ADV MOTATA: Which language are you going to use?
MR MATJENI: seTswana, Chairperson.
ADV MOTATA: May you give us your full names.
KOKELA JEREMIAH MATJENI: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Motata. Mr Matjeni, you may take a seat. Thank you Mr Jansen, you may proceed.
EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair.
Mr Matjeni, you testified about your personal background and your background in the South African Police last week before this very same Committee, in the Mbizana matter, is that correct?
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: You want that evidence also to be considered by this Committee for this application, is that correct?
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And you also want the Committee to consider the evidence led and the documents handed up in respect of your application, more specifically which portions of your application were submitted before the cut-off date.
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Now your application in respect of the abduction of Mr Morudi is found on pages 76 to page 80 of the bundle, is that correct?
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: You have had the opportunity to go through this again, do you confirm the correctness thereof?
MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Now it's correct your rank at the time was that of a Constable.
MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And your commanding officer was Capt Prinsloo.
MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And also in this incident you received your orders from him.
MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: What is your comment about his statement that he was not involved in this incident?
MR MATJENI: I don't know much, I only saw him at the camp, so I don't know what was happening.
MR JANSEN: But you say that - if he says he did not give you the order to go and look after Mr Morudi and if he says he was not at the camp, you disagree with that?
MR MATJENI: I would not agree with that because I went there two to three times at the camp then I found him there.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose.
Did you go there at Mr Prinsloo's instructions, that's what your counsel wants to find out from you.
MR MATJENI: I was instructed by him because I was working under him. For me to go to the camp it was because he authorised or sent me there.
MR JANSEN: Was Mr Prinsloo the kind of person that would have accepted the fact that some his subordinates got themselves involved in kidnapping and unlawful detentions without him knowing about it?
MR MATJENI: In many instances according to my knowledge, he would the one who would give instructions.
MR JANSEN: Will you be able to leave town in other words, be able to leave the place of work in Pretoria without Mr Prinsloo's knowledge?
MR MATJENI: That was not possible, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Now ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Just on this question.
Could Mr Dos Santos not give you instructions to go away from the office?
MR MATJENI: That would be possible, but if you were assigned that you would work with him, that would be then that he would give you instructions and then with the knowledge of a senior.
MR MALAN: Which you would simply assume, you would not necessarily have known it.
MR MATJENI: I would not know, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: May I just explore this further, Mr Jansen, so that I can understand whether I'm on the same page with you.
You would not leave Pretoria where you were based, at the Northern Transvaal Division, to go to a farm for a day or more without Prinsloo's knowledge. Do you understand my question?
MR MATJENI: Yes, I understand your question. It was not possible that you would leave to any camp without Prinsloo's knowledge.
CHAIRPERSON: So he had to give his approval before you could go to any place like a farm?
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And such instructions you wouldn't have taken from a junior officer like Dos Santos?
MR MATJENI: I will take that instruction from Dos Santos, because Dos Santos would just relay an instruction.
CHAIRPERSON: But in his relaying of such an instruction, would he say that such instructions had been approved by Mr Prinsloo?
MR MATJENI: At times he would not tell you, but you'd have that belief that he has been sent by Mr Prinsloo to come and instruct you.
CHAIRPERSON: But in this particular incident you were directly instructed by Prinsloo to go to the farm.
MR MATJENI: I don't remember well who instructed me, but what I remember is that I was instructed to go to the farm.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair.
Now this place where Mr Morudi was kept, that is not a place where you would normally keep somebody who was properly arrested in terms of the Security legislation or the emergency regulations?
MR MATJENI: That is correct, he was not arrested lawfully.
MR JANSEN: Now you knew that at that time, you knew that it was strictly speaking against the law.
MR MATJENI: That is correct, I knew, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: But as you testified previously, you believed that that was part of your work from time to time, to do unlawful things.
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Did you receive any extra or special remuneration for your involvement in this incident other than your normal salary?
MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And according to you Mr Morudi was, although you didn't have detailed information about his activities, but you were under the impression that he was either a member of the ANC or a supporter of the ANC.
MR MATJENI: I believed that he was working together with the ANC, but I didn't know his background.
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. Mr Joubert?
MR JOUBERT: I have no questions, thank you Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden - oh, Mr van den Berg. I'm sorry, I'm now playing the tapes of the Mbizana matter. Thanks to Mr Jansen reminding me of that. Mr van den Berg.
EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair, I do have a few questions.
Was there any other person being held at the camp other than Mr Morudi?
MR MATJENI: It was him alone, Chairperson, at that particular time.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And did any other, let's use the word detainee, did anybody else arrive during the time that Mr Morudi was there?
MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Sorry, I didn't get that question, Mr van den Berg. Could you repeat the question.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I asked whether any other, for want of a better word, detainee arrived during the time that Mr Morudi was held at the camp.
MR MALAN: Oh I thought he had answered that already to your first question, that at the particular time nobody was there when he was kept. Thank you.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you present when Mr Morudi was interrogated?
MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you see who interrogated him?
MR MATJENI: I saw him there, I did not know as to whether he was interrogated or not.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You say in your application for amnesty on page 77, in the first paragraph the very last line
"The man was interrogated by various persons."
You didn't see that happen?
MR MATJENI: I'm stating that because when you go there you'd find people from various sections together with him and then when you go again you'd find other members of the certain section with him.
CHAIRPERSON: The question is, did you see him being interrogated by various persons as you have alleged in your affidavit on page 77, the last sentence?
MR MATJENI: Maybe I put it wrongly, because what was happening is that at a particular time you would see various members of a particular unit, because there was Section B and Section C who were involved with him in discussions.
CHAIRPERSON: You simply assumed that they were there to interrogate him.
MR MATJENI: Yes, I believed that.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And who did you believe was interrogating him? Can you give us names? You mention here Hechter, but you say you're not sure. Also on page 77 in that first paragraph.
CHAIRPERSON: And the second paragraph, Mr van den Berg. Won't you just put those names to him, maybe it will be faster. Joe Mamasela, Slang Selatle, Hendrik Bokaba.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Did you see the following persons at the camp and were they to your mind participating in the interrogation? Mr Mamasela.
MR MATJENI: If I remember well, at a particular time when I went there he was present together with Selatle and Hechter. A few of them from a particular section were present.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And you've mentioned also Slang Selatle and Hendrik Bokaba.
MR MATJENI: Slang is Selatle. Selatle, not Slang.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes. Did you see him there?
MR MALAN: He said so.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And did you see Paul van Vuuren there?
MR MATJENI: It's possible because those you are talking about they are from a certain section and then we are from another section.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Capt Prinsloo, was he present?
MR MATJENI: It's possible because he was in our section. I believe he was present.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And it's also possible that Dos Santos was present?
MR MATJENI: That's possible, Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Matjeni, you say that it was possible that Capt Prinsloo was present when Mr Morudi was to your mind interrogated.
MR MATJENI: I believe he was present.
CHAIRPERSON: You see what I would find strange is for you not to be sure whether Capt Prinsloo was present because he was your senior and he was in command of the unit, and you call recall people like Mamasela, Mr Bokaba and Slang Selatle. Surely you would be in a position to say during the two weeks of your guarding Mr Morudi, whether Mr Prinsloo did attend the farm during Morudi's detention or not.
MR MATJENI: I believe that he was present there.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it correct that you were there for almost two weeks guarding Mr Morudi?
MR MATJENI: We were working in shifts, others would come and then others would leave.
CHAIRPERSON: But you were there for an approximate period of a week to two weeks.
MR MATJENI: I would say at times I would come once or twice. I don't remember as to whether I came once or twice because we were working in shifts.
CHAIRPERSON: You don't remember whether you came one or twice to do what? I'm not with you, I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
MR MATJENI: At times I would go there in the afternoon to guard him and then again to give him food, then tomorrow another group would come to do the same job.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now how many days would you say you were there guarding him, accumulatively? I know you were working in shifts. Can you approximate whether you were guarding him for three days, for four days?
MR MATJENI: I can't remember, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: But you looked after him for more than a day.
MR MATJENI: That is why I'm saying I'm not sure as to whether it's two or three days.
CHAIRPERSON: Now during the time when you were there, were you with Mr Morudi in the tent, during the two to three days that you were there guarding him?
MR MATJENI: That is correct, I was with him in the tent. That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Was there no time during your looking after Mr Morudi when somebody, either Mr Mamasela or many other people that you've mentioned in your affidavit, was there not a singular occasion when one of them came and requested you to release Morudi for interrogation?
MR MATJENI: I would say at the particular time when they want to talk to him or somebody comes to talk to him and they found him there, I would leave, I would leave them alone, then I would not know as to what was the subject of their communication.
CHAIRPERSON: So you'd be requested to leave the tent in order for that person to conduct an interrogation on Mr Morudi?
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And to your recollection, how many times did that happen?
MR MATJENI: I would say it may be two times, but I'm not sure.
CHAIRPERSON: And to the best of your recollection, who requested you to leave the tent in order for him to conduct such an interrogation?
MR MATJENI: I don't remember, Chairperson, but I remember that people from Section B, on a particular day I was with them, then they asked me to leave because they wanted to talk to Mr Morudi. That's what I remember. That is where I mentioned various names, but I'm not sure.
CHAIRPERSON: And the people who belonged to Section B are people like Mr Mamasela, Slang Selatle, Hendrik Bokaba?
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know recall Mr Prinsloo having requested you to leave for him to conduct such an interrogation?
MR MATJENI: It seems it happened if I remember well.
CHAIRPERSON: Now you were asked a question by Mr van den Berg as to how you received instructions - I don't know whether it's Mr van den Berg or your counsel, but I made a mental note, how you received instructions to guard Mr Morudi. Now is it correct that you were contacted by means of a radio by Capt Prinsloo and requested to meet him at the Pietersburg and Pretoria highway? Is that correct?
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And you did as you had been instructed and you met Capt Prinsloo at that highway.
MR MATJENI: In Hammanskraal, Chairperson, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that when you were instructed by him to guard Mr Morudi?
MR MATJENI: That was the particular time, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Were these instructions given to you along the highway and not at Hammanskraal farm?
MR MATJENI: He gave me instructions at the farm, from there then I followed him to the farm.
CHAIRPERSON: So you had to meet him along the highway? MR MATJENI: That is correct, I met him on the way on the road, then from there we went to the farm.
CHAIRPERSON: Instructions were only given to you once you reached the farm, to guard Mr Morudi.
MR MATJENI: According to my recollection that is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Had you been to this farm before, prior to the Morudi incident?
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: So you were familiar with this farm.
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: Chair, you've covered most of my questions, but just a few.
If I understand you correctly, in response to the Chair's question you were saying that you followed Capt Prinsloo to the farm, did you travel with your own transport?
MR MATJENI: Yes, I had my own transport, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: So you didn't get into his car? After having met him, he instructed you to get to the farm and you followed him to the farm but you travelled in your own car?
MR MATJENI: Let me try to explain the way we used to work. If you are a particular place you would have a radio communication with that particular person, then you'd receive instructions through the radio, then they would tell you where to meet them or him.
MR MALAN: Yes, and I understood that he contacted you by radio, instructed you to meet along the highway at Hammanskraal, which you did.
MR MATJENI: That is correct.
MR MALAN: Did you drive to that meeting point in your car?
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: And he drove in his car to that meeting point. This is now Capt Prinsloo.
MR MATJENI: Yes, he had his own transport and then I had my own transport.
MR MALAN: Yes. And then he instructed you to follow him to the farm and you went in two cars to the farm.
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: And at the farm you got instructions to guard Morudi.
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Now those instructions, and this is really my interest, your evidence was that you guarded Morudi in shifts, now how did you - did you get a roster? How did you know when was your shift? Was it every time new instructions for you to get there? Were you contacted by radio? Tell us how did you know when was your shift to guard Moses Morudi.
MR MATJENI: Let me say you'd be there, then whilst you are there you would be instructed to go back to the office, then whilst you're at the office you'd be instructed to go to the farm.
MR MALAN: Now who would be giving these instructions?
MR MATJENI: ...(no English interpretation)
MR MALAN: We don't have an interpretation, shall I put the question again.
INTERPRETER: ; Please repeat the question.
MR MALAN: Who gave you the instructions at the farm to go back to the office and who gave you the instructions at the office to get back to the farm?
MR MATJENI: I don't know how to put it because at a particular time you'd be instructed by a certain person, then at times you'd be instructed by another person and Capt Prinsloo may relay instructions to another person.
CHAIRPERSON: We want you to tell us who informed you. If you can remember the name of a particular person who instructed you from the office to go to the camp. We want you to give us the particular name of the person.
MR MATJENI: At times it would be Capt Prinsloo, at times it would be Dos Santos. Those were the people mainly who used to give me instructions, particularly in regard to the Morudi incident.
MR MALAN: At times Putter?
MR MATJENI: He was a white person, he would do that because he had the prerogative to do so.
MR MALAN: At times PW Botha?
MR MATJENI: Yes, that is possible, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: So you could have had your instructions from anyone to go back to the farm to do guarding?
MR MATJENI: That is correct.
MR MALAN: And at the farm, who would there give you instructions if Prinsloo wasn't there?
MR MATJENI: Any white person who was in charge at that particular moment.
MR MALAN: Thank you, Chair.
And then one last question. At no stage did you see any signs of assault on Morudi.
MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson, there was no time when I saw signs of assault.
MR MALAN: Did you ever speak to Morudi while you were guarding him?
MR MATJENI: When they are not present, we noticed that they are outside, then you would ask questions like "Where do you stay". You would just ask but not with authority.
MR MALAN: But he never gave you other information or expressed any fears that he might be killed, can you recall any such discussions?
MR MATJENI: I don't remember, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Thank you, Chair, no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: He didn't trust you did he? He knew you were part of the system.
MR MATJENI: Yes, he knew that I was part of the system, but we were trying to be cautious to them.
CHAIRPERSON: But you knew you to be a security policeman nevertheless.
MR MATJENI: That's correct, he knew.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Motata?
ADV MOTATA: While mainly he was interrogated by white members?
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV MOTATA: At the farm there were members of the B-Section and members of the C-Section, is that correct?
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV MOTATA: People like Mamasela and Bokaba and Selatle were members of the B-Section.
MR MATJENI: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Were they interrogated him in your presence?
MR MATJENI: I did not know if they were among white members, because I didn't know their trend of work. If you were together with Mr Morudi, you'd be instructed to leave, then they would continue with their interrogation.
MR MATJENI: When I read your statement you say black members were the ones who were guarding those people who were detained at the farms. So people like Mamasela were black members. So were they guarding this person?
MR MATJENI: Mamasela was feared by white members.
ADV MOTATA: You're saying you were working under Prinsloo.
MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV MOTATA: If any white person would come and give you instructions, anyone who arrives at the farm, you'd take those instructions?
MR MATJENI: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, do you wish to re-examine?
MR JANSEN: No re-examination, thank you Chair.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. Mr Matjeni, you are excused as a witness.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: I note that it is now 1 o'clock, maybe it is an appropriate time to adjourn for lunch. Will it be convenient if we resumed at quarter to two? Will that be convenient, Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: Yes, we could convene earlier if you don't mind, depending. I assume it's only the argument and that would short.
CHAIRPERSON: We could even sit and hear your oral submissions before adjourning for lunch, is it possible?
MR JANSEN: Yes, again that may be a good idea, to see how far we get with the argument.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Joubert, what is your position? Are we in a position to listen to your oral submissions?
MR JOUBERT: Yes, indeed Madam Chair, I think it won't take much time.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr van den Berg, I'm sure you can't oppose that suggestion coming from Mr Jansen and Mr Joubert.
MR VAN DEN BERG: No, Madam Chair, I can't. The only thing that I still have instructions in respect of is that a member of the family wanted very briefly to make a statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: That would be done under oath, just to give some background and then just to give the family's perceptions of this process.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but do you have any objection in us just finalising the whole application, including argument without having to take an adjournment?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I have no difficulty, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?
ADV STEENKAMP: No difficulty, thank you Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We'd prefer that we don't adjourn. We'll then proceed to call a member of the Morudi family.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, I call Thomas Morudi. Mr Morudi has indicated that he will testify in English. He is aware that there are interpretation facilities, but he's chosen to testify in English.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Morudi, will you please stand to take an oath. What are your full names?
THOMAS MKOKA MORUDI: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: You may take a seat, you've been duly sworn in.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, I understand that an arrangement needs to be made with the microphone, just so that we don't have a situation where it gets turned and off. If we could possibly do that.
CHAIRPERSON: We can do that immediately.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready to commence?
MR VAN DEN BERG: It would appear so, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg.
EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Morudi, for the benefit of the Panel and perhaps also for the applicants, you tell us a little bit about your brother, Moses Morudi, when was he born, where was he born, where did he attend school.
MR MORUDI: Moses Morudi, I'm not sure whether I should say he's my brother or he was my brother. That is one thing that I should put ...(indistinct). Secondly, he was born in 1965 at Mamelodi. He attended school at Mangolwane(?). From Mangolwane he proceeded to Mamelodi Higher Primary. From Mamelodi he proceeded to Rethabile High School.
He was a member of Cosas, that is the student movement that existed at that time. And from there he was involved in ANC activities. I'm not aware of the issues that he was involved in, in MK operations. As far as I'm concerned, he was a very young man and a very small boy, or he is a small boy, I don't know, but he was very small, he was a very young man.
MR VAN DEN BERG: When was the last time that you saw Moses?
MR MORUDI: The last time I saw Moses was a day before the police came to my home searching for him. They came in cars and then some of them have testified in this hearing. I saw them during the period when they were searching for Moses. That was after Ting-Ting and Jabu were arrested. They came in many cars. They broke the gates, they broke everything at home.
MR VAN DEN BERG: When you refer to Ting-Ting and to Obet, you refer to Mr Masango and Mr Masina.
MR MORUDI: That's right.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you know that Moses was in Potchefstroom?
MR MORUDI: Ja, I was aware that he was in Potchefstroom, I used to visit him at Potchefstroom.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And for how long had he been there?
MR MORUDI: He was there for a period of a year.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And what was he doing there?
MR MORUDI: I would assume he was there hiding from the Security Police.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Had he expressed an interest in leaving the country?
MR MORUDI: Ja, he did actually express a feeling that he wants to leave the country, primarily on our instance because there were these guys who were looking for him. It was frightening, we were afraid that when he was going to be caught they were going to kill him.
MR VAN DEN BERG: When was the last time that your family had contact with him?
MR MORUDI: The last time we got a telephone call from Potchefstroom, indicating that Moses has left and he has gone where he wanted to go. Until after 1990, when we started searching for him, when all the exiles were coming back, but we searched without any, without arriving at any situation where we would know where he is, until this TRC process started. That's where we started knowing that maybe he was killed.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I know that this is very difficult for you Mr Morudi, so take your time. When were you aware that an application for amnesty which pertained to Moses, had been made?
MR MORUDI: The position is such that during 1992/'93, we got information from the Attorney-General's office that there was an investigation that was going on pertaining to the situation around my brother.
The information was that there was, the Attorney-General was about to make arrests and that there were people who were prepared to testify on behalf of the State. And furthermore, the information we got was that these people have now turned to the TRC for amnesty. It's now that we are going through the process of the TRC. We only started knowing that there are actually people who have applied for amnesty about last year.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And the TRC process is a process which your family has followed quite closely.
MR MORUDI: I can remember my mother used to go to every, nearly every sitting that was conducted by the TRC around Pretoria, even in Johannesburg, even in kwaNdebele. She never missed even one single TRC hearing, with the hope that during those processes maybe the name of her child would come up and she would ultimately know what happened to her son.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What is your family's attitude to these applications which are before this Panel today?
MR MORUDI: Now I must say that we are going through a very difficult period in that we are of the opinion that the TRC, the purpose of the TRC is to reconcile two parties, that is the perpetrators and the victims, that is the position we know.
Now it is difficult for us to accept the situation where we would be expected by the applicants not to oppose their applications because we don't have the final detail or the closure to the whole situation. And it's difficult for us to say fine, we are not going to oppose the applications, based on the fact that the primary purpose like we understand is the fact that we should know who killed him and where was he buried, so that we should adhere to our African culture that we should get the remains, bury them like we do with all our dead.
Now I'm not sure as to whether my brother is still alive or he's dead. So I am actually requesting that the applicants should give us a way, should actually tell us, or rather we are requesting the assistance of the TRC to get to the closure. It's open and we cannot go on with an open-ended situation. We are requesting closure, we should know that he's dead and we have buried him, then we would be in a position to see there's finality to the whole situation. But as it is now there's no finality.
WITNESS DISTRESSED - MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
MR VAN DEN BERG: Is there anything additional that you want to add to what you've already said, Mr Morudi?
MR MORUDI: I think I've said enough.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair. It might be an appropriate time to have a short adjournment, the family are quite distressed.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a five minute adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, Mr Morudi was under oath, I'm not sure whether there is anybody who wishes to cross-examine him, or if he might ...
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Maybe let's make enquiries from Mr Jansen. Mr Jansen, would you like to put any questions to Mr Morudi?
MR JANSEN: No questions, Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?
MR JOUBERT: I have no questions, thank you Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think he can be excused as a witness, Mr van den Berg.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair, I will convey that to him.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR VAN DEN BERG: We don't intend to call anybody else, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: You close your case.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Between Mr Joubert and Mr Jansen, who is going to commence?
MR JANSEN: I'll start.
CHAIRPERSON: Don't you want me to throw a coin?
MR JANSEN IN ARGUMENT: No, no, I'll take it upon me to start. Thank you Chair, Honourable Members of the Committee. I've going to be very brief mainly because amnesty is only sought in respect of the kidnapping. I've been wondering since the last few weeks just about the definition of kidnapping and abduction, because I see the words are used interchangeably and I see that the Act defines abduction as being part of a gross human rights violation, but the general meaning is different. It's just a puritan's argument, so whether you call it kidnapping or abduction, I'm in your hands.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, for purposes of the Act.
MR JANSEN: Ja, for purposes of the Act.
CHAIRPERSON: The Act refers to ...(indistinct - no microphone)
MR JANSEN: Ja. Anyway, in Afrikaans it would be "menseroof", if I understand it correctly.
In any event, I respectfully submit that the main reason why you should give amnesty here is that as far as the seriousness of the offence that the applicants before you seek amnesty for, it is not comparable to for instance, cases where there is a murder. It would of course have been different if there had been a slight inkling that the applicants before you knew or were involved in what consequently happened to Mr Morudi, but there's simply no such evidence. We don't know what has happened to Mr Morudi. And considering the process as a whole, that element, the seriousness of it cannot be held against the applicants.
Furthermore, it's clear that this operation has many of the characteristics of other instances where there were people abducted, taken to isolated farms, there they were either interrogated or whatever and eventually killed. It's clearly operations that must have taken place on the instructions of somebody fairly senior.
It is true that in this application as we sit here, there is no senior person taking responsibility for that order. We can speculate as to the reason why, we don't know, but it's simply not, I would put it as strongly as possible, to even suggest that fairly low-ranking juniors who would not normally have that implied authority of setting up a camp outside and arranging for somebody's abduction and his interrogation there, would have done something on their own. It was clearly - there must have been one of the people in either Section B or in Section C of the Pretoria or the Northern Transvaal Security Branch, who must have given that order. And once one accepts that, even though one cannot identify that specific individual - well one can on the evidence in front of you, although that person isn't here, on the evidence before you it's Prinsloo. And it makes sense, it's inherently probable that it was him and at the very least that he must have known about it. His members would simply not be out there two weeks long without him knowing. So one can accept that there is that order. In any event there's no evidence to contradict that.
Therefore I submit respectfully, Madam Chair, subsections, that sub-sub(a) and (b) of 20(1) has been met and then as I stated (c), or as far as the full disclosure is concerned, Madam Chair, I respectfully submit that there is nothing to suggest why these gentlemen who have in other instances made themselves part of more serious offence, somehow would stop in the middle of this story. There's nothing to suggest the contrary. The hard and fast evidence before you is that they are telling what they know and that they have been frank and have made a full disclosure.
Madam Chair, I don't think there's any - unless you want to hear me on a specific aspect, I would just simply ask that amnesty be granted for the abduction then of Mr Moses Morudi. It would seem as if the date was probably in the middle of 1987 sometime. It seems that he was - if you will recall from the other instances where we dealt with the Masina and Masango group, in the Law Report it states that they were arrested sometime in June 1986. Now if Morudi was hiding in Potchefstroom for more-or-less a year from the Security Police, as was testified by his brother, it does place this incident in the middle of 1987, as would seem to correlate with the recollection of the applicants. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: What do you think we should do with the disclaimer as it is before us by Mr Prinsloo, who on the evidence of the applicants was their senior?
MR JANSEN: Yes. One can obviously take note thereof, but in the absence of cross-examination of that evidence it would be wrong to use that to overthrow any of their evidence. At the very best one can make a finding that there may be some confusion as to the identity of who gave the orders, so one must accept and leave some room for the fact that because somebody would ordinarily or routinely receive orders from person A, that it would be easy for him in a specific instance, to reconstruct person A also giving that order. So for purposes of this application and for purposes of making factual findings in this application, there is no need or there's no basis to reject any part of any of the applicants' versions. Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV MOTATA: You are saying that on the basis that we have heard evidence earlier that they belonged to Section C, which the commander thereof was either Prinsloo or Crafford, but Prinsloo being the person who has been with the Security Branch for a longer time than Crafford, so obviously it would be Prinsloo.
MR JANSEN: Yes, Mr Motata, I heard that evidence previously. I think if I recall it correct, Prinsloo was the head, then Crafford and then Prinsloo again. We don't know in which period it fell, but ja.
CHAIRPERSON: But the version before us is that Prinsloo was in command of the applicants before us.
MR JANSEN: Yes, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: There's no indication that anyone else other than him was in command.
MR JANSEN: Yes, and they worked with him. So whether he was actually in command of the section of not, he was in command of them.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
CHAIRPERSON: I've heard you, Mr Jansen, with regard to the weight to be attached to the affidavit by Mr Prinsloo, in which he disclaims any knowledge about this incident as a commander. There is nothing in which he seeks to suggest that he was not in command of the unit, or suggesting that he was not at the least in command of the applicants before us.
MR JANSEN: Yes, no absolutely, there's no such suggestion to the contrary. And in any event another point of criticism which is maybe important to make in respect of that affidavit is he is extremely terse and very, well I think we normally use the words of "bald, bald and vague". Certainly, there's no attempt to look at the applicants' amnesty applications and to say in respect of this, or what does he say about the farm, does he ever know whether the person was taken to the farm, does he know of the people camping at that farm, etc. So it's a - yes, it's not very satisfactory in that regard.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well we also take note of the fact that Mr Prinsloo drew this affidavit being assisted by a legal representative according to Mr Steenkamp.
ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair indeed. I discussed this yesterday, unfortunately Adv van der Walt is not present now, but I discussed the position regarding these specific ...(indistinct) implicate people yesterday and she then indicated to me that she will take responsibility for statements being handed to the Committee, and those are the two statements.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?
MR JOUBERT IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Madam Chair. I share the sentiments of my learned friend, Mr Jansen, and I will restrict myself to addressing you merely with regard to the question of full disclosure. I'm respectfully of the opinion that Section 20(1)(a) and (b) has been complied with.
With regard to the full disclosure I will respectfully submit that both applicants have given as much detail as possible within their memory, that is available to them within their memory. The necessary corroboration is found in all three applicants' versions and I submit that this also induces or contributes to their credibility in this issue.
The evidence before the Committee at this stage is that Capt Prinsloo was the Commanding Officer and he was in indeed the person who gave the answers. As my learned friend has pointed out, in his affidavit which has been handed in, he does not deal with all the various aspects of their application, but merely makes a mere denial and refers to two other people, W/O Putter and Const Botha.
I respectfully submit that Mr Prinsloo did have the opportunity to attend today's hearing and he was advised and assisted by legal practitioners and if he was here to give evidence, then more weight could possibly have been attached to this. I would respectfully submit that this should not be taken into account as a disclaimer indicating that the applicants did not have the necessary instructions from their Commanding Officer to proceed with these acts.
Furthermore, Madam Chair, I wish to point out with regard to Mr Mathebula's evidence, and he was cross-examined by my learned friend, Mr van den Berg in this regard pertaining to the informer that was used, Mr Mathebula refused to make this name available. I respectfully submit, and I have now taken this up with my learned friend who has indicated that there have been numerous decisions in this regard, that the fact that the name of the informer has not been made available does not mean that there has not been full disclosure.
CHAIRPERSON: That informer, we gave an indication to Mr van den Berg that his identity was of no relevance to us. He is not important to the link that ultimately led to Mr Morudi being abducted.
MR JOUBERT: Yes, Madam Chair, I would have come - my further sense would have been then, and in any it would be irrelevant. So I would argue that that is not relevant or indicative of not giving full disclosure. In the light thereof, Madam Chair, both the applicants will then request amnesty for the abduction or be it then kidnapping as Mr Jansen has pointed out, or any other crimes that may be associated therewith, as well as for any civil liability that my result from the abduction of Mr Morudi.
I don't know if there are any specific issues which you would like me to address you on, otherwise that would be the gist of my argument.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr van den Berg?
MR VAN DEN BERG IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.
My address to you is not limited to legal issues, and my instructions are to pick up on the evidence which was presented to you by Mr Thomas Morudi. As he indicated to this Learned Panel, the family came seeking the truth, they came seeking reconciliation. They came with the hope that they would be able to close this chapter in their lives. They are of the view that a full picture has not emerged and that whilst people have been implicated, those people are not present and the family is unable to take the matter further. But they are of the view that this Committee should exercise its powers as set out in Section 3 and Section 4 and then Chapter 6, and that those people who are implicated be compelled to be present.
The affidavits which have been supplied by two of the implicated persons, Prinsloo and Dos Santos, really takes the matter no further. They are bland, bald denials.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg, does this Committee, the Amnesty Committee have powers to compel implicated persons who have been duly notified of the extent of their implication, to appear before us?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can I refer you, Madam Chair, to Chapter 6, which commences at Section 28 and particularly with reference to Section 29, particularly 29(1)(c)
"... by notice in writing, call any person to appear before the Commission and to give evidence and to answer questions relevant to the subject matter of the investigation or the hearing."
That, Madam Chair, flows from the provisions of, I think it's Section 19.4, Madam Chair -
"If an application has not been dealt with in terms of (3), the Committee shall conduct a hearing as contemplated in Chapter 6."
So I would submit that you are entitled if the Committee was of the view that it would assist and would facilitate these proceedings.
CHAIRPERSON: In your opinion the affidavits before us, wouldn't they assist us in coming to a decision insofar as the amnesty applications of the applicants are concerned? Pertinently the affidavit of Mr Prinsloo. On whose instructions all the applicants acted.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, if one has a look at the single paragraph which really deals with the substance of this application, Prinsloo says
"I deny any involvement in the death of Mr Morudi. I knew about Moses Morudi and provided information to the two members with regard to their management of him after Morudi had provided certain information to them."
And it's in the content of that, that one would be able to take this matter further. What was it that they got from Moses Morudi? Why was it that he was particularly singled out for this kind of treatment? I think that it's common cause, Madam Chair, that Morudi was involved with the unit comprising Masina, Masango, Potsane, Makura, all persons who were charged, all persons who served a period of imprisonment. Why was he different?
CHAIRPERSON: Does he say he was different? He says he was an informer being handled by Mr Pieter and Mr Botha, that he couldn't have been a person to have been targeted for an abduction or any kind of an illegal arrest.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Well Madam Chair, that flies in the face of the evidence which the applicants here have led, that in fact and certainly on Mr More's version, they had been looking for Mr Morudi for some period of time. He thinks it might have been three or four months.
CHAIRPERSON: And then so did Mr Mathebula. They had been looking for him for two to three weeks.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Mathebula was also seeking him. It goes further in that Morudi was kept on this farm, shackled hand and foot and that from what I can gather from the applicants, he was subjected to some form of interrogation. And so there seems to be more to this entire operation than that which is before this Committee.
MR MALAN: Sorry. Mr van den Berg, was that not clear from the start, that the applicants on their disclosure before us, really had limited involvement and limited knowledge. And if indeed you wanted this Committee, and I'm talking about the Amnesty Committee who has the charge of facilitating the amnesty, the giving of amnesty or not, if you wanted them to get the implicated person, shouldn't you have approached us at least earlier, not at the stage of argument, to subpoena these people? And then - my last question, isn't the question of the Chair still relevant? To what extent is there any indication or any argument that whatever further information would be brought before us, would change the positions of these applicants?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Malan, if I can respond in this way. We have seen the papers and it was the family's intention that these people be subpoenaed. We approached it slightly differently in that we had had, I had had discussions with Prinsloo and Dos Santos' legal representatives in an attempt to facilitate that sort of thing. Whether their evidence would impact on these applicants I cannot say. And really, it is on the broader approach, on the not strictly legal approach, that the family have sought closure to this chapter of their lives. It doesn't impact, well it may, but it doesn't necessarily impact directly on these applicants.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It doesn't really impact on the Sections that you've referred to us, Section 29, because if we are of the opinion that the requesting of Capt Prinsloo for purposes of being questioned is relevant, surely we must limit that to the offence or the act or omission for which the applicants are seeking amnesty. I can understand that the families are more interested in a broader picture than the offences for which we are seized with for purposes of deciding whether to grant or deny amnesty.
I can understand the problems of the family, they're interested in knowing what has happened to their loved ones and these applicants unfortunately are in no way able to bring them into a better picture than they have been for the past nine years, since 1990. But how far can we go with the implicated parties in having to subpoena them to appear before us for purposes of covering the ground that is being sought by the family? Can we legally do that?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Sorry, I missed the last ...
CHAIRPERSON: Can we legally subpoena Mr Prinsloo with a view of enabling you to get some kind of disclosure with regard to what has happened to Mr Morudi? And I think something that will actually go beyond the application that we presently are seized with, bearing in mind that the offences for which amnesty is being sought by the three applicants is limited to one of abduction.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, I take the point. And presumably one can take - sorry, Madam Chair ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Sorry, while you're thinking. Is the course of action not to be suggested that the Attorney-General be approached again, seeing that it was certainly the involvement of his office that led to the three applications before us, as was testified and on the paper of the applications, asking him having reviewed the record, to perhaps make follow-up investigations? He may have further evidence already because clearly he had some information which led him to approach the three applicants before us and he might have approached also the implicated parties. Shouldn't they approach his office? Isn't that the course of action, Mr van den Berg?
MR VAN DEN BERG: The family have had discussions with the Attorney-General and we certainly will pursue those. The point that I wanted to make was just in terms of the facilitating of reconciliation. And I opened my address by saying that it goes broader than the narrow legal principles here.
The real difficulty that one might well face in the subpoena of, and this really undermines my own argument, but the real difficulty that one faces in the issue of the subpoena in these circumstances, where implicated parties have not made application for amnesty in respect of this particular incident, that they might exercise their constitutional rights. Even though, I suppose strictly speaking, whatever is said here cannot be used against them.
Madam Chair, those are my instructions.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And obviously Section 19.4 gives them the right to be present or not to be present at a hearing. What is important for us is to make sure that they have been properly notified of these hearings, so as to protect themselves. Because what happens after this hearing is that they will be exposed to possible prosecutions in terms of the Act, in terms of our very founding Act.
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is so, Madam Chair. The approach of the family has been on the basis, as you heard Mr Morudi, that they sought the truth and that they sought reconciliation.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I can understand and I really can feel the pain that they are going through at this very moment, in having to be here hoping that this single and very unique process will ultimately answer their prayers of having to know what has happened to their son and to come here, having attended the many hearings as we have heard Mr Morudi say they've been attending, and still to go out of that door without that question having been answered. That should be extremely painful to any member of a family who has lost a loved one in the circumstances as we thing they have, as described and where one can speculate that Mr Morudi might indeed be dead.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, it can be the only conclusion that one can draw. He was last seen in the presence of several security policemen.
In terms of legal aspects, Madam Chair, I'm perturbed by the lack of clarity and the lack of detail provided by these applicants. Whilst we have certain aspects which are fairly detailed, there are other aspects in which there is no detail and no clarity. And that relates particularly to the name that was used as the inducement to Mr Morudi. That I would have thought was something extraordinary, something that would have stuck in the applicants' minds. How it was that they could approach a person like Morudi, an internal member of the ANC, supporter of the ANC, a person who had worked with Masina and Masango, and by the simple use of a name, to draw him out without any resistance. I would have thought that that particular detail would have remained embedded in their minds.
You've heard Mr Morudi and he has said that it's difficult for the family to say that they don't oppose. And unless there are other aspects, Madam Chair, you would have me address you on, I have nothing further.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg. Mr Steenkamp?
ADV STEENKAMP IN ARGUMENT: Madam Chair, thank you, just maybe one or two things. Maybe for lack of a better word, it's unfortunate that only the three, if you may call them, foot-soldiers have applied for amnesty in this matter. I can just maybe add that in an effort to clear up some of the, not inconsistencies, but factual contents of the applications that were placed before you, we did indeed ask the Attorney-General who is currently pending the investigation, for any further information in an effort to put the Committee in a better position to come to a decision. But unfortunately my information was that although the case is pending, no information whatsoever was coming forward or was placed before us in any event. As I understand it, Madam Chair, the investigation is pending, with a view to prosecute. That is my firm factual information. We also, in an effort to get more information, asked the Nodal Point of the police whether or not any of the security files are still in existence, specifically because one of the applicants was referring to a so-called security file. Unfortunately there once again the information was negative, we couldn't get or couldn't trace any other information regarding either the informer of Mr Morudi himself.
Unfortunately, if you look at the applications there is no clear indication exactly who the informer was or whether or not he was a paid informer or what was his actual status. Similarly to Mr Morudi, unfortunately nothing was coming forward as well. I can't actually take it any further than that and that's very unfortunate, but circumstances like this we couldn't get or trace that could be of assistance to the Committee. Unless if some of the other implicated parties were willing to come forward. And after further discussion with all the attorneys, all the legal representatives who are appearing for these implicated people in other matters, nothing was coming forward.
I can maybe just add that in the case of Mr Prinsloo, the case that my learned colleague, Mr van den Berg was referring to, in that specific case if you remember, Madam Chair, Mr Prinsloo was actually the chief investigating officer. So clearly on that basis he must have had certain information on Mr Morudi and his status as well. But that's just for your information. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jansen, do you wish to reply?
MR JANSEN: No reply, thanks Chair.
NO REPLY BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?
MR JOUBERT: I have no reply, thank you Madam Chair.
NO REPLY BY MR JOUBERT
CHAIRPERSON: Well this remark is really meant for the members of the Morudi family. You must be going through a very painful period in your lives when you have had to attend these hearings with the hope of at last discovering the truth about what really happened to your son, brother or relative, but you have to come out of these hearings still in complete darkness as to what ultimately or what really happened to your son or brother. You don't know whether your beloved son or brother is alive or not. Unfortunately we as a Committee, have not been able to shed any light whatsoever with regard to this important question which has been lingering in your minds for all these many years.
The applicants before us have also not been able to answer this very fundamental question as to what has become of your son. When he left in or about 1987, you thought he had left for military training. How these proceedings have been able to assist is that you now know that he never left for military training, that you were wrong in assuming that he had left for such training. We hope that this little disclosure, or this little revelation will at least go a long way in assisting you to deal with what must be a very painful experience that you are going through.
We can now only speculate, based on the evidence led before us by the three applicants, as to what might ultimately have happened to your son. And the speculation, based on the evidence tendered by the applicants today, is that your son may no longer be alive and that it might be a very difficult thing you may have to begin to accept. We unfortunately have not been able to shed as much light as we ourselves would have hoped that the process would have been able to, but the Amnesty Committee can only do so much. We can only assist members of the victims who have been party to the conflict of the past insofar as the applicants themselves take the initiative to approach this Committee and confess, I must stress, and confess to having committed the offences for which they seek amnesty. Where people do not confess to having committed offences, the Committee cannot come to the assistance of the relatives whose members have been part of the conflict of the past.
I hope I have at least to this point, made this important contribution the amnesty process is making into the disclosure and piecing together of the pieces in order to come with a bigger picture, much clearer than it might have been when you first came here. We sympathise with what you are going through.
On behalf of the Amnesty Committee, I again would like to express my gratitude to the legal representatives who, even though they are paid to render their legal services to the applicants, must still nevertheless be commended for at times a very good job they do in representing the applicants. It is precisely because of the important contribution that we get from the applicants, that we must value the contribution being made by the legal representatives in ensuring that a bigger picture can finally be drawn about the conflict of the past in our country. We express again our gratitude to the translators who are forever doing a very difficult job of ensuring that everyone who is in this room is abreast with the proceedings as they progress. My gratitude to everyone who has attended. Thank you.
We shall reserve our judgment in respect of these applications. The hearing is now closed.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
