MR SIBANYONI: Please stand and give us your full names.
SIMON MAKOPO RADEBE: (sworn states)
MR SIBANYONI: Sworn in, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Radebe, you are an applicant in this matter and your application appears on page 207 of bundle 1, is that correct?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Before I deal with the facts of this particular incident, I would just like to lead you on certain other issues that you've given evidence about before. You are being treated by psychiatrists for post-traumatic stress syndrome, is that correct?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: You've mentioned their names, I think a Doctor Potgieter was one, Doctor Stella Verster was one and I think you said there was another one.
MR RADEBE: J P Verster as well.
MR HATTINGH: It doesn't matter, but for how long have you been treated by these people?
MR RADEBE: It's quite a long time now.
MR HATTINGH: And are you still being treated by them?
MR RADEBE: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: Now is it also correct that you suffer from a very severe degree of diabetes?
MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And does that affect your memory?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: You've also undergone bypass heart surgery, is that correct?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And I believe that you've been hospitalised recently for about a week again, is that correct?
MR RADEBE: 12 days, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: 12 days. And you had to go for tests again yesterday, is that correct?
MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And you were informed by your doctors that pending on the outcome of those tests, you may have to undergo surgery and if that becomes necessary, you will have to undergo surgery tomorrow, is that correct?
MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Now you were a policeman attached to Unit C1 at Vlakplaas, is that correct?
MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And your evidence about the Dirk Coetzee and Bheki Mlangeni matter is set out on pages 207 to 210, do you confirm the correctness of the allegations contained herein?
MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Can you briefly give us your version, what is your knowledge about the attempt on the life of Mr Coetzee and the killing of Mr Mlangeni.
MR RADEBE: I remember on that day when we went to the post office, I was together with W/O Bellingan and W/O John Tait.
MR HATTINGH: Did they request you to accompany them somewhere?
MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson, they informed me that - they asked me as to whether am I doing something at the farm, then I said no, then they requested me to accompany them.
MR HATTINGH: And where did you go to with them?
MR RADEBE: I don't remember as to whether we went to Braamfontein post office or which one.
MR HATTINGH: Was it a post office in Johannesburg?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson, it was in Johannesburg.
MR HATTINGH: And why did they want you to accompany them to that particular post office?
MR RADEBE: They informed me that the person who was sending messages to Dirk Coetzee, was a black person, so it would be otherwise if white members would deliver that parcel to him.
MR HATTINGH: So were you requested to hand in the parcel at the post office?
MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: You've just said something about Dirk Coetzee, were you informed that that parcel was being sent to Mr Dirk Coetzee?
MR RADEBE: I don't remember, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. Did you then hand in the parcel?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: To your recollection, Mr Radebe, did you have to write anything on the parcel itself?
MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Was everything that had to be written on it, already there when you received it?
MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.
INTERPRETER: Just a minute, Chairperson, the applicant is on the wrong channel, he was supposed to be on Sotho, he's now on English.
MR LAX: What channel is Sotho, just for our assistance?
INTERPRETER: Channel 3.
MR LAX: Thank you. Channel 3.
INTERPRETER: We may continue, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: You said, Mr Radebe, you said that it wasn't necessary for you to write anything on the parcel before you handed it in.
MR RADEBE: If I remember well that is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Do you recall whether you had to fill out any forms or any slips whatsoever?
MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And do you recall whether you were handed anything by the official behind the counter?
MR RADEBE: I don't remember, Chairperson, if that is so, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: If you've been given anything, what would you have done with it?
MR RADEBE: I would deliver that to Balletjies, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, but you say you have no recollection of having received anything and having handed it over to him.
MR RADEBE: I do recall, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Yes. Mr Radebe, do you recall that you were arrested by a Warrant Officer, or he may have been a Captain already at that time, Homes, for the attempt on the life of Mr Coetzee and the murder of Mr Bheki Mlangeni and for other offences as well, whilst the de Kock trial was in progress?
MR RADEBE: Yes, I remember, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And were you on that occasion, requested to furnish Mr Homes with specimens of your handwriting?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And as a matter of course, your fingerprints were also taken.
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Do you know what he did with the specimen of the handwriting that he obtained from you?
MR RADEBE: I do not know, Chairperson, but I learnt that he was happy that he found the right person.
MR HATTINGH: He thought at the time, that you were the person who had written the address of the sender on the package, is that correct?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Did you write that name and address on the package?
MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I don't know whether Ms Lockhat is in possession of the affidavits which were obtained from a Colonel Hattingh, he was a handwriting expert employed by the South African Police.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)
MR HATTINGH: He's no relation of mine, so I can't vouch for that, Mr Chairman. We are in possession of copies thereof and although it doesn't appear from the affidavit itself, that the person whose handwriting he compared with the writing on the document, is the handwriting of Mr Radebe. We have established that that is - during the course of the criminal trial, it was established that Col Hattingh made an affidavit, dated the 3rd of November 1994, in paragraph 3 thereof he says
"On the 27.10.1994, during the execution of my official duties I received the following exhibits by hand, in relation to Jabulani M R, from Detective W/O Barnard ..."
And then 3.1 -
".. one address sticker addressed to Cheadle Thompson and Haysom, one insured address sticker addressed to Mr D Coetzee, one etiquette of a sound cassette holder with the words 'Evidence - Hit Squads" and one postal document in an envelope marked B."
And then 3.2 -
"Handwriting sample of one person, in an envelope marked A."
...(transcriber's interpretation)
Now at the trial, Mr Chairman, it was established that that person whose handwriting was received in the enveloped marked A, was the handwriting of Mr Radebe, which Mr Homes obtained from him at the time of Mr Radebe's arrest. And then if I may just refer you to paragraph 5 of the affidavit -
"After an investigation and comparison, I found that the person who wrote sample writings was not responsible for the writing on any of the documents."
I don't personally thing it's necessary for this affidavit to be handed it, but if you feel that it should go in, I am prepared to make it available.
CHAIRPERSON: Does anybody dispute it?
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: I think it should go on record that nobody indicated that they disputed the contents of the affidavit.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Now Mr Radebe, were you aware that the parcel which you handed in at the post office contained an explosive device?
MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson, I did not know.
MR HATTINGH: Subsequently, when Mr Mlangeni was killed, did you obtain any information about his death?
MR RADEBE: I don't remember who informed me that the package which we took to the police station - I don't know as to whether it was Balletjies who informed me, I don't want to lie about that one, then I was informed that that package has exploded. Then I did not report anywhere. Because during our time if you report this kind of a thing you know that that was the end of you, you'll meet your fate.
MR HATTINGH: Although you then realised that Vlakplaas was responsible for the death of Mr Bheki Mlangeni, you decided to say nothing and to do nothing about that information which you obtained.
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
MR BOOYENS: No questions, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Radebe, when you took this parcel to the post office, can I just ask you, can remember which post office this was?
MR RADEBE: I don't remember as to whether it was Braamfontein, but I know that it was somewhere in Johannesburg. I don't remember.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Can you remember who you gave this parcel to at the post office?
MR RADEBE: I don't remember the person directly, but it was inside the post office. I don't remember as to whether it was a black person or a white person.
MR LAMEY: Was it a postal clerk?
MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct, at the counter where they receive parcels.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Can you recall if you went alone into the post office or if somebody went with you?
MR RADEBE: I left Balletjies and John Tait inside the car, then I went to the post office alone.
MR LAMEY: What is your recollection, did the official of the post office just receive it and then deal with it, or were there forms that had to be filled in?
MR RADEBE: I don't remember about the forms, Chairperson, which they needed to be filled.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall if something was written on this parcel in a black pen?
MR RADEBE: Yes, there were some writings there as to where it was going and who is the person responsible for sending the parcel.
MR LAMEY: Do you know who this was?
MR RADEBE: If I remember well it was directed to Mr Coetzee.
MR LAMEY: Do you know who was responsible for the sending of the parcel, who wrote the address on it?
MR RADEBE: The sender, it seems it came from lawyers for human rights, if I remember well.
MR LAMEY: Mr Radebe, can you just look at Exhibit D2, if your legal representative could just hand it over to you. Did you see it before?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: What is correct, that you saw it before?
MR RADEBE: I saw it in the car that who was the sender and who was the receiver of that parcel.
MR LAMEY: But that which appears on Exhibit D, is that what you are talking about, that which was written in a black pen and which you saw on the package? ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR RADEBE: If I remember correctly, Chairperson, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: If you say that if you could recall, are you not sure or what is the position?
MR RADEBE: These things happened a long time ago, therefore I'm not able to recall or confirm, but the way Balletjies informed me, there was the name of a black person there, but I don't remember well.
MR LAMEY: Is it possible that you were asked at the post office to complete forms and to write an address on the parcel and that you just forgot about that?
MR RADEBE: Chairperson, I would say yes, and again I would not say no, but I recollect well, I know nothing. If I remember well I wrote nothing.
MR LAMEY: Can you remember - I'm not talking about when samples were taking of your handwriting and fingerprints for the de Kock case, but while you were at Vlakplaas, that at one stage a Capt Kritzinger came and took samples of handwriting and fingerprints, can you remember that? That was for the court hearing.
MR RADEBE: It's not myself only, writing samples were taken from many people and I was party to that.
MR LAMEY: My instructions are that it was not at Vlakplaas, but at head office, can you remember that?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Can you also remember that you were requested to provide handwriting samples and fingerprints?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson, I was not alone. At the head office we were many who were requested to do the same.
MR LAMEY: Very well, I will not argue that, that there were other people who were also requested to do it, but you were one of them, is that correct?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Sir.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje's recollection about this was that at that opportunity you were very nervous and that you told him that you did not give the same sample of handwriting in the way that you usually write, can you remember that?
MR RADEBE: There is no such, I've never said such to Nortje.
MR LAMEY: Very well. That was my instructions and that is why I put it to you. He also says that for that reason he thought that you were the person who wrote the address on the parcel.
MR RADEBE: That is not true.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Why do you think that the sender of the parcel was lawyers for human rights?
MR RADEBE: Balletjies told me that.
MR RAUTENBACH: Can you - if that is what he told you, what else did he tell you? Just give us a summary of what he told you then.
MR RADEBE: From the farm he told me why I was requested to be the one to enter the post office, because this parcel was being sent to Dirk Coetzee from the lawyers for human rights and it seemed to have sent by Bheki Mlangeni and therefore they shouldn't be surprise these people, they shouldn't question why I'm sending it because they would see that it's a black man sending it for a black man to Dirk Coetzee.
MR RAUTENBACH: Tell me, when you were asked to perform this task, you knew who Dirk Coetzee was didn't you?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Sir.
MR RAUTENBACH: You also knew what Dirk Coetzee did subsequent to leaving South Africa, all his revelations about Vlakplaas and police atrocities.
MR RADEBE: At the time when I was in Vlakplaas, he was not working hand-in-hand with the police there.
MR RAUTENBACH: Let me just repeat the question. You say you who know Dirk Coetzee, I'm just saying to you that if you know who Dirk Coetzee was, you probably knew that he was the man who made all the revelations about Vlakplaas and the Security Police more in particular.
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR RAUTENBACH: So what did you think was this parcel about? Lawyers for human rights - here's the Security Police, white Security Police, using you as a black man to post a parcel to Mr Coetzee in Lusaka, giving whoever the impression that this is from lawyers for human rights. What did you think was this all about?
MR RADEBE: I did not suspect that there might be explosives inside.
MR RAUTENBACH: What did you think was it about?
MR RADEBE: I did not know what it was and at that time you wouldn't question anything or any instructions because you would know that should you ask any questions, you would be in line. You had to comply and not complain at all.
MR RAUTENBACH: Tell me, did you not think that whatever was contained in that parcel was something nasty?
MR RADEBE: Please rephrase your question.
MR RAUTENBACH: Let me rephrase it. Did you not think that whatever was contained in that parcel was something to the detriment of Mr Coetzee? Is that some thought that at least came up in your mind?
MR RADEBE: Not at all, Sir.
MR RAUTENBACH: I didn't hear the answer.
INTERPRETER: He responded, he said "Not at all".
MR RAUTENBACH: Not at all. May I just ask you, you said - and I was asked to rephrase my question, you were about to answer it and you said something to the effect of "What could I do", so can I just get clarity. Is your answer to it "What could I do", or is your answer "I had no thought at all, no idea about what it was"?
MR RADEBE: I do not understand you.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I was basically just informed that he started answering the question and from a proper translation, the answer was "What could I do". But I'll leave it at that, I'm not going to ask him about - it's not on record and he answered the question as he did.
I just want to put it to you, Mr Radebe, that on our part, we find it incomprehensible that you did not at least suspect that something seriously detrimental was being posted to Mr Coetzee. What is your response?
MR RADEBE: I said I did not know whether there was anything that was detrimental or ugly that was being sent and I would not know what was this all about. I myself, I could not ask the person who was giving me the instruction to post that thing, I could not actually enquire as to what am I posting. As a Security policeman, you would just follow instructions.
MR RAUTENBACH: And you did not think at all.
MR RADEBE: Even if there was a thought that came to me it wouldn't help me, you could not question anyone, any instructions.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Radebe, I want you to look at D6. Now what you see on D6 are basically addresses from and to, that was affixed to the parcel, can you recall seeing these addresses on the packet that was given to you?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Sir.
MR RAUTENBACH: When you refer to the addresses, I just want to ask you again, if you look at D2, did you see, according to your recollection, did you see D6, did you see D2, or did you see both of them or isn't it possible for you to say at all?
MR RADEBE: If I can recall clearly, it's the one written Bheki and Thompson. I think that is the one because I was told that it was being sent by a black person to Dirk Coetzee, but the other one does not indicate that, it's just mentioning the address at Jorisson Street and the name of the company, but the typed version seems to be the right one, Chairperson.
MR RAUTENBACH: As far as your memory is concerned - before I get to that, the parcel that you took inside the post office, was that a parcel that was in brown paper, and did you carry it like that or was it in a piece of plastic, or what was the situation?
MR RADEBE: It was not in a plastic when it was handed to me.
MR RAUTENBACH: Was it covered in brown paper?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR RAUTENBACH: You did not wear any gloves or anything? - not to leave fingerprints.
MR RADEBE: No, I did not have any gloves on.
CHAIRPERSON: Who handed it to you?
MR RADEBE: It was handed to me by Bellingan, Balletjies.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he have any gloves on?
MR RADEBE: I do not recall if he had gloves or not.
CHAIRPERSON: It would have been most unusual surely, if he had them.
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR RAUTENBACH: Now it was evident, Mr Radebe, from the package and from the evidence at the inquest, that the parcel was in fact sealed. Now according to your memory, was it sealed when you took it into the post office or was it sealed there at the post office?
MR RADEBE: It was sealed when I took it to the post office.
MR RAUTENBACH: Who sealed it?
MR RADEBE: Balletjies gave me the sealed parcel, I don't know who sealed it.
CHAIRPERSON: How was it sealed?
MR RADEBE: It was wrapped in a normal way with brown paper and there were, and then it was addressed and it was just sealed.
CHAIRPERSON: But how, how was it sealed? What do you mean by sealed?
MR RADEBE: I do not remember whether it was a twine or whether it was glued.
MR RAUTENBACH: Have you ever seen, Mr Radebe, these red seals that they basically burn it and then put it on the strings around the parcel and then put a seal on it, a red seal that the post office makes, have you seen those seals? Do you know what I'm talking about?
MR RADEBE: Yes, I know them, it's like they are candle-lit, or they are waxed.
MR RAUTENBACH: That is right. Now what I want to ask you is, when you got the parcel from Mr Bellingan, was it sealed or was it not? Was it ever sealed, had you ever seen it being sealed?
MR RADEBE: What I can recall is, I entered and I handed it over to the parcel counter.
MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, Mr Radebe, when you had it in your hands, did you see whether it was sealed at that stage, or wasn't it sealed?
MR RADEBE: If I can recall clearly it was sealed, but I was not sure, but it was sealed. I cannot explain exactly how was it sealed.
MR RAUTENBACH: Was it not sealed by someone from the post office in your presence, or can't you remember that?
MR RADEBE: I do not recall like that.
MR RAUTENBACH: Well I want to put it to you that it seems that your memory in regard to the handling of the parcel, is in fact not good at all. There was evidence at the inquest of a post office clerk that actually looked at the seal and the remains of the wrapping and she commented on the fact that she herself must have effected the seal on the parcel. You can't recall that at all?
MR RADEBE: I do not recall that, Sir.
MR RAUTENBACH: She basically gave an explanation as to why the particular seal was effected by herself and how she can identify that as a seal that she had put on the parcel. Now not having been able to comment on that, can you recall at all whether anyone said to you "But this parcel should be insured"?
MR RADEBE: I do not recall that, Sir.
MR RAUTENBACH: If you have a look at D1, you'll see on the top there is a part of a piece of paper and the wording appears "Insured Parcel". Can you see that?
MR RADEBE: Yes, I see that.
MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall ever having seen that or a document similar to that on the parcel, when the parcel was handed to you?
MR RADEBE: Yes, I recall that.
MR RAUTENBACH: Where did you see it?
MR RADEBE: I think they gave me a slip that I handed over to Balletjies.
MR RAUTENBACH: Is that the post office?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Sir.
MR RAUTENBACH: Who would have - so it seems to me they gave you slip. Do I understand your evidence correctly, that they gave you slip of insurance that you then had to give to Mr Bellingan, returning back to the car?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Sir.
MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall that they required that the packet had to be insured?
MR RADEBE: If I can recall clearly, yes it is so.
MR RAUTENBACH: And Mr Radebe, if they had given you a slip saying "Insured Parcel", you had with the package the address to whom the parcel was supposed to go to, correct?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Sir.
MR RAUTENBACH: And you could have basically just copied that address on this insured parcel's slip, it was as easy as that.
MR RADEBE: I do not remember writing at any stage. Chairperson, this parcel was complete when it was handed over to me. When I arrived at the post office no writing was required of me, if I can recollect clearly.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Radebe, you just told us that they gave you this insured parcel, a slip like this that you gave back to Mr Bellingan. The only question at this stage is whether it could have been yourself who wrote that address on that slip, or whether it was someone else. If you can't recall you may say so, but that's the questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Well that is what he has just said "I don't recall writing anything", isn't it?
MR RAUTENBACH: I think he went further than that, and I think maybe we should just give him an opportunity, because I think he was basically reversing his evidence to say that the packet was complete.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR RAUTENBACH: Actually steering away from what the previous answer was.
CHAIRPERSON: "I don't remember writing at any stage. The parcel was complete when it was given to me. I don't recall writing anything". So he has told you twice there he doesn't recall writing anything.
MR RAUTENBACH: The insured parcel slip, if I understand your evidence there, that's the slip that you gave back to Mr Bellingan. You said the piece of paper that you gave back to Mr Bellingan, is that correct?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Sir.
MR RAUTENBACH: Then I would like to know, you say you in fact gave a handwriting specimen and a fingerprint to Mr Kritzinger, like other people did, can you recall that?
MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson, even when I was arrested they took my fingerprints and again my writing specimen.
MR RAUTENBACH: I want to get back, Mr Radebe, right back in the beginning when all the other people's handwriting specimens were obtained. At that stage ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: "If you don't remember who it was, I think you said it was at headquarters. You were all there, do you remember that".
MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, at that stage, when you were at headquarters with all the other people, as far as I understand your evidence, both your fingerprints and your handwriting specimens were in fact obtained, correct?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know, Mr Radebe, that it was subsequently claimed - I'm just asking whether you've got the knowledge, do you know it was subsequently claimed by Mr Kritzinger, that you passed away and that your handwriting specimen couldn't be obtained?
MR RADEBE: I don't remember that I passed away.
MR RAUTENBACH: You don't have any information about that?
MR RADEBE: I do not have that information, Chairperson.
MR RAUTENBACH: May I just have a moment, Mr Chairman. I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH
MS LOCKHAT: I have no questions, thank you, Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT
MR LAX: Just while we're on this question of specimens. Yesterday it emerged in Mr de Kock's evidence, that you actually didn't give a specimen at all, that someone else gave one purporting to be yours and that you weren't there, they made sure you didn't go to headquarters and give a specimen. What do you say about that?
MR RADEBE: Chairperson, I don't think that is the way it happened, because they took my writing specimen and my fingerprints and then for the second time they took my specimen and my fingerprints at a certain building called Saambou.
MR LAX: The second time was much, much later though. The first time was for the purposes of the inquest, the second time was for the purposes of the trial.
MR RADEBE: Yes, I was arrested and then they took my handwriting specimen and my fingerprints, Chairperson.
MR LAX: Ja. Now if one looks at D6, the middle slip which has Joubert Park stamped on it and it appears to have other writing on it, very feint, you can hardly see it at all, but that's the sort of slip one would get having paid money for a parcel. They stick that sort of slip on and then they put the stamp on it, right?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAX: Did you pay any money that day?
MR RADEBE: I don't recall, Chairperson. I would not say I did not pay or I paid, but I'm saying I don't recall.
MR LAX: Because somebody would have to pay for it, especially if it was insured, there's an additional charge for that. So Mr Bellingan must have given you some money to do that.
MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson, he did not give me money, he gave me only the parcel.
MR LAX: He gave you?
MR RADEBE: He gave me the parcel only because it had already had stamps at that time.
MR LAX: So as far as you know, there were stamps on the parcel and you saw those.
MR RADEBE: It is so, Chairperson, because I handed over just the parcel to the counter attendant.
MR LAX: Yes. I'm not interested in your assumptions, did you actually see postage stamps on the parcel or didn't you?
MR RADEBE: I don't recollect, Chairperson.
MR LAX: But what you're sure of is you didn't get any money.
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR LAX: And if you were required to pay money out of your own pocket you would surely have remembered that.
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson, because I would claim thereafter for the money I paid.
MR LAX: Absolutely. Thanks, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
MR SIBANYONI: Mr Radebe, when you refer to lawyers for human rights, are you referring to an organisation known as lawyers for human rights, or are you referring to those lawyers who were handling political cases, cases of those people detained in terms of the State of Emergency and the like, which in the townships they refer to them as ...(Sotho)? What are you referring to when you talk about lawyers for human rights?
MR RADEBE: I'm speaking about lawyers who were helping the comrades who did not have money, to have legal representatives.
MR SIBANYONI: And Cheadle Thompson and Haysom would be one of such lawyers?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson, because Bheki was working there.
MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Well did you know Bheki and what he did?
MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Well did you know that Bheki worked there?
MR RADEBE: That's correct, Chairperson, I was informed on the day when I posted the parcel.
CHAIRPERSON: You were told then that Bheki worked for Cheadle Thompson and Haysom?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that by Bellingan?
MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Now you remember you were asked at the beginning of your evidence about your affidavit and you confirmed the accuracy and the truth thereof?
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You see in your affidavit, at page 209, paragraph 22, you say the following
"I did not look at what was on the parcel. I did not see who it was addressed to or from whom it apparently would have come."
MR RADEBE: Yes, I did not observe, but I was informed who is the sender and who is the recipient of the parcel.
CHAIRPERSON: And you were told by them not to read what was on the parcel.
MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Why should they tell you that if they then proceeded to tell you what was written on the parcel?
MR RADEBE: During the previous government, Chairperson, you would obey what you were told, you would not oppose of dispute what you were told because if you do that you would be regarded as a know-all and then you'll get your fate.
CHAIRPERSON: That may be, but I just find it difficult to understand that people who were asking you to help them, should tell you now you mustn't look, you mustn't read a word on the parcel and then tell you what was written there, what they had just told you not to read.
MR RADEBE: Yes, I obeyed the instructions which I received from them.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination?
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I do not have any re-examination.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH
MR HATTINGH: May I just inform you that I also have available, should anybody be interested therein, the first affidavit of Col Hattingh. All he states in there is that he received specimen handwritings from 31 persons, without specifying who they were.
And then on paragraph 6 he says that after comparing the specimen handwritings with the disputed handwriting on the disputed document, he couldn't find that anyone of those 31 people were responsible for writing on the parcel. I've not been able to establish or ascertain as at this stage, Mr Chairman, whether Mr Radebe's handwriting was included amongst the 31 people. I've discussed the matter with Mr Rautenbach, I do recall reading through the whole record of the inquest at the time of Mr de Kock's trial, I haven't do so again, it's a voluminous document, Mr Chairman, but both he and I have a recollection of a document - whether it was handed in as an exhibit or whether it was just made available for us to look at it, containing a list of names, including the name of Mr Radebe, and either opposite his name or above his name there was something in writing to the effect "Deceased" or "Oorlede" or something to that effect.
I shall look for that document, I may still have a copy of it, but if I do find it, then I will make it available, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: May I just ask a question, it's not in the sense of getting evidence per se, but we have also heard of this other handwriting expert, Mr Klatsow or a Doctor Klatsow or something of that order, was there any contradiction between the two experts?
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, as far as I recall there was not a contradiction. I think if there was any dispute, the dispute would have been about who was available and who was a possible suspect, but I don't recall any contradiction in the experts.
MR HATTINGH: My recollection is, Mr Chairman, I'm not sure whether this was done for purposes of the inquest or whether it was done for purposes of Mr de Kock's trial, but they actually got together and agreed that there was nothing that they disagreed on.
CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm not asking either of you gentlemen to give evidence now, but was anything said by either of the experts about the difficulty of attempting to identify something, like this printed address on the label stuck on. It is not the ordinary handwriting, it is all printed. Did they say anything about problems that arose in such identifications?
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, they were actually only concerning themselves, those two people, with the question surrounding fingerprints and disputed handwriting. As far as for instance, the addresses that look like a computer printout, that part of the evidence was basically done by an expert within the police, that would have taken typewriters that became available and so on.
CHAIRPERSON: I was thinking about D2, which is, the address has been, what I call printed, rather than written. And it seems to me that - I think I have heard evidence previously, there you're starting to look for things like the little tick-up at the bottom of the R of Braamfontein, as an identifying factor, rather than the shape of the handwriting. They didn't comment on that sort of thing?
MR RAUTENBACH: Well what I recall is that they did not, they basically came to the finding that from the specimens available to them, they could not link it up and that was it. I know there was - I may just point out, there was criticism in the beginning where at some stage - about the fact that the initial handwriting specimens that were taken, were basically "Evidence - Hit Squads", or whatever, which made it quite clear what it was about, and the criticism was that maybe you should have used another form of, another sentence type of thing to have a better testing process, but apart from that it didn't take the matter any further.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR LAX: Just one last thing, sorry, on all of this handwriting stuff. Was there any unanimity between them as to whether all the handwritings were the same? In other words, on the tape, on the labels etc.
MR RAUTENBACH: If my memory serves me correctly, I think that the "Evidence - Hit Squads" was - I'm not solely relying on my memory, my memory was that "Evidence - Hit Squads" was a different, probably, a different handwriting than for instance the handwriting appearing on D2.
MR HATTINGH: I must confess, Mr Chairman, that I do not even have a recollection as to whether either or both these witnesses were actually called to testify, I just have the affidavits here which they made.
MR RAUTENBACH: I recall that they were not called to testify, the process was done, we would then have come back to court and Mr Kritzinger, one of the investigating officers would report on what happened in the meeting and by agreement the parties would inform the court what the outcome was. This is how I recall it. But I have a recollection that the "Evidence - Hit Squads" was probably not done by the same person as the, as D2.
CHAIRPERSON: Well the S's look different. Right, Mr Hattingh?
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'm finished.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I take it you're now ...(intervention)
MR HATTINGH: May Mr Radebe be excused?
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. Mr Radebe, we hope that all goes well for you ...(indistinct - no microphone)
MR RADEBE: Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR BOOYENS: The next witness to be called is Bellingan, Mr Chairman. The main part of the evidence appears from page 198 of the documents, first bundle.
