CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready?
MR KOOPEDI: Yes we are, Chairperson. The applicant is here and he is ready to be sworn in, Chairperson.
MORUTI EDMOND NOOSI: (sworn states)
MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson ... (intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: At the outset, could we kindly have - he is applying for amnesty in respect of two incidents?
MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, Chairperson.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Is there somebody appearing for the victims? Could you tell us on behalf of whom you are appearing?
MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you. I'm appearing on behalf of Ben Maseko. I was supposed to appear also on behalf of the other victim. I was supposed to represent both victims but I've been informed that Mr Twala does not wish to attend the hearing. I got the information yesterday from I can't remember from who but ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: And are you opposing the application?
MS MAKHUBELE: The victim wants a full disclosure, he is not opposing the application as such. If I may just confirm? That's correct, that's the position.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And then he'll decide whether he is opposing after he's heard the story?
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes that is correct because as the Committee can see, in the application there's nothing which is said and as such it's difficult to say anything about the application itself.
MR MAPOMA: Mr Chairperson, may I confirm at this stage that I personally spoke to Mr Mwezi Twala over the telephone yesterday and he has indicated to me that he is not willing to attend the hearings, the matter can go on in his absence and he indicated that he is not opposing the application but he wants the truth to come out. That's what he said. Thank you Chairperson.
JUDGE DE JAGER: In respect of Mr Twala, how would you formulate your application? You're applying for amnesty in respect of what offence?
MR KOOPEDI: Having shot Mr Twala.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Attempted murder or how would you?
MR KOOPEDI: Well, that's assault, Chairperson, it may well be attempted murder, yes.
And perhaps, Chairperson, before we could proceed, there's a matter I should have raised and forgot to raise. I was advised Chairperson, that I would have to bring a formal application and this is what I'm doing. The application concerned a transcript of a Section 29 hearing. In this Section 29 hearing a historical background was given in connection with the camps in Angola. How, where and when were these camps established and my application is that I would like that the transcript of that Section 29 hearing and in particular where it relates to the history of the camps and Camp 32, that that be made part of the bundle here or be given, even at a later stage, perhaps to assist you to understand the condition in those camps and who was in charge at what stage.
CHAIRPERSON: We have got some information about the camps already. Is this further information?
MR KOOPEDI: I'm not sure which information you're referring to Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: In one of the applications there is a report about an inspection of the camps, the conditions they're in, matters of that nature.
MR KOOPEDI: But that's not the Section 29 hearing.
CHAIRPERSON: That's not, no. I don't think it is. It think it is just another ...(intervention)
MR MAPOMA: It is, Chairperson, an extract from the Matsonyuane Commission that appears there.
CHAIRPERSON: But we haven't got or seen the Section 29 yet?
MR MAPOMA: No we haven't Chairperson, in fact a request was made by Mr Koopedi on behalf of the applicants and I conveyed that request to Cape Town but the view of the Cape Town office, Mr Martin Coetzee in particular, was that that is a Section 29 hearing which is an in camera hearing so to speak. That being the case, a formal application must be made and then an order must be given by the Amnesty Committee that that information would be necessary for this hearing, then they are going to release that information for the purposes. Otherwise they have indicated that they do have those transcripts available but they just need a go ahead from the Committee if the Committee deems it necessary.
JUDGE DE JAGER: My only problem would be, I don't know what undertakings were given to the persons giving evidence there. Did they indicate that we'll probably reveal all the evidence? If it was in camera, I wouldn't like us to break our word or the Commission's word. We were not sitting on those hearings, perhaps we'll have to acquire more background about it before making the decision?
MR KOOPEDI: Well, it might be helpful to mention that, you might know that the initial list of applicants was more than what we have today and two of those applications were withdrawn and for two reasons.
One, the applicants were not saying we participated in this offence but were taking collective responsibility for having been in certain positions of authority.
The second reason is that those applicants participated in the Section 29, especially in telling how and what happened in the camps to give the general conditions in the camps and who was responsible for what camp and what I'm saying is that the applicants were made aware, or the would be applicants were made aware that the Section 29 hearing, we'll ask for a transcript of the Section 29 hearing, and it will be placed before this Amnesty Committee and that therefore they do not need to come in that they do not have proper applications before the Committee and further that what we would call general or broad evidence about the background will not be necessary because they've already given evidence in the Section 29 hearing.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Koopedi, I think my problem is prima facie this, the moment we make it part of this hearing it's a public document. There may be implicated persons mentioned in that evidence that haven't been given notice about this. It could complicate matters. I don't know, it may not be so but it would be very dangerous without having a look at it and to decide well, we're making this public now, implicating a lot of persons, who may feel, well we've not been involved in this and we want to be here when it's made public. That kind of thing.
CHAIRPERSON: Isn't the answer that we cannot make a decision until we have had the document and had a chance of examining it? I don't know what the document looks like, as my colleague has said there may be serious allegations made in it which interested parties may want to contest the admissibility of the document. I think what we should do is request Cape Town to make available a copy, not to be publicly produced, but for the Committee and yourself to assess as to whether the legality of it's admissibility. Because I know, is another one that's becoming very public at the moment, that at Section 29 hearings, witnesses are frequently told that anything they say is being said in private it will not be disclosed to the public. So they are prepared to give evidence. We don't know, as my colleague has said, what the witnesses, who the witnesses were or what they may have been told at this hearing. So I think if you could make arrangements to obtain this documentation and we can then come to a decision.
MR KOOPEDI: I'm prepared to go with that, Chairperson.
MR MAPOMA: I confirm that Chairperson, as well. I agree.
CHAIRPERSON: What might be preferable and I'm thinking about time and economy, that they send up more if they have more than one copy. If they send them up, if they're going to courier them up to us, they will not be made available, but if we then decide we are going to, we can hand them out then and there and we won't have to adjourn and wait for them to come from Cape Town again. Do you agree with that?
MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, I will do that.
CHAIRPERSON: Because I haven't seen them, I know nothing about the documents. It may be only five pages which they'd rather fax up here. I don't know. If you could perhaps discuss it with Mr Coetzee?
MR KOOPEDI: Mr Koopedi is smiling when you mention five pages.
MR KOOPEDI: There's two, in fact three days of evidence, Chairperson. Not five pages.
CHAIRPERSON: Well then I think it would be better to courier it up because you fax documents and half of it fades away and - well, can we take a very short adjournment now so you can go and talk to him now and if it is going to be done they can start making arrangements now rather than after 4 o'clock?
Would that suit you?
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Noosi, you have been sworn in, we won't bother with that.
EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, we'll proceed.
Mr Noosi, is it correct that you are appearing before this Honourable Committee and asking for amnesty for two incidences, the one being a shooting at Mwezi Twala, as he is now known and also the beating of Mr Ben Maseko who is present here today?
MORUTI EDMOND NOOSI: (s.u.o.) Yes.
MR KOOPEDI: Now is it correct that when - or let me put it the other way, when this incident had occurred, were you a member of any political organisation?
MR NOOSI: I was a member of African National Congress.
CHAIRPERSON: When you said "when this incident" were these two events or just one incident or were they separate incidents?
MR KOOPEDI: It may well be that my pronunciation, Chairperson, I said incidents meaning two incidences.
When the two incidences occurred, were you a member of any political organisation?
MR NOOSI: Yes, I said I was a member of African National Congress.
MR KOOPEDI: Now I am showing to you a document, Chairperson, page 189 of your bundle of documents. This document, is this your application form?
MR NOOSI: Yes it is.
MR KOOPEDI: And on page 194, just above the words "deponent", there's a signature there. Is that your signature?
MR NOOSI: That's my signature.
MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Now briefly tell this Honourable Committee why ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, do you confirm the truth of the contents of that document? There isn't a - sorry, there is an attestation.
MR NOOSI: Yes I confirm.
MR KOOPEDI: What I was asking you to go into now was to take this Honourable Committee through the incidence that involves Mr Twala. You have put his name as Ghotso Marena also. Why did you shoot at him, under what circumstances did that happen?
MR NOOSI: In 1994 there was mutinous situation in Angola in the ANC camps and at that particular time I was a member of the security department within the movement.
What happened is on that particular day, I shot at Mr Twala. It was in a camp situation where the mutineers were being disarmed and we had one of the mutineers in the car. Unfortunately, we didn't know that this mutineer had a grenade with him. We had already called Mr Twala into the vehicle and the leadership was around looking for other people who were involved in the mutiny in the camp.
At that particular time, I don't remember this guy who had a grenade in his hand. He wanted to throw it to the leadership and one comrade whom we were travelling with grabbed his hand and they fought for this grenade until the grenade slipped off the hand and exploded. This was the time when Ghotso, whom I called Ghotso, which is Mr Twala, had jumped off the vehicle and ran to the tent where we knew that there were weapons. Actually it was part of our mission to look for other weapons that were with the mutineers.
He was shouted at, told to stop, didn't. But because of my responsibility as a security officer, my responsibility of protecting the leadership of the ANC and the general membership, I took it upon myself that I stop him by shooting at him because there was no other way that I could stop him. That's what happened on that particular day and that's what I'm asking for.
MR KOOPEDI: How many times did you shoot at him?
MR NOOSI: I shot at him once.
MR KOOPEDI: Do you remember where did you shoot at him?
Where on his body?
MR NOOSI: It could be from the back because he was jumping out of the car and running to the tent and because it was an automatic rifle and I think there were two bullets that were released from the weapon but that was once.
MR KOOPEDI: Okay. After shooting him, what happened to him?
MR NOOSI: After that, one of the leaders of the membership instructed other members of the security department to take Mr Twala to the hospital. That was in Luanda, there was a military hospital in Luanda where he was taken.
MR KOOPEDI: Now how would you describe the reasons for shooting at Mr Twala? Why did you shoot at him? Was it for -did you want to arrest him or was it because you wanted to protect your leadership and if so, how?
MR NOOSI: Mr Twala was part of the mutiny. We were going to pick him up and lock him in the prison in Luanda and shooting at him was stopping him from going to fetch the weapons which we didn't know what he was going to do with the weapons but my duty, as a security officer of the department, I was protecting the leadership or the general leadership of the ANC from the threat from Mr Twala.
MR KOOPEDI: I understand, now maybe let's ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, Mr Koopedi.
Were you at that stage, you had in mind that Mr Twala is going to attack the leadership or to harm the leadership and you shot him in order to protect them from this imminent attack?
MR NOOSI: Actually, what I did not indicate from the beginning is that we had already lost comrade from the security department who was shot at by the mutineers and I didn't want other members of the movement to be shot there and I don't know whether any persons who were involved in shooting at him applied for amnesty anyway from the mutineers. So my aim to shoot at him was to stop him or to stop the threat of any member of the ANC to be injured in that incident.
JUDGE DE JAGER: You see, I wish to point it out at this stage on this evidence, my prima facie is that you didn't commit an offence?
MR NOOSI: That's how I understand it because it was in the war situation.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And you wanted to protect your leaders from a man rushing during a mutiny at them?
MR NOOSI: That is correct Sir, it was my understanding but because there was TRC established then I thought it was important that I should apply for amnesty and it would be you who would decide upon that.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But Mr Koopedi, apart from that I don't think whatever decision - we may even decide, it's not an offence but a court of law may differ. It may be they could decide he'd exceeded the bounds of protecting ...(inaudible)
MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, that is the premise from which we moved from. We had thought that you might notice that we're not proceeding with number 3, that is where he states the things he is applying amnesty for. We were tempted to remove this one but realised that he in fact shot this person and it might be found at the civil court that he was not supposed to have shot this person and we thought that then we would ask for amnesty for this because he shot him. Thank you, Chairperson.
Now let's move to the incident that involves Mr Maseko. You've stated here that you beat him, you assaulted him. When this happened, of course you have said you were a member of the ANC but where were you based?
MR NOOSI: I was based in Angola in our security camp, that is Camp 32, whereby I was in a position of authority.
MR KOOPEDI: What was your position?
MR NOOSI: I was a senior member of the administration in the camp, in that security camp.
MR KOOPEDI: And what did your duties entail amongst others?
MR NOOSI: Among others I was an interrogator.
MR KOOPEDI: Okay, now Mr Maseko, how did you get to beat him?
MR NOOSI: As I've just mentioned that I was in the position of authority. It was reported by our comrades who were guarding the camp, that I will not remember when it was but it could have between 1981 and 1984/85 because I left the camp in 1986. It was reported that he was not co-operating in the camp and he at one stage wanted to charge at them, that is the guards in the camp, people who were looking after the inmates in Camp 32. So as I'm saying, I will not really remember when this happened but I remember going to him asking him not to do that and in that process I beat him because I wanted to maintain order in the establishment. I could have done it once or twice, I can't remember. That was about fifteen or more years ago.
MR KOOPEDI: Do you remember how you assaulted him, would it have been claps, would you have used other things? Did you hang him? What did you do to him?
MR NOOSI: I really can't remember, I can't remember. There were so many incidents in the camp.
MR KOOPEDI: But now the reasons for assaulting him, was it only because you wanted to install this order after the reports you got from your guards or is there any other reason?
MR NOOSI: In the camp we were governed by rules and regulations, that is of the camp. Both members of the ANC who were responsible to the inmates and the inmates as well. So anyone who acted against those rules and regulations of the camp would be punished so that he complies with the rules and regulations of the camp. So when I beat Mr Maseko, it was because he didn't comply with the rules and regulations of the camp and I wanted to maintain order in the camp.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But did the rules and regulations authorise you to assault anybody?
MR NOOSI: No they didn't.
JUDGE DE JAGER: So you also transgressed the rules and regulations that you're trying to enforce?
MR NOOSI: I was a member of security. At that level and it would be from my discretion what kind of method I used to tell him to be in order or to cooperate.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But if there's rules and regulations I would suppose you would also be bound by those rules and regulations?
MR NOOSI: I didn't get the question clearly?
JUDGE DE JAGER: If there are rules and regulations in a camp I suppose you would also be bound by those rules and regulations?
MR NOOSI: I would be bound yes, by the rules and regulations of the camp.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And those rules and regulations didn't authorise you to attack and assault people?
MR NOOSI: No, they didn't authorise me to do that.
MR KOOPEDI: Where there rules and regulations that stipulated what kind of punishment was to be meted out to inmates?
MR NOOSI: No, that I would not remember.
MR KOOPEDI: You don't remember could there have been such rules which would say if an inmate has committed this further offence, this is how you must deal with him. Would there have been such rules, would you know of any such thing?
MR NOOSI: No, I didn't know of any but I knew that we were governed by rules and regulations in the camp, that there were wrong things that we were not supposed to do, both us and the inmates in the camp.
MR KOOPEDI: Now supposing if you were to relive, redo or relive the situation again and what other form of punishment do you think you would then mete out other than beating him?
MR NOOSI: I think he would be reprimanded, that verbally, that he shouldn't do that but if he continued doing that then anyone of the members would do what he thought, tell him to do what he was supposed to do.
MR KOOPEDI: But then, be that as it may, your intention. Your intention in beating him up, is it correct that it was to get this discipline or order as you put it that you wanted in Camp 32?
MR NOOSI: Yes, I wanted him to act in line with the policies and regulations of the camp of the ANC.
MR KOOPEDI: Now do you know if he got injured?
MR NOOSI: No, I don't remember him getting injured.
MR KOOPEDI: And after that did you have any further dealings with him?
MR NOOSI: As I have said this happened long time ago, I can't remember, I really can't remember whether I had but as I'm saying I was an interrogator. I could interrogate, I could have met him in some of the sessions. I can't really remember.
MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, that is the evidence-in-chief of this applicant. And perhaps just the formalities, Chairperson, which I didn't take with him?
As far as your recollection can assist you, have you told this Honourable Committee the truth? Have you disclosed all relevant facts?
MR NOOSI: I think so, this is what I can really recall at the moment.
MR KOOPEDI: And did you receive any material gain personally?
MR NOOSI: No, I was doing it for the movement. I was not doing it for my personal interest.
MR KOOPEDI: As you know that all your actions must have been politically motivated for you to get amnesty. What would you say was your political motivation and in particular with Mr Maseko's situation?
MR NOOSI: I think the establishment of the security department is the department of the ANC is to protect it from whatever threat and I was doing that with that in mind that I'm protecting the movement so I think it is a political that I was - I mean the political gain that the movement got from me.
MR KOOPEDI: Okay. No further questions, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chairperson. Just before I start I just want to find out if the document that's awaited will have anything to do with the Maseko incident so I may know whether I may need to ask more questions or not?
MR KOOPEDI: If the question is directed at me, Chairperson, I will have a problem in that I do not remember the Maseko matter being mentioned. I was present in the Section 29, I represented the people who gave evidence there. However, in light of the fact that there's not been a ruling made now as to making the contents of that document public, I would also even if I had information, have a problem with divulging the contents of a Section 29 hearing.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you were being asked about the contents of the document. You were being asked whether this incident was dealt with at all in that document. That is so, isn't it? Is that what you asked him?
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes Chairperson, because in his submission here he referred to the submission made to the TRC so like he wouldn't answer a specific question or say anything, just say "I refer to the TRC submission". So I'm just being cautious because on page 198 and this specifically, page 198 of the bundle, it relates specifically to the Maseko incident, paragraph 4, line 2 where he says
"I once more refer to the ANC submission to the TRC"
and then he goes on to - so I'm just wondering if maybe I proceed to ask questions and then which answers are in that document.
MR KOOPEDI: No, what is being referred to here, ANC's submission to the TRC, there were two bundles of those submissions made and clearly this was not in reference to the Section 29 hearing.
MS MAKHUBELE: I will then proceed but with a request that should the document be allowed to form part of this evidence and after having perused it, may I then be allowed to consult with Mr Maseko and make further submissions?
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.
MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Noosi, in your page 199 of the bundle you stated that you do not know the whereabouts of these two people meaning Twala and Maseko? This is correct?
MR NOOSI: Yes I didn't know.
MS MAKHUBELE: And this was as of the 26th August 1999?
MR NOOSI: Yes.
MS MAKHUBELE: My instructions are that you knew or you know his whereabouts because you are working together in the ANC, in the organisation. So it's not correct that you don't know his whereabouts.
MR NOOSI: No it's not correct that I knew their whereabouts.
CHAIRPERSON: Which one?
MS MAKHUBELE: Maseko. You're working with him?
MR NOOSI: I'm not working with him.
MS MAKHUBELE: Not in the same building but you are both working for the ANC?
MR NOOSI: I'm not working for the ANC.
MS MAKHUBELE: Those are my instructions. So it's not correct that you're working together?
MR NOOSI: No.
MS MAKHUBELE: Okay, let's then proceed. I just want to confirm with you though I'm not going to dwell on the reasons why Maseko was detained because that had nothing to do with you, but I just want to confirm with you that where he was he had been called and been detained because he was - it was said that he had infiltrated the organisation. Is this correct?
MR NOOSI: No, I thought you were dealing with the incidents of beating him, not the case.
MS MAKHUBELE: I'm saying I'm not going to deal with that, I just want to confirm that he was being detained at Camp 32.
MR NOOSI: I would assume that he was detained for that reason because people detained in that camp, it was for security reasons.
MS MAKHUBELE: That's when you came to meet him. Were you part of the people who interrogated him?
MR NOOSI: Yes.
MS MAKHUBELE: So it's not - rather, my impression from your evidence-in-chief, I got the impression that you only got to meet him when you were called to - when you were given a report that he is problematic?
MR NOOSI: No, I said I was in a position of authority in that particular camp so I was responsible for the running of
the camp as well as part of the administration.
MS MAKHUBELE: And you are saying that when you hit him it was because you had received a report that he was not co-operative and you wanted punish him, that's the reason?
MR NOOSI: No, you didn't hear me properly. I didn't say I wanted to punish him, I said he was uncooperative and problematic and beating him ...(intervention)
MS MAKHUBELE: And because you wanted to maintain order ...(intervention)
MR NOOSI: And beating him was part of the punishment ...(intervention)
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes.
MR NOOSI: ...that he should comply with the rules and regulations of the camp.
MS MAKHUBELE: My instructions are that - before I even come to the nature of the assault, my instructions are that the assault occurred under circumstances when he was being interrogated. You were part of the people who were interrogating him and that's when you came to hit him in the manner that I'm going to put to you later but then I just want to put it, this version to you, that it was not because he had been called to attend to the problem but that you were interrogating him?
MR NOOSI: Then I think we are talking - I mean there are two incidents that you are talking about. I'm talking about that particular one, I don't know about that one but I mentioned to you that I was part of the interrogation team and I could have participated in interrogation sessions in the camp. That I don't deny but I have applied for this particular one that I've mentioned.
MS MAKHUBELE: Then I think I have a problem then because my questions will relate to the - our version is that the assault in whichever manner it happened, happened during the course of the interrogation which so far I thought was not going to be part of this but then now you are saying that you were part of the interrogation and that's not when you assaulted him and the incident where you assaulted him is somewhere else and we only know of one incident, I mean from our side. So if there are two incidents, I think we rather clarify that and then we deal with both of them.
MR NOOSI: I will ask for your proper attention, ma'am. I said I was part of interrogation team and what that means is that I participated in some sessions of interrogating people in the camp and he could have been one of them. But what I have applied for now, is this particular incident where I was calling him to order. This is what I have said and I would like you not to ...(indistinct)
MS MAKHUBELE: I get you clearly. That's when I'm saying that then it means we are not dealing with one and the same incident. I mean you and us. We are dealing with the incident when he was being interrogated which is not the incident you are applying for amnesty?
CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand from that, that your client knows of no other assault on him, that the only assault he knows of was one which occurred while he was being interrogated?
MS MAKHUBELE: Actually there are other incidents. The interrogation is one of them but then there are other incidents.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But then it's not clear. On how many occasions do your clients say was he assaulted?
MS MAKHUBELE: Two occasions.
JUDGE DE JAGER: By the applicant?
MS MAKHUBELE: Two occasions, the first is when he was being interrogated.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes and the second?
MS MAKHUBELE: The second was during the course of the detention. He was arrested, I don't know what word to use but I think arrest would make sense and then interrogated by, amongst others, the applicant.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But during that interrogation he was assaulted?
MS MAKHUBELE: That is correct.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And then we've got another assault, is that correct?
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But now the applicant testified about, as I understand it, the other assault which did not occur during interrogation but because of a different reason?
MS MAKHUBELE: That is correct.
JUDGE DE JAGER: So then it seems as though we're ad idem, at least he didn't say he'd assaulted him during interrogation, he's not asking for amnesty in respect of that. You're asking for amnesty in respect of assault because he was not co-operative in the camp with the guards? You're only asking for that incident?
MR NOOSI: That is correct and I've also asked for amnesty for other incidents in my application - you can go through it, which I don't remember as mentioned because that's a long time ago.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, it's difficult to give you amnesty for something you can't remember yourself because then we don't know whether it's an offence?
MR NOOSI: But for this particular one, I've mentioned any way.
MR SIBANYONI: He says you assaulted him on two occasions. Would you dispute that?
MR NOOSI: I said I remember assaulting him once. It could have happened. I don't remember. I've said so. But I was part of the team that interrogated inmates in Camp 32.
CHAIRPERSON: And is it possible that there might have been an assault during the interrogation?
MR NOOSI: It is possible. It is possible.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.
MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you.
My instructions are, I'll just put this to you. I know you've already said you didn't assault him maybe during interrogation but my instructions are, regarding the interrogation, that yourself, one person called Nkosi, Stanley and another one whose name he cannot recall, interrogated him for the whole night saying he must confess that he had infiltrated the organisation and at the same time assaulting him with different objects, butts of pistols, that night when he was being interrogated. Can you comment on it?
MR NOOSI: I don't remember that and anyway I haven't conducted my interrogation sessions with a weapon anyway, it hasn't happened.
MS MAKHUBELE: And that after that he was put in solitary confinement for 155 days where the beating continued by different people, amongst them yourself?
MR NOOSI: I will not answer for other different people, I will answer for myself. I've already mentioned or told you what happened.
MS MAKHUBELE: You said that the hitting that you meted him, you don't remember if he was injured or not?
MR NOOSI: There was no injuries as far as I can remember. Anyway an injury can be anything, I don't know what kind of injury you are talking about.
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, I'll tell you. Mr Maseko's instructions to me are that as a result of this first assault and the other one which I'll come to, he has lost sight on his left eye and his left nostril is broken, he also had multiple injuries on the head and which he showed me and which if the Committee allows me, I may allow him to show to the Committee?
MR NOOSI: Should I comment on that?
JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(inaudible) You're pointing out?
MR MASEKO: I'm pointing out at the left nostril.
CHAIRPERSON: Nostril, yes.
MR MASEKO: Which is broken.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and you said your left eye?
MR MASEKO: And my left eye as well does not see, hence I have to use glasses to read and my head has got multiple injuries.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, scars?
MR MASEKO: Scars, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there are no injuries there now. They're scars from injuries. Thank you. ...(inaudible)
WITNESS?: No, Chairperson. We don't remember assaulting him that way, Chairperson. We don't have ...(inaudible)
MR NOOSI: Did you say I should comment, ma'am?
MS MAKHUBELE: No, I didn't ask for your comments, I wanted to show the Committee - I was telling you that you said you don't remember injuries but he had or he has injuries from the assault which he says were administered by yourself and others.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Could you put to the applicant, was this injury to his nostril caused by the applicant or by somebody else? Which head injury did the applicant cause so that the applicant could respond and say well, it's possible or it's not possible. By what were these head injuries caused, these scars, because it can't be by slapping somebody? Scars can't be caused similar to those?
MS MAKHUBELE: Do you know what could have caused the injuries that he described?
MR NOOSI: You have just mentioned that as a result of many assaults or continuous assaults, then Mr Maseko - I mean appeared, how he appears now and he didn't say I did do that myself as Moruti Noosi. It could have been other people who did that. I'm trying to quote you.
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes Sir, but then I didn't say, I didn't put to you that you were the only person who assaulted him. I said during the interrogation night you were four. I mentioned names, Nkosi, Stanley and another one, that's four people and obviously if you say you only slapped him, whether it's - you didn't use the word slap but then the question that I'm asking is, during the, say the interrogation, did any other person assault him but not yourself because you have already said you didn't assault him on any other occasion other than the one you mentioned? That's why I'm asking you this question whether you are aware that maybe any person could have caused these scars?
CHAIRPERSON: I didn't recollect him saying he didn't assault him on any other occasion. My recollection is he said he may have participated in interrogation. He doesn't recollect.
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes and the defence I think indicated that he was assaulted or rather he was hit by him in one occasion and at no other occasion. I don't know if this is the evidence, whether he is saying - are you saying that you may have assaulted him some other day which you cannot recall?
MR NOOSI: Maybe I should start by what you have just said now. You said in one occasion it was Stanley, it was Nkosi and other two people. I don't remember participating in that session. I am Stanley, that's the name I used in exile. I don't know Nkosi and I don't know two other people you are talking about.
MS MAKHUBELE: If I may correct this? It's not Nkosi it's Nusi. Do you know a person by that name?
MR NOOSI: Nusi? Yes it could be one of our members, it's Nusi, if that's what you want to say?
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Ms Makhubele, could you kindly ascertain from your client, did this applicant assault him and what injuries did he, the man sitting there, cause to your client? Let him instruct you so that we could get to the hard facts of the case.
MS MAKHUBELE: My instructions are that the first incident, I haven't come to the second incident yet, but the first incident as far as he is concerned was the interrogation where he was assaulted by this Nusi, Stanley and another one whom he forgot the name and yourself and that yourself, you hit him with the butt of a pistol on this first assault incident which is the night of his interrogation?
MR NOOSI: No, I don't remember that.
MS MAKHUBELE: And that the second incident occurred one night in the medical rooms. There was someone who had an epileptic fit in the medical rooms and apparently Mr Maseko was accused of having something to do with that. Then you hit him with the butt of a pistol. This is the second incident where you assaulted him?
MR NOOSI: The first incident was with a pistol and the second was with a pistol again?
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, yes.
MR NOOSI: No, I don't remember that. Anyway, as a trained soldier, I can't use a pistol in interrogating people. I draw a pistol when I want to shoot, that's all.
MS MAKHUBELE: I don't know that.
MR NOOSI: I explaining it to you.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, did you ever assault anybody with the butt of a pistol?
MR NOOSI: I don't remember that.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But if it's a principle of you, not to use a pistol in assaulting people, then you wouldn't have done it but if you sometimes did assault or use a pistol in assaulting people it may be that you wouldn't remember whether it was this one or the next one?
MR NOOSI: I haven't done it.
JUDGE DE JAGER: You'd never hit anybody with the butt of a pistol?
MR NOOSI: No and the person he mentions or she mentions, this Nusi, was my senior. Even if I was doing it I couldn't have done it in front of him because he would not allow it.
JUDGE DE JAGER: How would he allow you to assault people?
MR NOOSI: I don't remember the incidents he is mentioning, I just mentioned that, I have mentioned the incident I was involved in.
JUDGE DE JAGER: What did you do on those occasions? How did you assault him?
MR NOOSI: Him?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, the one you remember.
MR NOOSI: I used my hands, I used claps, fists, I could have done something else but not with a pistol. We used sticks as well but not a pistol.
MS MAKHUBELE: The incident where there was a sick person in the medical room, a person with epileptic fits, do you recall it or you were not present?
MR NOOSI: You know, there were so many ill people there. I can't recall the particular incident you are talking about.
MS MAKHUBELE: My instructions further are that there's no stage where you were called to and ultimately discipline him because there were complaints about him and as such, your version that you hit him under circumstances where you had been called because he was uncooperative is not true?
MR NOOSI: That's what he tells you.
MR SIBANYONI: And what do you say to that?
MR NOOSI: I have said what I have done.
MS MAKHUBELE: In your - after hitting him, the day that you said you did, did you see him again?
MR NOOSI: We were living in one camp, yes.
MS MAKHUBELE: Did he have any injuries?
MR NOOSI: I said I don't remember injuries that he had a result of my beating.
MS MAKHUBELE: I didn't ask you that, I just want to know if you saw him ...(intervention)
MR NOOSI: No.
MS MAKHUBELE: At a later date and whether he had injuries?
MR NOOSI: No.
MS MAKHUBELE: If I can be excused for a second?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Noosi, just to be clear on this answer. Did you see him and he had no injuries or can't you remember him having injuries?
MR NOOSI: I said I was living with Mr Maseko in the same camp. I don't remember seeing him with injuries.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Would you deny that those injuries, if pointed out, that he sustained those injuries in the camp?
MR NOOSI: It's possible, yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Is it possible that he sustained injuries?
MR NOOSI: It is possible, but I don't know. Yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Were those kind of assaults carried out in the camp which could have caused those injuries?
MR NOOSI: No, but as he says I can't say no, because he says he got the injuries in the camp.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But hitting somebody with a stick?
MR NOOSI: Yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: How thick was that stick, could you indicate?
MR NOOSI: I'd assume a stick is a stick, it can't be bigger than what I would call it a stick, really.
JUDGE DE JAGER: As thick as your arm, as thick as your finger, or what?
MR NOOSI: A stick is something that you'll be able to break, as a branch from a tree and I will not say ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Wouldn't stick cause an open injury on a skull?
MR NOOSI: Maybe it can.
JUDGE DE JAGER: We're not beating about the bush, we're here about the truth, Mr Noosi. We want to help you. If you tell us the truth.
MR NOOSI: At the same time I can't say what I don't know.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But surely you should know that a stick could cause an injury on a skull, it could break the skin?
MR NOOSI: Yes I said possibly it can do that depending on what ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: But you'd seen this man walking around, you've never seen him with an injury on his head?
MR NOOSI: No, I don't remember that.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Was that because there were so many injuries that you didn't see him because really it's so exceptional that ...(intervention)
MR NOOSI: If there were many injuries in the camp I think many people would have come to this Committee or Commission and reported about the injuries or that kind of injuries.
CHAIRPERSON: How many people were there in the camp?
MR NOOSI: You mean including the security guards and inmates?
CHAIRPERSON: No, the inmates.
MR NOOSI: Let's say plus minus forty or fifty, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Forty or fifty? So those were the people you'd see every day?
MR NOOSI: Yes.
MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you.
If he had been assaulted say or hit later on, after you hit him, by any other person would you known about it? Would you have received such a report as you said you were a senior member in that place?
MR NOOSI: There were cases that we wouldn't know of as members of the administration, but serious cases, yes we would know.
MS MAKHUBELE: And incident where say a person has lost sight of an eye and a broken nostril and then head injuries, would that have amounted to a serious matter requiring your attention?
MR NOOSI: Yes and the medical point would report about that because we did have a medical point in the camp.
MS MAKHUBELE: And you never received such a report?
MR NOOSI: About Mr Maseko in particular?
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes.
MR NOOSI: I don't remember really, I'm honest about that.
MS MAKHUBELE: Before the incident where you came in contact with him, where you hit him personally, had he been - had he had these injuries which I've described to you? Would you have known about it?
MR NOOSI: Yes.
MS MAKHUBELE: And what can you say, did he have them or not? Did he have sight of his eye?
MR NOOSI: Yes, as I have just mentioned that there was a medical point in the camp and everyone who felt, was not feeling well, would go to the centre and report about whatever happened. It was happening on a daily basis and we could have known about it.
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes Mr Noosi, I'm trying to establish from you whether Mr Maseko was injured after you hit him or before you hit him. Had he had these injuries before you hit him would you have known about them or did you know that what can you say in this regard?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Well let's put it to you this way. Did you see any injuries on him before you assaulted him or have you heard of any injuries caused to him before you assaulted him?
MR NOOSI: When you say injuries, do you mean scars that he has on his head or ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: His nostril, his eye, scars on his head?
MR NOOSI: I will not recall that, there are so many people that I've met, there were so many people who were brought to the camp and left so I'll not really know about Mr Maseko as a person and remember how he came into the camp. We dealt with many people on a daily basis.
MS MAKHUBELE: But then, Mr Noosi, I don't know what you actually remember about Maseko. Initially I first referred you to where you said you don't know his whereabouts and he has just been telling me here that you and him, you go to the same general practitioner, you meet on occasions, why is it that you don't want to associate yourself with anything to do with him, even a simple thing as saying knowing his whereabouts?
MR NOOSI: My understanding of knowing the whereabouts of a person is that you know his address, you'd know his telephone number, you'd know someone who stays with him or where he stays, that's my understanding. But seeing him in the street and meeting, I would say really I know - I see him in ANC meetings or rallies, that was in early 1990's and it ended up there.
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes but then that you are going to the same G.P. now. If a person is really looking for Maseko and comes to you, wouldn't you give these people at least a clue that well, we go to the same G.P. and if you want him, why don't you try the G.P. for details?
MR NOOSI: Would you mean you know his whereabouts?
MS MAKHUBELE: But that's a clue?
MR NOOSI: That's your understanding, it's not my understanding.
MS MAKHUBELE: I've no further questions, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MAKHUBELE
MR SIBANYONI: When you applied for amnesty were you still able to recall or to remember Mr Maseko?
MR NOOSI: I know him, yes. I know Mr Maseko.
MR SIBANYONI: And maybe finally, would you say you assaulted him on one occasion or more than one occasion?
MR NOOSI: I have mentioned the occasion that I remember I said as part of the interrogation team I could have participated in other sessions because it was a continuous thing, I don't think it's one, it could be more than once.
MR SIBANYONI: And you are saying in those occasions you never used a weapon?
MR NOOSI: No and it was not in every session that people would be assaulted.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.
JUDGE DE JAGER: You've known this man since the war ended, you've seen him on occasions in your home vicinity, is that correct?
MR NOOSI: No, it's not correct. For instance in Johannesburg, I don't know whereabouts in Johannesburg. I stay in Pretoria.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Are you sort of working at the same place, going to the same meetings?
MR NOOSI: I haven't worked with Mr Maseko.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Where did you meet him?
MR NOOSI: Before I came to Pretoria I was staying in the East Rand and he was staying I don't know where in Johannesburg.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Where have you seen him since you've left the war zone, sort of?
MR NOOSI: I saw him Luthuli House that was when he said I should apologise to him personally.
JUDGE DE JAGER: He spoke to you?
MR NOOSI: Yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And he asked you and told you that you should apologise to him?
MR NOOSI: Yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: What did he say why should you apologise, what have you done to him?
MR NOOSI: He said because I've assaulted him, I assaulted him.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And did he tell you what you've done to him?
MR NOOSI: No, he said I assaulted him and I said to him no, I can't apologise to you because I was not doing that for my personal interests, I was doing it for the organisation. If you want an apology, the ANC has apologised. That's what I said to him.
JUDGE DE JAGER: But when you saw him there did you realise well, I've assaulted this man? Did you remember it?
MR NOOSI: That's I've assaulted him? Yes I said I assaulted him.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes and did you discuss with him why you assaulted him, what he'd done?
MR NOOSI: No, I didn't discuss that with him. I told him that I could not apologise to him, that's what I said.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And even today you can't apologise to him?
MR NOOSI: Yes, this is a formal structure formed by the - established by the government, that's why I'm apologising today because it was not for my personal interest, anyway.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Well, I haven't heard you saying sorry, sorry that I've assaulted you?
MR NOOSI: Well I applied because of that purpose.
JUDGE DE JAGER: No, but the purpose may be for you not to be prosecuted?
MR NOOSI: I'm telling you what is the purpose.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Well, tell him what's the purpose if you want to reconcile with him?
MR NOOSI: We haven't reached that stage, you are still questioning me and I'm answering questions.
JUDGE DE JAGER: You didn't apologise at that stage because you thought the structure is not there, you shouldn't apologise because you carried out your duties, is that right?
MR NOOSI: Yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Is that still your opinion today?
MR NOOSI: I'm asking for you to repeat the question please?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Is it still your opinion today that you carried out your instructions?
MR NOOSI: I was performing my duties, yes. That's part of the security ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: And that's why you need not apologise?
Is that the reason?
MR NOOSI: I was doing my duties, yes. That's what I have said.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Right. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?
BY MR KOOPEDI: A few questions, Chairperson.
MR MAPOMA: Excuse me Chairperson, maybe I've been forgotten?
CHAIRPERSON: Oh sorry.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr Noosi, I would like to get clarity on this mutineering. You say on that day there was a mutiny?
MR NOOSI: Not on that particular day, it was in the process of the mutiny.
MR MAPOMA: No, sorry, sorry. I'm referring to the day when Mwezi Twala was shot at by yourself.
MR NOOSI: Yes?
MR MAPOMA: What was happening actually.
MR NOOSI: We were going to collect Mr Twala and take him to prison in Luanda.
MR MAPOMA: Why?
MR NOOSI: Because he was part of the ...(indistinct) of the mutineers.
MR MAPOMA: Yes, why him in particular?
MR NOOSI: Others were already locked up and he was still left out because he was in another camp, so we were going to fetch him from another camp to the prison.
MR MAPOMA: Now let me be clear. These mutineers, when
you went there at the camp, which camp was it?
MR NOOSI: The camp was called the plot, we were from another camp, it was called Viana. So we were from Viana to the plot and the incident took place at the plot.
MR MAPOMA: Now at the plot, were there other mutineers there?
MR NOOSI: There were other mutineers, yes.
MR MAPOMA: Was the mutineering taking place at the plot at that time?
MR NOOSI: At that particular time, you know, as I've just explained that Mr Twala was part of the mutiny and the co-leaders of the mutiny and other members were already locked up, other people who were not playing the bigger role as Mr Twala was playing in the mutiny.
MR MAPOMA: I see.
MR NOOSI: But they were there at the camp.
MR MAPOMA: So when you went there you went to fetch him?
MR NOOSI: Yes.
MR MAPOMA: Other than him was there anyone else that you went to fetch there?
MR NOOSI: There was someone in the car that we were also taking to prison.
MR MAPOMA: Now the activities of the mutineers, did they have anything which hampered the organisation at all?
MR NOOSI: I did mention earlier that we had already lost one of the comrades in that mutiny and then mutiny I would assume that it is understood as mutinous, rebellious situation I mean within the army, he is organising whatever is taking place at that time.
MR MAPOMA: Yes, now what is it that made you believe that by Mr Twala, by running to the camp he was going to fetch weapons?
MR NOOSI: We had information and we knew that some of the weapons were still missing and were still in the hands of the mutineers.
MR MAPOMA: What information did you have?
MR NOOSI: That there were weapons still missing and are in the hands of the mutineers.
MR MAPOMA: Yes but did you have information to the effect that the weapons were in the tent to which he was running?
MR NOOSI: Yes. There were some of the weapons in his tent.
MR MAPOMA: I see. Now do you remember what year was it then?
MR NOOSI: I think it was in 1984.
MR MAPOMA: Was it before or after the assault on Mr Maseko?
MR NOOSI: I said I can't remember when Mr Maseko came to our camp but it was between '81 and '85 or '84. So it could have been while he was still in the camp.
MR MAPOMA: Now the assault on Mr Maseko, did it take place on that very same camp?
MR NOOSI: Same time?
MR MAPOMA: Camp.
MR NOOSI: No, no, it's another camp. We were staying in a security camp with Mr Maseko. The plot is another place in Luanda and Viani is another camp in Luanda which is about two hundred and something kilometres to the security camp.
MR MAPOMA: Okay. Now what was the name of the security camp where you were with Mr Maseko?
MR NOOSI: It was called Camp 32. Later it was called Moeri Savelo Camp.
MR MAPOMA: Now let us come now to - I take it that Mr Maseko did not participate in the mutineering, did he?
MR NOOSI: No, he was not part of the mutiny.
MR MAPOMA: Now let us come to the assault which you recall. You have given evidence to the effect that you heard that he was uncooperative and problematic. Where did you get that information from?
MR NOOSI: It was in the camp, it was from the guards in the camp but I don't remember who actually reported that, there were so many reports coming in on a daily basis about the inmates within the camp.
MR MAPOMA: What was the meaning of being uncooperative? I mean in what manner was he said to have been uncooperative and problematic?
MR NOOSI: I ...(indistinct) in that it was that he wanted to charge, to fight them and this was what really urged me to go and confront him.
MR MAPOMA: So now when you confronted him did he come to your office or did you go to him? What happened actually?
MR NOOSI: No, I went to him. I remember it was between from the cells where he stayed and the medical point. I can't remember where he was going to but it was in the yard of the camp.
MR MAPOMA: So you met him on the way?
MR NOOSI: Yes.
MR MAPOMA: And then what happened?
MR NOOSI: I beat him.
MR MAPOMA: Did you just beat him?
MR NOOSI: I explained to him why he beat him because there was a reason for me to do that.
MR MAPOMA: Did you confront him about these allegations, that he was uncooperative?
MR NOOSI: Yes I did.
MR MAPOMA: And what response did you get?
MR NOOSI: But it was not like a formal situation where he would respond and I would talk.
MR MAPOMA: So when you assaulted him did he retaliate?
MR NOOSI: No he didn't.
MR MAPOMA: And that occasion, was it before or after his interrogation?
MR NOOSI: He was already staying in Camp 32 and there were so many sessions of interrogation with him, I will not remember at what stage did that happen. But we didn't interrogate him once, I mean it was in many occasions because we got some information and go back to him, he would say something else and then it continued.
MR MAPOMA: I see. The interrogations sessions.
MR NOOSI: Yes?
MR MAPOMA: Where did they take place?
MR NOOSI: In the camp. At times in the cells or in one of the rooms in the administration.
MR MAPOMA: But not outside?
MR NOOSI: No, not outside.
MR MAPOMA: And when you assaulted him, the time you remember assaulting him, was it outside or inside?
MR NOOSI: It was outside, yes.
MR MAPOMA: Were you alone at the time when you assaulted him?
MR NOOSI: There were others, there were guards. Well, they were not with me when I did that, I did that alone.
MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: A few questions thanks Chairperson.
How many times do you go to your doctor?
MR NOOSI: Me?
MR KOOPEDI: Now, yes. Do you go to your doctor frequently? How many times do you go to your doctor?
MR NOOSI: No, not frequently. When I'm sick, yes. When I feel ill.
MR KOOPEDI: And where is this doctor?
MR NOOSI: My doctor?
MR KOOPEDI: Yes. Is he in Pretoria or in Johannesburg?
MR NOOSI: Here in Pretoria.
MR KOOPEDI: Have you ever met Mr Maseko at your doctor's, seen him there?
MR NOOSI: I think what Mr Maseko is saying is when I was still in Johannesburg. Dr Randera, he was the doctor that I used to go to and I don't know how many times I saw him there.
MR KOOPEDI: And when was it?
MR NOOSI: That was before 1990, 1995.
MR KOOPEDI: Now - 1995 you said. Now you gave evidence that you left Camp 32 in 1985/86?
MR NOOSI: '86, yes.
MR KOOPEDI: '86. Do you know when did Mr Maseko leave Camp 32?
MR NOOSI: No, I don't know.
MR KOOPEDI: Could you have left him at Camp 32?
MR NOOSI: I think I left him there. I think so.
MR KOOPEDI: Now the ANC has made submissions to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and in the submissions there is mention made that the leadership of the ANC would from time to time visit the prisons. Now, what I need to ascertain from you is do you know of such visits where the leadership would come to the prisons to see the conditions there and even talk to the inmates? Do you know of any such visits?
MR NOOSI: Yes there were regular visits.
MR KOOPEDI: Now during those visits, did you ever get to hear of a complaint against you for having assaulted or having blinded or broken a nostril of one of the inmates?
MR NOOSI: No.
MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR KOOPEDI: And Chairperson, that will be the case for the applicant and we're calling no other witness, thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
