldn't prevent justice

from taking place. I wish to say to the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission and all who are assembled here for

the Heidelberg Tavern hearing, man can do what is humanly

possible, but God can do the impossible to reconcile man to

God. To the ones who sent you, you planted the seed and

watered it, you saw it grow, so you are very much part of the

end result, but I tell you too, there is a way to find peace of

mind - may God grant you the wisdom to understand.

MR PRIOR: Mrs Langford, do you confirm the statement that you

have read out?

MRS LANGFORD: I do.

MR PRIOR: And you adhere to its contents?

MRS LANGFORD: I do.

MR PRIOR: Is there anything in addition thereto, that you wish to

say regarding the amnesty application? Do you oppose it or do you

agree with it?

MRS LANGFORD: Before I answer you on whether I oppose it or

agree with it, I want to add to a note that I have just written out as

I was listening if I may.

MR PRIOR: Please continue Mrs Langford.

MRS LANGFORD: Mr Chairman, these are the perpetrators of

gross human violations. They say as you have heard, that they were

acting under orders. Just a question I would like to ask is why

haven't their instructors not been brought before this Commission, if

I may ask and if we as the victims, have to reconcile, then the truth

of the matter is we will never know who was behind the hideous

atrocity and we will leave this place with a half truth. I speak for

myself, but this is the feeling shared by the victims of the Heidelberg

Tavern.

I will explain why I say that justice in case I am questioned on

that, why justice having to be carried out. I have forgiven them so I

will explain that line.

I will just go on from here. I feel that justice is that all

aspects concerning this case, to me, that is not only the applicants,

but the ones who gave the orders, they have the full knowledge of

why this really happened. If they can be brought here or at a

separate hearing, we will be satisfied as I said.

And as I will say to the applicants, as I heard all the time,

they acted under orders which I understand. I too, act under orders

as I sit here now, just speaking directly to you because I firmly

would like to believe that we all do believe there is a God above our

heads.

If I can be allowed to say this, and because I believe that God

is God and I act under His orders and for me, His orders are to say

to you and to all here, yes, I have forgiven you. I will not oppose

your amnesty because who am I, I am not your judge. I can never

judge you, but there is a way to find the freedom more than amnesty

can free you from. And that is if you give your hearts to Him. And

you truly believe that He did send his Son for all of us here present,

not only for a sinner, but for all and you give your hearts to Him,

you will find the peace that I have found, with which I can say to

you I have forgiven you and I will not oppose your amnesty. Then

you will know what I know regardless of how I feel, regardless of

the three years and ten months that I thought I put behind my back

and that I thought I had dealt with quite well, but that was brought

back to me because of your application for amnesty. It just

brought back everything, it put me right back to where I had thought

I had gone past, but my heart will feel satisfied to know if you can

receive that. And I think that is all I would like to say here. Thank

you. I would like to thank Mr Chairman, for giving me that

opportunity.

MR PRIOR: Mrs Langford, you've indicated the financial hardship

that the family suffered?

MRS LANGFORD: That is so, yes.

MR PRIOR: As a result of Bernadette's passing?

MRS LANGFORD: That is so, yes.

MR PRIOR: If I could just be permitted on one aspect, her

education was paid for by whom?

MRS LANGFORD: I paid for her education.

MR PRIOR: And what was the understanding with Bernadette once

she had obtained employment?

MRS LANGFORD: Because I had to go to various lengths to be

able to ascertain Bernadette's qualifying, this is very personal, go

into my personal life. I had to give her things like my policies to

ensure that Bernadette could get through, it was very difficulty, as I

have explained earlier.

And Bernadette gave me the assurance that on so doing, that

she would look after me, and not only that, she would educate her

little brother who was seven when his dad died and then he was

eight when Bernadette died. I can't imagine what, I try to think

what he must be thinking and feeling, but I don't think I can actually

imagine what he must be going through.

MR PRIOR: You indicated that since the loss of Bernadette, you

received no financial support from the State whatsoever?

MRS LANGFORD: None, whatsoever.

MR PRIOR: You indicated to me before you were called to testify,

that was some days ago, that you would like the matter, your

particular case to be referred to the Reparations Committee?

MRS LANGFORD: That is so.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions, Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE: None, Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON: I have read the statement that you and other

victims and relatives have signed. Without any reservation, I want

to say that I am sorry if my remarks have caused you any hurt, they

weren't intended to hurt you.

MRS LANGFORD: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: They certainly were not intended in any way to

hurt you. I want to assure you that I am sensitive to the feelings of

people who have been injured in the tragedy that has taken place in

our country.

I have been entrusted like the other members of the Amnesty

Committee, to hear applications, we have been doing that for more

than a year now, nearly two years. We had been hearing harrowing

accounts of terrible deeds committed by applicants in Cape Town

and in other parts of the work, we have listened as patiently as we

can to these details.

We have afforded the applicants every opportunity to put

forward their case, because the law requires that they should be

given a hearing. We have never held back requests by victims and

dependants to express their feelings in the matters that we had to

deal with. And if my remarks, have conveyed to you and the other

parents and victims, that I am not sensitive to your hurt and your

feelings, I am sorry for that. I want to assure you that that was

furthest from my mind.

Such remarks as I may have made, at the time, about the

evidence that was given by Mr Sibaya, were as a result of a lengthy

hearing on evidence in a matter which was only tangentially related

to the issues before this Committee.

I haven't made up my mind, we haven't considered the

evidence and we haven't rejected the evidence of any witness who

has given evidence before us. We will only be considering the

evidence and evaluating the evidence and coming to a final

conclusion after all the evidence have been led and counsel on both

sides have had an opportunity of addressing us.

Finally, to you and your colleagues, once more, I say that if

my remarks may have seemed injudicious to you, I am sorry for that.

MRS LANGFORD: I thank you for your explanation and I fully

accept what you have just told me, Judge Mall, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused from further attendance.

MRS LANGFORD: Thank you very much.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, will this be an opportune stage to take a

short adjournment. I have my next witness, Mr Cornelius.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will take a short adjournment.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I call Mrs Fourie. Mr Chairman, Mrs

Fourie had requested to sit a little closer to the applicants, and I

understand there is no objection to that, if that pleases the

Committee.

JEANETTE ANNE FOURIE: (sworn states)

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, the witness has not made submissions,

her husband in fact, made written submissions, but she requested an

opportunity to address the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prior.

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Mrs Fourie, is it correct that

your daughter was killed in the Heidelberg Tavern attack on the

30th of December 1993?

MRS FOURIE: That is correct, Lindi Anne was killed.

MR PRIOR: Would you please continue, or proceed with what you

want to address the Committee on?

MRS FOURIE: I would like to address the Committee, Mr

Chairman, but a bit more personally, I would like to address the

gentlemen before us and if you don't mind being onlookers whilst I

do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

MRS FOURIE: Molweni amadoda.

APPLICANTS: Good morning Mama.

MRS FOURIE: I am very sorry, that I can't express my thoughts

and feelings in Xhosa. I think you remember me. At the criminal

trial, I asked the translator to tell you that I had forgiven you. Do

you remember that?

APPLICANTS: Yes, we remember.

MRS FOURIE: And I shook your hand. Mr Gqomfa, was

unwilling and he looked the other way, but I certainly shook Mr

Mabala and Mr Madasi's hands. Nothing has changed, I still feel

exactly the same way and I do forgive you because my High

Command, demonstrated to me how to do that by forgiving his

killers.

I want to tell you who Lindi was. She was known as Lindiwe

by her Xhosa friends. Lindi was a true child of Africa. She was

happiest hiking in the mountains, riding a horse with her dog out in

the countryside. She was just finishing a Bachelor of Science in

Civil Engineering and had spent a lot of time designing and thinking

about how it would be possible to improve the infrastructure in

places like Khayelitsha, so that running water and waterborne

sewerage would be available, to people who have been oppressed

and discriminated against.

She had spent her vacations with one of the big engineering

companies in the Western Cape, and during lunch time the black men

would come and tell her about their lives. She would come home in

the evenings, and tell me the tragic stories of hopelessness and the

despair that they felt in never being able to get further than being

labourers.

She understood that. She wept to know that that was

happening in her country. She helped me to understand how subtle

my prejudice and bias and racial discrimination was. But it was

nothing blatant, it was in the very, very subtle fibres of my being.

She helped me to understand that.

She was totally willing to treat everyone as an equal and she

did that openly and freely. Her black friends were as important to

her as her white friends. Lindiwe could have been your friend.

You did your own cause immeasurable harm by killing her. She was

totally opposed to violence. She was a gentle person who cared for

not only the people, not only the little people, but the animals and

the flowers, the ecology of our country and the world.

As a medical person, I had to go straight back into the wards

of Groote Schuur and treat your colleagues who had been shot and I

needed to do that without showing any bitterness or resentment.

God gave me that grace. I think the reason that I am here,

have been here through this week and particularly today which is

very important to me, is to tell you that on that day you ripped my

heart out. Lindi was one of the most precious people and I am

biased because she was my daughter, that this country could have

produced.

I resent being called a victim, I have a choice in the matter. I

am a survivor. Lindi was a victim, she had no choice. I have just

had major surgery, which I trace as a direct result to the stress and

trauma that resulted out of the Heidelberg incident. It has been

demonstrated that cancer of the colon is something that results from

tremendous stress. So first my heart was ripped out, and now half

of my gut.

I am happy that you are well, I hope that emotionally and

psychologically you can be well because my greatest concern is that

you have been programmed killers, you repeatedly said that you

were acting under orders from your high command.

You could not tell us how you felt which indicates to me that

possibly you have been trained not to feel and I can see that that

would be important in a killing machine, to be unable to feel, but

just to carry out orders indiscriminately. And that is my greatest

fear.

I have no objection to amnesty for you, but we know there are

enough indiscriminate killers on our streets and my fear is that we

have three more who are capable, because of their programming to

do exactly the same thing once you are released.

I wished that it could be otherwise and perhaps with time and

counselling things can be otherwise, and I would wish that that is

possible and that it is made available to you as it has been made

available to us, to have counselling for the tremendous trauma that

we have been through and I am sure you have been through trauma

as well. Both through the incident and through your own

experiences, which Lindiwe would have been delighted to hear and I

would be also interested in hearing how you experienced oppression

personally. I have experienced oppression as a white woman and I

am sure the oppression that you have experienced, may be much

worse. But I would like to know the details because that is what

Lindi would have wanted to know too.

We came here hoping to hear the truth about who the people

in high command were who organised this whole dastedly affair. I

am not convinced that that truth has come out and until it is, and

does come out, I am not happy that you could just disappear into the

woodwork.

I know that it must be terribly frightening to reveal who the

high command is because your own lives are in jeopardy if you do

get amnesty, and I appreciate that it must be very, very frightening.

I thank you for being able to look me in the eye and for

having to hear my story. Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR PRIOR: There is nothing further Mr Chairman, from this

witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse, are there any questions you wish to

put to this witness?

ADV ARENDSE: No, Mr Chairman, there are just two things I

would like to mention maybe for the record. The first one is that in

terms of Mrs Fourie saying that she hasn't had everything, we've

only got three applicants here before us and they have said what

they did, including killing her daughter.

The other thing is it is a matter of record, certainly it is in the

bundle that is before the Committee, that the APLA high command

and this is what I am not sure about, the APLA high command is on

record when they made submissions to the TRC Committee, I think,

on the 7th of October, as having accepted responsibility for what

happened and there is also a statement that we put to the applicants

which had been handed up on behalf of Mr Xuma where he says as a

member of the APLA high command they accept responsibility and it

is also clear that they were the ones, including Mr Xuma, who had in

fact organised this attack. So that is a matter of record.

I am not sure whether Mrs Fourie is aware of that.

CHAIRPERSON: They are accepting responsibility for what has

happened, appears from the papers, but we have to decide whether

we would like to call the person who gave the orders to appear

before us for having given the orders and to explain why he gave

such orders. We haven't decided that, we may very well decide that

we would like to hear that evidence, if not now, but at some stage.

ADV ARENDSE: Well, the evidence thus far, which is

unchallenged, is that Mr Gqomfa got his orders directly from Mr

Nonxuba who unfortunately is deceased and the other applicants

Mabala and Madasi have said that they received their orders from Mr

Gqomfa.

CHAIRPERSON: We will deal with that during your address.

ADV ARENDSE: As you please Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: The statement by Xuma which you referred to,

which is being handed in, is not an affidavit. It is merely a

statement prepared by him and signed.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway that is a matter we will deal with at a

later stage. If there are no further points you would like to put to

Mrs Fourie, then I would like to excuse her.

ADV ARENDSE: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Fourie, thank you very much.

MRS FOURIE: Mr Chairman, may I respond to Mr Arendse's

comment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MRS FOURIE: Yes, I do understand that the PAC as a group, have

taken responsibility, but have the people who were directly involved

with planning this whole thing, and getting these gentlemen to

execute the orders, they are the people that we want to know about

and have they applied for amnesty?

CHAIRPERSON: These are factors which we will be considering.

MRS FOURIE: We appreciate that Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman, I call the next witness, Mr

Quentin Cornelius. Mr Cornelius is in a wheelchair, and I think it

may be convenient, Mr Chairman, for him to sit where Mrs Fourie

sat.

He appears at item 2 of the submissions by victims Mr

Chairman, thank you.

QUENTIN CORNELIUS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Mr Cornelius, thank you for

appearing. Is it correct that you have prepared your own

submissions which form part of the Bundle of documents that was

handed up to the Committee?

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: Do you have a copy of the submissions that you intend

to present in your evidence?

MR CORNELIUS: I do.

MR PRIOR: And you wish those submissions to be incorporated as

part of your evidence?

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: Just for the record, how old are you now?

MR CORNELIUS: I am 24 years.

MR PRIOR: Are you married?

MR CORNELIUS: No, I am not married.

MR PRIOR: And where do you reside at present?

MR CORNELIUS: I live in Randburg, Johannesburg.

MR PRIOR: Thank you. Will you please proceed with presenting

your submissions to the Committee.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, I just want to go through the

piece of my position and feelings regarding this amnesty application.

From the 30th of December 1993, my life has never been the

same for obvious reasons, being in a wheelchair, having lost the use

of my legs due to the fact that I was shot in cold blood, at point

blank range by the three applicants. There is a lot a person can deal

with and I thank God for the courage given to me and that got me

where I am now.

If it was not for that courage and strength and my optimism, I

would not have been here today. It is however, made very difficult

when you have root nerve pain and various other forms of pain on a

daily basis, pains that you can hardly explain to somebody, that I

would never have had if this did not happen.

I have lost a kidney and various parts of my intestines as well,

as a result of the shooting. This has been the reason and the cause

why I initially ended up in hospital for several months and have

subsequently been in hospital again a couple of times, because of

various complications.

Nobody will ever know what it is like, what suffering a person

has to go through until it has happened to you. I would like to have

each of the perpetrators look me in the eye and choose whether they

would not mind having a rifle stuck in their spines and the trigger

being pulled on them in cold blood, to leave them emotionally and

physically scarred and disabled as I have been or would they rather

stay in jail and serve their sentences for the crimes that they

committed?

There was a freedom fight in this country for many years

before, our current President, Nelson Mandela was set free in the

early 1990's, in fact I think it was 1991. He became President of

this country due to the democratic elections that was held in April of

1994, only four months after this horrific attack was launched on us.

All political parties had by that time, come to agreement

already that they are on the road to democracy in this country,

including the perpetrators' party, including the PAC that had part in

the interim constitution that was accepted on the 3rd of December

1993, almost or just less than a month before this attack was still

launched.

Why was this attack executed, given all these things? The

time period and the fact that we already embarked on a road to

democracy? It was years after everybody had already accepted,

several years after it was accepted and realised that the freedom

struggle was over and in my opinion, and I believe that this is the

common belief under South Africans, this attack was launched in a

period when the struggle was over, there was no reason for any

group or fraction to prove a point, by launching such attacks.

This was completely out of and after the supposed accepted

time frame when such terrorist attacks was executed to prove a

point as part of the struggle, but the struggle was already over.

This point was proved, and I can't understand why this attack

was still sent through. For this very reason, I am not prepared and I

cannot find it in my heart, to forgive them at this point in time. I

therefore oppose this application for amnesty. I do not believe that

any murderers or criminals should be granted amnesty. The

murderers and criminals have been tried, convicted and sentenced by

a Supreme Court in this country. It proves to the ordinary person

on the street and every other criminal, that it is just another one set

free, or another three will be set free on our streets to roam as many

other criminals in my belief, are still free on the streets.

The fact that the command was given by your higher

authorities, still does not give any, and I repeat I want to stress that

it does not give any person the right to go out and shoot young,

innocent people that sat in a Tavern that night, that had no

connection whatsoever with the Security Forces in this country. I

had no political affiliation to anybody, I was merely visiting a very

good lady friend of mine that has been killed in this attack, Lindi

Anne Fourie, and I cannot see in my heart, ever, that any person has

got that right to walk in and take another person's life in cold blood

when you don't even know who you are shooting at.

Lives have been taken and lives have been maimed because of

these orders handed down. There is in my opinion no reason

whatsoever, to be such cowards, as to attack a pub full of cheerful

young students in the middle of the most cosmopolitan area,

Observatory, in Cape Town, on the eve of new year, whilst they are

enjoying their youth together with youths of all other races, colours

and creeds and all this whilst we were on our way to the first

democratic elections in this country.

I request of the perpetrators and their leaders, and I would

like to echo what Mrs Fourie said, that was the higher command, the

higher parts in the PAC and I believe, I heard what you said Mr

Chairman, that it will be looked at further, and I do hope that it will

be looked at further, but I request of them all, to explain to us why

this was done, and if they have any logical reasoning for such a

senseless attack at that time.

Mr Chairman, I oppose this request for amnesty.

In conclusion, I just want to mention for the record, that I am

not going into any detail whatsoever, as to my emotional suffering,

physical pain, absolute distress and anger, fear I went through

during those couple of months in hospital and the following years up

to now, the absolute indescribable sacrifices and pain that my

parents, my brother and my sister went through, pain and anger and

fear that my family and friends experienced. The humiliation of

trying to adjust back into a very unforgiving society as an invalid,

dependant on people for almost everything that you have to do,

having to cope with the very unfriendly environment every day of

your life.

Needless to say I could write, mention of write another 200

pages just on those few points, Mr Chairman, however, I have been

able to cope in many respects and I will continue in my positive way

as I believe I have been.

In conclusion to all of this, I am just interested in one thing,

Mr Chairman, I want to see justice served. That's all, thank you.

MR PRIOR: Do you confirm the statement and the information you

have conveyed to the Committee, as part of your evidence?

MR CORNELIUS: I do.

MR PRIOR: Now, you have been in attendance throughout the

proceedings from Monday, the 27th have you not?

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: And you've listened to the evidence of the applicants,

as to how the attack occurred?

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: I don't propose Mr Chairman, leading the witness

through his summary on page 28, but are there any comments you

would like to make about the incident, that differ materially from

what you have heard presented thus far at the hearing?

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, there is one point I would like - I

have raised before and I would like to raise it again. I think it was

proved through the Police video and other evidence, that there must

have been at least two shooters inside the Tavern and we have not

been told for definite, if the second one was inside. They have not

disclosed that evidence and I believe and I would like to challenge

them and say that there was two people inside.

When I posed the question to Mabala I think, I asked him, or I

think it was Madasi, I asked him where was Sibeko, the sixth

person, he said he had forgotten. In my opinion, he was inside and I

would like them to comment on that again.

MR PRIOR: Just another aspect, I think you mention it in the

question that you had when you asked the applicants questions. The

sounding of the shots, or how the shots sounded whilst you were in

the Tavern. Are you able to describe that for us?

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, the shots were fired in lots of

two, one and two and maybe three shots at a time, as if it was

directed at people specifically at the time, the way a rifleman would

be taught to shoot - in spurs of two shots at a time, and it was not

automatic, random fire.

MR PRIOR: Is that your recollection?

MR CORNELIUS: That is my recollection.

MR PRIOR: Have you been able to compute or calculate the extent

of your damages thus far?

MR CORNELIUS: I have made a submission of a claim to the

Truth and Reconciliation Commission in May of 1996, at the TRC

offices in Johannesburg and at that time, it was in the region of and

I stand corrected, but if I remember correctly the amount was in the

region of R1,2 million in terms of physical, actual things that you

could count up and see and that obviously excludes any emotional

pain and suffering, loss of income and things like that. That was

purely on medical expenses and future medical expenses etc.

MR PRIOR: Since the incident in 1993, have you received any

assistance from the State in re-establishing or rehabilitating

yourself?

MR CORNELIUS: Up to this point, I have not received a cent from

anybody.

MR PRIOR: You indicated to me before you gave evidence, that

was some days ago, when we consulted, that you would request this

Committee to refer your matter, your case to the Reparations

Committee, is that correct?

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: Mr Cornelius, you

attended the hearings at court, the criminal court in 1994 which led

to the conviction and sentence of the three applicants?

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct.

ADV ARENDSE: And you gave evidence in that court?

MR CORNELIUS: I did.

ADV ARENDSE: From the evidence and I am sure that on your

own view, no one saw their faces so no one could identify these

applicants?

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct.

ADV ARENDSE: Was there - and you know and it is also on

record, that they were convicted on if I am wrong, the Committee or

Mr Prior will correct me, there was a lot of technical evidence about

their hair samples, the ballistics, the cap and things like that, in

other words it was circumstantial as they call it, but technical

evidence, nevertheless?

When you left that court after they were found guilty and

sentenced, how did you feel about that? How did you feel about

them?

MR CORNELIUS: I felt in the first place that due to the evidence

that was there and they were convicted on that evidence, that it was

the right thing to have happened, for them to be jailed or sentenced

for crimes committed, so I felt that that was correct.

I also felt that it was - justice had been served, but I hadn't

heard the entire truth. I hadn't heard everything behind it, so I did

have a feeling of emptiness and I must admit that through these

proceedings, it has been a lot more evident to me and a lot more has

come up, come out than what we knew after that court case and for

that I am grateful.

I did feel, however, quite empty after that court case, as I

haven't got out of it what I did now, after the court case.

ADV ARENDSE: No, that is exactly, I think you have made the

point. You feel a lot better, that emptiness that you felt after the

criminal trial, somehow whatever hole there was, has been filled

through these proceedings, do you agree with that?

MR CORNELIUS: I would agree with that, but I would still want

to see justice served.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, you know these proceedings are held in

terms of a law of Parliament and that law allows for amnesty to be

granted even to these applicants, who committed the most heinous

crime as long as they meet the requirements of the law, you accept

that?

MR CORNELIUS: I accept that that is what is stated in the law at

the moment, however, I don't believe that they have met the

requirements. And if they haven't met the requirements, I still see

that they should not be granted amnesty and should serve their

sentence.

ADV ARENDSE: I am just wanting to understand your opposition,

or the basis of your opposition, that is why I am asking this

question. Justice was served and in fact, it has been confirmed, that

they are the ones who participated and who committed this crime.

Now, we come to the amnesty process, which you will accept

is different from that court process. Now, is your opposition then

not based on the fact that justice must be served, but that they didn't

make, they haven't told us everything? Is that why you are opposing

this?

MR CORNELIUS: I would, Mr Chairman, through you, there is

two reasons why I oppose this, and the one is purely an emotional

reason and it is probably not grounds, it is my personal reason, but I

oppose this because I don't believe that they have told us everything.

I don't believe that full disclosure have been given.

ADV ARENDSE: No, the first ground, I mean it is perfectly

understandable, and I will be the first to say I am sure that if I were

in your position, I would oppose it on that basis, too.

But let's deal with the disclosure aspect. You have mentioned

today that and this you say have been proved by the video evidence,

that least two of the attackers were inside the Tavern.

That video was shown at the criminal trial.

MR CORNELIUS: Correct.

ADV ARENDSE: So you saw that?

MR CORNELIUS: I was not allowed to see it. As a witness and a

victim in that court case, we were not allowed to actually be inside

the court room before we had given our evidence.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay, fine. So you also now saw the video for

the first time.

MR CORNELIUS: I only saw it for the first time now.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, you gave evidence nevertheless.

MR CORNELIUS: Correct.

ADV ARENDSE: And you also made a statement to the Police,

now in your summary of your evidence which one finds on page 44

from line 21 onwards, and I will just read it to you Mr Cornelius,

line 19. Two of the women, Bernadette Langford and Lindi Anne

Fourie were flat mates of David Deglon. They were with him and a

friend Quentin Cornelius, a friend from Johannesburg. They sat at

one of the tables at a raised platform area in the Tavern.

This table, probably because it was diagonally across from the

opening of the door and fairly visible, suffered the worst under the

attack. Not only the deceased Bernadette Langford and Lindi Anne

Fourie were killed here, but David Deglon and Quentin Cornelius

were also seriously injured.

Roland Palm were also sitting at one of the tables on the

platform when the attack started. Is that summary reasonably

accurate?

MR CORNELIUS: That is accurate.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, I am actually just looking for the part

where, sorry on page 47 Mr Chairman, at line 20, because you will

recall that the applicants were also charged with attempting to kill

you, attempting to murder you?

Quentin Cornelius, as we have already seen, was a visitor to

Cape Town. He was in the company of Lindi Anne Fourie,

Bernadette Langford and David Deglon. He sat at the same table on

the platform. He suddenly heard a pop sound and immediately knew

that this was rifle fire although he did not see anyone firing. He

dived towards the left, but while diving, he was hit by one of the

projectiles which flung him two metres further onto the ground. He

realised that his lower body was lame and pulled himself by his arms,

under one of the tables to hide. There was pandemonium in the

Tavern.

My question to you Mr Cornelius is, why are you only saying

that there were two of these killers inside the Tavern because you

saw the video evidence? Is that the only reason why you are now

saying - because may I just add before you answer, that in your

statement to the Police which I had Mr Chairman, but somehow I

can't get hold of it, I don't know if Mr Prior's got a copy, you don't

say there either that anyone was inside the Tavern?

Why are you now insisting that there were two people inside

the Tavern and also before you answer, in your own prepared

statement which is in front of us, on page 28, you also say that you

believe that there were five gunmen firing automatic rifles at random

at the patrons inside the Pub.

I've got the statement now in front of me, Mr Chairman,

maybe I should just read this bit. It is paragraph 3 and it is in

Afrikaans. Roughly at midnight I heard shots, I jumped up. My

back was turned towards the attackers and at that moment, I was

injured in the back.

"There were numerous shots fired, but these were single shots

and not automatic fire".

That is what you said in your statement. The date is unclear because

of the photocopy.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, the original is available, it is dated the

5th of January 1994.

JUDGE WILSON: Shouldn't you read the next paragraph as well?

ADV ARENDSE: The next paragraph says I subsequently fell to

the floor and dragged myself away underneath one of the tables. I

did not see the attackers and do not know how many attackers there

might have been.

MR CORNELIUS: My response to that is I did not know how many

people there were exactly. As I said in this statement as well, there

was a lot of shots fired, but I can distinctly remember and I never

lost consciousness throughout this, I do remember single shots as if

one and two at a time, and not automatic fire.

The reason why I say there were two gunmen inside is I heard

and it was at a very, very close range, when you have a gunshot on

this side and a gunshot on this side, from behind you, you can

distinctly understand or remember that it is two separate rifles and

although I didn't see them, it is my belief that there were two

gunmen inside.

And because of other evidence after the time as well, like the

amount of spent cartridges found inside the Pub, is it to me obvious

that there must have been two. I distinctly remember the gunfire of

two separate rifles from inside the Tavern. I also heard gunfire

outside, but you could hear the difference between inside and

outside.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Cornelius, unfortunately I've got to take

issue with you on that. Firstly, I can understand why you said in

your statement and at court, why firstly you never saw any of the

attackers and also why you couldn't say how many of them were

inside or anywhere at the Tavern.

And I also want to suggest to you, and I think you've partially

answered that question, that whatever view or suspicion you might

have had as some are being influenced by what you saw on the video

camera, when you saw the video here. Would it be fair to say that?

MR CORNELIUS: It could be fair to say that, I was obviously

influenced by that, but I would like to say again that and I am

tempted to use this as the applicants did as well, I was there and I

really did hear gunfire from separate rifles inside the Tavern and

they were single shots fired and not automatic fire at that time. I

might have been influenced later on by the video as well as by the

Police records and evidence and the amount of cartridges found

inside, but it just confirmed my suspicions and my belief.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, Mr Cornelius, on my reading of the

summary that is contained in the Judge's judgement, apart from a

Ciska du Plessis, who also happens to be a Captain in the South

African Police, apart from her alleging that she saw two men come

through the front door, no one else had mentioned anything about

any gunmen, any of the attackers being inside the Tavern. Do you

remember that? You were there during the whole of the trial?

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. I was however, not inside. What I hear

from you now, is from the records, because we were only allowed

into the court when I gave my evidence.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, of course.

MR CORNELIUS: So I wasn't actually in the trial.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay, I am sorry then. Yes, that would be right.

Whoever then came after you, I don't know in which order

witnesses came.

It also seems to me from reading of the evidence, and I just

want to put this to you, I don't want to have a fight with you, that

there were what is referred to in Afrikaans as two volleys and I am

reading from the evidence or the summary of Mr Gary Donovan

Atkinson who was the owner of the Tavern at the time, and it is on

page 43 from lines 8 onwards, Mr Chairman. He says, he is the

owner, and then he goes on to say that at about ten to twelve that

evening, I heard a loud popping noise, followed by gunfire which he

thought was rapid fire.

MR CORNELIUS: Sorry, was that ten to eleven or ten to twelve?

ADV ARENDSE: Sorry, did I say ten to eleven, it is ten to twelve,

sorry. Followed by gunfire which he thought was rapid fire. He

took cover and shouted at the other persons in the Tavern to fall

down. This firing continued for a brief while and it was then paused

as though the attackers had departed.

He stood up to approach the telephone and at that moment,

the fire resumed. He again shouted at the roughly 50 patrons,

mostly in the central part of the bar, to fall down. This second

series of firing lasted longer than the first.

So it seems to me, what is the English word, I forget now ...

(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: Two sessions?

CHAIRPERSON: Two bouts of firing, two separate occasions?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, bursts. I think bursts is probably the better

word. There were two bursts of gunfire, it seems to suggest that, I

don't know.

MR CORNELIUS: I would agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Arendse, the only real difference is

that he is drawing an inference, he doesn't say he saw two people, he

is drawing an inference from the fact that he heard firing from two

sides and that evidence was not given and was not asked in the

court, at the trial. Can you take it any further?

ADV ARENDSE: Okay, thanks. No, in fact Mr Cornelius, the

evidence here of the applicants is in fact that Mr Madasi who is

sitting nearest to you with the white top, came inside the Tavern

through the side door and sort of partially hiding behind the wall

there, was firing at you and I think that is what the Judge meant that

you, on the raised platform were immediately closest to him and

visible, and he fired and at the same time, the evidence of the

applicants is that Gqomfa was on the far right, and Mabala in the

middle, sorry not Mabala, someone else who is now not here,

Jantjie, were firing from outside the Tavern through the double

doors and through the windows.

Would that correspond with what you felt was happening that

night?

MR CORNELIUS: I can't say that that is any different from what

might have happened, it sounds correct to me. There were gunfire

through the windows as well, and outside in the street, but I heard

gunfire inside the Tavern.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, we've also heard from Mr Cerqueira, I

think I've got his pronunciation right, Mr Cerqueira who appeared to

know a bit about guns. He also, when I asked him what he heard, he

spoke about I think, I speak under correction, rapid gunfire which I

asked him like automatic fire? Would you not disagree with that?

MR CORNELIUS: I can't say if others were on automatic fire

outside or wherever they were, if there is five or six or four rifles

for that matter, firing at the same time, two shots at a time, it will

most certainly sound like automatic gunfire. But I for definite heard

single shots fired at the time, and not on automatic fire.

ADV ARENDSE: Well, just for the record, we put that in issue Mr

Cornelius, because that is my concern as the representative for the

applicants. You must correct me if I am wrong, but the impression

that you want to create is that they, two of them came inside the

Tavern, and not only randomly and indiscriminately, they actually

aimed at you and they aimed at some of the deceased. Is that the

impression that you are creating?

MR CORNELIUS: That is the impression not that I want to create,

that is the impression that I have.

ADV ARENDSE: I want to put it to you that that impression is a

wrong impression, it is not supported by the facts.

MR CORNELIUS: I don't agree.

MR PRIOR: I think that is incorrect, with respect, and I must

object. Exhibit A has gone in, there has been evidence about Exhibit

A, and if we look at the photograph at page 2(b), the cartridge that

is against the wall, between the two deceased on the raised platform,

has never been explained and certainly would seem to suggest on the

inferences, that that was ejected from a rifle very close to that

position. Certainly not anywhere near the door.

So, my objection is simply that to say that it is not being

substantiated by anything, is misleading.

JUDGE WILSON: There may be some merits in your objection if

we had any evidence about it. Don't you think we should have some

evidence Mr Prior, from someone who is an expert in R4 rifles to

tell us where the cartridges are discharged, how far away they can

be thrown.

It may well be that the evidence will be that they are

discharged to the right, so someone standing where this young

gentleman said he was standing at the gap in the wall, cartridges

from his rifle could never have gone anywhere near the raised

platform. But we haven't got that evidence before us at the moment.

This question about where cartridges go to, is we all have to

rely back to the time we last used a rifle and try to remember. And I

think it would help because, can I while we are on this, and I am

interrupting you Mr Arendse, I don't want you to look at the

photographs - I think that they are, I would rather you don't look at

the moment, but can you look at that plan, it is Exhibit B.

Can you indicate to us approximately where it was that you

were sitting?

MR CORNELIUS: The closest I can explain, if you can see the "d".

JUDGE WILSON: "d"?

MR CORNELIUS: The "d" is pointing to a raised platform and

there, what seems to be tables.

JUDGE WILSON: In fact, Exhibit D is where one of the bodies

was found.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, because it was on that platform, the

second table into the shop. There was one other table that was

slightly below us and right behind us, and that was the table that Mr

Palm and his daughter sat at.

JUDGE WILSON: And you were the second table on that raised

platform?

MR CORNELIUS: We were the second, on that raised platform.

JUDGE WILSON: I think we all know what you mean by the raised

platform, that is on the right of the plan, marked off by a double

line.

MR CORNELIUS: Correct.

JUDGE WILSON: And you were approximately somewhere near

where the "d" would have been?

MR CORNELIUS: More or less there, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Where the, sorry not where the "d" is, but where

the line from the "d" ends, thank you.

ADV ARENDSE: Just on the other aspect, with respect, Judge

Wilson is correct is that all we have up to now before and which is

not in dispute and then Mr Prior is correct, is that these cartridges

were found close to or next to, on top of the deceased bodies.

There is no evidence, the only evidence is that from the applicant's

side is Madasi was standing, sorry maybe I could just deal with this

Mr Cornelius, you were at the end of that line which comes from

"d", is that right, more or less there?

MR CORNELIUS: Where I was lying after the attack or before?

ADV ARENDSE: No, where you were sitting and chatting and

having a drink?

MR CORNELIUS: I was sitting, correct.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, now how far is that from the corner of that

wall? Or rather, let me put it this way, you see "h" there, "h" is an

entrance.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay, now if Madasi says that he went down that

entrance and there is a wall there on his right as you go down, is

that right?

MR CORNELIUS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: What we've got at the moment is a little bit of a

wall and a wide open space and then another little bit of wall, should

that all be wall on the right? That is to about the level of "b", that

is all wall and then there is an opening, and that is what we see in

the photographs.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Judge. Is that opening directly

opposite where you were sitting?

MR CORNELIUS: I would say it was diagonally opposite.

ADV ARENDSE: Diagonally, okay. And how far would that

opening be from you, four, five metres?

MR CORNELIUS: At least, at least five metres.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay, because I want to put it to you or just for

your comment, my information is, and maybe we will test this with

whoever is going to be called to give us maybe some expert evidence

on where, how these cartridges land up there, is that when you are a

position of four to five, or even six metres away and you are firing

like Mr Madasi was firing with an R4 rifle, then it is quite possible,

and in fact it would happen that these cartridges could land some

four to six metres away from where you fire.

MR CORNELIUS: I do not believe that that is possible.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay, fine.

MR CORNELIUS: I do not believe that you can stand behind a

wall, as he says, and supposedly as we all know, cartridges shoot

out to the right if we want to use that, if he is behind a wall,

shooting at people in that direction where the wall that he took as

cover here, his cartridges should land against the wall, towards, and

not four or five or six metres, between the heads of two people lying

on the raised platform. I do not believe that it could go that

distance.

ADV ARENDSE: There is just something which momentously

slipped me Mr Chairman, I am just trying to think what it was. It is

this Mr Cornelius, and perhaps this is for the record Mr Chairman,

but obviously Mr Cornelius can comment.

Before a criminal trail starts Mr Cornelius, the State

Prosecutor, the State Advocate would give a summary of the

evidence that he intends to lead at a criminal trial. He gives it to

the other Advocates. Now I have that summary in front of me and I

want to read it to you.

I can obviously make it available if it needs to be.

CHAIRPERSON: What purpose does that serve, the summary?

ADV ARENDSE: The only purpose it serves is that it doesn't

mention anything, Mr Cornelius, about these gunmen, these

attackers having gone inside the Tavern.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not evidence in any case.

ADV ARENDSE: No, no, but we've had, Mr Chairman, with

respect, we've had statements which is not evidence, photographs

which is also not evidence being put to witnesses. I am putting it to

him for his comment, to be fair, he can tell me whether he agrees

with it or not.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Arendse, is it not because that is just a

summary of facts as the basis on which the State will found its case

and doesn't necessarily have to state everything?

ADV ARENDSE: Well exactly, the point is one would have

thought that the summariser will presumably ...

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)

ADV ARENDSE: I don't want to take that any further. The point

is just, and it is maybe something more appropriately raised in

argument.

JUDGE WILSON: We know there were 48 cartridge cases

scattered around inside the Tavern. There must have been people

inside there, mustn't there?

ADV ARENDSE: Well, the applicant, one of the applicants

Madasi, says he was inside there.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, the fact that it is not in some summary

shows that the Prosecutor forgot to say it.

ADV ARENDSE: Well, he also then forgot to say that there were

two or five or two or more attackers inside the Tavern.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't think we can take that matter further

as to what the Prosecutor said in his statement.

Mr Cornelius, lastly, I want to ask you these applicants have

come before the Committee, you've heard them, you've been sitting

here all the time, you've heard them say that they are responsible for

what happened. They attacked the Tavern on orders, they killed the

deceased, they injured you. Is there any reason that you can think

of why they wouldn't want to say or except for the applicant Madasi,

is there any reason that you can think of why Mabala and Gqomfa

would deny or wouldn't say that they were inside the Tavern?

They have been found guilty, they have been sentenced, you

know that. They are in jail for 27 years, they are here at the

amnesty, this is the only, it is not the last opportunity, it is their

only opportunity to get out of jail. Is there any reason that you can

think of why they wouldn't want to make full disclosure including

saying but we were inside the Tavern, we shot and killed these

people?

MR CORNELIUS: I do not see any reason why Gqomfa or Mabala

should hide it, but why don't they tell us where the sixth person

was?

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Cornelius, I've got no further

questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Prior?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Thank you. You indicated

where you were seated and where some of the deceased were seated,

your companions. And you were asked a short while ago can you

think of any reason why they wouldn't make full disclosure.

There has been evidence led and it has been suggested that

this was a Bar or a Tavern frequented by military personnel. As far

as you were aware on that evening, were there anyone that

resembled military personnel in uniforms or the like?

MR CORNELIUS: As far as I can remember, not one.

MR PRIOR: How were the people dressed on that occasion?

MR CORNELIUS: It was as if we were holiday makers, which I

was at the time, dressed in shorts, T-shirts, sandals, caps on, leisure

wear.

MR PRIOR: And if someone, we heard from I think Mr Madasi,

who indicated that the lighting, there was sufficient lighting to see

people?

MR CORNELIUS: There was.

MR PRIOR: A person could see clearly who was enjoying

themselves in the Tavern?

MR CORNELIUS: Correct.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

JUDGE WILSON: Had you been there before?

MR CORNELIUS: No, Judge. That was the first time I had been

there.

JUDGE WILSON: And what door did you use to get in?

MR CORNELIUS: On the sketch it is marked by "h".

JUDGE WILSON: Now, the door that is marked "g" on this sketch,

I don't know if you remember it, it is a double door with glass, was

that door open?

MR CORNELIUS: No. It was locked and bolted from the inside.

And I specifically remember even looking at it, it seemed to be just a

feature, it hadn't been opened for years. That is certainly the

impression I had when I arrived because it is the first time I had

been there, and I looked at the place.

It was as if that was an old door, never used, and locked just

as a feature, it was completely painted closed.

ADV SANDI: Mr Cornelius, you say there was or there were no

members of the Security Forces in that Tavern, did I heard you

correctly?

MR CORNELIUS: To my knowledge, I couldn't identify anybody

by their dress, as military people or Security Forces, for that matter.

ADV SANDI: Save for uniform, is there any other way in which

one could have identified any such members at the Tavern?

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, the only way I think you could

maybe have identified them is if they openly wore weapons on them,

and I certainly and I was never in that frame of mind, to even look

at things like that.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: Mr

Chairman, just one question. Were you going to ask a question?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

ADV ARENDSE: Just arising from Adv Sandi's question. We

know now that Ciska du Plessis was in the Tavern and she I think

still is a member of the South African Police. So there was one

member of the Security Forces in the Tavern.

MR CORNELIUS: I believe there was, and I believe she is a PRO,

working in the Police Force. I don't believe that she is an

operational person, but she works in the Police Force and she is a

Public Relations Officer.

ADV ARENDSE: Then also following on that, at that time of the

night, would one expect members of the Security Forces to be in

uniform unless it is at the army barracks or at a military base which

clearly this wasn't?

MR CORNELIUS: Security Forces in my opinion include

Policemen and if we are led to believe that this venue was chosen

because it was frequented by Security Personnel, on that basis, I

would certainly expect that it would at least be at least maybe 30 or

40 percent of the people inside would be Policemen, whether they

were off duty or not, whether they were clothed in Police clothes or

not, I believe there was only one person in there, amongst a packed

place full of students.

ADV ARENDSE: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You are excused from further

attendance.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I call Michael January. The witness'

submissions are made at item 1 on the submissions by victims, pages

1 to 25. Thank you Mr Chairman.

MICHAEL JANUARY: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Mr January, how old are you

at present?

MR JANUARY: At present I am 30 years old.

MR PRIOR: Are you married?

MR JANUARY: No, I am not married.

MR PRIOR: Is it correct that you were injured at the Heidelberg

Tavern during the attack by the applicants, on the night of the 30th

of December 1993?

MR JANUARY: I was injured in the Heidelberg Tavern on the

night of the 30th of December 1993.

MR PRIOR: Is it correct that you have compiled your own

submissions together with certain annexures supporting your claim

for compensation?

MR JANUARY: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: And it has been explained to you that we will not deal

in any detail with the claim for compensation but this will on your

request, be referred to the Reparations Committee?

MR JANUARY: That is what I understand, yes.

MR PRIOR: You indicated to me as well, that you wanted to read

out onto the record, to the Committee your submissions as you had

prepared them, is that correct?

MR JANUARY: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR: Would you please proceed?

MR JANUARY: Thank you Mr Prior. Before the attack on the, Mr

Chairman, I will just be paraphrasing my submissions, because they

are quite extensive, I will just paraphrase them.

Before the attack on the Heidelberg Tavern, I was a

businessman. I was the sole proprietor of a business which

supported myself and also in a large measure, supported my parents

who at the time were on pension. The business I owned where I also

employed specifically my younger brother and it was his sole source

of income at that time.

MR PRIOR: What kind of business was it?

MR JANUARY: The work was computer related. We did a full

range of services from desk top publishing through to installations

of computers.

On the night of the incident, the 30th of December 1993,

myself and my cousin, Grant January stopped at the Heidelberg

Tavern in Observatory. Within minutes of entering the Tavern, we

had barely sat down, there were loud popping noises which I

immediately identified as gunfire.

I wasn't at that point sure whether the gunfire was inside or

outside the Tavern, but judged it safe to or the safest course being

to take cover under the table at which I was sitting.

Early in the shooting, I was hit in the back of my left leg

which caused extensive injuries to my leg and pelvis. I will briefly

outline the nature of those injuries. The bullet resulted in a

shattered thigh bone and I got a 40 cm steel pin which runs from my

knee to my hip joint. I have also since about a year after the

incident, on the 8th of November 1994, I had a nerve graph to try

and repair extensive nerve damage within my left leg, but this has

not had much effect. With the result that my left leg is still pretty

useless today and I walk with a limp.

I have been recommended by a family Doctor to walk at least

with a stick. For the first year I used crutches exclusively, but since

1995 I have been able to walk without the use of crutches and

although on recommendation I should be using a stick, I find this

impractical for the type of work I do at the moment.

While I was in hospital and on crutches and in the first few

months after I was shot, the nature of my injuries was such that I

was unable to continue with my business. It resulted in the loss of

that business. My brother was without work and my parents were

without the support I had provided them. In fact the situation had

been reversed, it was now my parents who supported me and my

brother was left to find employment elsewhere, which he eventually

did.

Needless to say, being a cripple today as it were, I have

suffered extensively in terms of pain, discomfort, I've had a

complete change of lifestyle, the loss of my business, the loss of

income and the work I do today, in no way can be compared to what

I used to do before I was so injured.

In this last four years, I have also lost many friends and

alienated family members as a result of behaviour and personality

changes due to depression, frustration and bitterness. Many days I

was unable to get myself out of bed in the morning, because I felt

not only had I lost the use of my leg, I had also lost my business, my

income, my whole future as it were. Often I felt that there was no

reason to go on, or to do anything.

Even today I suffer from continuous discomfort and after a

long day of work, I often have to ask a family member for a massage

to ease back pain and pain in my hip. The loss of sensation which I

have suffered in my left leg, is extremely dangerous as well, as I

often step in things or bang my leg or foot against obstructions

without realising that I have done so.

If I am lucky this only results in a fall which is not too bad,

and I have learnt to cope with it, but sometimes I have hurt myself

more than I realised.

Regarding my position on amnesty I would also like to say the

following. It has been an exceptionally difficult four years since my

disability. I have suffered from a great many things. I have

undergone various operations.

I lost my business, etc. I have continually prayed to God to

give me strength to face these hardships and the courage to forgive

the men who inflicted this disaster on my family. This forgiveness

did not come easily and for many years I dreamt of vengeance as it

were, of somehow getting my own back, but I can now say that the

Lord God, my Saviour, has given me the strength to unconditionally

forgive these men regardless of whether they are asking for

forgiveness or not. I unconditionally forgive them for what they

have done to me personally, however, I obviously cannot - it is not

my place to forgive them for what they have done to the other

people who have suffered as a result of their actions. Or as it were

for what this country has had to go through as a result of the

actions.

I cannot say with any truth that I have forgiven the people

who sent them. Neither can I say with any truth that I have forgiven

the system that left my family and me to suffer for the last four

years. We did not receive so much as a phone call to provide us

with relief in the last four years, not from any person in Government

or any Commission set up by the Government.

This is the bitterness that drives me to thinking of the Truth

and Reconciliation Commission as no more than a mechanism of the

system to forgive itself and whitewash the suffering that myself, my

family and the people of this country, have endured.

Despite having forgiven the men who shot me, I still wish to

hear the truth. Why were we victimised, what did they hope to

achieve by what they did to us? I can't honestly think that they

believed that what they did to us, has achieved anything.

I hope that these men will not receive amnesty unless they

come forward with the whole truth and expose all the (indistinct)

behind this event. I don't know if the Truth Commission will follow

up all the people responsible, or even if all of them have applied for

amnesty.

As a result of attending, further to the submissions that I have

made and which I have summarised, I also wish to say that as a

result of attending these hearings now and listen to the applications

and read in fact some of the applications that has been made, I find

it most disconcerting that the applications these men have made, are

very vague.

In fairness to them, I would say that regarding the position

they were in, they were probably not given enough time to make a

full application, but the impression certainly as in this hearing is that

the full disclosure has not been made.

More facts are continually being extracted in these hearings

and added and amended to the applicants' statements but which for

some reason, was not part of the original statement, that these

applicants have made. For their sake, I hope that this is not

construed as deliberate attempts to be vague, but for example Mr

Madasi's admission that he was inside the Tavern, was a crucial

piece of information which should have been in his original

statement.

I hope that this does not negatively impact on Mr Madasi's

application.

I do also feel that I know something of where these men come

from emotionally and politically as I myself have experienced

oppression in the schools and in the townships in which I was raised.

And yet for all that our family have experienced, I can say that my

family has experienced a lot under Apartheid and under the racist

regime of the National Party, yet, we never turned to the course

they took.

It has often been said by various people in Government, that

the actions of freedom fighters should be considered in the light that

they were fighting a just cause, a just and noble cause, being the

freedom and justice for all the people of this country. However, in

the light of that cause shouldn't the actions they take to further that

cause, reflect the nobility and the justice of the cause for which they

are fighting?

I don't think indiscriminate murder can properly be considered

in the light of a just war. Many freedom fighters, many soldiers for

the cause of liberation, have done sometimes many brave things and

very courageous things and all of this, in a very noble course and I

think that many of them, would not want to be considered as

indiscriminate murderers.

My differences are not with these individuals though, but with

the mentality of an organisation which led to its soldiers and allowed

those soldiers to attack its own Government. We all know that the

peace negotiations were well on the way by the time this attack took

place. In fact the National Party, the racist regime, had already

transferred power to the Transitional Executive Council and the

elections was almost inevitable, but this organisation had the gall to

allow these men to be tried and sentenced while its leaders embraced

the gravy train as it has been called.

Where are these leaders today? They are hiding behind these

men who are being duped into losing their chance at amnesty while

the leaders continue on that gravy train. I am opposed to amnesty,

not on the grounds of truth or the disclosure of these men, but that

amnesty cannot be given to us the survivors.

Mr Prior has attempted on various occasions to explain to me

the nature of these proceedings and amnesty, and he explained to me

that the word amnesty as derived from the Greek word amnesia,

which means to forget. Well, we cannot forget.

A just war is understandable, but granting amnesty to people

who killed indiscriminately will be condoning the actions of every

single individual worldwide, who has ever planted a bomb on an

airplane, machine gunned a restaurant or killed innocent people in

the name of political idealism.

I don't think that is the message South Africa wants to send

out to the world that killing innocent people is justifiable,

politically. If you are going to be fighting a just war, then you must

consider your actions in the light of the cause for which you are

fighting.

I would almost go so far as to say that the actions, not

necessarily by the three gentlemen I have in front of me, but the

actions of their leaders by sending them on such an attack, I would

almost go so far as to say that the actions are treasonous in that

their attempt was to derail the peace process and to derail the

elections and would have resulted in great bloodshed for this

country.

So their actions are treasonous to the people of this country

and I don't believe that the attack on the Heidelberg has in any way,

furthered their cause. In fact, I believe that it was a set back to

their cause and in that light, their actions are treasonous to the

cause for which they fought, or claim to have fought.

That is all I have to say at this point, Mr Chairman, thank

you.

MR PRIOR: There is no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse, are there any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr

Chairman. Mr January, you gave evidence at court.

MR JANUARY: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: And your summary is on page 51 of the record.

MR JANUARY: Okay.

ADV ARENDSE: And then you also prepared your own statement

which is on page 2 of the second bundle. And just your comment

from reading both, it doesn't seem to me that you are saying that the

attackers were inside the Tavern. Maybe I should read it to you.

On page 51, the second line Mr Chairman.

Michael January and his cousin Grant, were also sitting on the

platform. Like other persons, he first heard a loud pop sound which

he could not identify and then from close by a series of hard sounds,

very loud sounds, which made it impossible for him to think of

anything else. All that he could do was to lie down flat on the little

seat.

After a two or three second pause, the shooting started again.

He wanted to hide under the seat when he felt that he was wounded

in the leg. He attempted to close the wound, the opening of which

was larger than the palm of his hand, while he could see the bullets

hitting all around him.

For a frightening while he lay down very quietly. Grant them

asked him whether he had been wounded and fetched assistance.

Then in your prepared statement on page 2, under the sub-

heading the incident you say in the second line of that paragraph

within minutes the shooting started, I didn't see much since the

shooters were in a dark entrance way and shooting through

windows. I hid under a table but was hit anyway in the back of my

upper left leg thigh. Just your comment.

MR JANUARY: Yes, I don't know, I am sure that it must have

been taken down in a statement at the time. I spoke to many

Policemen while I was in hospital. My feeling has always been,

although I never specifically saw the attackers, from the position I

was at, I didn't have a clear view towards the entrance way, but I

was aware that there was shots coming from the direction of the

entrance way. I was also aware of shots being fired through the

window as from the position at which I was lying, I could clearly see

the windows and the double doors.

And I could actually see holes appearing in those double

doors and in those windows where the shots were being fired into

the building from outside. But I was also aware of people shooting

from the direction of the entrance way.

ADV ARENDSE: Can I just pass you the photographs, photograph

11 through to 16. One can see from those photographs Mr

Chairman, that shots were fired there through broken windows,

through the door.

JUDGE WILSON: As I see it, there were four shots fired through

the double door. Do you agree Mr Arendse? Two through the glass

and two higher up?

ADV ARENDSE: Then there is a broken window.

JUDGE WILSON: There is a broken window to the right, facing ...

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: ... where other shots were fired through the

stained glass?

ADV ARENDSE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the question you want to put to this

witness, Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE: Is that what you were describing, that when you

say you heard or saw shooting through windows, it must have been

that then?

MR JANUARY: Yes, I was sitting on a raised platform. At least,

at that time I had thrown myself down, but I was on the raised

platform, and I had a direct line of sight to the double door and

those windows and that was definitely one of the directions from

which shots were being fired.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay, now how far is the raised platform from

the double doors and maybe you could just mark again, if someone

could just hand Mr January the sketch plan which is Exhibit B, from

the point - you've got the sketch plan there?

MR JANUARY: Yes, I've got the sketch plan.

ADV ARENDSE: You see "g" and "f", those are the double doors?

MR JANUARY: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: From the furthest point in, because we can also

see from the photographs, the double doors are now sort of in, they

are not like that any more today, but they were in then, from the

furthest point in to the raised platform, what is that distance?

MR JANUARY: The entire area of that front room from about the

staircase to the double doors, the dimensions of that room is about 5

metres in width to about 10 metres in length. I was sitting right at

the back of the raised platform where there is a pillar indicated in

line with the staircase, that is above the point "d" that is indicated

on the sketch, there is a pillar above that point, and I was sitting

close to that pillar. So that would have put me about eight, nine,

maybe ten metres away from the double doors.

ADV ARENDSE: And you heard the evidence of Mr Cornelius,

how far would you have been from the opening in the wall?

MR JANUARY: As you can see the opening in the wall is rather

closer to the double doors, but diagonally across from myself, from

where I was sitting in the Tavern, to where that opening is, the

distance would have been about five to seven metres maybe.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no further

questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Prior?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: I have no re-examination Mr

Chairman. Is there anything else that Mr January would like to add?

MR JANUARY: There is one thing that I would like to add. The

only reason I would like to add this, is that I feel that this hearing is

the only place where such things should be voiced and in terms of

reconciliation it is things that I would like to get off my chest.

But in some measure, I have a very negative opinion towards

what the Truth Commission is intending to or proposing to do. I

see, I often see the Truth Commission as merely a mechanism for

politicians to give their soldiers amnesty, while those same

politicians are never going to be implicated in the actions which

resulted from decisions they made.

I believe that amnesty is the reward for the soldiers taking the

fall for decisions which the politicians were responsible for. Thank

you.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I ask you something completely different.

You have been sitting in all this morning, haven't you?

MR JANUARY: Yes, Judge Wilson.

JUDGE WILSON: Are you in a position to tell us whether the

shots you heard were single, double, treble shots or whether they

were automatic fire?

MR JANUARY: Well, during the shooting I wasn't paying much

attention to how the shots were being fired, there were lots of shots

being fired, but I seem to recall in the hearing from Mr Madasi's

statements that he perceived movement and that he directed his fire

towards that movement.

I would infer from that that Mr Madasi implied that he was

directing his fire at movements he could perceive.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

MR JANUARY: Thank you, Judge Wilson.

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused from further attendance Mr

January.

MR JANUARY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I still have three witnesses to go and

there are one or two other aspects. One of them that Judge Wilson

raised and it was in my mind all along and we have discussed that

with the Investigators to obtain better evidence regarding, if such

evidence is available, to assist the Committee.

I see it is one o'clock, I don't know what the ruling would be

regarding the adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the long adjournment now, but can

we resume at a quarter to two Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you arrange to see that your clients are

brought in in time?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes. It would of course help Mr Chairman, if

any of the other witnesses, if their statements are not already with

me, if it could perhaps be provided during the break so that we can

just, whatever delay there might be, so that we could just avoid that.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the position Mr Prior, is there a

likelihood that we would finish with the oral evidence this

afternoon?

MR PRIOR: Of all the victims?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRIOR: There seems a possibility at the rate that we have been

able to get through the evidence, but I don't have the other

evidence, the technical evidence regarding cartridges and I may also

indicate to the Commission that I am investigating whether a residue

test was done on the body of Mr Cerqueira, particularly on his hand

to indicate possibly whether he fired or not. I am trying to locate

that information.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, then we are bound to - we are faced with

the situation that at some stage or the other, we are going to

adjourn, leaving this matter incomplete.

MR PRIOR: That is so Mr Chairman. But certainly I would be able

depending on my learned friend, but we seem to have got through at

least more than half of the witnesses this morning, to maybe even

complete the submissions of the victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any victims who come from outside of

Cape Town who might be inconvenienced if we didn't hear their

evidence this afternoon?

MR PRIOR: The remaining victims are from the Cape Town

surrounding area, except that at least two of the persons work is

being effected. I have been informed by their employers that they

loath to extend any further time from work, however a letter from

the Commission will suffice, but they have indicated they have

already given a week to these people.

CHAIRPERSON: We will resume, we will adjourn now, and resume

at quarter to two.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman, I call as my next witness Mr

Roland Lewis Palm. His submissions appear at page 34 of the

bundle. Mr Palm has requested that I assist him in reading out the

statement to the Commission. Is there any difficulty with that Mr

Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: No difficulty at all.

ROLAND LEWIS PALM: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, do sit down Mr Palm.

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Mr Palm is it correct that you

are the father of one of the deceased in the Heidelberg Tavern

attack, Rolanda Palm?

MR PALM: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: Is it also correct that you were present during the

attack at the Heidelberg Tavern on the 30th of December 1993?

MR PALM: That is also correct.

MR PRIOR: Mr Palm is it correct that you pursuant to appearing

before the Committee, have consulted with me on a number of

occasions?

MR PALM: That is also correct.

MR PRIOR: That you supplied me with documentation and a

statement relating to submissions that you wish to make to this

Committee?

MR PALM: That is right.

MR PRIOR: Is it also correct that you requested me to assist you

drafting the submissions you wanted to make to the Committee?

MR PALM: That is true.

MR PRIOR: And is it also correct that you have indicated to me

that you wish me to read out on your behalf, the submissions that

you have made?

MR PALM: That I have done, because the reason being I don't

want to go through that emotions again.

MR PRIOR: I just want for the record, are you on any medication

at the moment?

MR PALM: Well, I am taking depressive tablets. Well, I have been

on it for quite a while, that is all.

MR PRIOR: All right. Please listen, and we will go through the

statement. During October of 1992 my son, Brandon Clinton Palm

was convicted of attempted murder and robbery and sentenced to 12

years imprisonment.

Brandon had always maintained his innocence and after five

years of incarceration, still maintains that he was falsely implicated

in these crimes by members of the Murder and Robbery Unit, Cape

Town.

By all accounts the crimes lacked motive and seemed

improbable as the victim worked in the same building where my son

was employed as a security guard where the alleged attack took

place.

Since 1992, my wife and I have pursued an arduous course of

leave to appeal for retrial, review, Ministries of Law and Order,

Justice, Correctional Services under the old and new Governments.

The office of the Public Protector, Human Rights Commission,

office of Mandela and lastly the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission all to no avail.

As a result of this situation, my daughter Rolanda Lucille

Palm came to live in Cape Town in order to assist her brother and

family in pursuing justice. On the evening of the 30th of December

1993, Rolanda and I were discussing the information she had

obtained concerning the complainant in my son's case.

We were sitting in the Heidelberg Tavern in Observatory,

enjoying a drink. She had agreed to accompany me to the Tavern in

order to get out of the house for a short while. We left home at

about 10h35 pm and walked to the Heidelberg as it was five minutes

away from my residence.

On arriving, I ushered my daughter into the restaurant area of

the Heidelberg, because I wanted to have a private discussion away

from the noise of the music they were playing there. On sitting her

down at the dining area, I walked to the bar, ordered a beer for

myself and a cooldrink for her.

Upon sitting down at the table, I referred to my watch. The

reason I looked at my watch is that my daughter had just arrived

from an afternoon shift at work and she was quite tired. My

intention was not to keep her out late.

We sat down, had a discussion which on estimate could have

lasted for about 20 minutes. While we were talking, I heard a

spattered noise which was very strange. I glanced up, over her

shoulder to where the sound was coming from. I noticed sparks,

smoke, glasses breaking. I realised this was because someone was

shooting into the Tavern.

I did not see who was doing the shooting as my vision was

blocked by a column in the Tavern. On realising it was gunfire, I

immediately stretched over the table, pulled my daughter and said

get down. In that motion, I fell onto the bench and rolled onto the

floor. My daughter dropped with her head to the table, and her back

was exposed.

A hail of bullets was directed at us and a bottle and other

things on the table, fell onto the floor. As I tried to look up from

under the table to see who was shooting, I noticed my daughter

reaching the floor slowly. In the same instance I noticed two other

girls to my right, fly out of their seats.

Unfortunately all I could see was a cloud of smoke and the

shadow withdrawing. The next instant I saw this torch light object

which knocked the side panel in the passage and rolled over to

where we were. I screamed it is a grenade, stay down, not realising

she was already hit.

I still pressed her to the ground, under the table and counted

to ten, waiting for this explosion. When I realised nothing had

happened, I glanced over to where the object had fallen.

Immediately I noticed a trickle of blood on her shoulder as she was

lying face down. I immediately jumped from out of where I was

lying to where she was, I turned her over and she just slumped in my

arms.

I realised when looking at her, she was dead and I jumped out

and ran to the door, to look for those responsible for the attack. As

I got to the door, I looked to my right and my left and immediately

saw a yellow van parked on the corner of Observatory and Lower

Main Road, outside the chemist, facing Mowbray.

My immediate reaction was, oh, the Police are here already

and I went back into the Tavern to double check on my daughter.

My thoughts were that if the Police were there so soon, they had

obviously caught the perpetrators. I lifted my daughter up, felt for

her pulse, but my hand just sunk into her neck.

I laid her down on her back, tried to close her eyes, but they

would not close. This is when the realisation got to me she was

dead. I immediately made my way home to tell my wife. I was

blinded by the shock and the tears. I passed this van on the corner.

When I passed, I noticed one figure there who had on a white

garment.

When I got to the next corner to turn on my way home, I

looked back, still noticing the van standing on the corner. Thinking

it was very strange that for a person who had just come out of a

place that had been attacked, that nobody stopped me. Well, I

managed to get home all hysterical and my wife could not

understand me as I was hysterical and incoherent.

My wife went to the Tavern to find out what was going on. A

few days later Des Segal, the Investigating Officer came to my house

to take a statement. In the course of my making a statement to him,

he said that I must have been drunk as there was no such thing as a

Police van standing there. I insisted he take it down in his statement

and he did.

He said to me that if there was a Police van there, it must

have been a Police van which had been patrolling the area and had

been radioed to the scene. It must have been told not to go into the

Tavern as there was a bomb in there.

I immediately became suspicious as I could not understand

how those Policemen could have been radioed and told about a bomb

that was in the Tavern. I asked him that if they were radioed and

knew about the attack, why they did not stop me after I had come

out of the Tavern. He could not answer my question and told my

wife that I must have been drunk.

At the time of the court case, I was never used as a witness.

Des Segal told my wife that he could not use me as I would let the

suspects walk and they are APLA and they are the perpetrators and

they are used to killing people.

He went on to say that if they did not nail them for

Heidelberg, he would not nail them for St James. Am I going too

quickly?

MR PALM: Sorry, he didn't say that. He said if he didn't nail them

for the Heidelberg, he will nail them for the St James.

MR PRIOR: I beg your pardon, can we correct that Mr Chairman.

Just delete the not. I would like now to describe what kind of

person Rolanda was.

She was a kind, caring and warm hearted young woman. She

was 22 years old and was a qualified primary school teacher. She

had shown great tenacity and character in pursuing her studies and

ultimately qualifying. She was determined and succeeded in making

something out of her short life refusing to conform as so many

young people did to the anti-social drug culture or aimless lifestyle

so many have adopted.

Rolanda was a devout Christian and Roman Catholic. She

believed in the equality of man and was as a teacher dedicated to the

upliftment of her fellow man, particularly children and the aged.

She did not support any political party. She appalled

violence, particularly as a means to settle differences. She believed

in God and that all men were created equal, irrespective of race,

colour or creed.

The irony of her death is that she was not a white person who

according to APLA were the legitimate targets of the death squads.

Neither was Bernadette Langford and Michael January. I cannot

begin to describe the rage I feel and have felt for the past four years

at her senseless killing.

Rolanda had a tremendous zest for life. She loved sport,

swimming and athletics were her passion in which she excelled.

I say to the PAC and APLA and to the applicants you killed

the wrong person. Rolanda was also joined in the struggle against

the injustice of the Apartheid system, particularly in Education.

You simply ended her life as if she was a worthless piece of

rubbish. You say you did so to liberate AZANIA. I say you did so

for your own selfish and criminal purposes.

You prevented Rolanda from helping rebuild our broken

nation, which if you had simply waited another few months, in fact

came to pass when we had free elections.

There is a reference to Brigadier Nene, it is actually Brigadier

Phitla. The spelling in the submissions of the PAC is Phitla, but it

could also be spelt Fitla. Your Commander, Brigadier Phitla stated

that it was difficult to control the forces on the ground due to lack

of proper communication and proper political training.

These are simply empty excuses that in fact exposed APLA for

what it was, an unguided missile out of the control of the PAC at

loggerheads with each other and unable to accept the political

decisions of their political masters.

The Brigadier also stated that the cadres as in the case of the

applicants, were simply carrying out orders of their Commanders.

Well, if that is so, why haven't the Commanders Letlapa Maphalela

or Andile Mayo Sciceka applied for amnesty? What are they afraid

of?

APLA have stated that they were at war with the white

supremist settler regime and that in terms of that were their soldiers

or cadres tasked with destroying the enemy targets, ie the white man

wherever they found them, particularly in order to obtain firearms.

White households and farmers were regarded as military

targets. What APLA has not explained is how the Heidelberg

Tavern was selected as a military target. If proper planning and

surveillance had been done, APLA would have discovered the

following. (1) the Tavern catered for the multi-racial clientele, (2)

the predominant patrons were young students from the University of

Cape Town, (3) the Tavern did not cater exclusively for military

personnel, not could be described by any intelligent person as a

military target where arms could be obtained, (4) its resident

musician was one Josh Sithole, a black man who was loved and

respected throughout the country by multi-racial audiences

countrywide and who was entertaining the patrons at the time of the

attack, (5) a better military target and that put in (indistinct), which

fulfilled their criteria, was the Woodstock Police Station, a short

distance away.

APLA as well as the applicants cannot be truthful when they

state that by murdering patrons at the Heidelberg Tavern, this was a

bona fide act associated with the political objective. What these

amnesty applicants seek to do is to clothe criminal acts which have

already been adjudicated upon by the High Court, in the mantle of

political type conduct.

It was amazing to hear from APLA military intelligence,

Brigadier Phitla that he have never heard of the protocols of the

Geneva Convention governing the waging of a war of liberation and

that he had only heard of such rules and regulations when he

recently joined the SANDF.

It would therefore seem that ignorance of the protection given

to innocent civilians, unconnected to the offensive regime or its

administration in times of conflict, by the Geneva Convention is now

raised as an excuse to justify the very inhumanity witnessed at the

Heidelberg Tavern.

I maintain that the perpetrators of the killings, when they

entered the Tavern, could have as trained soldiers so we are told,

assessed the situation and seen first hand that the people they were

going to kill, in fact were not the targets they were ordered to kill

and could have turned back, but they did not.

The systematic shooting of the patrons as they did, three

females deceased, together with the attempt to explode the nail

studded rifle grenade was not to further any political objective.

What does APLA command mean when it says that it assumes

complete responsibility for the Heidelberg Tavern attack?

Does APLA command realise that with responsibility comes

accountability? I repeat my question, if APLA is genuine about

taking responsibility, why have none of the Commanders applied for

amnesty?

However, APLA tells the world that for what they did at the

Heidelberg Tavern and to my daughter, they will never apologise.

The killings at Heidelberg Tavern and the attempted justification

thereof by the APLA command, must be viewed soberly against the

background of the political reality as of 30th December 1993.

(1) The peace process had progressed towards democracy and

the first ever democratic elections were only months away, in fact in

April 1994, (2) the PAC which must have informed its military wing,

APLA, had committed to the peace process and was a willing and

vociferous participant, (3) the PAC had in November of 1992

pledged a cessation of violent struggle and imposed a moratorium of

violence. It was reported in the Rapport newspaper on the 2nd of

January 1994, (4) the Apartheid Government had handed control to

the politically negotiated TEC until the elections only a short time

away.

History indicates that a politically negotiated settlement had

in fact won the day. The liberation struggle had delivered the

goods. The was was over and that majority ruled. It seems from

the submissions made by APLA on the 7th of October 1997, before

the TRC, that APLA had on its own decided the war was not over

and in order to keep its support from its followers, it had to be seen

to be retaliating against white people because black people were still

being killed.

If this was the rational behind the attacks, then in this context

the Heidelberg attack was nothing more than a reprisal or revenge

attack. If this is so, political objective cannot be argued. What the

act of terror did achieve, was the broad condemnation by all

political groups as well as international rebuke.

Both Zimbabwe and Tanzania are reported to have severely

rebuked APLA, reported in Argus newspaper, 12 January 1994. The

ANC condemned the killing as being acts of (indistinct) aimed at

derailing the peace process and preventing free and fair elections,

reported in the Rapport, 2nd of January 1994.

Despite the numerous TRC hearings, amnesty applications and

Police investigations involving hundreds of personnel, thousands of

man hours and possibly millions of rands, we are still no nearer the

complete truth not only in the Heidelberg Tavern matter, but in all

others where gross violations of human rights occurred.

I firmly believe that a wider conspiracy exists which is yet to

be uncovered. I shall not rest until it has been and only then

perhaps, shall I be satisfied that justice has been seen to be done and

only then, if those faceless and gutless politicians, military and

Security Force personnel are exposed and prosecuted to the full

extent of the law.

My unease in this regard is as a result of the following

circumstances. (1) although I witnessed the attack, saw a Police van

on the scene, I was bullied by Des Segal, the Investigator, to forget

that fact. When I refused, he tried to discredit me by saying that I

was probably drunk at the time and if I did say what I had seen, at

the trial, it would upset the Prosecution. As a result I was kept out

of the witness box. If Segal had simply explained why a van could

have been there, I would possibly have accepted it and called it a

day.

(2) What was the Police doing there in the first place, where

were the occupants and what were they doing?

(3) The Police investigation had within a very short space of

time, three or four days, solved the case despite six persons arrested

and charged, only three perpetrators stood trial. The charges were

withdrawn against the rest. If the evidence was strong enough to

arrest and charge them, why were they not prosecuted? Was the

conspiracy only limited to these six? These persons were Theo

Mabusela, Michael Siyolo and Richard Dala.

(4) The person who supplied the weapons and ammunition to

the perpetrators were known to the Police. Were they arrested and

later released or are they still at large?

(5) Letlapa Maphalela, the Director of Military Operations of

APLA is implicated in Heidelberg Tavern, yet is allowed to go free.

He is not applying for amnesty for the Heidelberg Tavern, nor has

he been arrested.

(6) Other implicated persons are Basie Mcombusi and

Theofolus Sibeko. Why are they still at large? There whereabouts

are known to the authorities?

(7) Denzil Potgieter who defended the killers of my daughter,

now is a Commissioner of the very Committee called upon to grant

them amnesty.

(8) Dumisa Ntsebeza, a Commissioner with the TRC, has been

mentioned in connection with the Heidelberg Tavern attack in that it

is alleged that his vehicle was used in some way or the other.

(9) Des Segal died in a car crash early this year. In the

wreckage an R4 rifle, an RPG rocket launcher was found. The press

report talked about a possible link with the notorious Vlakplaas. I

realise some two years have elapsed between these two events, but

somehow I can only attack some sinister meaning to this. The public

have heard no more about Segal's R4 rifle, strangely it is the same

type of weapon used in the Heidelberg Tavern incident. My

question is whether this weapon has been tested or checked to see

whether it was the same one used at the Heidelberg Tavern. I

appeal to the Amnesty Committee to urgently order an inquiry into

the Des Segal affair.

(10) As at the 30th December 1993, the murders at Heidelberg

Tavern fell outside the time frame set for amnesty applications, yet

it was decided to extend this cut off date. My question is why?

I have a perception that the real perpetrators of the most evil

acts, are not going to be exposed and that the wrap will fall on the

few hirelings who did their bidding. People who by their own

admission have committed gross violations of human rights and who

are required simply to tell the truth, are assisted by high powered

legal representatives in order to do so.

In the majority of these cases, other than Heidelberg, the

funding of these lawyers is paid for by the very victims against who

they apply for amnesty from criminal prosecution or civil liability.

I have lost two children to the system, my son to the

Apartheid system of justice and my daughter at the hands of killers

that the system seems to protect.

In an attempt to find out who politically was also guilty of the

acts of murder at Heidelberg Tavern, I approached members of the

PAC namely Ms De Lille, Barny Desai and Richard Zinani. Ms De

Lille told me that she had personally spoken to the applicants in this

amnesty application and that they had steadfastly denied involvement

in the killing. I have noticed that the applications for amnesty of the

applicants say very little about the actual attack.

Gqomfa suggests that the attack was launched from outside

the Tavern. He does not suggest that anyone entered the premises

and shot whilst inside. Madasi and Mabala had given no details

whatsoever. I am forced to wonder why not.

Is this a tactic? Have they not yet decided what to say and

who to implicate or will those details only be filled in after

consultation with the hierarchy of the PAC or APLA?

I also wonder whose interest ought to safeguarded here. I

urge this Committee that common sense and justice prevail in your

assessment of the evidence and refuse amnesty. I do not wish to

dwell on my personal circumstances, however, I have been advised

that such information is important to reveal to you.

The pain of losing my son was compounded a million times by

the death of my daughter. I felt responsible and guilty for both of

them. I have lived with that for the past four years.

My personality has changed. I have not been able, despite

extensive therapy and counselling at Valkenberg Hospital, to shed

the anger, rage, guilt, feelings of revenge and helpless desperation at

the system that allows murderers to escape punishment.

Suffice to say my marriage has suffered irreparable harm. My

wife suffers from extreme anxiety and nervous tension. We are both

on constant medication. I am not being able to forgive the killer of

my daughter Rolanda, and cannot be a hypocrite and say so when my

heart has feelings of murderous rage towards them and their

masters.

Finally, I challenge the leader of the PAC, Bishop Magoba,

not to justify atrocities like Heidelberg Tavern with reference to

similar atrocities perpetrated by the Apartheid regime, but to

acknowledge it as a gross violation of the human rights of all those

young people who were killed and maimed and to name all those

who were involved in the authorization, planning and execution of

the attack so that the truth will be known.

This was dated at Cape Town on the 27th of October, that

was Monday, 1997. Mr Palm, you heard the statement read out on

your behalf?

MR PALM: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: Do you confirm that statement?

MR PALM: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: Do you adhere to the contents of that statement?

MR PALM: That is correct.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I was also requested by Mr Palm there

was a letter addressed to the TRC Committee by Mrs Palm and I

have not opened it. Her wish was to hand it to the Chairman, may I

do so?

CHAIRPERSON: I understand this is to the TRC Committee, not

the Amnesty Committee?

MR PRIOR: I think in error she said the TRC Committee, I

understand from Mr Palm ... (intervention)

MR PALM: She wanted the Chairman to read it out.

MR PRIOR: Maybe you could elaborate, could you explain?

MR PALM: No, she said I must give it to the members of the

Committee and them to have it read out publicly.

CHAIRPERSON: It is addressed to whom it may concern. It is my

understanding that during the struggle the main aim and objective

was to free Mr Mandela and lead our people out of bondage to

ensure a brighter future for all.

On the 30th of December 1993, the struggle was supposedly

over as Mr Mandela was free. For my family and I, it brought

nothing but sorrow and pain. Bitterness and hatred eats away the

soul, but our soul was destroyed the day APLA brutally murdered

my daughter.

I have nothing but contempt for these (indistinct) who now

are enjoying the new South Africa, while others weep and mourn

their loved ones. These demons are now being integrated into our

already corrupt Police Force. What was wrong with Mr Mandela to

allow these monsters to take over?

Surely they will kill their colleagues who are now forced to

work with them, these power hungry, evil (indistinct), sworn by

Satan himself, seek only to overthrow the Government as they claim.

They are the Government in waiting.

I hope the Commission keeps this in mind when granting

amnesty to these wicket lost souls. APLA's main goal in life is to

seize power for themselves, they have shown the world that they

have no regrets for their crimes and evil deeds.

They will kill again, that I can assure you. The word APLA

spells fear in the people's hearts and the leaders embrace this

knowledge, that is why they say and do as they deem fit. As for

amnesty, whether I oppose it or not, they will definitely be freed to

continue their devious work by repossession or whatever they can

lay their filthy paws on, even if it does not belong to them.

APLA have taken from us one of the most precious gifts the

Lord can ever give us, my daughter was everything a mother, a

father and brothers and sisters could ever want. And the void her

death has left us all, an and will never be filled again.

I will never in all the time left to me, forgive anyone that had

a hand in her death. I ask God every day to understand and forgive

me for feeling all this hatred and contempt that I have for her

murderers. My daughter was the type of person that would have

wanted me to forgive these killers, as she believed in our Creator.

I would just like to thank the Commission for taking the time

to read my letter and I will also like to ask the Commission if they

could read this letter to the amnesty applicants because I would like

them to know exactly how we feel. Thanking you in anticipation,

Mrs M.E. Palm.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Palm, is there anything

that you wish to add to your submissions? Is there any further

evidence you would like to give, or any statement you would like to

make?

MR PALM: I think I have covered most of what I want to say. But

as everybody is talking about reparations, I would like to ask the

Commission for reparations. I am not looking for any monetary

assistance, I would like, I appeal to the amnesty board to please

look into my son's case and try and take these obstacles that is

holding us back, to get at that truth first.

MR PRIOR: Is that all?

MR PALM: Thank you.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE: No questions, Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE

JUDGE WILSON: Have you seen a plan of the Tavern?

MR PALM: I know if off by heart Your Honour.

JUDGE WILSON: Could you indicate on that plan where you were

seated?

MR PALM: The arrow shows at point "b", but I was sitting more

against the wall, just below the raised platform. It is the very first

table below that.

JUDGE WILSON: Was that the restaurant section?

MR PALM: That was the dining area, yes, which is directly

virtually opposite the opening where the shooting came in.

JUDGE WILSON: But you didn't see anybody?

MR PALM: No, as I explained to the Investigating Officers, there

is a column and whoever did the shooting, was behind that column

so I didn't see a figure. All, when I realised that the shooting was

going on, it was just the sound, splinters, things breaking and the

smoke rising and that is the time I tried to get my daughter out of

the way and pulled her down to the floor.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Palm, thank you very much.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: Sorry Mr

Chairman, just one question. Mr Palm, you said on page 35 of your

statement that Mr Prior read, the second paragraph, while you were

sitting and talking, I glanced up over her shoulder to where the

sound was coming from, I noticed sparks, smoke, glasses breaking

and I realised this was because someone was shooting into the

Tavern.

MR PALM: That is correct.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, where you were sitting at - you referred to

the end of that line there that shows "b".

MR PALM: Yes, it was the first table below the raised platform.

The very first table, I had my back towards the wall facing the

opening and her back was towards that opening.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, when you say the shooting was into the

Tavern, was that shooting coming through the windows, through the

door?

MR PALM: Well, I can't say I note the shooting through the

windows, but that shooting sort of seemed to be directed down the

passage way into the bar, because as I said it narrows there by the

step, the stairway and there is a bar area beyond that, it was sort of

directed into that direction which gave me the edge to get out of the

way in time.

ADV ARENDSE: You seem from the marking that I have made and

I could be wrong, you seem to be sitting closer to the double doors

than to the stairway?

MR PALM: That is correct, the stairway is actually beyond the

point. I wouldn't be able to see the stairway from where I was

sitting, because there is also another column just in front and there

is a telephone on that corner.

ADV ARENDSE: So how far, can you remember how far you were

sitting from the double doors?

MR PALM: Which double door are you talking about, the one on

the road side or are you talking about the entrance?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, from the road side, maybe the best thing is

if you look at where "g" and "f" is.

MR PALM: Yes, I was sitting quite close to that. Well, it was

quite near.

ADV ARENDSE: When you say near, can you maybe just indicate

or can you say two metres, three metres, four metres, five metres?

MR PALM: I would estimate about four metres.

ADV ARENDSE: Four metres? Thank you Mr Palm.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Palm, thank you. You are excused from

further attendance Mr Palm.

MR PALM: Thank you, Your Honour.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman, I call Mr Brode. His name

appears on item 7 on the submissions by victims.

BENJAMIN BRODE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr

Brode, you have also prepared submissions in this matter and you

have handed them to me, is that correct?

MR BRODE: That is correct, yes.

MR PRIOR: Would you like me to read that out for you to confirm

or would you like to read it out yourself?

MR BRODE: I would like you to read it out Mr Prior and there is

another submission.

MR PRIOR: Yes. Mr Chairman, I am going to skip all the other

detail and just read from paragraph 3 onwards. His personal details

and employment history is clear. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Regarding the incident, paragraph 3 at page 73 of the bundle

of submissions, you said as follows: I had been on duty at

Machados restaurant on the night of the 30th of December 1993

when the incident in question took place.

The restaurant had been quite full that evening, being the

festive season and everyone was in a jolly mood. After the

restaurant had closed, the owner Joe Cerqueira, his brother and

another colleague whose name I can't remember, had been clearing

the restaurant and set about preparing the restaurant for the next

day's business.

When we heard what we assumed was a car backfiring in the

road outside, the sound continued and we thought that it may also

be the sound of fireworks thrown by some partygoers outside. I was

the first to walk out of the restaurant to investigate and was

followed by my colleagues.

I saw individuals coming out of the Heidelberg Tavern, which

is located next to Machados restaurant. They were making their way

to a dark coloured car. I saw what again I thought was flares or

fireworks and then noticed these individuals were firing automatic

machine gun fire in all directions.

Once they spotted me and my colleagues, they fired in our

direction. In the resulting confusion, we pushed our way back into

the restaurant and took cover as best we could. I remember lying

flat on the floor of the restaurant.

Once the firing had stopped, I ran out of the restaurant. It

was at this stage I saw the deceased, Joe Cerqueira lying, dying in

the gutter, he had been shot in the chest. The result was complete

mayhem as people ran around in shock, shouting for help. It was

only at this stage, when I knelt down next to the deceased that I

realised that I had been shot in the leg.

My thoughts at that stage were about Joe Cerqueira and I

remember thinking Joe, you can't die now. The exact details of what

happened after that are not clear to me.

4. The effect of the incident. A month after the shooting, my

life had fallen to pieces. I withdrew totally from the day to day

activities of life. Interests that I once had such as mountain

climbing were now of no importance to me.

I withdrew from all sporting activities that I had been

involved in. I began drinking alcohol heavily, suffered insomnia and

a lack of concentration of things going on around me. The most

traumatic effect that this had on me, has been the loss of contact

with those closest to me, my family.

I was referred to professional help to the psychology

department of Groote Schuur Hospital. I also saw a psychiatrist at

the hospital, who diagnosed me as suffering from post traumatic

stress and was placed on medication for one year.

After the incident I applied for a job at the Crab Shack

restaurant in Milnerton. During my first shift deliveries were being

made to the restaurant via the back entrance. I was unaware of the

delivery and when I saw the black gentleman walking into the back

entrance, I thought this could also be an attack on the restaurant. I

broke in a sweat and had a panic attack.

Resulting in the fact that I broke down and was unable to

continue working at the restaurant. I never returned to this

restaurant, the realisation as how quickly one's life can be taken

became a nightmare for me. Joe's death had effected me adversely

and as I feel I have become a total nervous wreck.

I was once again referred to the out-patient department of

Groote Schuur Hospital and also to the welfare department, who

after consulting with me, applied for disability family grant. It was

also recommended that I attend Valkenberg Hospital for further

observation.

Because of the connectation attached to Valkenberg Hospital,

I refused and stayed away. I feel as if I have become a monster. I

feel distanced from my family and unable to guide them as leader of

the household. My life seems to be a constant see saw in that I feel

up one day, and down the next.

I feel as if my manhood has been taken away from me. I

seldom feel as if I would be able to be a normal person again.

My view regarding the amnesty application. If this had been

an accident, I could find it in my heart to forgive the applicants.

This was purely a terrorist attack for which the applicants had

willingly trained and executed their orders. And they too, like those

of us who have suffered the trauma because of this incident, should

pay the price.

I am sure they were reimbursed by their employers, something

that we have not been. I therefore oppose the application for

amnesty for these individuals.

How I see the future. The future seems bleak for me and my

family as I have been unable to hold down a permanent job. The

inability to be the leader of my family, has been debilitating to say

the least and I really fear for the future of my children.

Reparation and compensation. I feel that what has been taken

away from me and my family, should be compensated for and I

would appreciate the Reparation Committee to look into this.

Signed at Cape Town, the 22nd of October 1997.

Do you confirm that statement?

MR BRODE: Yes.

MR PRIOR: Do you adhere to its contents?

MR BRODE: I do.

MR PRIOR: I want to ask you a few questions regarding the

incident. You were present at the hearing when Mr Cerqueira, Mr

Francisco Cerqueira gave evidence regarding the incident, is that

correct?

MR BRODE: Yes.

MR PRIOR: He mentioned in his evidence that you at some stage,

after the shooting, brought the firearm, a firearm which had

belonged to Mr Cerqueira the deceased, to him. Did you hear that

evidence?

MR BRODE: Yes.

MR PRIOR: Could you explain to the Committee the circumstances

surrounding that?

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you find the firearm?

MR BRODE: I can't remember.

MR PRIOR: What do you remember of the incident? You

mentioned about the shooting and that you ran inside the restaurant?

MR BRODE: Yes, that is correct yes.

MR PRIOR: Where was Mr Cerqueira deceased, Joe Cerqueira, at

the time when you ran back, moved back into the restaurant?

MR BRODE: When I went back into the restaurant, and I shouted

for Joe ...

MR PRIOR: Did you know where he was, did you see him?

MR BRODE: No, the last that I can remember is that he was at the

back of the restaurant.

MR PRIOR: Can you remember what you did after the shots were

fired? The initial shots, when you were out on the street?

MR BRODE: I was out on the street.

MR PRIOR: When you were on the pavement and you said they

were shooting at you, you then turned and moved back into the

restaurant, you ran in?

MR BRODE: Yes, that is correct yes.

MR PRIOR: What did you then do?

MR BRODE: I ran into the restaurant, you know it was a complete

confusion at the door. I know that Frans went into the restaurant

and there was three of us. We went back into the restaurant, I

didn't see Joe anywhere.

MR PRIOR: When was the first time to see him after the shooting?

MR BRODE: After the shooting, the first time I saw him was when

we came out and he was lying outside.

MR PRIOR: Did you see a firearm next to the body?

MR BRODE: No, I didn't.

MR PRIOR: Can you remember, and you indicated to the

Committee you don't remember where you picked the firearm up

from?

MR BRODE: I've got no recollection of that.

MR PRIOR: Did you receive any medical treatment at the scene?

MR BRODE: Yes, they said they were going to take me up to the

hospital.

MR PRIOR: Did you receive no injections or medication? Can you

remember?

MR BRODE: I think, yes they led me to an ambulance and they

gave me an injection. They gave me something to calm me, I think,

yes.

MR PRIOR: Do you have any difficulty recalling the events of that

evening? You seem to have ...

MR BRODE: Yes, there are things that I can remember, but just

after the shooting, there is big gaps, you know, I can't remember.

MR PRIOR: Is there anything else you wish to tell the Committee

regarding the application for amnesty? You said you had some

statement or further points?

MR BRODE: Yes, well this is just something that I would like Mr

Prior to read for me.

MR PRIOR: Is that possible Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, assist him. Is this something which you

have written out yourself?

MR BRODE: This is something that someone had written out for

me, that I have expressed over to him and he has put it in writing for

me.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, to balance properly the interest of

society with those of the applicants, and to reflect such balance in a

verdict that is both just to society and just to the applicants so often

calls for deep insight and for the wisdom of a Solomon - qualities

with which we are blessed in some small measure.

One must look carefully at the offender and try to understand

his background and what moved him to act as he did in the

particular situation in which he found himself.

Then the demands of society have to be considered. This

includes the need to express appropriate disapproval of what was

done as well as the need to deter both the offender and others from

committing crime.

The rehabilitation of the offender is also in a suitable case, a

fact to be weighed. The crime in this case is particularly horrifying.

And it is difficult to think of a more terrible crime than of innocent

young people being killed in such an attack.

The way in which these young people were done to death, was

heartless and cruel. The cover up operation which followed, was

cunning and evidence of coldness and deliberateness about the whole

operation which I found disturbing when such relatively young

people.

The crime is heinous. It is clear from the evidence that all the

accused were very much under the influence of the military high

command under which they trained. Yet having said all that, it is

nevertheless clear that they embarked on this evil course of their

own free choice.

We have not been told the full truth of the applicants, it

remains difficult for me to find reconciliation in my heart.

Is that what you wanted me to read out?

MR BRODE: Thank you, yes.

MR PRIOR: It is available Mr Chairman. Is there anything else

that you wish to bring to the attention of the Committee? Is there

anything else in this matter?

MR BRODE: No.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE: Thank you. Mr

Brode, let me tell you that on, I speak for myself and my colleagues

here, that we feel for you and for the other victims about what

happened.

Indeed, there is none of us sitting at this table, who haven't

experienced the kind of experiences that you are going through,

personal and friends and relatives, tortured, maimed, killed, by the

State, so it is not that we don't appreciate your suffering at this

moment. But I've got to ask you a few questions, you appreciate

that?

MR BRODE: Not really, but go ahead.

ADV ARENDSE: Not really?

MR BRODE: No.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay, is it important for you that we must get as

complete or as full a picture as possible about what happened there

that night?

MR BRODE: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Are you prepared to help me to establish that

picture, knowing that I have mentioned you have been here this

whole week, that I am not here to defend the indefensible, that I

agree with you that it was a heinous crime?

MR BRODE: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: I just want to actually deal with one aspect

which is an important aspect. And that aspect relates to whether or

not you know or whether you can't tell us with any certainty,

whether or not Mr Jose Cerqueira used a firearm that evening?

MR BRODE: Just repeat the question please?

ADV ARENDSE: Can you just tell us whether you can remember

whether or not Mr Cerqueira used a firearm that evening?

MR BRODE: Not to my knowledge.

ADV ARENDSE: Can't you say or are you certain that he did not?

Let me put it another way, is it possible that he may have used a

firearm without you knowing?

MR BRODE: No.

ADV ARENDSE: Why are you so certain?

MR BRODE: Because when I went out of the restaurant, I didn't

see Joe outside the restaurant.

ADV ARENDSE: Isn't the reason why when you went outside, he

had already gone outside and had gone just a little way to the right

of the door where you had come out with Frans and with the other

waiter, isn't that the reason why you never saw him?

MR BRODE: No.

ADV ARENDSE: How can you be so certain?

MR BRODE: Because when we heard shots, I was the first one to

leave the restaurant.

ADV ARENDSE: Were you the first one, was Frans not the first

one?

MR BRODE: No.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay, let me ask you why - you say you can't

remember where you found the firearm?

MR BRODE: No.

ADV ARENDSE: Why is the firearm in issue?

MR BRODE: It wasn't an issue to me. As you can see from my

first and my second statement, I didn't mention that.

ADV ARENDSE: You gave evidence in court?

MR BRODE: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: And you mentioned the firearm in court. Can

you remember mentioning the firearm in court?

MR BRODE: No.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay. You appear to have mentioned it in court.

The Judge, on page 47 of the record, mentions that you in

Afrikaans you called at Cerqueira for his firearm, which he kept

behind the counter. Can you recall saying something like that?

MR BRODE: Yes, that I do recall.

ADV ARENDSE: So you did mention a firearm?

MR BRODE: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Why did you call to Mr Cerqueira for his

firearm?

MR BRODE: I called to Mr Cerqueira to get his firearm, because

we were attacked and that is you know, while I was running back

into the restaurant.

ADV ARENDSE: Isn't it possible then that he heard the cracking

sound or the sounds emanating from the Tavern, that he took his

firearm and ran outside before you even got outside. Isn't that

possible?

MR BRODE: No.

ADV ARENDSE: Now if the, you are certain about that, or you

appear to be certain.

MR BRODE: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: Why did the firearm feature? Why did you - did

you hand the firearm to Frans or did you hand it to the Police?

MR BRODE: I can't remember that.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Frans Cerqueira says that you handed him the

firearm and he handed it in turn to the Police.

MR BRODE: That could have been a possibility.

ADV ARENDSE: So why did you hand him the firearm?

MR BRODE: I can't answer that.

ADV ARENDSE: Because at that point, and Mr Frans Cerqueira

says it was about ten minutes or so, I speak under correction, it was

about ten minutes or so after he had picked up his brother, after he

had been shot. So, and you were in quite a state, so was Mr Frans

Cerqueira, is that not right?

MR BRODE: That is right.

ADV ARENDSE: So, we are trying to establish here for what

reason would you give a firearm to him, to give to the Police?

MR BRODE: There is the possibility that when I went back into

the restaurant, during the shooting, calling out for Joe, calling out

for the gun, that after everything had you know, when we went out

the second time and - well, I will start again. There is the

possibility that when I went out, when I came back into the

restaurant the first time and called out for Joe and the gun, that

when this was all over and after seeing Joe lying there, getting up,

going inside, I know that I did contact my parents, there is the

possibility that the gun could have been underneath the counter.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have a definite recollection of that, is

that so?

MR BRODE: Under oath ...

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have a definite recollection of that, do

you?

MR BRODE: I have no definite recollection of how I got the gun

in my hand to give it to Frans Cerqueira.

ADV ARENDSE: I want to suggest to you another possibility Mr

Brode, and that is the possibility that Mr Cerqueira could have taken

the gun, he reacted, he took his gun, he ran outside. If you look at

photograph 22, he had run outside, turned right, was in the vicinity

of the drain you see there and fired a shot or shots with his gun at

the attackers as they were approaching. At that same moment or

more or less at the same moment, you and Frans and the other

waiter, came out of the Machados, the shots were then also coming

in your direction, the car was by that stage already passed the door

of Machados and hence you see those marks on the inside of the

entrance to Machados, and that is when you took cover and ran back

inside.

MR BRODE: And that is your suggestion?

ADV ARENDSE: That is what I am suggesting.

MR BRODE: That is your suggestion, could I make a suggestion?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR BRODE: Okay, my suggestion is okay the facts are that I left

the restaurant first, followed by my colleagues. And you kept

stressing the point that I didn't mention anything about Frans and

one thing and another, I want to try and control myself.

My suggestion is we heard the shots, Joe was not in the front

of the restaurant, I am talking about the front area of the restaurant,

not near the front, just the front area of the restaurant, he was not

there, he was not there, he was at the back.

He was at the far end of the restaurant, not in the front end of

the restaurant. We heard the shots, I went out. Right, when I went

out, I saw guys coming out of the Tavern next door and as they

were coming out, getting into their cars, they were shooting, but to

me it was like as if they were just ushered out, you know because

they were causing disturbance there and they were just told to leave,

that is the way I saw it.

Right, they got into the car, the car was moving towards us,

the lights were still off. Still shooting, still firing away, blindly,

then suddenly they fired at us. I felt a push from the back, you

know, that is when I turned to run in. And at no stage, at no stage,

I will stress at no stage, was Joe Cerqueira outside there with us.

He was not lying in that gutter, there at that yellow pole in front of

us.

My suggestion is there is a possibility that when we turned to

run back inside, in the confusion there at the door, we running

inside, no one verbally said Joe, duck, someone is shooting, no one

said nothing, I can't remember seeing Joe or anything. In that

confusion as we were running for our lives, Joe could have come

through. That is my opinion. And to answer, you know, about the

gun, as I said I don't, I have got no recollection. I have taken an

oath and I can't recall giving the gun to Frans. There is the

possibility, after what happened I was a total wreck.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Brode, did you say you ran inside?

MR BRODE: I said I ran inside.

ADV ARENDSE: Were you not dragged inside by Frans?

MR BRODE: There is the possibility of that. I will tell you why,

because when I - well I did as Frans said, you know, froze because I

did not realise that they were actually, physically shooting at us.

And then at that stage I heard, I felt someone sort of nudge me from

the back, that could have been you know, when he grabbed me to

pull me inside.

But I felt that I made headway inside. We were all sort of, it

was almost like in a scrum.

ADV ARENDSE: I also want to suggest to you Mr Brode, that

you, when you saw the attackers, they were inside the car and the

car was coming in your direction.

MR BRODE: The first time I saw what I saw, was the car standing

there and guys, gentlemen, well not gentlemen - there were people

standing outside, to me it looked as if they were throwing flares.

ADV ARENDSE: How far outside Machados did you go? Did you

go into the road, onto the pavement, near to the drain, where did

you go?

MR BRODE: Yes, I would say I was standing between, well at an

angle of between the yellow pole and - well, on that corner there.

You know, when you come out, to the right of the photo, off the

step there where that white marks are. I would say just before that.

ADV ARENDSE: Tell me, why would you be calling for the late

Mr Cerqueira's gun when you initially or sorry, let me be fair, so

that initially you thought that this was a bunch of guys I think you

called them partygoers or something throwing crackers or

something? That is the first time?

MR BRODE: That is correct, that is when I was standing out there.

ADV ARENDSE: So, it was only the second time ... (intervention)

MR BRODE: No, no, no, can I interrupt you?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR BRODE: I did say while I was looking at them, I was under

the impression they were throwing firecrackers. When they were on

top of me and they shot in our direction, and there was smoke and

you know, parts of the wall here and you know, you are getting all

this into your eyes, what is it when a bullet sort of splinters up, the

shrapnel of the bullets, you know, when that was all, they were

virtually on top of me when I realised wow, you know, here my life

is in danger.

ADV ARENDSE: So the first time you saw them was they were

standing immediately in front of the Tavern, shooting inside?

MR BRODE: That was what I thought.

ADV ARENDSE: Shooting inside the Tavern?

MR BRODE: Well, shooting all around you know, it was all

around.

ADV ARENDSE: Yes.

MR BRODE: It was all around, to me it looked like just you know,

it is the festive season. We had a nice busy evening and you know, I

took it they were partygoers just told you know, okay back off now.

ADV ARENDSE: And the next time they were inside the car when

you saw them when you came out?

MR BRODE: No. No, you are not hearing me.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say the next time Mr Arendse, what do

you mean by the next time? It was still while he was still there on

the pavement.

MR BRODE: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: He's explained he stood there, he saw them, the

car then came towards him. There was no next time.

ADV ARENDSE: So you were only outside once?

MR BRODE: That is correct. Wait, okay, what is it that you want

to know? You are talking about how many times I went outside

during, after or before the shooting or what? What is it?

ADV ARENDSE: I want to know you saw them the first time, they

were shooting as you say all over the place?

MR BRODE: That is right, that is what brought to my attention.

The reason why I went outside is because I heard shots, but it

sounded like a car backfiring or the throwing of crackers.

And I went outside and I went through the whole scenario

while I was outside.

ADV ARENDSE: Because Mr Brode your evidence is summarised

as follows by the Judge in the criminal case at page 46. And I will

read it to you in Afrikaans. Have you got the translation? They

were busy clearing up when he heard something that sounded like a

car backfiring. He ran outside and saw three men who looked as if

they were throwing fire crackers and they got into a car.

I just want to pause there. So at that point, according to you

- the Judge's summary, unless you must tell us that that summary

was wrong or incorrect, at that point you see them get into the

vehicle.

MR BRODE: At that point yes, but go back two lines or two

sentences.

ADV ARENDSE: Well, I will read to you from the beginning.

MR BRODE: No, no, I've picked up from the beginning you know,

going outside, now we are outside.

ADV ARENDSE: Go back or forward two sentences?

MR BRODE: I said back.

ADV ARENDSE: When I go back two sentences, then it is the

beginning of the summary of your sentence.

MR BRODE: Okay, I apologise.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, where do you want, must I just read the

whole thing?

MR BRODE: No, no, go back.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, Mr Arendse, you shouldn't ask him where

you should read. You've got a question to put to him, read the

portion that you think is relevant for the purposes of your question.

ADV ARENDSE: Well, he asked me to read it Mr Chairman.

Benjamin Brode, like Jose Cerqueira the deceased of whom mention

has just been made, were working at the restaurant Machados. He

along with Jose Cerqueira, his wife as well as another waiter stayed

behind while all the guests have left the restaurant at quarter past

eleven.

They were clearing up when they heard something like a

motor vehicle backfiring, he ran outside and saw three men who

appeared to be throwing fire crackers and they were getting into a

car.

As he stepped down from the step of the restaurant onto the

pavement, he saw a large, dark motor vehicle parked against the one

way. He had not at that point realised that something was going

wrong. The motor vehicle then slowly moved in his direction.

Now my question was, I am sorry if it wasn't clear to you, my

question was are you seeing all this as you come out of Machados?

Are you seeing these men who are looking like they are throwing

these crackers, getting into the car and the very next moment, they

are coming towards you in the car?

MR BRODE: That is correct.

ADV ARENDSE: And when they come towards you while they are

inside the car, they are firing in your direction?

MR BRODE: They turned their fire on us.

ADV ARENDSE: While they were in the car?

MR BRODE: Yes.

ADV ARENDSE: So they never fired at you while they were

standing outside or whatever they were doing, where they were

standing outside the Heidelberg Tavern?

MR BRODE: Well, no bullet came passed my head, no.

ADV ARENDSE: Okay. So would it be correct to say that they

fired only at you once they had been in the car, once they got into

the car?

MR BRODE: Yes, well, I don't think - they didn't fire at me before

they got into the car. Before they were on top of us.

ADV ARENDSE: The firing came while the car was moving

towards you and these three people they had by now gotten into the

car?

MR BRODE: They got in the car firing yes, but they were firing at

the Heidelberg Tavern and they were firing you know, just all

around, but nothing came towards us. To me I have seen flares to

both sides of the street, but not down the street.

ADV ARENDSE: Now, at that point, you are now observing this

and you don't see the late Mr Cerqueira in the vicinity?

MR BRODE: Not at all.

ADV ARENDSE: Isn't it then possible that he comes out somehow

passes you and had on his own, shot at the attackers, inviting them

or maybe that word is entirely inappropriate, but then resulting in

shots being fired also in your direction?

MR BRODE: I didn't see that.

ADV ARENDSE: Because your focus must have been on this car

and this car coming at you? Surely that must have been your focus?

You must have been terrified?

MR BRODE: Yes, that was our focus.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on please.

ADV ARENDSE: Did you pick up anything, did you pick up

anything Mr Brode at the scene or from the deceased?

MR BRODE: I can't remember much. It was difficult you know.

ADV ARENDSE: Could you remember whether Frans picked up

anything?

MR BRODE: I can't remember.

ADV ARENDSE: And I mean it is because you can't remember that

is why you didn't mention the pouch at court or in any of your

statements?

MR BRODE: I am trying my utmost to assist where I can. I can't

remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Arendse, are there any other questions?

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE

MR PRIOR: No re-examination Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR

ADV SANDI: Mr Brode, when you keep on saying I cannot

remember, is that because of the manner in which your health has

been effected by all this?

MR BRODE: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brode, thank you very much, you are excused

from further attendance.

MR BRODE: Thank you very much.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I call the last witness, that is available,

have we got enough time? It is Mr Fourie?

CHAIRPERSON: I understand the interpreters have to leave at

quarter to four.

MR PRIOR: Can we fit him in, I don't want to curtail his

submission.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know how long you will be, so I can't tell

you whether you should call him or not.

MR PRIOR: I understand my learned friend will be

accommodating, he is not a witness to the events, he simply wants to

make a submission, so if my learned friend can maybe give the

Commission an indication, then we can fit Mr Fourie in.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he going to give evidence or make a

statement?

MR PRIOR: He is going to give evidence, simply refer the

Committee to the statement and confirm the statement.

MR FOURIE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR: Mr Fourie, is it correct that

Lindi Anne Fourie was your daughter and she died in the attack at

Heidelberg?

MR FOURIE: That is right.

MR PRIOR: You have prepared a submission for the Committee?

MR FOURIE: That is right.

MR PRIOR: Would you read those submissions out?

MR FOURIE: I do believe you have a copy of what I have typed

here?

MR PRIOR: Yes, and so does the Committee. If it is at all

possible, we don't want to curtail you, but where you can

summarise, would you be willing to do that or would you want to

read it all out?

MR FOURIE: Would you rather I give it to you on Monday in a

typed out form, so that you can then consider it at your own time?

MR PRIOR: Well, we have the submissions that you have prepared,

that bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: They are on oath, are they?

MR PRIOR: They are not on oath, but I will ask him to confirm

them.

MR FOURIE: I have signed a document here, you can have it if

you wish Mr Chairman. But there are other observations that I wish

to make based on what I have seen and heard here this passed week.

Mr Fourie, if you could make your submissions.

MR FOURIE: Reads:-

"Chicken, please be careful when you and your friends

visit in and around Mowbray and Observatory areas.

Why Pops? My girl, there is some strange people in

this world and strange things happen in some of these

parts of town. Ag pappie, moenie worry nie, we will be

all right."

Isn't it ironic that these would be the last words that my

daughter and I would exchange on that evening, her last words in

her life.

Mr Chairman, panel members and others, my wife and I am

here to honour and defend the memory of our only daughter, Lindi

Anne, we also speak for our son who is in England and the rest of

Lindi's family and her many friends who are may add are of many

persuasions and some of whom are, if you will pardon the term, not

white.

As Lindi's father, responsible for her existence, I accepted the

responsibility of raising and caring for her to the best of my ability,

together with the help and input of my wife and our son Anthony as

well as those around us. Those have made up Lindi's family, her

school teachers, her fellow church members and her many other

friends, to these I say thank you for returning the love that Lindi

gave of so freely.

Now that Lindi's mother has stated her position and feelings

on the death of our only daughter, I thank her publicly for being a

wonderful mother to Lindi. Her example and encouragement will

long be remembered by the rest of her family, especially by Anthony

and myself.

I will then now continue and leave out the rest of my written

submission, my typed submission and I will make some

observations, based on what I have seen and heard here Mr

Chairman.

MR PRIOR: Mr Fourie, do you adhere to the contents of those

submissions contained in that statement and which is before the

Committee and which will be considered by the Committee in its

totality? Do you adhere to those?

MR FOURIE: Mr Prior, yes, I do and I will refer you to the bottom

of page 7 where I said to Mr Chairman, I mean every word I have

said, especially in regard to bringing all the perpetrators and

accomplices to court, and charging them.

MR PRIOR: Thank you, would you like to make your additional

submissions.

MR FOURIE: I would like to do that if I may. I will keep it as

brief as possible. I am looking at you right now, what is this, tell

me, I am listening, what is this? Is this a man or not?

Right, you are men, I am a man, I will talk straight to you and

to the Chairman. How do you know that you fatally wounded Mr

Jose Cerqueira, are you a seasoned or regular killer?

You pleaded not guilty at the trial, yet you say here that you

intended killing and wounding as many people as possible and now

say you want amnesty. How do I understand you?

Mr Chairman, I do find it very difficult to accept that the

statements given by these people are genuine, genuinely from them

and perhaps not some concocted story to save their necks. I am

being blunt Sir, and I apologise if I do that, and I offend anybody,

but I am also not apologising.

Accepting that I was not at the scene of the crime, I still

believe I may ask why must I believe you when you say you did not

enter the Tavern, when you say anything for that matter because

bearing in mind what you have admitted to, that is the killing of

innocent people.

I cannot believe anything you say because I cannot trust

murderers. Why must I believe your statement about why you think

you should be absolved of this crime, the murder of my daughter and

others?

The post mortem should reveal quite accurately how close the

killers were to the victims when they were shot. I refer to page 12

in the court proceedings, three young women were shot that evening

in the Heidelberg Tavern. It is on page 44 of the bundle.

Bernadette Langford's heart was torn apart by the impact of the

bullet, Lindi Anne Fourie was shot in the right hand side of the

neck. The bullet dragged all of the main blood veins off, and

crushed her neck bones. Rolanda Palm was also shot in the heart.

If we were firing wildly, how coincidental is it Mr Chairman,

that three of the victims were shot in positions which would

certainly have meant virtually instant death? I also was trained in

the use of firearms. It is a frightening reality that lives with me

every day of my wife, I regret having been trained to aim at another

human being and shoot. I hope to God I never will have to do it.

That is sincere and from my heart.

The apparent attitude of the applicants and particularly the

so-called Commander of these men, tells me that their bona fides

could be suspect and essentially destroys their possible chances of

being given amnesty.

Excusme me Mr Chairman, I highlighted what I wanted to

refer to from the notes.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR FOURIE: Surely as a soldier you were trained to have no

regrets, so why do you now say you regret your actions, those of

killing innocent people? Because one of your so-called leaders,

speaking for all of you supposedly, on page 21 of their statement

said the following and he was here on the 7th of October. Page 24,

this is a Brigadier Mofokeng.

"We do not therefore regret that such operations took place

and there is therefore nothing to apologise, because we

believe of the justness of our war and the correctness of our

struggle."

I find that statement contrary and contradictory to what the

objective is here today in these hearings. I am greatly disturbed by

that Sir and it would appear that this has been carried over to these

people.

Mr Madasi, your impatience was very evident whilst you were

being asked questions by Adv Prior. Why do you get impatient and

bear your teeth, you are asking and if you want to receive, surely

you need to ask in a reasonably humble and if not civilised manner

and tone of voice.

I would like to caution the applicants that perhaps they are

better off in jail, than out on the street and I will just give you one

reason. I arrived home two days ago only to read in a newspaper

five armed robberies in 48 hours in the little dorp where I live.

You've got competition and I am not being flippant here.

Beware of your attitude Mr Mabala, you are asking for

something, something bigger than you care to think about whilst you

were busy with your dirty work. So it is not in your best interest to

appear cheeky or impatient, even when your own Defence Counsel

asks you questions, questions that you are required to answer before

your request can even be considered.

Now, I will say something which you might find strange, but I

am still a person, okay, despite my anger and my hurt. Have you

seen an elderly person crying, look at me today, just look at this.

To the three and all of you related to this matter, I would not like to

be in your shoes. I also feel very, very sorry for your parents and

others who are interested in you because they've got to bear it with

you and with us. That is very difficult.

Mr Chairman, I wrote to a few people asking them to tell us

who Lindi Anne was because I thought perhaps the Committee here

would like to get a different perspective onto the type of person, as

to the type of person that Lindi Anne was. Some of them sent you

some of these, do you have them Mr Chairman?

MR PRIOR: Mr Chairman, they are annexed to his statement 56 to

61.

CHAIRPERSON: They are.

MR FOURIE: I won't read them, except Sir, if I may with your

permission, read just one of them.

It is written by a man I have known for many years and for

whom I have the greatest respect and he is one of the persons after

whom I named my son, Anthony Johan Fourie. He addressed it to

the Chairman, it is from a Mr A.W. Hall.

He said:

"re the Heidelberg Tavern murder. I have known the

Fourie family for many years and can remember Lindi

Anne virtually from birth. I carried her on my

shoulders when she was a child and I remember her as a

young girl who was mad about horses and loved

animals.

I remember her as a shy and conscientious schoolgirl

and I remember her showing off the magnificent matric

dance dress that she had made herself. Lindi Anne had

a strong character and an enquiring mind and was not in

the least bit surprised when I learnt that she had chosen

civil engineering as a career.

In fact being a civil engineer myself, I was proud of her.

The one thing that never failed to impress me about

Lindi Anne was her pleasant and gentle nature. She

gave the impression that she didn't have an enemy in the

world.

Lindi Anne was not class or race conscious and

accepted people as they were. She always looked for

the good in people. She had grown into a charming and

talented young lady who would, I am sure, have become

a valuable citizen and would have contributed positively

to the future of this country had she not been murdered

in her prime a few short months before graduating as a

civil engineer.

I cannot express the anger I felt when I learnt of the

senseless murder at the Heidelberg Tavern, quite apart

from the obvious anguish and irreplaceable loss suffered

by her family and friends, our nation has been deprived

of a really good above-average person, that had so

much to offer society, murdered by a bunch of morally

bankrupt nobodies, who have nothing to offer anyone. I

will be extremely disappointed if those responsible for

Lindi Anne's death, are granted amnesty.

At the time of the attack, the political climate in south

Africa was already changing dramatically and I cannot

see that the perpetrators of the attack, can justify their

actions on political grounds in any way whatsoever.

My feelings are not biased on racism. Civilisation is

not man's natural state, it is an ideal that requires

constant and diligent effort. We all harbour violent

thoughts from time to time, but the difference between

a civilised person and a barbarian, like the Worcester

bombers and the Heidelberg murderers, is that the latter

have no moral integrity to guide their actions.

Such people are a menace to any community and should

be removed from society permanently".

Mr Chairman, I will close with the statement that I have, one

paragraph Sir.

You see Mr Chairman, for too long now, I want the people

here to hear this, a few people in this country of ours, have had any

respect for each other, the people, the courts, not anything that

resembles a normal society. Do wish to see this type of thinking

continue?

Nobody in their right mind would wish it to continue,

therefore I have empathy for you, the Police, the Justice system and

all others who are trying to bring about a change of attitude and

hopefully a change in behaviour of all people, so as to ensure a

return to a normal and safe society.

May you be granted all the courage and strength necessary to

carry out the task that you face. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse, are there any questions you wish to

put to this witness?

ADV ARENDSE: No, Mr Chairman, except to say that Mr Fourie

made a number of controversial statements which if I do engage him

on it, it is not going to take us any further.

CHAIRPERSON: You will address us if you think it is relevant at

that time?

ADV ARENDSE: Yes, Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Fourie.

MR FOURIE: Thank you.

MR PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have, due to the lateness of

the hour and there are several other matters which will be decided

upon in due course, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Will the date for the resumed hearing be finalised

between you and Mr Arendse?

MR PRIOR: Yes, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I request, as I have already requested, that

the evidence be obtained as to how cartridges are expelled from

firearms, request that you get someone to go through that video and

insofar as possible, indicate on the sketch plan, or a larger sketch

plan, where the cartridge cases as are shown on the video, are in

fact. This could perhaps be done by agreement, that that correctly

reflects what is shown in the video.

So if we want to see where they are in the building, we don't

have to go through the whole video again, we can just put it onto a

sketch plan.

MR PRIOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we will comply with that

request.

ADV ARENDSE: Mr Chairman, will we also have a transcript

available? A transcript of the proceedings, a typed transcript?

CHAIRPERSON: You can raise that with the administration.

ADV ARENDSE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, the meeting will now

adjourn.

JUDGE WILSON: I am told Mr Arendse, that the practice is to

prepare transcripts in all hearings.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS UNTIL A DATE TO BE DECIDED

UPON

MR ARENDSE 501 F CERQUEIRA

CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

COMMITTEE 544 F CERQUEIRA

ADV ARENDSE 547 F CERQUEIRA

MR PRIOR 558 A J LANGFORD

CHAIRPERSON 560 ADDRESSES

JA FOURIE

CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

MR PRIOR 564 J A FOURIE

MR PRIOR 567 J A FOURIE

Q CORNELIUS

CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

MR PRIOR 571 Q CORNELIUS

CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

ADV ARENDSE 591 Q CORNELIUS

MR PRIOR 592 Q CORNELIUS

COMMITTEE 593 Q CORNELIUS

ADV ARENDSE 595 Q CORNELIUS

MR PRIOR 603 M JANUARY

ADV ARENDSE 608 M JANUARY

610

MR PRIOR 602 R L PALM

CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

MR PRIOR 630 R L PALM

ADV ARENDSE 632 R L PALM

B BRODE

CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

MR PRIOR 640 B BRODE

ADV ARENDSE 654 B BRODE

COMMITTEE 655 B BRODE

MR FOURIE

CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

MR PRIOR 656 MR FOURIE

674