Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: It is the 29th November 2000. The panel that will sit and hear the next application on behalf of Mr Paul Erasmus is the same panel that has been sitting from the beginning of this week and the legal representative for Mr Erasmus will still be Mr van Zyl and Ms Ramula Patel is our Evidence Leader. The incident that we'll hear this morning is the incident 67 on page 16 of our bundle being the assault on Mr Madhav. Am I correct, Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: That is correct, Honourable Chairperson. And for the record I represent Mr Madhav in this matter. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are we in a position to commence Mr van Zyl?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: There is no need to swear in Mr Erasmus, he can just be reminded that he is still under his former oath.

PAUL ERASMUS: (s.u.o.) I understand, Madame Chair.

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN ZYL: Mr Erasmus, you confirm again for the record paragraphs 1 to 8 in your application that relates to your service history?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.

MR VAN ZYL: We are now going to discuss incident 67, that is the assault on Mr Deepak Madhav during roundabout 1988. At the time of this assault who was your superior officer?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, my immediate commanding officer was Col. Jordaan - oh sorry, Col. Venter, forgive me.

MR VAN ZYL: And was he at all times fully appraised of this incident or this surveillance of Mr Madhav?

MR ERASMUS: He was aware of the situation that prevailed on the Saturday morning while we went to monitor the meeting and what happened subsequently.

MR VAN ZYL: Did you act on instructions?

MR ERASMUS: I acted under instructions.

MR VAN ZYL: Was it within the scope of your employ?

MR ERASMUS: It was most definitely in the scope of my employment, Madame Chair.

MR VAN ZYL: Can you then now please give the panel the full facts of this incident?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, it had come to our attention via the informer network that a meeting of the Johannesburg Youth Congress, also known as Joyco, was to take place in, if I remember correctly, Mint Road, Fordsburg, on the Saturday morning in question. I took a junior staff member, Sgt Fourie, Steven Fourie, gave him instructions to accompany me. My job was to hold surveillance on this meeting, if possible identify the persons who attended this meeting and for the record our interest, the Security Branch's interest in Joyco was that Joyco was an affiliate of the UDF, the United Democratic Front. Information that we had at our disposal from the informer network was that Joyco had either direct contact or had made contact with the then banned underground cell of the ANC and so yes, there was a lot of interest in determining who the people were that went to the meetings.

MR VAN ZYL: Was the UDF and Joyco and the ANC political opponents at the time?

MR ERASMUS: They were, Madame Chair.

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, continue please?

MR ERASMUS: We arrived at the meeting and at the conclusion of the meeting, we were sitting in a parked car, my vehicle, about 200 metres from the venue in question, photographing the people or the suspects as they were at that time. We noticed Mr Madhav, the gentleman sitting across from you, and several other people head in a certain direction. They were unknown to us and we started the car. When they got in their car and drove behind them. Our intention was, in terms of the emergency regulations and the powers that were vested in us in accordance with the Police Act 7/1958, to stop them, search the vehicle and identify them which we did. What happened, what immediately raised our suspicions was that Mr Madhav tried to race away which was ...(intervention)

MR VAN ZYL: Was he driving the vehicle?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Madhav, as I recall, was driving the vehicle and for the record, if I remember, it was I think a red car, a Ford Escort. Possibly a Mazda. We then chased after them, I think at one stage I even switched on the siren in my vehicle and stopped them not too far from the venue, conducted a very quick body search of the occupants.

MR VAN ZYL: How many occupants?

MR ERASMUS: I could be incorrect on this, there was Mr Madhav and two others in the vehicle. I don't recall their names or their identities.

MR VAN ZYL: Continue please?

MR ERASMUS: We found pamphlets in the car relating to - which was then an illegal possession of a speech made my Oliver Tambo of the ANC. I think the occasion, it was a speech that he'd made in Lusaka relating to probably the 70th anniversary or one of the ANC's anniversaries. But be that as it may, that was sufficient grounds to arrest Mr Madhav in terms of Act 7/1982 - is that correct? My memory is starting to fail me, Madame Chair, I forget.

CHAIRPERSON: What Act was that?

MR ERASMUS: That was the Internal Security Act. We also acted in terms of the emergency regulations which gave us additional powers of arrest and seizure. We asked Mr Madhav -I asked Mr Madhav for an explanation as to the pamphlet. He was evasive and in fact as far as I was concerned, not telling the truth. He denied that it was his property although it was in the vehicle. There was a lot of arguing. We then took Mr Madhav to his residence.

MR VAN ZYL: Did you immediately take him to the residence or did you first take him to John Vorster Square or not?

MR ERASMUS: I'm a little bit uncertain of that, we might have first taken him to John Vorster Square but what I remember that day is that at a stage we did go to Mr Madhav's residence.

MR VAN ZYL: Okay, continue?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Madhav's mother was present, we went into his bedroom where we found further copies of this pamphlet with the speech on it. Mr Madhav became very upset then because he realised, as we did, that he could no longer deny that the pamphlets were his, we found the exact copies, the same copies in his bedroom.

CHAIRPERSON: Which pamphlets are you referring to?

MR ERASMUS: The pamphlet was Mr Tambo's speech.

CHAIRPERSON: The speech by Mr Tambo?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair. We demanded to know where he got the pamphlets, on whose behalf he was distributing them and as an intimidatory measure, I wouldn't even call this, Madame Chair, assault. We shoved Mr Madhav around, I banged him on his chest. At one stage I had a screwdriver that I was stressing points with and I tapped him on his head with it.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you asked Mr Madhav from where he had obtained the pamphlets?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he give any reply to your enquiry?

MR ERASMUS: He was evasive throughout. I still don't know to this day where he got the pamphlets from. After this, Madame Chair, to just explain that point to you, he was handed over to the investigation branch at John Vorster Square. I never heard to this day or subsequently that if they'd ever found out how he had got hold of the pamphlets, but be that as it may it was my intention that morning, it was my job to find out where these pamphlets came from.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you say he was evasive, did he give a response, an indication as to who was in possession of the pamphlet that you had found in his home?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, clearly he was in possession of the pamphlets but it was our ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Why? Was he the only occupant of that house?

MR ERASMUS: As I understood it, it was him staying there with his mother, in fact met her during the search.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR ERASMUS: And the pamphlets were in his bedroom which to me more than sufficient proof that he knew about them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ERASMUS: And that was also contrary to the explanations that he'd given us previously in the motor car that he knew nothing about them.

MR VAN ZYL: Now what made you assault him?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, it was my job and Fourie's job to find out where these pamphlets had come from as quick as possible as we'd viewed that this was quite a serious matter, obviously. Our belief was that these people were members of the underground ANC, that as quick as possible before other members of the cell or comrades or colleagues of theirs could be informed about them being arrested or apprehended. We wished to move on any possible comrades of theirs and arrest them as well.

MR VAN ZYL: Did you know at the time that he was involved in the cell?

MR ERASMUS: There was no conclusive proof but there had been indications received via the intelligence network prior to the meeting that there was members of Johannesburg Youth Congress that were involved in underground ANC activities.

MR VAN ZYL: So you acted on suspicion?

MR ERASMUS: We acted on suspicion, that is correct, Madame Chair.

MR VAN ZYL: Can you elaborate more on the incident, specifically the assault? That is what we are here actually for.

MR ERASMUS: Well, after a lengthy period of time it became very frustrating because Mr Madhav would not cooperate, they would not give us an explanation for the pamphlets. His demeanour towards me especially was I'd say very much unfounded because I don't think I was an unreasonable person that would have resorted to violence just at the drop of a pin. It was a time during the search of his bedroom that he insulted me and Sgt. Fourie.

MR VAN ZYL: In which way did he insult you?

MR ERASMUS: About we were acting in terms of this illegal regime. I was not a politician, I was merely carrying out orders that I was given and functions and I did not want to listen to this type of rhetoric. It actually annoyed me greatly. Whether it was true or not was not the issue.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the insult?

MR ERASMUS: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: What was the insult?

MR ERASMUS: That I had a White skin, that I was a policeman, a Security policeman, the regime was illegal, that he was innocent, the speech was nothing serious in the sense that it was a threat to State security.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these seriously viewed by you as insults the fact that you had a White skin and the fact that you were a policeman, a Security policeman and you were acting in the interest of an illegitimate regime? Did you really regard those as insults?

MR ERASMUS: I wasn't that upset that it was so much a personal insult, it was just that my attitude at the time was that I was doing a job, I was not a politician that made the laws or gave me those powers, whatever. I had, as far as I was concerned, Madame Chair, caught Mr Madhav red handed as it was with prohibited literature. He was lying to me, clearly lying to me and that in fact was I think more of an insult than the usual rhetoric about the illegal regime and everything else.

CHAIRPERSON: I just wanted to find out what you found insolent in the statement that you had a White skin, because in any case you are White, you don't have any other skin as than that of a White person?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were a member of the Security Police.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were acting on behalf of the South African government which was regarded by the majority of the Black people in the country as ...(intervention)

MR ERASMUS: As illegitimate.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now why did you find that insulting?

MR ERASMUS: The facts that upset me at the time, Madame Chair, was that he refused to cooperate. I had caught him red handed, I think that was the insult more than anything, was that we were wasting time not getting any answers.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it not correct that you were insulted that he had to speak out?

MR ERASMUS: I think that might have been part of it at that time, Madame Chair, yes I would agree with that.

MR VAN ZYL: The object of the assault, was it part of your modus operandi?

MR ERASMUS: The object of the assault was to intimate Mr Madhav.

CHAIRPERSON: Of the assault?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, if you can call it assault. He was certainly not hurt I don't believe to any extreme. It was more to make him uncomfortable and scare him into revealing the names of other people as was the situation. Who had printed these pamphlets, where he got them, where did he get them from and his involvement in similar activities in the ANC. I wanted to leave Mr Madhav with no impression that if he didn't cooperate or he didn't divulge the information to us his future would have been very uncertain as in we would have beaten him up severely.

MR VAN ZYL: After this assault which was, you said, a screwdriver and hands and fists. Now in your application you don't mention the screwdriver, can you tell this panel why?

MR ERASMUS: I read it in the statement which in fact I have the original which is in the bundle. It was insignificant at the time that I wrote and I didn't remember it in fact when I wrote my amnesty application.

MR VAN ZYL: But you were reminded of it when you saw the bundle?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.

MR VAN ZYL: And you do agree that it is actually correct that you did use a screwdriver?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: How was the screwdriver used?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, as I remember, I was talking to him, I held the screwdriver by a sharp point and I tapped him on the head with the butt of it as I was stressing points about what was going to happen to him, that he faced detention, that he would be charged. It was not a severe, Madame Chair, of that I can assure the Commission here today, that he was hurt or bruised or his skin was broken, I was stressing a point.

CHAIRPERSON: Now that wouldn't be an assault, would it? If you actually were tapping on his head in order to stress a point?

MR ERASMUS: I agree, Madame Chair, that in terms of the law, yes it is technically assault.

CHAIRPERSON: No I don't want the law. What did you intend to do at the time and how a screwdriver, tapping it on his head, was that intended to stress a point you were making or was that intended to harm him?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, that was to stress the point that I was making and to also create the impression in Madhav's mind that I had the capability as did Sgt Fourie of severely assaulting him, that if he didn't - we wanted to in effect terrorise him, scare him so much that he would sit down eventually in terror and say to us these are the people that I'm involved in with this whole situation regarding these pamphlets and the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: So in your, with hindsight, the fact that you used the screwdriver on that day, the intention was not to assault him with a screwdriver but to stress a point and to scare him that you have a capacity to use it if you so wished?

MR ERASMUS: Correct, Madame Chair.

MR VAN ZYL: After the incident in his bedroom, what happened then?

MR ERASMUS: We then took Mr Madhav back to our vehicle, we took him to John Vorster Square where he was handed over to members of the investigation branch.

MR VAN ZYL: Have you seen Mr Madhav since up until today?

MR ERASMUS: I have not seen Mr Madhav until this hearing.

MR VAN ZYL: In your presence - who was the superior officer at the scene, the incident?

MR ERASMUS: I was the superior officer at the scene, Madame Chair.

MR VAN ZYL: And Fourie, did he assault Mr Madhav in the same manner as you did?

MR ERASMUS: He did, Madame Chair.

MR VAN ZYL: Did he also use a screwdriver?

MR ERASMUS: I don't recall that Fourie used a screwdriver but I recall that like I did he punched in the form of taps against Mr Madhav's body. I recall that I grabbed Mr Madhav's shirt and dumped him like this as I was talking to him, a warning.

MR VAN ZYL: In your application you said both of you hit him with flat hands?

MR ERASMUS: Yes and with the flat hand.

MR VAN ZYL: On his face or where?

MR ERASMUS: I think, yes as I recall it, it would have been his face and possibly on his arms.

MR VAN ZYL: Was there any more severe assault by was it W.O.Fourie?

MR ERASMUS: Sgt Fourie.

MR VAN ZYL: Sgt. Fourie? Was there any more severe assault by him in your presence or not?

MR ERASMUS: There was no severe assault at all by any one of us. Mr Madhav was not too upset, he did not scream, he did not cry, he walked out quite normally on the way out of the house, Madame Chair. He greeted his mother, we allowed him to greet his mother, I remember she was quite an aged person. I still took the time to explain to her what was happening to her son. I told her in fact that he was going to John Vorster Square, that it was my intention to charge him, that we'd found - I think I must have still told her about the pamphlets and she was not too upset, she seemed to accept it as something that had happened but no, he was certainly not really assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: How can you say Mr Madhav was not upset by the fact that you had searched his car, you took him to his house, you conducted a search, you tapped a screwdriver on his head, you manhandled him by his shirt, banged him, I suppose, against the wall, you assaulted him using your hands together with Sgt Fourie and you say he was not upset? I mean who would not be upset by that kind of an assault?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, maybe the wrong choice of words. What I'd intended to convey that he was not assaulted in any way that he was injured, that he could not walk. I'm sure that he was upset and that was our intention. Our intention, as I mentioned, was to scare the man into revealing information to us but at no stage was he hurt to the thing that he was screaming or crying. He was as normal as one could be under the circumstances. We had then, as far as what I was concerned, I think I'd also made radio contact with our office. My part, my role and function in the whole thing was over and the matter would be handed over to - we had the evidence, it would be handed over to the investigation branch. So I had concluded my part in the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it not your intention to injure him when you used an open hand on him?

MR ERASMUS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Then what was your intention?

MR ERASMUS: As I mentioned, Madame Chair, it was to terrorise him or scare him into revealing his emotion to us.

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely. Wouldn't one be terrorised because he is injured? If you smiled at him would he have been terrorised? If you simply smiled at him, would he have been terrorised?

MR ERASMUS: If I smiled at him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if you did not assault him?

MR ERASMUS: I didn't know him that well, Madame Chair, I knew nothing about the man until an hour before when I had arrested him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but you assaulted him because you wanted to terrorise him, is it not so?

MR ERASMUS: I assaulted him but the point that I'm making, Madame Chair, is that it was not a severe assault. I agree technically that it was assault, it was nothing severe, I was patently aware that I was in charge, point number one. Point number two that he would be visited by the district surgeon, point number three that I would face problems if I had hurt him in any way in view of the circumstances. The fourth point was that I had a junior member with me and I didn't want to set a bad example. I certainly didn't need assault charges laid against me at that stage of my career.

CHAIRPERSON: On which part of his body did you use an open hand?

MR ERASMUS: I beg your pardon, Madame Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: On which part of Mr Madhav's body did you use an open hand?

MR ERASMUS: Probably on the side of his face but very, very lightly. There was no marks on Mr Madhav and he was not hurt, Madame Chair, that I'm hundred percent satisfied, in any way that he would warrant, for example, medical treatment.

CHAIRPERSON: But if you use an open hand on someone wouldn't you expect that person to be injured in that he would feel the pain?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, not in the way that it was applied that day. It was an intimidatory thing and not designed to hurt him physically.

CHAIRPERSON: Not to seriously hurt him?

MR ERASMUS: To seriously hurt him.

CHAIRPERSON: But to hurt him, yes.

MR ERASMUS: Yes, to hurt him but not seriously hurt him.

MR VAN ZYL: Thank you, Madame Chair. Yet he did lay a charge eventually because we have the investigation here before us?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR VAN ZYL: Do you know about that?

MR ERASMUS: I heard about that, that is correct.

MR VAN ZYL: Didn't you have to give a statement as to what happened to the Police at that time?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, I understood that the matter was investigated, that Mr Madhav was seen by the District Surgeon which was the norm, that no marks were found of any assault, serious assault on him and that ultimately the Attorney General declined to prosecute either myself or Fourie for the assault.

MR VAN ZYL: And apart from that have you had any other further contact with Mr Madhav?

MR ERASMUS: Absolute none.

MR VAN ZYL: But you will agree that by either touching him in a hard fashion, it is a violation of his human rights, isn't it so?

MR ERASMUS: I agree with that and that is the reason that I applied for amnesty for this incident, Madame Chair, and that is the reason why I'm sitting here this morning.

MR VAN ZYL: With now proper hindsight again what is your view of the incident?

MR ERASMUS: I regret that it ever happened, I regret the circumstances under which it happened and I regret my role in the whole matter from A to Z.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And during the investigation you denied that you assaulted him?

MR ERASMUS: I beg your pardon?

JUDGE DE JAGER: During the investigation after the charge had been laid by him you denied that you assaulted him at all?

MR ERASMUS: It would have been standard procedure at that time, Madame Chair, we never ever would have admitted to anything like that especially in the public eye because of the contentious nature of it.

MR VAN ZYL: Thank you, Madame Chair, I've no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN ZYL

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

Mr Erasmus, you say that you heard about the meeting through your informer network. Who told you about the meeting?

MR ERASMUS: The same person, Ms Patel, whose name I had to reveal here yesterday. It's actually at that meeting yesterday - I beg your pardon, on the Saturday morning.

MS PATEL: For my client's benefit, could you repeat the name please?

MR ERASMUS: I beg your pardon?

MS PATEL: For Mr Madhav's benefit could you repeat the name on record?

MR ERASMUS: Hirshman.

MS PATEL: Hirshman?

MR ERASMUS: Renee Hirshman.

MS PATEL: And what information did she give you about Mr Madhav?

MR ERASMUS: That she hadn't met him but he'd been to one or two meetings, that he was a sort of unknown quantity, suspicious character maybe.

MS PATEL: What does that mean? What do you mean by suspicious character.

MR ERASMUS: Well he hadn't grown with Joyco from the outset, he'd come in at a later stage. She hadn't seen him before. He kept something of a low profile there. She wasn't able, as I explained to you yesterday, we used to task the informers to help us with personality profiles. We obviously had to identify who were the more dangerous people, who were the leading people, who were the radical elements. That was part and parcel of intelligence gathering. Mr Madhav was an unknown quantity to her.

The second thing is from her and from other elements of intelligence gathering, we had a, shall we say, sniff in the nose about this illegal reading out or broadcasting of the speech and of these pamphlets which was all in breach of the law at that time.

MS PATEL: What were your other sources?

MR ERASMUS: Most of the Joyco people's telephones were tapped, the post was intercepted, in some cases they were given surveillance for varying periods.

MS PATEL: And who would that surveillance have been conducted by?

MR ERASMUS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that?

MS PATEL: Who would the surveillance have been conducted by?

MR ERASMUS: We had a unit that specialised in surveillance.

MS PATEL: Who would the surveillance have been conducted by?

MR ERASMUS: At times myself as was the case the Saturday morning and on other occasions, if it warranted it, a special unit ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Sorry, there was a bit of noise, I didn't get that. Did you say that the surveillance was conducted by yourself but only on the Saturday morning? Is that the first time for you?

MR ERASMUS: I was talking in general.

MS PATEL: Okay.

MR ERASMUS: I had been to Joyco meetings myself before.

MS PATEL: Personally?

MR ERASMUS: Personally.

MS PATEL: In what capacity?

MR ERASMUS: Exactly the same as the Saturday morning, to identify suspects, take car numbers, see who went in and went out, if there was anybody who was being sought under the emergency regulations I would have arrested them. Sort of multi-purpose type of coverage.

MS PATEL: Who was arrested - what information did you have on the rest of the people at the meeting besides Mr Madhav?

MR ERASMUS: Well that Joyco was following very strongly the UDF's policies or the UDF line. In between the lines one could clearly conduce that they were like most UDF organisations or like many of the UDF organisations, would align themselves with the ANC or the policies of the ANC. From the talks that were held there they were reclassed as a radical organisation. Certainly there was monitoring with the attention that we gave them.

MS PATEL: Could you be more specific, Mr Erasmus? What specific information did you have on rest of the people who were at that meeting?

CHAIRPERSON: Can we firstly in between enable him to respond to your question properly because its very elastic. Let's ascertain how many people attended that meeting. How many people attended that meeting?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, now I have to think hard. That Saturday morning?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, was it about five, was it ten, was it a great number of people?

MR ERASMUS: Well obviously, we would always specify how many people attended the meeting. That's why I'm trying to think of the exact amount but my memory fails me. If I remember correctly and if somebody can prove me wrong, it wasn't very well attended possibly because of the venue or because of the time. Early on a Saturday morning was not the usual time for public meetings or for meetings of this nature.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying it wasn't very well attended or are you saying you were less than ten people, less than twenty, less than fifty?

MR ERASMUS: Ten, fifteen people.

MS PATEL: Mr Erasmus, did you have any specific information on the people who attended the meeting besides Mr Madhav now?

MR ERASMUS: On some of the people, I don't remember the background to Joyco. I'd just like, Madame Chair, to remember that the UDF was I think 600 organisations. At that time my own little brief was a good twenty or thirty. Most of the aims and activities and the functions that they were carrying out were pretty much the same. A lot of the people that went to Joyco meetings would go to other meetings again so I really couldn't sit here - I would be hard pressed to sit here and say that I can remember ten of the people that were there that morning. I remember obviously my agent that was there.

MS PATEL: Your agent being Ms Hirshman?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct. I'm just trying to think of other people that would have been there on the Saturday.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have any specific information about the people attending that Saturday's meeting?

MR ERASMUS: Did I have, Madame Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have any specific information about the people who attended that Saturday meeting?

MR ERASMUS: No, nothing extraordinary.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the question ...(indistinct)

MR ERASMUS: I'm sorry, I'm battling to hear you, I don't know what it is.

MS PATEL: Don't you want to put your headphones on?

Alright, why did you choose to follow Mr Madhav only after the meeting? Was there something that prompted that given that you didn't have that much info on him, why was he the one that you chose?

MR ERASMUS: I think, Madame Chair, I already answered that in the sense that I didn't know who he was or the two people that were with him. I wanted to identify him. I hadn't seen him before the previous meetings. I'd heard about him and received a description from Ms Hirshman. She wasn't able to establish his identity either and it was convenient. I mean here he comes out, they get in a car, they notice that there's obviously - what was obviously a Security Police vehicle behind them and they try and drive away from us.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Erasmus, I thought I understood your evidence in chief as being that you followed Mr Madhav because he raced away and this is what prompted you to follow him.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, that is what I said, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And not because you had any information from Ms Hirshman about Mr Madhav?

MR ERASMUS: I did mention earlier, Madame Chair, that - I'm sure I mentioned that Mr Madhav was unknown to Ms Hirshman, I did mention that and yes, he did race away.

CHAIRPERSON: Not in your evidence in chief.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes I've got a not about his evidence. He followed him with the intention to stop the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And then he raced away.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, in your evidence in chief you did not mention Ms Hirshman at all, you did not say that Mr Madhav was known to you. The impression which was clearly created by your evidence was that Mr Madhav was amongst the people who came out of this meeting and it was your duty on that day to take photographs of all the people who attended that meeting and whilst you were busy doing so, Mr Madhav walked into his car ...(intervention)

MR ERASMUS: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And he raced away.

MR ERASMUS: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And this is what alerted you to - the fact that here is a person who might be trying to run away and that's how you actually ran after him.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And you actually caught up with Mr Madhav's car just a few metres away from where the meeting was held.

MR ERASMUS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You started searching his car.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the impression was not created that at the time when his car was searched he was known because of the earlier information or the previous information which we had received from Ms Hirshman.

MR ERASMUS: Okay, Madame Chair, if I could elaborate there for just a minute which might clear up the whole thing, I mentioned that my job was to identify all of the people that went to these meetings.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Madhav was one of the people that I hadn't identified. I'd heard about him before. There was an Indian guy with his description at one of these meetings. I saw him come out, it was my intention then to identify him. He gets in the car ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just take that part of your evidence, let's just go through that carefully. You had heard from Ms Hirshman about Mr Madhav?

MR ERASMUS: I don't recall that she even had his name, but anyway I'd heard about him and other Indian members there that we had not succeeded in identifying, that is correct, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if Ms Hirshman had not identified his name, how would you have known that that's Mr Madhav that Ms Hirshman had spoken about? She had a difficulty?

MR ERASMUS: Whether she had identified him or not, the actions that happened on that morning outside the meeting, I would have caught him, arrested him and nothing would have changed.

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely, that was your evidence in chief which has now taken a different swing to what Ms Patel is putting to you. You are now creating an impression that you followed Mr Madhav based on the information that you had received from Ms Hirshman?

MR ERASMUS: Well, I don't understand that my words have gone wrong like this but I am correct in what I'm saying and in what I have said, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: That Ms Hirshman had identified Mr Madhav?

MR ERASMUS: No, she hadn't identified him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair would appreciate that everybody that went to these meetings, it was standard procedure that no effort was spared to obtain photographs of them, their home residential addresses, I.D. numbers, that was what our job was all about. That was my job for many, many years, Madame Chair, so when people came out of these meetings as happened that morning, it was my job to make every attempt to get a car registration number which would help with the identification, a description of the person, photographs of him, standard part and parcel of our operation. If I have mentioned after the fact that Ms Hirshman did make a reference to Mr Madhav, that is true. There is no - I'm a little bit lost about what we're actually discussing.

CHAIRPERSON: We are a little bit lost about what you are telling us.

MR ERASMUS: I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and we need to understand your evidence properly. We don't want to sit here thinking that we understand your evidence when in fact we are not on the same wavelength with the tenor of your evidence. So if we take a little bit of time in making an attempt to understand your evidence, it is for your advantage.

MR ERASMUS: I understand, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't want to decide the issue on the fact which we have not properly comprehended.

MR ERASMUS: I understand, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Now was there any stage prior to the meeting of that Saturday morning where Ms Hirshman made any reference whatsoever about Mr Madhav?

MR ERASMUS: She made a reference to an unknown - she would have given me a list of the people there, a report in other words of her own. She would have said "the following people", she would have given a list of names.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR ERASMUS: John Smith, Sue Smith, whatever. The following people I could not identify - Indian male, plus minus twenty five years old, fat, thin, whatever, a Black person, Black male so and so. That was how - the nature of our work.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ERASMUS: And in that sense, yes Madame Chair, to clarify, she had made reference to which was obviously Mr Madhav.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what had she said about Mr Madhav?

MR ERASMUS: On each one of these people the agent would give a comment. She had not been able to determine what he was or what his role was there, whether he was a newcomer, he was there to maybe secretly usurp the whole aims of the meeting. He was obviously a Security interest, we had to find this out, that was what my job was all about.

CHAIRPERSON: And did she say that he was a suspicious character but an unknown quantity as you have previously stated?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, which would have made him - yes, I suppose in our terms a suspicious character. Everybody was suspicious until the contrary was proved. I think would be a way of maybe.

CHAIRPERSON: And did she have a photograph of Mr Madhav?

MR ERASMUS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: So as you saw Mr Madhav getting into his car, you then were able to see that it was the same person that Ms Hirshman had referred to?

MR ERASMUS: I assumed that it would have been the person that she'd referred to or one of the people that she'd referred to that we hadn't identified clearly came out of the meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, on what basis did you make that assumption?

MR ERASMUS: I had the previous reports, Madame Chair, from previous meetings of Joyco. I carried around in my head the facts that out of let's say for example fifteen people of that previous meeting there was five that I had not identified. One of them was an Indian male, one maybe an Indian female, one was a male Black, as the circumstances were. I knew that in my head and when I saw them coming out of the meeting these were people that I didn't know and Madame Chair would appreciate as well that in the Security Branch we were taught to know our suspects intimately, you had to know more about that person than what they knew about themselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Now there are twenty people coming out of the meeting. Why did you suspect that amongst the twenty a particular person must be Madhav?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, it's twelve years ago, I cannot remember the finest details of all of this. I'm not trying to hide behind selective amnesia or anything like that, I'm trying to be as honest as what I can. I cannot remember what the circumstances were. I needed to identify him, you know, more than that I can't say.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll tell you what my difficulty is, I was quite happy with your evidence in chief as it was, it presented me with no problems at all. The reason why you followed him was because he started racing away from where you were?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Which was a behaviour which was suspicious?

MR ERASMUS: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But I got a little bit troubled ...(inaudible) it was put to you why you followed Mr Madhav and you started then bringing in Ms Hirshman, that it was as a result of a reference made by Ms Hirshman about Mr Madhav which made you to follow Mr Madhav. Now that presented me with a problem.

MR ERASMUS: Well I hope that I've somehow cleared up what created the problem, Madame Chair. I'm trying to rack my brains and remember as much as possible. I mean I'm not a computer that can remember all the facts from an incident twelve years ago, one incident of situations that like this similarly were happening almost every single day in my life in the Security Branch at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: I think I will leave that matter. I'm not entirely clear but Ms Patel, you may proceed.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

After you had stopped the vehicle, did you search the car in the street where you had stopped it or did you take them back to John Vorster Square?

MR ERASMUS: We had a preemptory look, which was standard procedure, in the car at that time.

MS PATEL: Okay and you say besides Mr Madhav there were two other people in the vehicle?

MR ERASMUS: I recall that it was one or two, I'm not certain. I honestly can't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that was your evidence. You are not sure how many were in the car.

MS PATEL: Alright. Then after that - I'm sorry, I didn't get your evidence clearly on this, did you say that you then went off to John Vorster Square with everybody or you went straight to Mr Madhav's house?

MR ERASMUS: I said I was not certain.

CHAIRPERSON: He's not sure but he said he must have gone to Mr Madhav's house before going to John Vorster.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson for that.

When you got to Mr Madhav's house you said that you asked his mother to leave the room, was that correct?

MR ERASMUS: Any search like that would have been conducted -and the interrogation that happened on a one on one sort of basis with the person, that is correct.

MS PATEL: Okay. Besides the pamphlets that were found in Mr Madhav's room, was there any other documents that were found that you can recall?

MR ERASMUS: There was other documents relating to ANC, I cannot remember what they were. I'm sure there was other documents. Yes.

MS PATEL: Were there any other personal documents that you found?

MR ERASMUS: I would have looked at ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Besides those that you say related to the ANC or the UDF?

MR ERASMUS: Personal documents?

MS PATEL: Yes.

MR ERASMUS: I honestly can't remember. I would have, as was the nature of things, Ms Patel, I would have looked for his I.D. document, place of employment, that type of stuff. I would have had to open a file, these are questions that would have had to have been answered anyway.

MS PATEL: Alright.

MR ERASMUS: I'm sure we had a very thorough look through the room, yes.

MS PATEL: Did you find his pay slip? Can you recall whether you found his pay slip?

MR ERASMUS: I don't recall that. I remember there was quite a lot of money in the room, that was one of the things that I remembered from the time. Another incident, in the money, with relating to the motor car was that on the Monday a considerable amount of cash was found in the motor car by the Investigation Branch.

MS PATEL: Do you deny having found his pay slip or can't you recall?

MR ERASMUS: I can't remember that.

MS PATEL: My instructions from Mr Madhav was that once his pay slip was found by yourself and Mr Fourie and the amount that he earned was discovered that this really infuriated you and Mr Fourie and that he was then told that he was earning more than you and the both of you got very angry and this is what in fact precipitated the assault on him.

MR ERASMUS: I don't remember that. Madame Chair, I don't remember something like that. I'm sorry, I don't.

MS PATEL: Do you deny it?

MR ERASMUS: I don't think I would have got upset by somebody earning more than me. That certainly wouldn't upset me in the least.

MS PATEL: Well, according to Mr Madhav that is the reason that he was then assaulted?

MR ERASMUS: Because of a salary - because of a pay slip?

MS PATEL: Exactly.

MR ERASMUS: I would deny that one hundred percent.

MS PATEL: Here was a - you deny that?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, absolutely.

MS PATEL: Well Mr Madhav will testify to that.

MR ERASMUS: Sure.

MS PATEL: He also states that it is correct that he didn't scream when you assaulted him because his mother was in the next room and he didn't want to upset her and that is the only reason that he tried to stay calm and not because, as you say, there was no pain inflicted and that it was a minor assault on him.

MR ERASMUS: Could I ask Mr Madhav when he saw the District Surgeon if there was any marks on him, any bruises on him, any cuts or abrasions?

MS PATEL: I am putting to you Mr Madhav's reason.

MR ERASMUS: I deny that vehemently.

MS PATEL: Thank you. Mr Madhav then states that after the search of his home and the assault on him he was then taken to John Vorster Square where he was then taken to the tenth floor of John Vorster Square. Do you bear any knowledge of this?

MR ERASMUS: I bear knowledge of that. He was handed over to ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Who was he handed over to?

MR ERASMUS: I'm trying to think of the guy's name. A warrant officer - forgive me, I don't know if it's in any of the documents, possibly in the bundle or - he was handed over to a warrant officer whose name I cannot recall from the Investigation Branch. I do believe that's the last time I ever saw Mr Madhav.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Fourie, was that his last involvement with Mr Madhav as well?

MR ERASMUS: On the Monday we were summonsed. The issue that I mentioned to you now about the money, this same warrant officer, if I could just think of his name it would help me intensely, conducted a proper search of the car and found a bundle of I'm not certain if it was R5 000 or R10 000, certainly R5 000, hidden under the dashboard of the car. In cash. Madame Chair, I'm certain it was R10 notes, a considerable bundle of money.

CHAIRPERSON: And what happened to that bundle of money?

MR ERASMUS: We actually were laughed and in fact some of our superiors were quite angry we had overlooked that during our search of the motor car. They felt it was very significant, people didn't hide that amount of money in a car.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ERASMUS: That was the last that I'd ever heard of Mr Madhav. I'm not even certain what happened with the prosecution for the pamphlets.

CHAIRPERSON: And what happened to the money?

MR ERASMUS: I don't know, Madame Chair.

MS PATEL: Did you not follow up on this at all, on what had happened to Mr Madhav or what information had been gleaned from him?

MR ERASMUS: Vague interest, I was informed from time to time that the investigation, I think the dockets had been forwarded for the possession of the speech. I then, as I testified yesterday, this was 1989, later in the year I'd dropped out of sight totally and went to do a completely different job.

MS PATEL: Do you know whether Mr Madhav was interrogated immediately after he was brought to John Vorster Square?

MR ERASMUS: I would have assumed that he would have been.

MS PATEL: Do you know by whom?

MR ERASMUS: Warrant Officer - I believe that I have - his name, I will find it now possibly during the adjournment.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Could it be Jacobs?

MR ERASMUS: No, Sir.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Because I see the name Jacobs but that was in connection with the assault investigation.

MR ERASMUS: De Waal. It's on page 45, Madame Chair, of the bundle. W.O. De Waal. Sorry, to finish your question, Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Why would you not have stayed whilst Mr Madhav was being interrogated after he was brought back to John Vorster Square, I find that strange especially given that you have an interest in, a direct interest in persons like him?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, this was a Saturday. This was almost an infringement of my time, I'd been working the whole week ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: I thought you were on duty for 24 hours, Mr Erasmus, always?

MR ERASMUS: Really, Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: That was your testimony to us, that you were always on duty.

MR ERASMUS: Yes, there was also times that we had families that we wanted to go to and I'd done enough work and it was out of my hands, I had finished my job, the Investigation Branch, not the field workers that were working like I was, covered or semi-covered, it was their job and it was over to them. I would have certainly spoken to W.O. De Waal subsequent to that and yes, made enquiries about what happened to it. I had a lot of things on my plate at the time, I don't know that this is significant, really.

MS PATEL: That was not your testimony earlier, Mr Erasmus. Your testimony earlier was that after Mr Madhav was handed over you had no dealings with him and you never followed up on anything. Now you are saying that you would have spoken to is it W.O. De Waal?

MR ERASMUS: Yes. Yes.

MS PATEL: What information would have come out through there, do you know?

MR ERASMUS: Well his - W.O. De Waal's function then was to take this matter, if necessary, to the Attorney General to decide whether to prosecute or not. I had nothing to do with that.

MS PATEL: And you had absolutely no interest in what information Mr Madhav would have handed over during his interrogation?

MR ERASMUS: Of course I would have, Ms Patel. But I certainly didn't, what you're suggesting is, you're asking me why if I said testified that I was on duty 24 hours out of 24 hours why I didn't stay there while Mr Madhav was interrogated or questioned or whatever happened to him afterwards. I went home. I went home, I was also a human being, even at that stage.

MS PATEL: Sure. Sure, Mr Erasmus. My instructions from Mr Madhav was that after he was brought back to John Vorster Square that you, Mr Fourie and he can't recall the names of the other persons present, but he was then taken to the tenth floor where you, Mr Fourie and the rest of the persons not only interrogated him but assaulted him. What is your comment?

MR ERASMUS: I was not present, I know nothing about that.

I'm sorry, I know nothing about it. I've admitted, Ms Patel, in my own words in an amnesty application written, what eight years after this happened? I could safely have ignored this, I took the time and trouble to recall this event and I've tried to give it as an honest account of what happened, I certainly deny that, that much I remember.

MS PATEL: Let me also inform you, Mr Erasmus, that my client spent three and a half months in solitary confinement as a result of your actions.

MR ERASMUS: I'm sorry to hear that.

MS PATEL: Three and a half months.

MR ERASMUS: I'm sorry to hear that.

MS PATEL: And he has suffered as a result of your actions as well.

MR ERASMUS: I'm sorry to hear that.

MS PATEL: In your application you've applied for assault and in brackets you've put in there "during detention". What did you mean by that? Because he certainly, according to your testimony today, wasn't assaulted during detention.

MR ERASMUS: His detention started the moment I told him to get out of that car and found the pamphlets and informed him that he was under arrest.

CHAIRPERSON: When you had stopped him in the street after he had tried to race away from the venue where the meeting was being held?

MR ERASMUS: I would have regarded him as being in detention of that moment. Madame Chair, I'd like to just draw your attention to the fact that it was a state of emergency and that people were being arrested the whole time in terms of that Act. Yes, he was in detention effectively when I assaulted him. I'm not even going to argue about it, yes. I admit it, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I really have to understand what you mean by being in detention. You see him running away from where the meeting was being held, you suspect that he must be trying to hide something. You stop him and you say as soon as you had stopped him he was in detention?

MR VAN ZYL: No, Madame Chair, my client said "the moment I found the pamphlets and I arrested him, then he was in detention", that is what he said.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: So from the moment you had searched the car and up to the time he was taken to his house he was already in detention?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I would have regarded that as detention, yes, he'd been arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: In terms of the emergency regulations?

MR ERASMUS: I'm certain I arrested him in terms of the emergency regulations.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell him that?

MR ERASMUS: I had a wide variety, yes, I would have informed him of his rights. I would have said to him "you're under arrest and I'm holding you accordingly, according to this or that." I cannot remember, quite honestly, if it was in terms of the Security legislation or the emergency regulations.

CHAIRPERSON: But you would have clearly advised him that he was in detention?

MR ERASMUS: Yes. Yes ma'am. I'd go further, Madame Chair, to say that even if I hadn't found pamphlets in his car, his actions might have made him eligible for detention under the emergency regulations. The person was running from something, acting very suspiciously.

CHAIRPERSON: But you would have been required to advise him that he was under arrest?

MR ERASMUS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you would have advised him of the fact that he was under arrest?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Are those your instructions, Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: I would have to take specific instructions on that, Honourable Chairperson. If I may proceed though in the meantime?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS PATEL: Sorry, can I just get clarity? Did you advise him of his rights at the vehicle when you stopped him in the street at the first time?

CHAIRPERSON: No, once this pamphlet had been found, though yes along that street.

MS PATEL: And that was done in the street?

MR ERASMUS: I'm certain it would have been at the street, yes Madame Chair.

MS PATEL: You stated in your evidence in chief that Mr Madhav had in fact laid a charge against you. Do you confirm that?

MR ERASMUS: I see it's in the documents.

MS PATEL: According to your application to us you state on page 16 that he did not lay a charge against you?

MR ERASMUS: I think it did come out this morning that it was only recently. When did I read this? This morning? It was only when I received this that I caught up on what had actually happened, Ms Patel.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Erasmus, you are not allowed to confer with your attorney whilst you are under cross-examination, it is totally ...(intervention)

MR ERASMUS: I'm just trying to give clarity on the matter, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not allowed. You might have done it because you don't know the procedure. I'm now advising you of the procedure.

MR ERASMUS: I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not acceptable at all.

MR ERASMUS: I understand, Madame Chair.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

Are you saying that you made a mistake in your application to us when you stated that he did not lay a charge against you? At the time when you wrote out your application, are you now admitting that you made a mistake there?

MR ERASMUS: I'm certain I could have made a mistake, Madame Chair.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, if I may at this point request a short adjournment? There are quite a few details that have come out from the evidence that I need to take instructions from my client.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you do so, Ms Patel, is it the evidence of Mr Madhav that he was indeed assaulted with an open hand by Mr Erasmus at his home?

MS PATEL: That is so, Honourable Chairperson and also that he was hit on the head with a screwdriver.

CHAIRPERSON: Lightly tapped on his head. Does he agree with that version?

MS PATEL: Well I'm not sure that lightly tapped is the way my client would describe it. He said that the screwdriver - let me describe this, that the base of the screwdriver was in fact covered so that when he was hit on the head it was done in such a way that it wouldn't actually leave marks on him, that those are my instructions but I will ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just asking this because I don't want Mr Erasmus to leave - I don't want you to finish your cross-examination without having put anything that you do not agree with in his evidence in chief. Then we then hear Mr Madhav come in with a different version when that version had not been given to Mr Erasmus to respond to.

MS PATEL: Certainly, Honourable Chairperson, there are quite a few points that have come out and the full list of what we disagree with I will then put to Mr Erasmus after I have consulted with Mr Madhav.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn for tea until 11 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, you are proceedings with your cross-examination of Mr Erasmus?

PAUL ERASMUS: (s.u.o.)

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: (cont)

Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I'm indebted to you for the time allowed to me.

Mr Erasmus, just so that Mr Madhav doesn't get confused and I don't put things to you that aren't correct, could you describe Ms Hirshman to us as she would have looked at the time?

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you have your microphone on?

MR ERASMUS: Sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: It's off. You may repeat. Shortish, plumpish?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, she was a White woman, a round face, shortish, plumpish, long black hair with a middle parting, down onto - cut at shoulder length.

MS PATEL: I didn't get the last bit, what did you say?

MR ERASMUS: Black hair cut at shoulder length.

MS PATEL: Oh, she had a bob?

MR ERASMUS: No, not a bob. I'm not very familiar with hair styles.

MS PATEL: A bob style. A bob is just straight and down.

MR ERASMUS: Yes, straight hair. Yes.

MS PATEL: Thank you. No, my client is not certain it's the same person that he had in mind. The person he had in mind was somebody who was slightly shorter than I am, thin and hair in a bob till about this length, I'm pointing now towards my neck and quite as distinctive nose.

MR ERASMUS: Yes, Hirshman did have a distinctive nose, without being facetious she was Jewish, she had a ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Yes thanks, well then I think given the time lapse we are probably speaking about the same person.

My instructions from Mr Madhav in respect of Ms Hirshman is that he doesn't really remember her from the Joyco meetings but he remembers her from another organisation called Actstop where they worked together at stopping evictions, it was that kind of organisation.

MR ERASMUS: Correct.

MS PATEL: Was that correct?

MR ERASMUS: Yes that is correct, Madame Chair.

MS PATEL: So then he says well then at the time of this incident she knew his name and she knew who he was contrary to the information that you say you had?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, what - if this is indeed the same person, Actstop was her first stepping stone into the Security world, if it was the same person. Yes, she was involved in Actstop, that I remember clearly, yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What is the relevance as far as the assault is concerned whether she was tall or long hair or whatever it might have been? It's common cause that he'd been assaulted and can't we deal with the assault? He is applying for the assault. Ms Hirshman has nothing to do with the assault?

MS PATEL: With respect, Honourable Chairperson, it goes to the information that Mr Erasmus says he had at his disposal prior to - or that led to Mr Madhav's arrest and to that extent Honourable Chairperson, it goes to the question of full disclosure and Mr Erasmus' credibility before you.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ms Patel, we can't really. Everything goes about credibility. Where Mr Erasmus was yesterday and where he was the day before, if we concentrate on credibility we'll never finish the work of the Amnesty Committee if we concentrate in that way. Let's concentrate on the act that he's applying for and let's get down to that fact. Did he assault or didn't he assault, how did he assault, what injuries occurred and let's concentrate on that.

MS PATEL: Well ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, are you not trying to find common ground with some of the evidence that has already been tendered by Mr Erasmus which goes to the political motive of Mr Erasmus more than credibility which would be a relevant factor I think for us to consider. In fact it reduces much of the burden on our part if some of the issues will become common cause?

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: As in this case with regard to Ms Hirshman.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. May I then proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MS PATEL: Thank you.

I'm sorry, I've just lost my train of thought, if you'll just grant me a moment?

To put to you also that Mr Madhav says that they weren't coming out of a meeting at the time but that they were - that he was parked in the street. I believe it was Mint Street and he was in his car at the time when they'd noticed your vehicle in Commercial Street. Were you parked in Commercial Street, can you recall?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, I can't remember the exact - I remember Mint Road.

MS PATEL: Okay, well it's diagonally.

MR ERASMUS: I know there is a Commercial Road. I can't remember that exactly.

MS PATEL: And after they noticed you he then left from - so it wasn't a group of people coming out of a meeting, in fact that they had joined, they were going to meet at that specific spot to depart to another venue where the meeting was to be held. Was that your information at the time or was your information that the meeting was going to be held at the spot where you first noticed him?

MR ERASMUS: There was a building there with an office.

MS PATEL: He says there was a Milky Lane in the vicinity if that spurs your memory?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I remember the Milky Lane. Madame Chair, I'm a bit uncertain about that. As I recall it there was a meeting scheduled for a venue in that area. It could even have been in the Milky Lane. I know that the meeting was scheduled for that morning, there my information is accurate.

MS PATEL: Okay. Mr Madhav confirms that you in fact after you pulled him over and had searched the car and had found the pamphlets had said to him that he was now under arrest and explained but he can't recall exactly which Acts you referred to but he said definitely in terms of the emergency regulations that he was being arrested at the time.

MR ERASMUS: Thank you for that, Madame Chair.

MS PATEL: Okay. He says that after that you then took them all to John Vorster Square and that it was once he'd been dropped off he was then hand cuffed and then taken back home to his home where the incident that you've given evidence on took place?

MR ERASMUS: That's possible. I wouldn't argue, I did say this morning that I was a bit unclear if we first went to the house or we first went to John Vorster Square.

MS PATEL: No, he says you went to John Vorster Square first.

MR ERASMUS: I would accept that, yes.

MS PATEL: Okay. Can you tell whether the rest of the people who were in the car, were their homes searched as well or was it only Mr Madhav's?

MR ERASMUS: I would presume that they would have been questioned and searched as well.

MS PATEL: By whom? You don't ...(intervention)

MR ERASMUS: That would have been Mr Jan de Waal, the Investigation Branch or other members of the Police.

MS PATEL: You had no dealings with that?

MR ERASMUS: Nothing to do with it, I don't even recall their names.

MS PATEL: Okay. Mr Madhav also said that he had - initially he had four people in his car and he managed to drop one person off before you got to him so there were still three other people, passengers in the car by the time you got to him.

MR VAN ZYL: Sorry, was the question correct? Still another three?

MS PATEL: That is right. There were initially four besides himself of course.

MR VAN ZYL: Okay.

MS PATEL: Or is it four? Oh no, I'm sorry, I'm corrected by Mr Madhav. There were four initially. He managed to drop one off and then there were three left behind.

MR ERASMUS: I don't recall that, Madame Chair.

MS PATEL: Alright, that's fine. And he confirms that the pamphlet that you have alluded to was in fact found in his vehicle. He, however, denies any knowledge of the monies that you say were subsequently found in his vehicle and it was his vehicle, it was a company vehicle, that he was in control of the vehicle and he has absolutely no idea what that was about, where that money could have come from, it's a large sum, none of the people in his vehicle would have had access to that kind of money.

MR ERASMUS: R5 000.

MS PATEL: R5 000 to R10 000 at that time was a lot of money.

MR ERASMUS: It was a lot of money.

MS PATEL: It was a lot, he bears no knowledge of that.

MR ERASMUS: Well that surprises me, Madame Chair, but anyway. That I recall very clearly. I remember being berated by my commanding officer in fact overlooking something like that during the search of a vehicle which could have been significant, but what the significance was I don't know.

MS PATEL: Alright. If we can go back to the events at Mr Madhav's home? He denies your allegations that he called you - let me just get that right, he called you a person with a White skin, that you were just a Security policeman, that he told you the regime was illegal. He denies ever having said those things to you. To the contrary, he says he was so afraid that he said as little as possible. He, however, does admit that he said to you in connection with the pamphlet that the speech wasn't serious as you had said in your evidence in chief?

MR ERASMUS: That's his opinion or his recollection. I dispute that.

MS PATEL: Mr Madhav confirms to me that he was in fact punched in the stomach, he was hit on his arms with open hands and in the face as well by both yourself and Mr Fourie. Do you confirm?

MR ERASMUS: I've given my version of the assault, that it was intimidatory and it was not - it was designed to intimidate him and to terrorise him but not to injure him severely.

MS PATEL: You will hear his view on that, no doubt?

MR ERASMUS: Okay.

MS PATEL: He says also in connection with the screwdriver that it wasn't as you had indicated, if I could just - that you'd just tapped on his head, he said you had in fact held the base of the - you'd wrapped the base of the screwdriver and this is the way in which you had held it. For the record, I have my fist closed onto the base of - and as you were questioning him you were hitting him on the head several times, he can't recall today how many times you would have ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: With the base or with ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Not the sharp end, the opposite end of.

CHAIRPERSON: The base of the screwdriver?

MS PATEL: That's right. That's right. And that he felt pain and he was clearly terrorised by your action.

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, I would accept that he was terrorised by the action but if I'd hit him with the - it was his screwdriver by the way, I'm not in the habit of carrying screwdrivers around in my pockets for any reason. If I had hit him on the head with the intention to hurt him, I'm certain there would have been marks on his head right now. I'm certain that the doctor within 24 hours would have picked up marks. I did not hit him, I deny in the strongest terms that I hit Mr Madhav hard on the head. It was more of a tapping thing much as like I'm tapping my pen on this table.

MS PATEL: Did you make derogatory comments towards him whilst you were in the room at his home?

MR ERASMUS: I beg your pardon?

MS PATEL: Did you make derogatory comments towards him whilst you were questioning him?

MR ERASMUS: Not that I can recall. I'm sure there was a high level of aggression and threats but ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: He says amongst other things you called him a snake and you called him a bloody coolie, do you recall having said those things to him?

MR ERASMUS: Now I don't recall using language especially like that.

MS PATEL: Do you deny that it happened though, given that you don't recall?

MR ERASMUS: You know, it might be a surprise to some people that even at that stage of my life it wasn't a racial thing as much as anything else. Words like coolie and kaffir were not part of my vocabulary ever, I might just add. I'm actually very proud of that contrary to what some people might believe, Madame Chair.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. I believe that I'm almost through. If I can just check if I've left anything out with my client. Grant me a moment please?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS PATEL: I believe that is all. Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Zyl, do you have any re-examination?

MR VAN ZYL: I have no re-examination, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, do you have any questions to put to Mr Erasmus?

JUDGE DE JAGER: No questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY JUDGE DE JAGER

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Sigodi?

ADV SIGODI: No Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY ADV SIGODI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Erasmus you may step down as a witness.

MR VAN ZYL: As it so pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude the evidence that you wish to tender in support of Mr Erasmus' application?

MR VAN ZYL: If I could just lean over to him, Madame Chair, one moment? Madame Chair, this is the last of our application.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Patel, this is an opposed application. I take it that you now wish to call Mr Madhav as a witness?

MS PATEL: That is indeed correct, Honourable Chairperson. If you would swear him in, he is English speaking.

DEEPAK MADHAV: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

Mr Madhav, at the time of this incident, you heard the testimony before us but just to give a bit of your background, at the time of this incident what was your political affiliation?

MR MADHAV: At the time of this investigation my political affiliation was as far as I was an active member in Actstop as well as Johannesburg Youth Congress and a member of the Transvaal Indian Congress. I was a founder member of the Johannesburg Youth Congress and I was very highly active within Actstop at that time. Those was the two organisations I was working actively in.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these organisations affiliated to the UDF?

MR MADHAV: Yes they were affiliates of the UDF.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

On the morning of your arrest you were on your way to a meeting, is that correct?

MR MADHAV: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Where were parties who were supposed to go to the meeting supposed to meet? Where was the meeting held?

MR MADHAV: The arrangement was that we would meet on Mint Road outside the Milky Lane. That's where we would gather and then from there one of the comrades were supposed to have arranged a venue either in Mayfair or in Patita School which is in the same vicinity, so we were waiting for the people to gather. I recall quite distinctly it wasn't a Saturday, it was a Sunday morning as we were sitting in the car and reading the Sunday paper waiting for the people to come.

MS PATEL: Is it correct then as I have put it to Mr Erasmus that you then noticed his vehicle and then decided to leave the area?

MR MADHAV: Yes, I did notice the vehicle on Commercial Road and when we did notice it I decided to speed off in a hurry as it was stated by him.

MS PATEL: Okay, what happened after that?

MR MADHAV: After that I drove to - through my van I got onto 8th Avenue. As I got onto 8th Avenue one of the colleagues who were sitting in the car I let him out and the three of us that remained in the car continued to go and as they followed us they actually - I think the siren did go on and we were stopped on the corner of 8th Avenue and Princess Street and it was not a red car it was a white Jetta, just for the record.

MS PATEL: Who were you stopped by?

MR MADHAV: There was a car with two gentlemen, one I believe now according to the evidence is Fourie and Erasmus and the car was a Conquest, it was a cream Conquest.

MS PATEL: Alright and after you were stopped was your vehicle searched?

MR MADHAV: The vehicle was searched and the leaflets or the -there were, if I recall, ten envelopes in which the Oliver Tambo January 8 Speech was in and each envelope had a name which the envelope had to be delivered to.

MS PATEL: Okay, were you then all taken off to John Vorster Square?

MR MADHAV: We were all taken off to John Vorster Square from then, yes.

MS PATEL: Alright. From John Vorster Square where were you taken?

MR MADHAV: From John Vorster Square I was taken to my home.

MS PATEL: Who were you taken by?

MR MADHAV: By the two arresting officers.

MS PATEL: The same two gentlemen? Alright. What happened when you got home.

MR MADHAV: When I got home we went into my bedroom. They asked my mom to leave the room and they closed the door behind and then they started searching the room and then I believe -the then interrogation as he described then took place. I just feel that, you know, to marginalise and to down play an assault, whether in my dictionary and in my knowledge, when you hit someone and he doesn't bleed or he doesn't get cut or he doesn't have a bruise, that doesn't mean he is not assaulted or he does not get hurt and that's what I take strong objection to, when somebody underplays the fact that "I tapped", you know "I tapped the person with a pen on the head and I just ruffled the man but I wanted to terrorise" - I have a problem with that, personally so. So I want to say, just to make it clear from my point of view that I was harassed and it was very painful not only physically, because I didn't have any marks, that is correct, but from a psychological point I definitely did.

MS PATEL: You've heard Mr Erasmus' version about how he assaulted you with the screwdriver?

MR MADHAV: Yes.

MS PATEL: What do you say happened?

MR MADHAV: No I say what happened is that there were two distinct things that I recall quite clearly and I can't seem to forget and which he has denied. One is that the fact that it wasn't a tap, it was actually a hit on the head, that is my version. Secondly ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Sorry, before you proceed? He hit you with what?

MR MADHAV: With the end, with the butt of the screwdriver.

MS PATEL: Alright and how was that done? Which part of your body did hit you?

MR MADHAV: The head. The screwdriver was the head and the hand and the fists was the arms and the stomach and the face.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did he keep the screwdriver like this?

MR MADHAV: As she discussed earlier it was held like this with the butt, there was definitely - and it was on the head like that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes.

MS PATEL: Sorry, you were saying the second thing?

MR MADHAV: And obviously the second thing was what I remember quite distinctly was they were going through all my personal belongings in the house, in the room and one of the things that I remember quite clearly is that I can't recall specifically if it was Mr Erasmus himself or it was his colleague Mr Fourie, but they did pick up my pay slip and when the pay slip got then the handling did become a bit rougher as far as I'm concerned. Now he has denied that but I know for a fact that that's what I've got to say.

MS PATEL: Were there any comments passed about your pay slip by Mr Fourie and Mr Erasmus?

MR MADHAV: Yes well the pay slip was they looked at, it was more than what they were earning at that time.

MS PATEL: And what were their feelings about it at the time. Did they express any sentiments about it ...(intervention)

MR VAN ZYL: Is my learning friend testifying or is she asking questions?

MS PATEL: I'm asking him, he has already confirmed that the pay slip was found. I'm asking him what was their feeling about it. I really don't see any problem with the question unless you make a ruling, Honourable Chair? Proceed to answer?

MR MADHAV: Okay. Specific to that incident that obviously it was like these guys are earning too much then the beating was sort of intensified.

CHAIRPERSON: Now who said that of the two gentlemen who were with you?

MR MADHAV: That I cannot recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they both comment about your salary?

MR MADHAV: Well they did speak to each other on that issue, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they beat you after ...(intervention)

MR MADHAV: It was an ongoing thing, it was like - just to describe the beating, it wasn't like just stabbed, you were getting bashed up, it was like beating me up then searching because they were both searching the room, obviously, so it wasn't like an ongoing thing. So as they found things, you know, they came back and questioned and there was more literature as he mentioned earlier and there were books and there were other - UDF and maybe the local stuff, the stuff that was distributed in terms of the meeting, notices, books, magazines and stuff like that.

CHAIRPERSON: So they would search and then interrogate you and it would be accompanied by assaults?

MR MADHAV: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the assaults similar to those described by Mr Erasmus?

MR MADHAV: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You agree with that?

MR MADHAV: Yes I agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

Mr Erasmus has alleged that he felt insulted by certain comments as to the fact that he was White and he was a policeman and that he was a part of an illegal regime, etc. What is your comment on those allegations.

MR MADHAV: I would say that those were my thoughts and my feeling of the individuals at the time. However, I did not verbalise it in any way as I was actually very intimidated by the arrests and I refused to say anything and I was not cooperative at the time. I tried to keep quiet so that I could - hoping that I would have a lawyer later to defend my case rather than give information.

MS PATEL: Right. After the assaults and the interrogation at your home, they then took you to John Vorster Square, correct?

MR MADHAV: Yes, they took me to John Vorster Square and they took me to the tenth floor.

MS PATEL: Alright, can you describe ...(intervention)

MR MADHAV: And at the tenth floor there were more than two, there were these two gentlemen plus another other gentleman and there also I was questioned on the same thing and I was ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: When you say these two, who do you refer to?

MR MADHAV: The two that I mentioned, Mr Fourie and Mr Erasmus.

CHAIRPERSON: As well as two other officers that you don't know.

MR MADHAV: As well as two - it was quite a busy, it was a bit of a busy scene in that security room wherever they took me and in that room I was again interrogated. Now there I cannot recall exactly but all these people were there and I was being manhandled again, similar to the type of handling had at home and I was threatened to be, you know, reminded of ...(indistinct), you know, who was at that time.

MS PATEL: Alright. Sorry, just to take you back to the incidence in the room. Can you relate what kind of comments were passed possibly by the applicant to you in the room?

MR MADHAV: From a personal point of view that part of the intimidation and interrogation technique is to make you - to dehumanise you, so there were definitely derogatory terms said to me and one of them, as I mentioned earlier, was very derogatory and that then, when it was still swearing and that type of thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Calling you a coolie?

MR MADHAV: Yes that was said.

ADV SIGODI: Can you remember who called you a coolie?

MR MADHAV: No, I cannot tell you exactly, one of them.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And can you remember whether that occurred at John Vorster?

MR MADHAV: No, this was a home.

JUDGE DE JAGER: At home.

MS PATEL: I know that this was quite a traumatic experience for you but can you recall at John Vorster Square ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But before you proceed to John Vorster Square, how long in your opinion did the search accompanied by the interrogation and the assaults that followed your interrogation last at home?

MR MADHAV: At home it lasted plus minus one and a half hours I would say.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS PATEL: Just to take you back to John Vorster Square on the tenth floor where you say you were interrogated and assaulted, can you recall today exactly who assaulted you out of the persons who were in that room?

MR MADHAV: As there were more people now I can't tell you specifically who all of them were but I just think that all of them had their share.

MS PATEL: Okay and after you were interrogated and assaulted, what happened to you subsequently?

MR MADHAV: I was left alone in one of the offices there with somebody guarding outside and then later on in the evening, I think the processing took place later on in the afternoon or in the evening I was then taken to Cell 225 in the solitary confinement wing.

MS PATEL: And how long were you in solitary confinement?

MR MADHAV: For three and a half months.

MS PATEL: The allegations about the money found in your vehicle, what is your comment?

MR MADHAV: I can't recall anything, I don't remember anything because if the money was found I'm sure when I was released I would have wanted money back so I don't remember getting any money back so I don't remember having any money there.

MS PATEL: Oh sorry, just one more aspect. Regarding Renee Hirshman, did you know her prior to your arrest?

MR MADHAV: Renee Hirshman, actually when I was very active in Actstop, that was prior to my arrest, a few years before my arrest I was very active in the central Johannesburg area. We were involved in the anti-eviction campaign. I remember her quite distinctly because she used to - she should smoke but being Jewish she shouldn't smoke cigarettes, she should buy tobacco and roll this paper up, so that's how I recall her specifically, that's how I know her and that's how I remember her from the Actstop days and I know that she knows me because that's through us, working here, a lot of the youth with involved in the Actstop campaigns and that's how she must have got to Joyco. I don't know her other than that, but I don't recall her coming to Joyco meetings and ...(indistinct), I recall her more at the Actstop events.

CHAIRPERSON: And it is your testimony that that meeting was not a Joyco meeting, but it was an Actstop meeting?

MR MADHAV: No, no, that the meeting where I got arrested?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MADHAV: No, that was a Joyco meeting, that was a specific date, that was a Joyco meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Was she also a member of Joyco?

MR MADHAV: I don't recall that, I can't say for sure but I know her from Actstop.

CHAIRPERSON: But if it was put to you that she was a member of Joyco you wouldn't be in a position to dispute it?

MR MADHAV: No, I would not dispute that, no.

MS PATEL: And then finally, Mr Madhav, the applicant has stated that during the assault at your home that you didn't scream and that you were quiet and I think he said that you weren't in pain and there was no physical signs of an assault on you. What are your comments on the fact that you didn't scream?

MR MADHAV: Okay, firstly just to put it in perspective I'm the only child in my family and I'm very close to my mom so I didn't want - already due to the incident and the situation that was at hand there was no way that I was going to put her under more aggravation of more stress so whatever was taking place I tried to take it and just make it seem like it was a normal situation.

MS PATEL: Alright. Mr Erasmus has said that you were not upset by that assault, what is your comment?

MR MADHAV: Well, as I have mentioned earlier, when somebody tries to terrorise you and intimidate you with that intention, then how can I be un-upset or happy with that situation?

JUDGE DE JAGER: But for the sake of your Mom you pretended not to be upset, is that correct?

MR MADHAV: No, in the - pretended, I mean ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't scream?

MR MADHAV: No, I didn't scream, I didn't moan and groan while I was being assaulted because I was aware that my Mom was standing outside, yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes but you just pretended to be normal?

MR MADHAV: Yes I was ...(indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: But you were visibly upset?

MR MADHAV: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It was an upsetting episode, intimidating?

MR MADHAV: It was a sombre situation, I wasn't happy and joyful, I didn't pretend that I was happy, I just was sombre.

CHAIRPERSON: You were terrorised?

MR MADHAV: Yes, I was scared.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I have no further evidence.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Zyl, I know yesterday that Mr Erasmus, if not yesterday on Monday, Mr Erasmus had some sentiments to express on behalf of the victims who were present from the Alexandra Health Clinic for his part in respect of that incident. I don't know whether he wishes to express some sentiments to Mr Madhav? I want to emphasise that he is not required in terms of the Act to express any feelings of remorse because they are not a requirement in terms of the Act. As I have indicated, however, that it is an amnesty process which is intended to facilitate reconciliation in our deeply divided society. We would not stop him if he wanted to have an opportunity to express such sentiments.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN ZYL: As it pleases you, Madame Chair, we in fact in closing, in fact in his evidence in chief he did express his horror about the solitary confinement and it is my instructions yes he would like to and it is also my instructions in cross-examination, had I started it, you would have heard that I would actually have given some sentiments of my client to him. But I would, in view of what you are saying, after my cross-examination may I then allow Mr Erasmus to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Give him an opportunity to do so.

MR VAN ZYL: Thank you so much, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to put any questions you wish to Mr Madhav.

MR VAN ZYL: As you please, Madame Chair. I'm actually going to start off with a statement. My client, although he didn't have the full version of your version up to date, has instructed me to express that you were extremely brave in the circumstances especially in view of your mother being present and he clearly misjudged you at the time that you were not in pain that you were actually putting up a very brave front and I, on my side, on my own personal side, also wish to express the same view but he will continue with that further. But I think let us continue with a few differences, perhaps what we had. But what is clear is that both you and the applicant has not full memory of what happened that place, you because of being terrified in old age, stress, whatever, I don't know, but in view of what you testified, the similarities are very great between your testimony and his, is that correct?

MR MADHAV: Yes.

MR VAN ZYL: Yes. Apart from the tenth floor where he says he wasn't, but is it possible you could make a mistake on that?

MR MADHAV: No, I would not make a mistake on this, I know for a fact that I was taken there and there was some questioning and interrogation ...(intervention)

MR VAN ZYL: No, you were taken there ...(intervention)

MR MADHAV: By the people who arrested me.

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, but were they present in that assault on the tenth floor?

MR MADHAV: Yes, they were present.

MR VAN ZYL: Okay.

MR MADHAV: It's my view.

MR VAN ZYL: That's your view. He says no, that is not so but I will not delve any further. We do not deny the fact that you were arrested, that was the modus operandi at that time and so what I just want to get clear is, but I think Madame Chair actually did clarify that also, is that the interrogation at your home was assault, interrogation, assault, interrogation, so what came first was whether it was a screwdriver that came first or the fist that came first, it was actually immaterial, it did take place. You can't say it was first this and first the pamphlet, then assault or first the pay slip then assault or whatever, but you do say it intensified after the pay slip was found?

MR MADHAV: That is my recollection.

MR VAN ZYL: That is right. No, that is quite so. We have no further questions, Madame Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN ZYL

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to re-examine?

MS PATEL: No thank you Honourable Chairperson.

MR VAN ZYL: Madame Chair, may we at this time perhaps then -oh sorry, is she going to call for the witnesses?

CHAIRPERSON: No, she doesn't intend to call any.

MR VAN ZYL: Then may we at this point time have Mr Erasmus take the floor?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Erasmus?

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, I think then Mr Madhav and I maybe have something in common, is that well, we both believed in something at that time, he was at that time involving in stuff which to us was illegal. I think for the benefit of hindsight which was a very precise science, I certainly regret what happened. We live in a changing world and I would in this forum like to apologise for what happened. I did not know that you were in detention so long. I can realise now, with the benefit of hindsight once again, what anguish it must have caused not only you but your mother whom I remember was quite aged. I deeply regret what happened and I hope that after this that we can bury those differences that existed at that time. I would like to apologise, I'm deeply sorry.

MR VAN ZYL: May I just ask one question? Is your mother still alive, Mr Madhav?

MR MADHAV: Yes, she is.

MR VAN ZYL: She is still alive. My client would actually wish to express his apologies to your mother as well.

MR ERASMUS: Thank you, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Erasmus. Mr van Zyl, are you in a position to proceed to oral argument?

MR VAN ZYL: Madame Chair, yes I think we are.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't need to take an adjournment for that?

MR VAN ZYL IN ARGUMENT: No we don't. Madame Chair, it is clear that in view of Mr Madhav's evidence that there was full disclosure by my client and that in view of the total testimony and the total political situation at the time that Section 20, which is what we are about here today, was complied with by my client and that in view of the facts - there are a few differences between Mr Madhav and my client, memory - maybe not memory, but I don't think it is to the extent to find that my client did not do a full disclosure and I think that the object of this Committee was achieved this morning. As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I only have one aspect that I would like you to address us on and that is the evidence that has been tendered by Mr Madhav, that Mr Erasmus anticipated in the assault that took place at John Vorster Square and we have Mr Erasmus' testimony that he did not so participate. Would you submit that the fact that Mr Erasmus' testimony is different from that of Mr Madhav that would jeopardise his amnesty application, that would be an indication that there has been no full disclosure?

MR VAN ZYL: Madame Chair, I've already said the differences I think do not merit that there's not full disclosure. My reasoning for that is any person's recollection of certain events so long ago is different and in a court of law at the time when I was also presiding as a magistrate, where there were differences, you actually found that it is better to allude to the truth because it shows that people observe things differently than when they are text book in accordance with each other. So that difference is, although it is different, but my client can't take it any further but to say he wasn't there on the tenth floor, if we can call it that incident.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But it's not a difference, it's a difference in a sense that there was another assault and he's denying the other assault.

MR VAN ZYL: My client's not denying the other assault that it took place, he would concede that it took place.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but that he was present at the other place.

MR VAN ZYL: He says he was not present, that is what he said, he said he was not, clearly when he was questioned.

CHAIRPERSON: He said there was no such an assault as far as he is concerned and Mr Madhav says that there was an assault at John Vorster.

MR VAN ZYL: I understood that my client agrees with the - maybe I'm wrong, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He says he did not participate in any assault that occurred at John Vorster Square.

MR VAN ZYL: He didn't participate but he said he dropped him off ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't there?

MR VAN ZYL: He wasn't there, so that's why I say he would concede that there was an assault, he would not deny the assault.

CHAIRPERSON: Which was committed by him.

MR VAN ZYL: But he denies that he committed it on the tenth floor.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN ZYL: He wasn't there, he says. That was his evidence. So if he wasn't there it's impossible for him to commit that.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Your submission is that there could have been an assault but he wasn't there.

MR VAN ZYL: Most definitely, we will if I put it on the table, we concede and in fact I would agree with Mr Madhav that it took place because that is the modus operandi of the day, but my client says he wasn't there. He dropped him off and then he left.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and the crux of Mr Madhav's evidence is that there was an assault at John Vorster Square which was committed by Mr Erasmus.

MR VAN ZYL: Well that my client clearly denies.

MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, I would deny that. I can concede, I'm certain that even right in ...(intervention)

MR VAN ZYL: Sorry, put it off.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Erasmus, it is now your attorney who is making submissions on your behalf, you are not required to address us. You have given your testimony and you're now no longer required to say anything. We are directing our questions to Mr van Zyl who is making submissions on your behalf.

MR VAN ZYL: As it so pleases you, Madame Chair. As he said now and again he actually repeated himself, he denies that he was present. So that is it, we can't take it any further than that, Madame Chair, you will have to decide on the truthfulness on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

MS PATEL IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

It is my respectful submission that Mr Erasmus has not made full disclosure to you in respect of the assaults that he had committed on my client, Mr Madhav. I think the evidence speaks for itself, Mr Madhav has no reason whatsoever to implicate Mr Erasmus unnecessarily inasmuch as he was severely traumatised by the event and by his subsequent solitary confinement. He is absolutely certain that both Mr Erasmus and Mr Fourie were in fact present during the interrogation and the assault that took place at John Vorster Square. He has already and my submission in this regard is also, that Mr Erasmus has sought to minimise his role in terms of the assault both at Mr Madhav's home and his role at John Vorster Square. I find it almost unthinkable that Mr Erasmus would go to the length of given his job description and his interest at the time, that he would go to the length of not only surveying Mr Madhav but following him and then taking him home, searching his home and then just simply handing him over without any follow up as to whatever information Mr Madhav would have revealed or what would have come out, not only during that interrogation, but during his subsequent detention. Mr Erasmus' excuse for not participating in the interrogation and subsequent assault at John Vorster Square was that it was a Saturday and he had a family to go to. We've already heard his testimony in previous incidents about how committed he was to his job and how he at another occasion had not been home for three days because they were on 24 hour duty. Honourable Chairperson, this just doesn't gel with what Mr Erasmus himself has testified as to his commitment to his job.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that he was so committed that he never went to his home at all for 24 hours, seven days a week?

MS PATEL: No, certainly not, Honourable Chairperson, I am saying that given the circumstances of this case that his curiosity at least about what he says Ms Hirshman had given, the lack of information that Ms Hirshman had given him about Mr Madhav, I find it curious that he wouldn't have wanted to know more about Mr Madhav after his arrest and that he would then simply just have left it at that and handed him over as he would want us to believe, Chairperson.

And my submission is that the assault at John Vorster Square forms part and parcel of his arrest and detention that Mr Erasmus was involved in, that it is in fact not a separate incident, that those events flowed out of the arrest of Mr Madhav.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let's just examine that, Ms Patel? Before we do that, would you agree that the assault that occurred at Mr Madhav's home has been described in terms that accords to Mr Madhav? He agrees with the description of Mr Erasmus' participation with regard to the assault that occurred at his home?

MS PATEL: Substantially yes, Honourable Chairperson, I believe that there is common ground there.

CHAIRPERSON: So he has not tried to minimise his role insofar as that offence is concerned?

MS PATEL: Except insofar as his use of the screwdriver is concerned, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS PATEL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But he has disclosed that a screwdriver was used?

MS PATEL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that some kind of assault resulted as a result of the use of a screwdriver?

MS PATEL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And he has described the part of the body on which the screwdriver was used and that accords with Mr Madhav's testimony?

MS PATEL: Except in the manner in which the screwdriver was used, yes Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That's right. So to that extent he has not minimised his role?

MS PATEL: Not substantially no, except that they differ substantially on the effect of the assault, of their perceptions of the effect of the assault.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. During my examination of him I think he considered that he might have had an unfortunate usage of words because I think I took up issue with the way in which he had described the assault?

MS PATEL: That is in fact correct, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now let's come to your submission that there hasn't been a full disclosure because the assault as testified by Mr Madhav at John Vorster has not been disclosed by Mr Erasmus. I'm talking about disclosure for now because he has applied for amnesty for the assault at Mr Madhav's home. If you were in a criminal court and you were required to draw up a charge sheet, would you not have separated the two incidents and made them separate offences and would you not have described the assault that occurred at Mr Madhav's home and that which occurred at the police station separately?

MS PATEL: I would concede that in strict technical terms we would have to have separate charge sheets. However, my submission is that the assault at John Vorster Square flows out of the same sequence of events...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS PATEL: ...with it and to that extent Mr Erasmus hasn't made full disclosure. It is not as if the second assault at John Vorster Square took place a week later or even some hours later, it took place immediately. Mr Erasmus was at all times in control of Mr Madhav, from the time that he arrested him in the street, to taking him to John Vorster Square, to bringing him back home, to taking him back to John Vorster Square. There was no break in his contact with him, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS PATEL: And to that extent my submission is that it flows out of the same sequence of events and to that extent he hasn't made full disclosure to us.

CHAIRPERSON: But is you concede that if you were in a criminal court you would have separated the offence?

MS PATEL: And that would have been simply because the assault didn't continue from the time that they'd left his home to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely.

MS PATEL: ...to the point of them arriving at John Vorster Square.

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely.

MS PATEL: And my argument in that regard or my submission in that regard, Honourable Chairperson, that it is a technicality ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which would not apply in this ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Which would not apply in this forum.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS PATEL: That those strict rules of interpretation and of how charge sheets are drawn up have no place in this forum, Honourable Chairperson, to that technical extent.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what do you say then should be our view to Section 20.2 which talks of an offence or an omission?

MS PATEL: There was clearly an offence, Honourable Chairperson. I'm sorry, I don't get the point of your question. There was clearly an offence that took place, both ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Two offences.

MS PATEL: Two offences?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS PATEL: But they flow out of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: In a sense which occurred at his home, ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: But it flowed out of the same sequence of events to the same extent that it could have been damage to property and assault. They're two separate offences but they flow out of the same sequence of events and to that extent, Honourable Chairperson, I would base my argument on the same basis, that the fact that they are separate offences technically doesn't mean that they fall out of the ambit of this enquiry in terms of what the applicant has applied for.

CHAIRPERSON: So the relevant facts as we are required to consider in terms of Section 20 should in your submission include ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Absolutely, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ...the facts which occurred at John Vorster Square?

MS PATEL: Absolutely, Honourable Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: That would mean that we'd have to make a credibility decision whether we believe Mr Madhav or Mr Erasmus on this incident?

MS PATEL: It would appear so.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Now if you look at page 41, documents that form part of the papers on which we've got to decide and it's obvious that the TRC had the police docket available and there was an affidavit or a statement by Mr Madhav in this file, referred to as A1 on page 41. The facts are disclosed that really corroborates what's being said here about the assault at the home but there's no mention of an assault?

MS PATEL: Let me explain the background to this memorandum that you see in the document. My instructions are that during Mr Madhav's solitary confinement he was required to draft a statement which he then in fact did and in the course of that statement he then mentioned that whilst he was arrested he was then assaulted and it was as a part of that, that this memorandum - he didn't file formal charges against Mr Erasmus, this memorandum was drafted without his knowledge and as a result of the statement that was then handed over to the investigating officer. He says at the time that he was really traumatised by that process and that there wasn't an intention for him at that stage to relate to everything that had happened, in fact he had also during the information that he had supplied in that statement, he says he hadn't really given them the true facts about what his true involvement is, etc. etc. So the statement that had gone in, that is the basis of this memorandum. My submission is we cannot really rely on at this stage.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But in that statement was any mention made of an assault at John Vorster?

MS PATEL: I haven't taken instructions in that regard. Unless it's really material, there's no evidence before us in terms of that, unless - I don't know what cognisance or what value you can attach to that at this stage, Honourable Chair.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, well it's not evidence before us today but it could have assisted us in finding one way or the other.

MS PATEL: Well I have explained the background to this statement which forms the basis of this memorandum, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to explain, Ms Patel, why Mr Erasmus would come forward, apply for amnesty for the assault on Mr Madhav, relate to the incident which occurred at his home but omit to relate the incident which occurred subsequently if it did occur at John Vorster and it was within his knowledge if he has decided to open up and disclose his participation in the assault of a person?

MS PATEL: You're asking me to speculate, Honourable Chairperson, and in the realm of speculation I would submit that the tenth floor on John Vorster Square has such a horrific reputation that for somebody to consciously want to associate themselves with the activities that took place on the tenth floor would at best be a difficult thing especially if the person is trying to reconcile themselves with their own past and try to, in a sense, reintegrate themselves back into society, that perhaps that is the reason that Mr Erasmus hasn't included it in his application, but I can't speak for him, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But that was an assault, whether it happens on the tenth floor of John Vorster or it happens at his home. I would even think that it's even more horrific for somebody to assault a victim at his home when in fact there is a police station or the many cells that the Security Police were reputed to have where they would assault activists during that time.

MS PATEL: Well I can take my speculation no further, Honourable Chairperson.

ADV. SIGODI: What do you say to the effect that the applicant has applied for amnesty in relation to the assault at the home only? Is it not open to Mr Madhav to go and lay charges even today for the assault which took place at John Vorster Square seeing that even if we were to draft a charge sheet the two incidents would have to be separated anyway? Can we then not separate the issues and consider the fact that and consider our decision based on what the applicant has applied amnesty for?

MS PATEL: If you grant him amnesty only for the incident that took place at his home, certainly, but my argument in relation to the assault at John Vorster Square goes to the question of full disclosure.

CHAIRPERSON: With regard to the assault at home?

MS PATEL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are contending or submitting that we cannot grant him amnesty for the offence that is before us which is the assault that occurred at home because of his non-disclosure of the offence which occurred at John Vorster?

MS PATEL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that we should view that as an incident or facts, two incidents but just saying that those facts are material as to impact on the requirement of full disclosure?

MS PATEL: That is indeed so, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Zyl, do you wish to reply?

MR VAN ZYL IN REPLY: In short, Madame Chair. The document on page 41 and further is part of this hearing. How the background behind it was investigated by the Evidence Leader and the people concerned, they put it before the court so they didn't put any further information before the court so that further information cannot be taken cognisance of and then if you take this document with the evidence of Mr Madhav and that of Mr Erasmus, then it correlates one hundred percent and in fact, therefore, we would say that that must be decided on today because there is no reason for Mr Erasmus not to have gone further and applied or put in the facts of the tenth floor for the simple reason that if he did, he did full disclosure but the fact that he said earlier on and he said it very clearly, he handed Mr Madhav over to W.O. de Waal so there's a clear break in the proceedings and there wasn't this continuous thing of Mr Erasmus flowing, there was a clear break and that was not denied, that fact was not put in question by Ms Patel, so there was a clear break in the handing over. So I agree, in the confusion Mr Madhav could as much as made a mistake as Mr Erasmus ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Those documents are not properly before us, no reliance is going to be placed on those documents.

MR VAN ZYL: No, no, I know but I'm talking about the handing over to De Waal, that was not denied. So there's clear difference of incidents, there's a stoppage of the previous incident up till John Vorster Square, so it is not the continuous flow of facts but I can see it and accept that the modus operandi was to go further with the interrogation but Mr Erasmus says "I handed him over to De Waal" and I think there's no reason for this panel not to accept that version. As it so pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, sorry, I know that it's not procedural but there seems to be a suggestion that we have selectively included documents in the bundle. If I may just place on record ...(intervention)

MR VAN ZYL: No, I haven't done that, it is just not there. It's not in the bundle, it's a fact.

MS PATEL: That we don't have any other documents, in fact if my memory serves me correctly, that memorandum was in fact received I think from Mr Erasmus if he will confirm, that the docket is no longer available.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS PATEL: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure it was not the intention, Mr van Zyl?

MR VAN ZYL: I'm not accusing people, I'm just saying these are the facts before the panel.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and these documents will not be taken into account when we consider the application, they are not before us, they happen to be in the bundle.

MR VAN ZYL: As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think this concludes Mr Erasmus' application for Mr Madhav as well as for any of the matters which were on the roll for this week?

MR VAN ZYL: That is my contention as well, Madame Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I may just in passing state that Mr Erasmus has been a very unique witness in terms of disclosure. We have always been saddled with witnesses who give us some negotiated truth, in many instances he has struck me as a person who has given a new meaning to truth telling, telling more than the truth. Taking into account the testimony, his testimony in the Alexandra Health Clinic, I'm just making this as a comment, your testimony in that regard was truly amazing, I think you were as truthful as any truth could be extracted from anywhere.

MR ERASMUS: I really appreciate that, Madame Chair, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We are going to reserve our judgement in respect of this incident as well.

MR VAN ZYL: Then, Madame Chair, I consider myself excused from these proceedings?

CHAIRPERSON: You may be excused as well as Mr Erasmus. Mr Madhav, we appreciate the fact that you were able to attend this hearing, we know that you had to come back from abroad in order to participate in these proceedings. I think we always commend any endeavours from the victims' part in participating in these proceedings inasmuch as you may not be entirely satisfied with the disclosures made by the applicant. We hope that your participation and the fact that the applicant has testified to the best of his recollection will go a long way in assuaging the pain that has been caused by the conflict of our past.

We also wish to convey our condolences to pain that was suffered by your mother in having to witness some of the atrocities that accompanied your activism with Joyco. Thank you for coming.

We'll now move to the next application which will the application of Mr Pollock.

MS PATEL: That is correct, Honourable Chairperson, if you would just grant us a few moments for the legal representatives to come forward?

CHAIRPERSON: They're here?

WITNESS EXCUSED